Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

I think it is entirely likely that that part of the story is a fiction, generated by early Christians looking for Old Testament parallels to their ideas about Jesus' death and resurrection. They chose that part of the story of Jonah, and the words were eventually attributed to Jesus.

quote:

---

Yes, except that the OP specifically requested a focused discussion on whether or not this phrase was an idiom.

---

More accurately on whether it was an idiom with a meaning compatible with the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb, according to the Gospels. As your quote makes clear.

quote:

---

Correct, because Mt 12:40 is not what you claimed to be a "problem".

---

And that is sophistry. The disagreement between the obvious interpretation of Matthew 12:40 and the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb is the issue.And let us note that you aside: When I was discussing the relationship between the phrases "three days and three nights" and "on the third day" thus trying to drag the time Jesus supposedly spent in in the tomb into a discussion where it was not relevant.

quote:

---

I've been simply trying to address the OP, which specifically asked for evidence that Mt 12:40 uses an idiom.

---

And you have been trying to argue that the meaning is compatible with the time Jesus supposedly spent in the tomb, despite finding no evidence worth mentioning.

quote:

---

I have presented evidence, though you may refuse to accept it. You may have rejected my arguments, but that does not mean that they have been refuted.

---

I have rejected your arguments because I have refuted them

quote:

---

I have felt the need to repeat my arguments very carefully and pedantically when people here don't seem to have understood them. Perhaps you find this "arrogant and insulting", and perhaps you see this repetition as "bluster", but that is not my intent.

---

Which is not what I am referring to, at all. Remember Message 52. Just arrogant (and careless) bluster which contributed nothing.

quote:

---

This is a "Bible Study" forum (subtitle, "what does the Bible really mean?), not a "Science" forum. As I understand it, the discussions here should be about what the text MEANS, not about the veracity of the text. So I will avoid a "fact or fiction" discussion.

---

But my point is relevant to understanding the passage. We cannot safely assume that the passage is either accurately describing the actual timescale (to,the extent there is one!) or even intended to agree with other passages about the same event. Even passages in Matthew.The whole thing might be a spurious parallel invented by an early Christian and popular enough to get copied into Matthew.

quote:

---

We also need to read verse 39 with verse 40 to get a bit of the context. Skeptics had asked Jesus for a "sign" that He was indeed the coming Messiah. But He refused to "do tricks" according to their bidding, and said that only one "sign" would be given. This one "sign" was the analogy with Jonah, which would soon be seen in His crucifixion and resurrection.

---

Which is rather funny when you think about the miracles Jesus is supposed to have done, especially in Matthew with the signs accompanying Jesus' death.

I think there is a legitimate question whether it was purely idiomatic or just normal rounding up. I think the latter is quite adequate to account for every use we've seen.