Three days and three nights (for Bernard).

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi, Bernard. This post is in response to the following page: http://historical-jesus.info/77.html, on which you state:

Apologists contend than "after three days" is the same than "on the third day". I disagree....

You give various biblical passages for your view, and then you add:

Note: in the O.T., the only clear-cut exception of that rule is in 1 Kings (and copied in 2 Chronicles)

This exception you (propose to) dismantle by arguing for a scribal interpolation.

What do you make, then, of the chronology in the book of Esther? Let us start with the edict to slaughter the Jews in Esther 3.12-13:

12 Then on the thirteenth day of the first month [Nisan] the royal secretaries were summoned. They wrote out in the script of each province and in the language of each people all Haman’s orders to the king’s satraps, the governors of the various provinces and the nobles of the various peoples. These were written in the name of King Xerxes himself and sealed with his own ring. 13 Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews — young and old, women and children — on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods. 14 A copy of the text of the edict was to be issued as law in every province and made known to the people of every nationality so they would be ready for that day.

Mordecai gets wind of this and sends word to Esther, who says in Esther 4.16:

16 “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”

("If I perish, I perish." That line always gives me the chills.) She goes to the king in Esther 5.1-2:

1 On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the hall, facing the entrance. 2 When he saw Queen Esther standing in the court, he was pleased with her and held out to her the gold scepter that was in his hand. So Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.

Some later rabbis doubled down on this chronology, counting three days from 13 Nisan to Passover, which is 15 Nisan, according to the Talmud, Megillah chapter 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t04/meg02.htm):

"And Mordecai went about." Said Rabh: What is meant by "went about"? He transgressed by fasting on the first day of Passover; he fasted three days, and the third was Pesach. And Samuel says: It means "he passed." There was a piece of water between the court and Shushan, and he crossed it.

Is this another exception? Or do you have a ready explanation?

Ben.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

A great observation.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
I do not see the connection about fasting for 3 days and 3 nights, and on the third day from the beginning of the fast, Esther would go to see the king.
Sure Esther will later partake in a banquet with the King and Haman (time would be needed for him to get summoned and ready) but that does not mean the banquet had to start minutes after Esther sees the king. That banquet, under the control of Esther for its preparation, could have started on the fourth day.
As I said, it is not clear-cut. I also found something similar in another part of the OT, about a three days battle. Don't remember where.

Of course, OT writers were very fond of the number 3 and featured three and third in many places.
And later Rabbis, tried to reconcile all that, against the well-accepted, logical, mathematical understanding (as I showed in Josephus' works and in the OT), by saying on the third day can be the same day than the one after three days.

Even my so-called exception from 1 Kings, without my suspected interpolation in it, can be argued than the Jews had to gather again (at the end of) the third day, in case the king makes his declaration very early after 3 days (on the fourth day).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
I do not see the connection about fasting for 3 days and 3 nights, and on the third day from the beginning of the fast, Esther would go to see the king.

Read it again: "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king...." And then she goes to the king "on the third day".

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Just for the sake of accumulating data and parallels, here is Genesis 22.3-4:

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance.

The Midrash Rabbah here (in section 1 of chapter 50) offers a list of other significant third days, including:

• The third day of revelation: "And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning" (Exodus 19.16).
• The third day of resurrection: "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up" (Hosea 6.2).
• The third day of Esther: "Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther put on her royal apparel" (Esther 5.1).
• The third day of the tribal ancestors: "And Joseph said unto them the third day: 'This do, and live'" (Genesis 42.18).

So far so good. But we also find this one:

• The third day of Jonah: "And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 2.1).

I suppose this could qualify as rabbinic apologetics, finding parallels even if they are strained. In this sense perhaps the rabbis and Matthew (in 12.40 and 27.62-66) are playing the same game.

Luke does not play this game; he lacks any mention of Jesus rising after three days. For Luke, it is always on the third day.

But I wonder.... In folio 16a of Tractate Nazir, in the Babylonian Talmud, we find the following:

Now seeing that R. Jose is of the opinion that part of a day counts as a whole day, how is it ever possible for there to be a certified female sufferer from gonorrhoea to offer the [prescribed] sacrifice, for if the issue is observed in the second half of the day, then the first half of the day counts as the period of 'waiting'? — It is possible either if she should have continual issue for three days, or alternatively, if she observes the issue on each of the three days shortly after sunset, so that there is no part of the day that can be reckoned [as a period of cleanness].

A similar debate seems to have occurred with regard to the 30-day Nazarite vow: should the Nazarite poll (and thus end the vow) on the thirtieth day (after only 29 days and a part) or on the thirty-first day (after 30 complete days)? This matter may be found earlier in the same Tractate as the above:

We have learnt: If a man says, 'I declare myself a nazirite,' he polls on the thirty-first day.3 Now, this fits in well enough with the view of R. Mattena, but how is it to be reconciled with Bar Pada's view? — Bar Pada will say: Consider the clause which follows, [viz.:] Should he poll on the thirtieth day, his obligation is fulfilled. We see, then, that the second clause [of this Mishnah] lends support to his view, whilst the original clause [must be read] as though it contained the word [I declare myself a nazirite for thirty] 'whole' [days]. Does not this second clause need to be reconciled with R. Mattena's view? — He considers part of a day equivalent to a whole day.

But have we not learnt: '[Should someone say,] "I intend to be a nazirite for thirty days," and poll on the thirtieth day, his obligation is not fulfilled'?7 — [We presume that] he said, 'whole days'.

If some rabbis were of the opinion that a part of a day counts as a whole, then perhaps expressions like "on the third day" and "after three days" (= part of the first day, all of the second day, and part of the third day) might have been equated even without a specific apologetic purpose in trying to harmonize two passages. Perhaps Matthew was of this mindset, but Luke either was not or simply did not understand it.

Again, I am just adding sticks to the pile. I am not sure about this yet.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Is this another exception? Or do you have a ready explanation?

On the third day, Esther did not go to see the King, but instead to stand in the inner court of the palace.
Maybe that was a way for the author to write the quasi-ritualistic "third" without breaking Esther's promise.

In the OT, I counted 12 second day, 39 third day and 15 fourth day. (RSV translation)

Now seeing that R. Jose is of the opinion that part of a day counts as a whole day

It seems to me here that R. Jose had an opinion which then was not shared by the others.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

On the third day, Esther did not go to see the King, but instead to stand in the inner court of the palace.

I am going to present the text in question itself here so that all can see for themselves how unlikely this suggestion is:

5.1 On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the hall, facing the entrance. 2 When he saw Queen Esther standing in the court, he was pleased with her and held out to her the gold scepter that was in his hand. So Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.

In the OT, I counted 12 second day, 39 third day and 15 fourth day. (RSV translation)

Yes, I agree that your view has a lot of support. I am saying that there appear to be some clear exceptions. It may be a case of a majority versus a minority view.

It seems to me here that R. Jose had an opinion which then was not shared by the others.

I quoted others, and characterized their collective view as "some".

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

"Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.
Mor'decai then went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him
On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, opposite the king's hall."

Going back to the point you made, I think "Then" does not necessarily mean: after the end of the fast. "Then" might relate only to: after gathering all the Jews and instructing them to fast.
It would make more sense that Esther tries to reach the king when the fast is still going on.
Now I remember considering Esther before I made my case about these third day/after three days and that's what I thought about.
Not at all clear-cut about demonstrating "on the third day" = "after three days".

And going back to my previous point, if "then" meant "at the end the fast", let's imagine Mordecai would say to Esther: you broke your promise about when to see the king. Esther could say: I did not, I just went to stand in the inner courtyard.
However now I prefer the point I made previously on this posting.

Take a whack at it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

"Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.
Mor'decai then went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him
On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, opposite the king's hall."

Going back to the point you made, I think "Then" does not necessarily mean: after the end of the fast. "Then" might relate only to: after gathering all the Jews and instructing them to fast.
It would make more sense that Esther tries to reach the king when the fast is still going on.

Sure, but it makes the most sense right at the tail end of the fast. maybe in the last few hours of it, not a full day before it ends. Why keep fasting once one already knows whether Esther was successful or not?

You are correct that things are not crystal clear here; but it still appears to be an exception. Taken together with the much more explicit material in the Talmud, it may indicate that there was a minority who took "after X days" and "on the Xth day" as equivalent. Did you read and understand the stuff about the Nazarene vow? I gave a link. The whole debate turns on whether the vow lasts a full 30 days, with the end point coming on the 31st day, or whether the end point comes on the 30th day, thus making the vow itself only just over 29 days long. Your preferred position seems to be in the majority in that debate, too, but there is a definite minority to reckon with. A reason is even given: a part of a day counts as a whole. If some people followed that logic (which seems most illogical to me), then "after X days" and "on the Xth day" could indeed be equivalent.

And going back to my previous point, if "then" meant "at the end the fast", let's imagine Mordecai would say to Esther: you broke your promise about when to see the king. Esther could say: I did not, I just went to stand in the inner courtyard.

This reasoning, however, is worse than the reasoning you are arguing against (and which you with partial accuracy attribute to apologetic interests).

However now I prefer the point I made previously on this posting.

As well you should. At least your previous, (now) primary point depends on something being unclear, whereas your secondary point seems pretty clearly forced.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Did you read and understand the stuff about the Nazarene vow? I gave a link

Yes, I read it. But that concerns only the last day: what that day completed or not? and if it was not, would the vow be fulfilled?
However, in case of the 40 hours (max) for Jesus' death, this time includes two partial days (the first and last days) and one complete day (the middle one).
Is there another example anywhere where two partial days (one at the start, the other at the end) in a time period count as full days? If so "after three days" could mean an elapsed time of a bit more than 24 hours.
Added to that, the author of the empty tomb in gMark did not give any indication when Jesus resurrected after his burial. He did not care about fulfilling the "after three days" as allegedly prophesied three times in the gospel by Jesus. But, if the empty tomb author was the same than the one for the rest of the gospel, he certainly would have made Jesus' prophecy fulfilled unequivocally.

Cordially, Bernard