Maybe, "three nights and three days" ?

[AFrazier]

Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra was very specific: "A day and a night are an Onah (a portion of time) and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b. Talmud, Pesahim 4a]

This is a great quote.

 

[visionary]

The source is scripture. He died on the day of the preparation, which is the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). And he rose early on the first day of the week (Mark 16:9). Since he was only in the grave for part of Friday and part of Sunday, those days are clearly being counted as full days.

Let's go with the friday crucifixion.... Friday after noon... Yeshua dies....Day 1
Following the Hebrew calculations... There are about 3-6 hours left in the day before sunset. Using inclusive re-conning we will use this as the first day. From Friday night to Saturday night is the second day .. Yeshua is in the tomb.. the Apostles and women are all resting "according to the commandment"... It is the Sabbath [weekly rest]

[What does not fit into this scenario but is scripture
Mark 16:1 — When the sabbath was past, the women bought spices in order to anoint the body of Jesus.
Luke 23:56 — The women prepared the spices and ointments and then rested the sabbath day. ]...

Sometime early Sunday morning which you calculate is the third day Yeshua is resurrected.

So Please show how this activity of the women fits.

 

[AFrazier]

Let's go with the friday crucifixion.... Friday after noon... Yeshua dies....Day 1
Following the Hebrew calculations... There are about 3-6 hours left in the day before sunset. Using inclusive re-conning we will use this as the first day. From Friday night to Saturday night is the second day .. Yeshua is in the tomb.. the Apostles and women are all resting "according to the commandment"... It is the Sabbath [weekly rest]

[What does not fit into this scenario but is scripture
Mark 16:1 — When the sabbath was past, the women bought spices in order to anoint the body of Jesus.
Luke 23:56 — The women prepared the spices and ointments and then rested the sabbath day. ]...

Sometime early Sunday morning which you calculate is the third day Yeshua is resurrected.

So Please show how this activity of the women fits.

If you have the patience to read it, I'll just post an excerpt of my chronology book. This section is still in rough draft form and probably needs some editing, but the arguments are fully formed.

---------------

The other Reconstructionist arguments really lose their punch beyond this point, lacking any real evidence. The double Sabbath, for example, is really just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t even say that spices were purchased before and after the Sabbath. Mark says that after the passing of the Sabbath, they bought spices, whereas Luke says the women prepared spices and ointments and then rested the Sabbath day.[1] We know for a fact that Mary Magdalene was already in possession of spikenard, which she used to anoint Christ at the house of Simon.[2] She saved it for his burial.[3] While Matthew and Mark suggest that she used all the contents, John tells us there was a pound of the stuff.[4] Did she use the whole pound? Did they get some of the spices from Nicodemus, who brought a hundred-pound mixture of myrrh and aloes?[5] Further, did she, or one of the other women, have other spices on hand?

Understand that four things happened. Spices were prepared. They rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Spices were bought. And they came to the sepulcher early on the first day of the week, bringing with them the spices they had prepared.[6] It was absolutely possible to prepare some spices that were on hand, rest on the Sabbath, and then purchase additional spices that may have been needed but were not in their possession, or that required so much preparation time that it was more convenient and efficient to purchase them. There is no contradiction in this chain of events.

However, assuming a double Sabbath event and a dual purchasing of spices, which the text doesn’t actually say, we know that Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices after the Sabbath. Meanwhile, Luke tells us that the same Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, Joanna, and others, are the ones who prepared the spices prior to the Sabbath. Assuming for the sake of argument that we are talking about the purchasing of spices in both instances, and not merely the preparation of some spices prior to the Sabbath, why would Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James be purchasing spices, resting on the Sabbath, and then buying more spices after the Sabbath? Was there a sale at Spice World?

Furthermore, there were, at the very least, five women involved in this scenario. Between Mark and Luke, we know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children, and at least one other woman according to the plural, “other women,” in Luke, were all present at the sepulcher.[7] And it’s highly probable that the same women who had been ministering to Jesus all along, who “came with [Jesus] from Galilee, [and] followed after, and beheld the sepulchre,” were also participating, being the “many other women” according to Mark.[8] In which case, any alleged discrepancy that might be derived from the suggested variance between these two passages is inconclusive at best. Who’s to say which women bought what, when they bought it, who did the preparing, etc.? Did the women all stay at the same house on the Sabbath, or were they separated? Perhaps Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, prepared some spices they already had in their possession, while Salome and Joanna bought different, or additional spices either at the close of the Sabbath, or early on the first day of the week.[9] We simply don’t know. We’re talking about two separate events written by two separate authors, taking their individual information from sources we can’t state, who are then relating to us the mundane happenings of at least five or more women over the course of three days, with no details to clarify the particulars.

The bottom line is, spices were prepared. The women rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. When the Sabbath was past, they either bought additional spices, or simply brought what they had already purchased, and came to the sepulcher with what they had prepared to anoint the body. They found the tomb empty.

One would also have to wonder, if Jesus were crucified on Wednesday, and the women bought and prepared the spices on Friday, why didn’t they just anoint and prepare his body on Friday before the Sabbath? Why wait until Sunday when the body was four days old and “stinketh” as Lazarus’ body had, when they could have dealt with it when it was only a day and a half old?[10] Worse still, the narrative in Luke gives the impression that the women prepared their spices on the day of the crucifixion itself, and then rested on the Sabbath. By that understanding, the women were resting on Thursday, which makes the question even more interesting. Why wait for Sunday when the spices were ready as early as Wednesday evening and could have been applied Friday?

Was it because the women feared the guards watching the tomb? Doubtful. Matthew tells us that the keepers were still there, and that they became as dead men in fear of the angel.[11] Assuming the women even knew the soldiers were there, they obviously had no fear of them, or if they did, it didn’t stop them from going to the tomb on the first day of the week. So, why would the soldiers’ presence stop them from going on the sixth day of the week? Furthermore, relative to their conversation about who they would get to roll the stone away for them, as though they could simply walk up and break an imperial seal, the chances are, they were ignorant of the fact that the tomb had been sealed, or that there were soldiers guarding the tomb.[12] They were resting on the Sabbath while the chief priests solicited Pilate to place the guard.[13]

The women’s delay clearly had nothing to do with the soldiers, but with the Sabbath. In actual point of fact, every passage that discusses the women coming to anoint the body illustrates the same general sense of urgency. By the Reconstructionist argument, we’re expected to believe that they were so lackadaisical that they left the body untouched throughout the entirety of Friday, whereas the reality is that they were so earnest about fulfilling the burial duties for the deceased that as soon as the Sabbath was over, they came to the tomb as early on the first day of the week as they could; before the sun even came up, according to John, who claims that it was still dark out.[14]

As I said, the whole argument basically hangs on semantics and attempts to make something work that not only doesn’t work, but that creates conflicts with other facts when you try. If there were a duality of scriptures that said, “all the women tending to the body of Jesus bought the necessary spices and then rested on the Sabbath,” with an opposing scripture that said, “all the women tending to the body of Jesus rested on the Sabbath and then bought the necessary spices,” then we might have a problem. But that’s not the case. The passages, taken at face value, do not conflict with each other. To reiterate, spices were prepared, though we do not know which spices, whether it was all the spices that were needed, or which specific women prepared them. The women rested on the Sabbath, which is implied by the “preparation of the Sabbath” language in the gospels to be the weekly Sabbath. Spices were purchased, though we do not know what spices, or which women purchased them. Then the women who were to tend to the body of Jesus went to the sepulcher to do their duty. In light of the fact that a Nisan 15th crucifixion prohibits the possibility of a dual Sabbath event, this is clearly the understanding we should be embracing.

[1]. Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56. The word in Mark is ἠγόρασαν, which is 3 pers. pl. aor. act. indic., meaning “they bought,” as opposed to the Authorized King James translation that renders it, “had bought,” which is a past perfect tense rather than aorist. Other versions, like the NIV, NASB and NRSV correctly render it “bought.”

[2]. Matt. 26:6-7; Mark 14:3; Jn. 12:3.

[3]. Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8; Jn. 12:7.

[4]. Jn. 12:3.

[5]. John 19:38-40.

[6]. Luke 23:56, 24:1; Mark 16:1-2.

[7]. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40-41, 16:1; Luke 8:3, 24:10.

[8]. Mark 15:41.

[9]. John 19:38-40.

[10]. Jn. 11:39.

[11]. Matt. 28:1-6.

[12]. Mark 16:3; Matt. 27:65-66.

[13]. Matt. 27:62-66; Luke 23:56.

[14]. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.

 

[AFrazier]

And you CONTINUALLY ignore Messiah's own words with 3 days and 3 nights. It's not a subjective, vague prophecy as much as you try to make it. It is a specifically precise prophecy. As precise and accurate as the destruction of the temple occurring within that very generation.

You vainly attempt to take something that is highly specific and twist it into a vague thing in order to force it into your Good Friday tradition.

Attempting to negate his own words concerning the sign to mean he was really talking about his Resurrection and that the 3 days and 3 nights is unimportant is to show gross error.

Deuteronomy 18: 20‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21“You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ 22“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

So, if Yeshua was not in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights then his utterance was not from G-d and we know this is not true since he did indeed Rise. We can not parse out what he says that is PROPHETIC and change what he says to suit our own petty contrived traditions. Especially so since Yeshua made it plain that he did nothing on his own accord but spoke only those things the Father gave him to speak.

Theology doesn't dictate chronology. He died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. That's scripture.

 

[AFrazier]

There is an explanation for what seems to be a discrepancy.
The Greek says Sabbaths, in the plural form. The KJV, translates it as 'week' in the singular, which should be plural 'weeks'.
It was the first of the Sabbaths or weeks of the counting of the omer. The woman rested, as is commanded, on the 7th day Shabbot. On the first day of the weeks of the counting of the omer they went to the tomb.

The only problem with that, is that in the first century, they counted the omer from the 16th, not from Sunday (unless the 16th fell on Sunday). The 15th was considered the sabbath specified in Leviticus 23:15 (Lev. 23:15-16; Deut. 16:9-15; Tal. Rosh Hash. 6b; Joseph AJ 3.252). The scholiast to the Megillat Ta'anit also suggests that the prohibition against mourning from the 8th of Nisan until the close of the festival commemorates the victory of the Pharisees over the Saduccees concerning the dispute over the day of pentecost, based on the ambiguous interpretations of Leviticus 23:15 (Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, 75; Noam, Megillat Taanit, in Literature of the Jewish People, vol. 3, 342).
The Pharisees won, and the "sabbath" of Leviticus 23:15 was determined to be the 15th, the holy convocation, causing the "morrow after the sabbath" to be the 16th of Nisan, and not the Sunday following the weekly sabbath.

 

[Hank77]

The Pharisees won, and the "sabbath" of Leviticus 23:15 was determined to be the 15th, the holy convocation, causing the "morrow after the sabbath" to be the 16th of Nisan, and not the Sunday following the weekly sabbath.

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. Does that mean that the Pharisees were correct?

The bigger problem with the Pharisee interpretation of “Sabbath” is when it comes to the end of the 50-day count. Leviticus 23:16 says,


“Until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall you count fifty days.”

This would only happen once every 7 years. The Pharisee have the last 'morrow of the seven Sabbath' landing on Monday, Tuesday, etc. where there isn't any Sabbath at all. This article contains several other supporting scriptures that show the Sadducees were correct in their interpretation.

The Truth About Shavuot - NehemiasWall.com

 

[AFrazier]

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. Does that mean that the Pharisees were correct?

The bigger problem with the Pharisee interpretation of “Sabbath” is when it comes to the end of the 50-day count. Leviticus 23:16 says,


“Until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall you count fifty days.”

This would only happen once every 7 years. The Pharisee have the last 'morrow of the seven Sabbath' landing on Monday, Tuesday, etc. where there isn't any Sabbath at all. This article contains several other supporting scriptures that show the Sadducees were correct in their interpretation.

The Truth About Shavuot - NehemiasWall.com

Who was right is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that in the first century they counted from the 16th, reckoning the holy convocation of the 15th as the sabbath being mentioned. My own personal interest has to do with history and chronology, not modern doctrine and the disputes that surround it. Since I have no intention of celebrating Pentecost in the here and now, it makes no difference to me who was right, or which way it should be counted.

By and by, I've seen the arguments from both sides of the debate. I think the Pharisees had a legitimate point. But I'll take a look at the article you posted.

 

[AFrazier]

@Yeshua HaDerekh

Hank77 gave me this article. I thought this snippet was interesting. It says the the Pesach is eaten on the 15th. Imagine that.

Today we commonly refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread as “Passover.” However, in the Hebrew Bible, the term “Passover” (Pesach) always refers to the Pascal sacrifice. The “morrow of the Passover” is the morning after the Passover sacrifice. The sacrifice was slaughtered at twilight at the end of the 14th day of the First Hebrew Month (Nissan) and eaten on the evening that began the 15th day of the First Hebrew Month (see Exodus 12:18; Deuteronomy 16:4). The morrow of the Passover is therefore the morning of the 15th day of the First Hebrew Month. — From The Truth About Shavuot - NehemiasWall.com

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

@Yeshua HaDerekh

Hank77 gave me this article. I thought this snippet was interesting. It says the the Pesach is eaten on the 15th. Imagine that.

Today we commonly refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread as “Passover.” However, in the Hebrew Bible, the term “Passover” (Pesach) always refers to the Pascal sacrifice. The “morrow of the Passover” is the morning after the Passover sacrifice. The sacrifice was slaughtered at twilight at the end of the 14th day of the First Hebrew Month (Nissan) and eaten on the evening that began the 15th day of the First Hebrew Month (see Exodus 12:18; Deuteronomy 16:4). The morrow of the Passover is therefore the morning of the 15th day of the First Hebrew Month. — From The Truth About Shavuot - NehemiasWall.com

What is new there? The lamb is killed on the 14th and eaten with matzah after sunset (which in this case is the 15th). None can be left by the morning of the 15th per scripture. BTW, Nehemia also agrees that Yom HaBikkurim was on a Sunday.

 

[AFrazier]

What is new there? The lamb is killed on the 14th and eaten with matzah after sunset (which in this case is the 15th). None can be left by he morning of the 15th per scripture. BTW, Nehemia also agrees that Yom HaBikkurim was on a Sunday.

I'm not going to bother looking for the post, but you gave me a hard time about this very thing, that the passover wasn't eaten on the 15th. I said it was. We argued.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This is a great quote.

you going to put it in your book?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm not going to bother looking for the post, but you gave me a hard time about this very thing, that the passover wasn't eaten on the 15th. I said it was. We argued.

No I actually never said that.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

On this I'm going to actually agree with you. lol. Dead is dead. If you're dead for more than an hour, coming back to life is a miracle of God. I don't think it matters one bit if he was dead for 36 hours or 72 hours, if three days and nights is literal or synecdoche. He was dead, and then he wasn't. That's the sign and the miracle.

LOL, we actually agree on something!

 

[visionary]

If you have the patience to read it, I'll just post an excerpt of my chronology book. This section is still in rough draft form and probably needs some editing, but the arguments are fully formed.

---------------

The other Reconstructionist arguments really lose their punch beyond this point, lacking any real evidence. The double Sabbath, for example, is really just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t even say that spices were purchased before and after the Sabbath. Mark says that after the passing of the Sabbath, they bought spices, whereas Luke says the women prepared spices and ointments and then rested the Sabbath day.[1] We know for a fact that Mary Magdalene was already in possession of spikenard, which she used to anoint Christ at the house of Simon.[2] She saved it for his burial.[3] While Matthew and Mark suggest that she used all the contents, John tells us there was a pound of the stuff.[4] Did she use the whole pound? Did they get some of the spices from Nicodemus, who brought a hundred-pound mixture of myrrh and aloes?[5] Further, did she, or one of the other women, have other spices on hand?

Understand that four things happened. Spices were prepared. They rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Spices were bought. And they came to the sepulcher early on the first day of the week, bringing with them the spices they had prepared.[6] It was absolutely possible to prepare some spices that were on hand, rest on the Sabbath, and then purchase additional spices that may have been needed but were not in their possession, or that required so much preparation time that it was more convenient and efficient to purchase them. There is no contradiction in this chain of events.

However, assuming a double Sabbath event and a dual purchasing of spices, which the text doesn’t actually say, we know that Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices after the Sabbath. Meanwhile, Luke tells us that the same Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, Joanna, and others, are the ones who prepared the spices prior to the Sabbath. Assuming for the sake of argument that we are talking about the purchasing of spices in both instances, and not merely the preparation of some spices prior to the Sabbath, why would Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James be purchasing spices, resting on the Sabbath, and then buying more spices after the Sabbath? Was there a sale at Spice World?

Furthermore, there were, at the very least, five women involved in this scenario. Between Mark and Luke, we know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children, and at least one other woman according to the plural, “other women,” in Luke, were all present at the sepulcher.[7] And it’s highly probable that the same women who had been ministering to Jesus all along, who “came with [Jesus] from Galilee, [and] followed after, and beheld the sepulchre,” were also participating, being the “many other women” according to Mark.[8] In which case, any alleged discrepancy that might be derived from the suggested variance between these two passages is inconclusive at best. Who’s to say which women bought what, when they bought it, who did the preparing, etc.? Did the women all stay at the same house on the Sabbath, or were they separated? Perhaps Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, prepared some spices they already had in their possession, while Salome and Joanna bought different, or additional spices either at the close of the Sabbath, or early on the first day of the week.[9] We simply don’t know. We’re talking about two separate events written by two separate authors, taking their individual information from sources we can’t state, who are then relating to us the mundane happenings of at least five or more women over the course of three days, with no details to clarify the particulars.

The bottom line is, spices were prepared. The women rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. When the Sabbath was past, they either bought additional spices, or simply brought what they had already purchased, and came to the sepulcher with what they had prepared to anoint the body. They found the tomb empty.

One would also have to wonder, if Jesus were crucified on Wednesday, and the women bought and prepared the spices on Friday, why didn’t they just anoint and prepare his body on Friday before the Sabbath? Why wait until Sunday when the body was four days old and “stinketh” as Lazarus’ body had, when they could have dealt with it when it was only a day and a half old?[10] Worse still, the narrative in Luke gives the impression that the women prepared their spices on the day of the crucifixion itself, and then rested on the Sabbath. By that understanding, the women were resting on Thursday, which makes the question even more interesting. Why wait for Sunday when the spices were ready as early as Wednesday evening and could have been applied Friday?

Was it because the women feared the guards watching the tomb? Doubtful. Matthew tells us that the keepers were still there, and that they became as dead men in fear of the angel.[11] Assuming the women even knew the soldiers were there, they obviously had no fear of them, or if they did, it didn’t stop them from going to the tomb on the first day of the week. So, why would the soldiers’ presence stop them from going on the sixth day of the week? Furthermore, relative to their conversation about who they would get to roll the stone away for them, as though they could simply walk up and break an imperial seal, the chances are, they were ignorant of the fact that the tomb had been sealed, or that there were soldiers guarding the tomb.[12] They were resting on the Sabbath while the chief priests solicited Pilate to place the guard.[13]

The women’s delay clearly had nothing to do with the soldiers, but with the Sabbath. In actual point of fact, every passage that discusses the women coming to anoint the body illustrates the same general sense of urgency. By the Reconstructionist argument, we’re expected to believe that they were so lackadaisical that they left the body untouched throughout the entirety of Friday, whereas the reality is that they were so earnest about fulfilling the burial duties for the deceased that as soon as the Sabbath was over, they came to the tomb as early on the first day of the week as they could; before the sun even came up, according to John, who claims that it was still dark out.[14]

As I said, the whole argument basically hangs on semantics and attempts to make something work that not only doesn’t work, but that creates conflicts with other facts when you try. If there were a duality of scriptures that said, “all the women tending to the body of Jesus bought the necessary spices and then rested on the Sabbath,” with an opposing scripture that said, “all the women tending to the body of Jesus rested on the Sabbath and then bought the necessary spices,” then we might have a problem. But that’s not the case. The passages, taken at face value, do not conflict with each other. To reiterate, spices were prepared, though we do not know which spices, whether it was all the spices that were needed, or which specific women prepared them. The women rested on the Sabbath, which is implied by the “preparation of the Sabbath” language in the gospels to be the weekly Sabbath. Spices were purchased, though we do not know what spices, or which women purchased them. Then the women who were to tend to the body of Jesus went to the sepulcher to do their duty. In light of the fact that a Nisan 15th crucifixion prohibits the possibility of a dual Sabbath event, this is clearly the understanding we should be embracing.

[1]. Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56. The word in Mark is ἠγόρασαν, which is 3 pers. pl. aor. act. indic., meaning “they bought,” as opposed to the Authorized King James translation that renders it, “had bought,” which is a past perfect tense rather than aorist. Other versions, like the NIV, NASB and NRSV correctly render it “bought.”

[2]. Matt. 26:6-7; Mark 14:3; Jn. 12:3.

[3]. Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8; Jn. 12:7.

[4]. Jn. 12:3.

[5]. John 19:38-40.

[6]. Luke 23:56, 24:1; Mark 16:1-2.

[7]. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40-41, 16:1; Luke 8:3, 24:10.

[8]. Mark 15:41.

[9]. John 19:38-40.

[10]. Jn. 11:39.

[11]. Matt. 28:1-6.

[12]. Mark 16:3; Matt. 27:65-66.

[13]. Matt. 27:62-66; Luke 23:56.

[14]. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.

So you are saying the women bought spices before and after the Sabbath?

 

[AFrazier]

you going to put it in your book?

Heck yeah. I'm a definite opponent of the 72 hour business. I firmly believe in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Therefore, three days and three nights is, in my view, purely synecdoche. That Talmud quote is excellent support. I'll have to look, also, if there is a parallel in the Talmud Bavli.

 

[AFrazier]

So you are saying the women bought spices before and after the Sabbath?

Not at all. In what I posted for you, it specifically says, "It doesn’t even say that spices were purchased before and after the Sabbath. Mark says that after the passing of the Sabbath, they bought spices, whereas Luke says the women prepared spices and ointments and then rested the Sabbath day." I then posed a hypothetical for the sake of argument. "However, assuming a double Sabbath event and a dual purchasing of spices, which the text doesn’t actually say, we know that Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices after the Sabbath. Meanwhile, Luke tells us that the same Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, Joanna, and others, are the ones who prepared the spices prior to the Sabbath. Assuming for the sake of argument that we are talking about the purchasing of spices in both instances, and not merely the preparation of some spices prior to the Sabbath...."

But to demonstrate the error in the alleged double sabbath event, it was necessary for argument's sake to take up the contentious point of view in a hypothetical sense.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Heck yeah. I'm a definite opponent of the 72 hour business. I firmly believe in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Therefore, three days and three nights is, in my view, purely synecdoche. That Talmud quote is excellent support. I'll have to look, also, if there is a parallel in the Talmud Bavli.

Glad I could help, although I will likely disagree with the rest of the book

 

[visionary]

Not at all. In what I posted for you, it specifically says, "It doesn’t even say that spices were purchased before and after the Sabbath. Mark says that after the passing of the Sabbath, they bought spices, whereas Luke says the women prepared spices and ointments and then rested the Sabbath day." I then posed a hypothetical for the sake of argument. "However, assuming a double Sabbath event and a dual purchasing of spices, which the text doesn’t actually say, we know that Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices after the Sabbath. Meanwhile, Luke tells us that the same Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, Joanna, and others, are the ones who prepared the spices prior to the Sabbath. Assuming for the sake of argument that we are talking about the purchasing of spices in both instances, and not merely the preparation of some spices prior to the Sabbath...."

But to demonstrate the error in the alleged double sabbath event, it was necessary for argument's sake to take up the contentious point of view in a hypothetical sense.

Luke says prepare spices then rested Sabbath, Mark says bought spices after Sabbath. If it is the same Sabbath they prepared the spices before they bought them.

 

[AFrazier]

Luke says prepare spices then rested Sabbath, Mark says bought spices after Sabbath. If it is the same Sabbath they prepared the spices before they bought them.

Listen, I don't really have the patience to go round and round with someone who isn't going to consider what I've already addressed. There were multiple women. There were likely existing spices. Some of the women could have been preparing spices before the sabbath. Other women could have purchased other spices after the sabbath. The chain of events is simply not conclusive with regard to a double sabbath event. Please just go and read what I already posted on the subject. It's far too much to repeat, or to argue over and over again. If you have specific objections to some of my reasoning in the excerpt I gave you, I'm happy to address those objections on a case by case basis. But at least do me the courtesy of reading and considering what I've already had to say.

 

[AFrazier]

Glad I could help, although I will likely disagree with the rest of the book

If I ever manage to get it finished, I'll give you a free copy and let you be one of the first to read and dissect it.