Can Jesus' rising "meta" three days match a 3rd day rising?

[rakovsky]

One of the best ways I find to understand this could be that it's a manner of speaking that is interchangeable.

In 1 Kings 12:5, King Rehaboam says to his audience to come back after three days:
And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.
This would suggest that he told them and they left on that same day of his instruction, the second day they were gone, and then the third day they were still gone, and then they came back "after three days", on Day 4, a total of maybe 72 hours.

Here is what happened a few verses later:
So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.

So to say come after three days, or leave for three days and then come back, is the same thing as saying to come back the third day.

It looks like a manner of speech.

[John2]

Rakovsky wrote:

One of the best ways I find to understand this could be that it's a manner of speaking that is interchangeable ... It looks like a manner of speech.

That is Ben's view and it is what I want (and am willing) to think, and though Daniel's "time, times, half a time" still gnaws at me, I won't press it.

[John2]

Rakovsky,

I'm mulling over this comment from Bernard on your other thread.

Yes, that's the only exception I found. In http://historical-jesus.info/77.html, I noted:

Note: in the O.T., the only clear-cut exception of that rule is in 1 Kings (and copied in 2 Chronicles)
After Jeroboam says "Depart for three days, then come back to me." (12:5c)
we have
1 Ki 12:12 "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day."" (12:12)
Let's notice the words in italics are not what the king says in 12:5 and appear to be an attempt to cover a mistake in the narration at 12:12a. In other words, it looks 12:12b says emphatically "no, this is not an error" and may have been added by an interpolator. The same verses got copied in 2 Ch 10:5,12.

Very awkward and suspect wording! "as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day." seems to be an interpolation.
But do not ignore in the same blog post the thirteen examples, from the OT & Josephus' works, showing that "on the third day" and "after three days" are not compatible.

Ben has pointed out though that Nazir 16a works against Bernard's last sentence.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2453&p=55040&hilit= ... ays#p55040

http://www.come-and-hear.com/nazir/nazir_16.html

[rakovsky]

They don't seem very exact about the use of three days.

Look at Esther 4, where the queen says:
Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

Strictly speaking, that would mean that the people fast for exactly 72 hours. However, it says in Esther 4:
Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace.

So apparently the period was complete "on" the third day, even though it was prescribed for three days of fasting. This shows me that this wording about days shouldn't be read very strictly, since the three days of fasting were not yet over.

Three days of fasting or three days of leaving the king (as in I Kings) therefore is a period of time that might not strictly mean a full 72 hours. The period prescribed could be over already on the third day. After three days could as a matter of casual speech apparently include a reference to the third day itself. But for a modern way of speaking, it looks very sloppy.

[Bernard Muller]

More thoughts about "after three days" and "on the third day", with what I argued already before:
Besides a passage in 1 Kings/2 Chronicles and another one in Esther, "after three days" cannot point to the same day than "on the third day". I have shown through Josephus' works that was not the understanding in the 1st century CE.
"On the third day" points to one day only. "After three days" points to the fourth day at the earliest (as it is often meant to be understood), but also, can suggest any other days after that, such as the fifth day, the sixth day, etc.
The original author of gMark had reason to indicate "after three days", because any return to life before three days would be considered a mere revival and not a resurrection.
The author of the empty tomb passage was more concerned about explaining why the tomb was left unattended for a long time. He came up with about a maximum of 40 hours (mostly a Sabbath day and the following night) in order to explain why the women took so long to anoint Jesus' corpse (even if the anointing for burial had been done before, in Bethany!).
Finally, what do you think if in Genesis 1:13, "the third day" would be replaced by "after three days"?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

More thoughts about "after three days" and "on the third day", with what I argued already before:
Besides a passage in 1 Kings/2 Chronicles and another one in Esther, "after three days" cannot point to the same day than "on the third day".

There is also Matthew:

Matthew 27.62-66: 62 Now on the next day, [ad]the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' 64 Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

I know you think that Matthew is deliberately trying to equate the two expressions here, despite knowing that they do not fit, but that seems unlikely to me, since he could have simply said "on the third day" here as he does elsewhere throughout the gospel, even having to change Mark's wording to do so.

There is also Acts:

Acts 10.1-48: 1 Now there was a certain man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day [day 0, starting point] he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in to him, and said to him, "Cornelius!" 4 And fixing his gaze upon him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 "And now dispatch some men to Joppa, and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; 6 he is staying with a certain tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea." 7 And when the angel who was speaking to him had departed, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were in constant attendance upon him, 8 and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. 9 And on the next day [day 1], as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat!" 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15 And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16 And this happened three times; and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. 17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; 18 and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. 19 And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 "But arise, go downstairs, and accompany them without misgivings; for I have sent them Myself." 21 And Peter went down to the men and said, "Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?" 22 And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you." 23 And so he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day [day 2] he arose and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And on the following day [day 3, finishing point] he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 And when it came about that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man." 27 And as he talked with him, he entered, and found many people assembled. 28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. 29 "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. And so I ask for what reason you have sent for me." 30 And Cornelius said, "Four days ago to this hour [still day 3], I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, 31 and he said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 'Send therefore to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.' 33 "And so I sent to you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord." 34 And opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him. 36 "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)-- 37 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38 "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. 39 "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

This is like saying on a Wednesday that Sunday was 4 days ago. In modern, more exact parlance we would say that it was 3 days ago.

I have shown through Josephus' works that was not the understanding in the 1st century CE.

I believe you have shown that yours was the majority understanding. Such confusions exist in modern idioms, as well. For example, to say that one "could care less" makes no sense; what such a person really means is that s/he "could not care less." Part of the population uses the former, and part of the population uses the latter. Some probably use both without realizing that there is any difference, and depending on which one they heard most recently. They are not thinking about the logic of the expression.

Finally, what do you think if in Genesis 1:13, "the third day" would be replaced by "after three days"?

There are times when the less exact idiom will not work very well. The more exact one is trying to be, the less likely an inexact idiom will function properly without raising eyebrows.

What do you think of this one?

Genesis 42.17-25: 17 So he put them all together in prison for three days. 18 Now Joseph said to them on the third day, "Do this and live, for I fear God: 19 if you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined in your prison; but as for the rest of you, go, carry grain for the famine of your households, 20 and bring your youngest brother to me, so your words may be verified, and you will not die." And they did so. 21 Then they said to one another, "Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us." 22 And Reuben answered them, saying, "Did I not tell you, 'Do not sin against the boy'; and you would not listen? Now comes the reckoning for his blood." 23 They did not know, however, that Joseph understood, for there was an interpreter between them. 24 And he turned away from them and wept. But when he returned to them and spoke to them, he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes. 25 Then Joseph gave orders to fill their bags with grain and to restore every man's money in his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. And thus it was done for them.

You could argue that Joseph actually did not release his brothers until the fourth day, so that the three days would be complete, but that is not how the passage reads to me. I think that Joseph imprisoning them for three days but coming and releasing them on the third day sounds a lot like the other exceptions I have found. I readily admit that it is not as clear as some of the other cases.

[Secret Alias]

My favorite corruption of idioms is one I noticed when I was living in Toronto - 'I don't give a hoot.' I grew up with friends from many European families and they couldn't make sense of what a 'hoot' was - so they all invented variants of their own. My parents 'I don't give a hood' (apparently we living in a KKK influenced neighborhood). My Italian friend's father 'I don't give a hook.' My Greek friend's father 'I don't give a hoop' and so on ...

[John2]

I just wanted to say again that I'm cool with the "after three days" = "on the third day" idea. I want it to be nice and easy like that. That the backbone of Mark (and other Christian writings) is arguably Danielic made me think Jesus' "after three days" sayings in Mark could have something to do with Daniel's "time, times, half a time," and I noted that McKnight argues for this as well. And the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels adds Allison and Pitre to this camp and says:

... these two scriptural backgrounds [Hos. 6:2 and Dan. 7:25] to Mark's "after three days" ... are not mutually exclusive. The unifying aspect of the passion predictions is that Jesus suffers, dies and is vindicated as the Danielic Son of Man. The structure and movement of the eschatological scenario in Daniel 7-12 and the passion predictions are similar (see Allison) ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=HSCAC ... us&f=false

McKnight also adds Rev. 11:7-12 to the mix with respect to Daniel's "time, times and half a time" and resurrection:

Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.

So is it too much to have it both ways with respect to the "three days" issue, Hosea and Daniel? As McKnight says, "Hos. 6:2 is not cited anywhere in the NT and does not (evidently) figure in early Christian exegesis," but there are apparent allusions to Daniel across the spectrum of early Christian writings.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
For "Matthew", he was the one to say that "Emmanuel" is equivalent to "Jesus" and that "three days and three nights" is equivalent to 40 consecutive hours.
As for Acts, the ancients had no concept of 0, more so of day 0 as a reference day.
So, according to your example, Wednesday would be day 1 and the preceding Sunday would be 4 days before. If 3 days ago were mentioned, that would suggest Monday instead.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
For "Matthew", he was the one to say that "Emmanuel" is equivalent to "Jesus" and that "three days and three nights" is equivalent to 40 consecutive hours.
As for Acts, the ancients had no concept of 0, more so of day 0 as a reference day.
So, according to your example, Wednesday would be day 1 and the preceding Sunday would be 4 days before. If 3 days ago were mentioned, that would suggest Monday instead.

Not sure what point you are making with Emmanuel, but your point with the three days and three nights in Matthew would be part of the idiom, just as in Esther.

As for day 0, that was my own addition for the sake of counting. Without zero, then yes, on a Wednesday "four days ago" would be Sunday, "three days ago" Monday, "two days ago" Tuesday... and then what? Is "one day ago" Wednesday, the same exact day on which I am speaking? See, it does not work out. And yet, that is how the ancients counted sometimes ("inclusive reckoning," some call it). What I am saying is that it may not make sense for Mark (or anybody) to use the phrase "after three days" to describe a period of time including part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday, but he may well have done exactly that. This mitigates your "argument from logic" to the effect that the burial scene was an addition to Mark's original gospel. And I say this even as I pretty much agree with you on exactly that point! That is, I think that the burial was added to the narrative at some point, for many of the reasons which you and others have given. But I cannot bring myself to use the "after three days" argument because of that stiff minority of exceptions to the logical rule. Mark may have been one of the exceptions; I cannot rule that out.