“Third day” resurrection a Jewish concept - pre-dates Jesus?

This is correct.
Jewish tradition stated that anything less than two days was a "revival" and not a true resurrection.
This is precisely why Jesus had to be in the tomb for three full days.

It's also why, when Lazarus died, Jesus waited two days before he went to see Mary and Martha (look it up!).
He was 'verifying His credentials'.

Yep, it's a teaching elaborated on in the Mishnah -
I don't know that I'll be able to find an online source for it, so I'd have to look it up in the book... I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, Benjamin, but that's not necessary. I was just wondering why Rosenberg and the scholars he referenced in the article weren't aware of that already (apparently).

Indeed. For those confused, the passage is John 11:




You can see it there quite clearly, once you know what you're looking for. Jesus heard that there was an emergency with Lazarus, so He "stayed two more days in the place where He was." Scripture actually states it as if Jesus stayed specifically BECAUSE He knew Lazarus was unwell, and would die. Mary and Martha likewise know - "if you had been here, he would not have died".

This is, however, precisely why Jesus waited - so that the people there might know that He had power over death.
Jesus Himself says as much in verse 40 and beyond:



...and interestingly, it is from this point onward that the Pharisees begin to look for ways to put Him to death (verse 53); because He had not only resolved the great debate between Pharisees and Sadducees (as to whether or not there was a literal resurrection), but in doing so had shamed both - proclaiming Himself as God, and demonstrating that He alone holds the power of life and death.

From the 2008 NYT article:



I guess I'm missing something here.

Apparently I'm missing A LOT of things regarding the timing for the "proof" of this belief. Is there written proof, aside from the tablet mentioned in the piece, that this belief predated Jesus? Or does the written proof come from a time after Christ's death and resurrection and only alludes to the fact that the belief existed prior?

BrJohn, did you see what I highlighted in red, where Mr. knohl said "... he had no textual evidence from before Jesus"?  Yet Benjamin appears to state, as fact, that this belief was held before Christ. I'm just looking for the references that Benjamin was alluding to.

Exactly! Thank you for articulating that, BrJohn; which is also why, I'm assuming, that Mr. Knohl put forth his belief that this Jewish understanding of the suffering Messiah and 3 day resurrection was held before Christ, even though "he had no textual evidence from before Jesus". Personally, I'm surprised that it wasn't conveniently "forgotten" by the Jews responsible for the oral tradition after Christ's suffering, death and resurrection.

With the other being Elijah, Shiloh?

There are a couple of issues that we're discussing here, and I've probably just added to the confusion.


1) The Jews had a clear concept that a resurrection demanded three days in order to be legitimate.

2) ...but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Jews expected that Messiah Himself would die and be raised after three days.


Even if we look Scripturally, Jesus had to explain to the two on the road to Emmaus "all the things in the Scriptures concerning Himself", that He must die and be raised on the third day. We know, too, that the Jews expected a Messiah who would reign as David did, and did not expect a suffering Messiah. They actually came up with two separate theories to account for the two - Messiah Ben David (son of David) and Messiah Ben Joseph (son of Joseph).

The Messiah Ben Joseph is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53 (though modern Jews often argue that Isaiah 53 refers to the state of Israel, ancient Jews saw multiple fulfilments of this text). You can find more on this here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph



...so, the concept of the Messiah who would suffer for His people certainly existed, I don't think there is any doubt about that... and if those same Jews read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 as pertaining to the Messiah, I don't think there is any question that they would have seen His death in those passages. As for resurrection... well, they couldn't agree on that even among themselves. Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection, Sadducees didn't... so that's a hard question to resolve.

I have to agree with that, Benjamin.  However, I'm still unclear why it had to be 3 days.  I mean, if someone is dead, they're dead.  Were they thinking 'coma'? If so, those people still breathe.
LS, yes.  We know the other witness is Elijah.  There is a discrepancy among some theologins as to whether the other witness is Moses or Enoch.
Moses was buried by God Himself.  Michael, the archangel fought with Satan over the body of Moses (Book of Jude).  We are not told why though. Could he have been planning on using him as a type of antichrist?  We don't know.  Moses was also seen in the Transfiguration.
Some argue that the other witness will be Enoch bcause he was raptured also.
I can see both points of view.
It would seem to me as though Moses would represent the O.T. saints and Elijah would represent the N.T. saints.But that's a whole other topic and is derailing this thread.

Well, if that indeed is the traditional Jewish belief, it really does add yet another vein to the Two Witnesses being dead in the streets for three days before the Lord calls them up.

All these things just fit together like the perfect puzzle. So cool.