Timeline question.

[Sparko]

Again it is Sunday, so Sunday cannot be one of the days prior it is the day they are walking down the road.

What day were they walking down the road?

Sunday.

What day were they referring to when they said "it IS"?

"And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

Sunday. Which was the third day. Thus the word "IS" and not "was"

[TheWall]

You guys are really good at clearing up misconceptions

[bling]

What day were they walking down the road?

Sunday.

What day were they referring to when they said "it IS"?

"And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

Sunday. Which was the third day. Thus the word "IS" and not "was"

I am not going to go over how to count days, but if they had said "this is the first day since all this happened" would you interpret that to mean it happened on the same Sunday Jesus is talking with them or would you say that means it happened on Saturday?

[Sparko]

I am not going to go over how to count days, but if they had said "this is the first day since all this happened" would you interpret that to mean it happened on the same Sunday Jesus is talking with them or would you say that means it happened on Saturday?

They would have just said "This is the day it happened" - Saturday would be "this is the second day since it happened"

I went over this previously, ad nauseum. Go back and reread my posts.

You are disagreeing with 2000 years of church history and think you know better than those who were closer to the event. That is your ego talking.

Jesus died on a Friday and was raised the next Sunday. The church has ALWAYS believed this. If it were not so, they would have believed differently from the beginning. Why would they all of a sudden forget he was killed on a thursday and start saying he was killed on a friday? That would be stupid.

[Joel]

I am not going to go over how to count days, but if they had said "this is the first day since all this happened" would you interpret that to mean it happened on the same Sunday Jesus is talking with them or would you say that means it happened on Saturday?

How we would interpret the text is not relevant. The Romans/Greeks counted days inclusive of the starting day. That's not at all how we do it today. It's a difference in idiom. If you try to interpret an ancient text using different, modern semantics/syntax, then you will get an incorrect result.

[bling]

What day were they walking down the road?

Sunday.

What day were they referring to when they said "it IS"?

"And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

Sunday. Which was the third day. Thus the word "IS" and not "was"

Sunday, (it is) the first day since Tom was crucified, so Tom was crucified on Saturday. Sunday (it is) the second day since Fred was crucified, so Fred was crucified on Friday. Sunday (it is) the third day since Christ was crucified so Christ was crucified on Thursday.

[One Bad Pig]

Sunday, (it is) the first day since Tom was crucified, so Tom was crucified on Saturday. Sunday (it is) the second day since Fred was crucified, so Fred was crucified on Friday. Sunday (it is) the third day since Christ was crucified so Christ was crucified on Thursday.

So much for your promise not to count up days.

[Joel]

Sunday, (it is) the first day since Tom was crucified, so Tom was crucified on Saturday.

You are correct in the case of modern English idiom. But you are incorrect in the case of Roman idiom. If Tom was crucified on Saturday, the ancient Romans would have said on Sunday that it is (today: Sunday) the second day after/since Tom was crucified.

Sunday (it is) the second day since Fred was crucified, so Fred was crucified on Friday.

For the same reason, that too is not correct Roman idiom. If Fred was crucified on Friday, the ancient Romans would have said it (Sunday) is the third day after/since Fred was crucified.
(And that Sunday is the 4th day after Thursday.)

You keep insisting on modern English idiom, which is going to give you an incorrect interpretation of the text.

[bling]

You are correct in the case of modern English idiom. But you are incorrect in the case of Roman idiom. If Tom was crucified on Saturday, the ancient Romans would have said on Sunday that it is (today: Sunday) the second day after/since Tom was crucified.


For the same reason, that too is not correct Roman idiom. If Fred was crucified on Friday, the ancient Romans would have said it (Sunday) is the third day after/since Fred was crucified.
(And that Sunday is the 4th day after Thursday.)

You keep insisting on modern English idiom, which is going to give you an incorrect interpretation of the text.

If it is Sunday and also the first day since Tom was crucified what day was Tom crucified on?

[Bisto]

If it is Sunday and also the first day since Tom was crucified what day was Tom crucified on?

Assuming the previous posters are correct about the idioms, then if you say it that way, you're using the modern idiom and you mean Tom was crucified on Saturday.

If instead you wanted to use the Roman idiom (again, assuming it is correct) and wanted to say Tom was crucified on a Sunday, on that Sunday you would have said "it is the day Tom was crucified", and then Monday would be "the second day since", etc. It's like saying it in two different languages.

IMO, this thing is very simple to understand. Do you agree that IF we use that idiom (as opposed to the modern one you and I are used to), THEN it makes sense to say Jesus was crucified on a Friday and Sunday is "the third day since"?

[bling]

Assuming the previous posters are correct about the idioms, then if you say it that way, you're using the modern idiom and you mean Tom was crucified on Saturday.

If instead you wanted to use the Roman idiom (again, assuming it is correct) and wanted to say Tom was crucified on a Sunday, on that Sunday you would have said "it is the day Tom was crucified", and then Monday would be "the second day since", etc. It's like saying it in two different languages.

IMO, this thing is very simple to understand. Do you agree that IF we use that idiom (as opposed to the modern one you and I are used to), THEN it makes sense to say Jesus was crucified on a Friday and Sunday is "the third day since"?

The Bible translations done by groups of scholars take into consideration the English idioms of the Day (that is the reason the KJV is so different from the NIV) and do not just translate words. Scholars translate it into our understanding with the correct English idioms and they are not just giving literal word for word translations, so what group of Bible Scholar translators translated this sentence correctly for our best understanding or is Joel better then these scholarly groups?

[Bisto]

The Bible translations done by groups of scholars take into consideration the English idioms of the Day (that is the reason the KJV is so different from the NIV) and do not just translate words. Scholars translate it into our understanding with the correct English idioms and they are not just giving literal word for word translations, so what group of Bible Scholar translators translated this sentence correctly for our best understanding or is Joel better then these scholarly groups?

...I don't really know about the translators's reasons for translating this passage the way they do TBH. I guess those who know more can talk on what scholars say about such idioms and dates.

And yet, I would think there is enough unity in the reading of these Gospels passages as showing Jesus' death on a Friday . The idiom thing isn't exactly Joel's making.

btw, you didn't answer my question :)

Do you agree that IF we use that idiom (as opposed to the modern one you and I are used to), THEN it makes sense to say Jesus was crucified on a Friday and Sunday is "the third day since"?

[Joel]

If it is Sunday and also the first day since Tom was crucified what day was Tom crucified on?

In my reading of ancient texts in Latin, I haven't seen them ever use that phrase. Instead they normally just say "today" (hodie). They always counted the day of the event as the first day, the next day as the second day, and the day after that as the third day after. (All of which, yes, sounds wrong in modern English idiom.)

The Bible translations done by groups of scholars take into consideration the English idioms of the Day (that is the reason the KJV is so different from the NIV) and do not just translate words. Scholars translate it into our understanding with the correct English idioms and they are not just giving literal word for word translations, so what group of Bible Scholar translators translated this sentence correctly for our best understanding or is Joel better then these scholarly groups?

How literal depends on the translation. Some strive to be very literal, as word-for-word as possible, and some try more to re-phrase into modern English idiom, sometimes even to the point of paraphrase. But even in translations that do more re-phrasing, they will sometimes stay more literal in the case of strong tradition. E.g. some will refrain from re-phrasing verses that are super well-known word-for-word. I suspect that is the case here, where many churches recite the Apostle's creed every week, with "On the third day he rose again". ("third" because the Apostle's creed was written in ancient Rome.) It's not unreasonable for translators to defer to such a strong tradition. For any given translation, we would have to ask the translators for their reasoning.

Are you wanting evidence of what I've been saying? If you like I can cite Latin grammar texts, and quote examples of usage from original sources, perhaps Cicero, Caesar? It's seen, for example, in their references to days of the calendar. Each month had anchor points (Kalends, Ides), and days would count down to them. So the day before the Ides of March would be the 'second' day before. What we would say is two days before would be said to be the third day before the Ides of March. You can google and read about this aspect of the Roman calendar if you wish.

Also see here http://www.tektonics.org/af/bucknerj01.php#days for some discussion regarding Jewish idiom, with similar reckoning for e.g. days of mourning, and circumcision on the 8th day.

[rstrats]

Joel,
re: "You are correct in the case of modern English idiom. But you are incorrect in the case of Roman idiom. If Tom was crucified on Saturday, the ancient Romans would have said on Sunday that it is (today: Sunday) the second day after/since Tom was crucified."

What actual example/s from the period are you using to to make that assertion?

[rstrats]

Cow Poke,
re: "When it came to Jesus, the Sanhedrin and other Jewish authorities didn't really seem to give a flying flip for the law - they just wanted Him gone."

But was this a Roman trial or a Jewish one? The Romans may have had different legal requirements.