Fw: Three days and Three nights Part 12
David Lee errancy@infidels.org
Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:41:44 -0400 (00928474904, 00f301beae23$076c9ec0$d65c74cc@ronies)
----- Original Message -----
From: David Lee <ronie@infoave.net>
To: <David Lee>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 11:04 PM
Subject: Three days and Three nights Part 12
> Hi Group! Hi Student!
> I am commenting on Lightfoot's commentary on the Hebrew word "Onah" as
it
> applies to the "three days and three nights" issue.
>
> LIGHTFOOT...
> 40. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so
> shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
> earth.
>
> snip....
>
> II. If you number the hours that passed from our Saviour's giving up the
> ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find almost the same
> number of hours; and yet that space is called by him "three days and three
> nights," when as two nights only came between, and only one complete day.
> Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not without the consent
> both of the Jewish schools, and their computation.
>
> DAVE
> Keep in mind that the Talmud was compiled over 800 years after the time
of
> Jonah. There is no evidence that the Jews of the eighth century BC had
such
> a teaching that allowed the interpretation promoted here by Lightfoot.
Jesus
> used the specific term, not the generic term, and he said it would be *as*
> Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster that
> he would be three days and three nights in the earth of the earth.
>
> LIGHTFOOT
> Weigh well that which is
> disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for
> three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning
the
> computation of this space of three days. Among other things these words
> occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five,
> sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith
> either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba
fixed
> a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah:
>
> DAVE
> R. Ismael believed that each day had two Onahs (a daytime Onah and a
> nighttime Onah). He made that clear when discussing the computation of
three
> days. He said that sometimes the three days contained "four Onahs" which
> would be a full day (consisting of two full Onahs) and a part of the first
> day (an Onah) and a part of the third day (another Onah). Then, he said,
> sometimes the three days had "five Onahs". That would be two complete days
> (four Onahs i.e 2 days, 2 nights) and a part of the other (either the
first
> day or the third day). And finally, he mentions that three days could
> consist of as many as "six Onahs" which would be three daytime Onahs and
> three nighttime Onahs. It appears that R. Jochanan and R. Akiba agreed
with
> this interpretation. I have always maintained that the Jews counted any
part
> of a day as a full day (for counting purposes) and any part of a night as
a
> full night (again, for counting purposes). That saved someone from having
to
> say "I was in Jerusalem for one day and parts of two days". All he needed
to
> say was "I was in Jerusalem for three days" as there was no need for
> rigorous exactness in the language. Any part of an Onah was counted as a
> whole (for counting purposes). That means any part of a night Onah was
> counted as a whole night Onah and the same rule applied for the day Onahs.
> So three hours before sunset day one would pass for a whole day, and a
hour
> past sunset day one would pass for a whole night.
>
> LIGHTFOOT
> but the tradition is, that R.Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night
> make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after,
> R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.
>
> DAVE
> The quote from Eliezar Ben Azariah is the one most commonly quoted by
> apologists. I understand he wrote this in the second century AD. He
equates
> an Onah with a day and a night. We do the same with the generic "day" when
> speaking of a 24 hour day. In our culture, we need not spend the entire 24
> hours of a day doing something for it to be counted as a (whole) day.
Thus,
> if I spent part of day one, all of day two and part of day three visiting
a
> friend, no one would probably complain if I said I had spent three days
with
> my friend. In the same way (according to Eliezar) a Jew could spend part
of
> an Onah, a full Onah and a part of the third Onah at the temple and it
could
> be said he spent "three Onahs" at the temple. The average Jew would
> understand this term in its generic sense. However, if one used the
specific
> term, such as "I spent six hours reading the scroll" or "I spent two days
> and one night searching for my wife" it was understood that this defined
the
> boundaries of the Onah. A further example is the 12 hour day. Although any
> part of a day was reckoned as the whole (again, for counting purposes) it
> did not mean that the specific term "twelve hours" could mean "one hour",
> although someone could argue that "since any part of a day can be counted
as
> the whole, then one hour can mean twelve hours". The specific terms
defined
> the Onah, not the other way around.
>
> LIGHTFOOT
> It is not easy to translate the word Onah into good Latin: for to some it
is
> the same with the half of a natural day; to some it is all one with a
whole
> natural day. According to the first sense we may observe, from the words
of
> R. Ismael, that sometimes four Onoth, or halves of a natural day, may be
> accounted for three days: and that they also are so numbered that one part
> or the other of those halves may be accounted for a whole.
>
> DAVE
> Again, I agree with this. Four Onahs= 1-2-1 can equal three days, as
can
> five Onahs= 1-2-2 or 2-2-1 and six Onahs= 2-2-2 (using R. Ismael's
> reckoning).
>
> LIGHTFOOT
> Compare the
> latter sense with the words of our Saviour, which are now before us: "A
day
> and a night (saith the tradition) make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is
as
> the whole." Therefore Christ may truly be said to have been in his grave
> three Onoth, or three natural days (when yet the greatest part of the
first
> day was wanting, and the night altogether, and the greatest part by far of
> the third day also), the consent of the schools and dialect of the nation
> agreeing thereunto. For, "the least part of the Onah concluded the whole."
>
> DAVE
> Yes, Jesus would be in the grave "three Onahs" (Fri-Sat-Sun) according
to
> the Eliezar rabbinical understanding of Onah. I have no problem with this
> at all. Onah functioned in the same way as the generic "day" functions
with
> us today and the Jews in the first century. However, Jesus used the
specific
> term "three days and three nights" so his "three Onahs" would consist at
> least of those elements. Had Jesus said he would be "three Onahs" in the
> earth in the Matthew passage there would be no problem because Onah was
not
> as precise as "three days and three nights" (according to the
interpretation
> given it by Christian apologists). However, if what I have been told by
one
> Jew is true, then some Jews interpret an Onah as a *unit* of day and
night.
> Remove one of those elements and it ceases being an Onah. However, just
> because a Jew told me this doesn't make it true so if you can find any
> evidence that refutes this please post it and I won't use this as an
> argument.
>
> LIGHTFOOT
> So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day
upon
> which Christ arose may be computed for the whole day, and the night
> following it.
>
> DAVE
> Yes, according to "Onah" (which is idiomatic) any part of a day could
be
> a full day in counting. But "three days and three nights" cannot be shown
to
> be an idiom. Well, this took forever for me to type (I envy you guys who
can
> post several posts a day) and I hope you can understand what I have typed
> above. If you have any questions I will try to answer them....tomorrow!
>
>
>
>
>
>