Wednesday Crucifixion?

Yesterday my pastor presented to the congregation his view of "Holy Week" and up held a Wednesday view of the Crucifixion. He made a great case for his position, and even though I've herd of the theory I've never actually look into it in detail. I ran a search of my entire library for "Wednesday NEAR Jesus NEAR Crucifixion" and found next to nothing about this theory. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Carey G. Pearson

jesus NEAR crucifixion NEAR wednesday (search used)

On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." If the general tradition—that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00 P.M. (the "ninth hour" of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn—is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. ("And it was the day of preparation [hēmera paraskeuēs] and the Sabbath was coming on [epephōsken].") This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get "three days and three nights" out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00 P.M. Actually, however, He rose "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day—during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or "Abraham’s Bosom," still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22–26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as "three days and three nights"? The simple answer is that the only way "day" in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of "day" was to speak of the latter as "a night and a day" (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, "Three days and three nights"—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where "he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights" is equated in v.13 with hayyôm š^e lōšāh ("three days ago")—which could only mean "day before yesterday." But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the "Feast of Weeks" because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day—Pentēcostē in Greek.)

taken from New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Donn Heinrich

Try searching "Wednesday Crucifixion" without the quotation marks. It came up with several helpful articles.

NetworkGeek

This all stems from the fact that, upon careful reading, many scholars see a conflict between Synoptic descriptions of the Last Supper (that the Last Supper was the Passover meal) and John's Gospel (that Jesus was crucified the day before Passover). Reading all 4 Gospels, finding the relevant passages mentioning "Passover" and the Last Supper will uncover lots about this in your commentaries, as there are many theories! Expositors Bible Commentary, Matt 26:14-25, has an extensive discourse on this issue, as do others. I also found AYBC (John 13:1-20) to be very good.

AYBC specifically mentions the "Tuesday" theory, and rebuts it. In brief:

Which version is correct? Was the most significant day in Jesus’ life the 15th of Nisan (Passover) or the 14th of Nisan (Passover Eve)? Correspondingly was the Last Supper the Passover meal or not? This is perhaps the most disputed calendric question in the NT and one that we cannot hope to solve in the brief discussion below. As a preliminary we mention a recent theory that has been proposed on the basis of the solar calendar known to have been used by the Qumran Essenes. In this calendar Passover, the 15th of Nisan, always fell on a Tuesday evening/Wednesday. Accordingly there has been an attempt to show that Jesus ate the Last Supper on a Tuesday evening, that he was arrested the same night, that the various trials took place in the next few days, and that finally he was put to death on Friday, the official 14th of Nisan. This theory has been strongly defended by A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba, 1965; see also NTS 7 [1960–61], 1–30) and by E. Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Supper (New York: Desclée, 1965). However, along with Benoit, Gächter, Jeremias, and Blinzler, the present writer does not find sufficient biblical evidence for such an elaborate reconstruction and regards it as highly unlikely that Jesus, who was not an Essene, would have followed an Essene calendar (for the acceptance of a calendar was a religious question). See R. E. Brown, "The Date of the Last Supper," BiTod 11 (1964), 727–33; also in NTE, pp. 160–67 or 207–17.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241501#Comment_241501

I'll also add this in, from Jerome Biblical Commentary which most don't have as it's not for sale anymore (please give us the updated version Logos!!!). It offers other resources that refute the Tuesday theory, and seems to indicate that the most likely case is that the Passover Last Supper was not a Passover meal. I think all scholars would agree that the combined Gospels are inconsistent on this issue -->

John clearly means that this meal, as well as Christ’s apprehension, trial, and crucifixion that follow on the same day took place on the day before the Passover (cf. 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42). In Jewish calculation the day is reckoned from sunset to sunset. It is no less clear that the Syn account of the Last Supper describes Jesus and his disciples eating the Passover together (cf. Mk 14:12ff. par.). To harmonize these two views it has often been maintained that Jesus and his Galilean disciples observed the Passover on a day different from the one officially established for Jerusalem. This supposition is not unlikely, but it cannot be proved. In recent times it has been verified from Qumran Literature that the ancient solar calendar, presupposed by the apocryphal books of Enoch and Jub, was still in use among some Palestinian Jews in Jesus’ time as an alternative to the official lunar calendar of Judaism (cf. E. Vogt, Bib 36 [1955] 403-8; Bib 39 [1958] 72-77). If we assume, however, that Jesus observed the Passover according to this solar calendar, further chronological problems arise because the solar calendar was "perpetual" and the Passover (on 15 Nisan) fell on the same day of the week each year, Wednesday. This would mean that the Last Supper took place on a Tuesday evening, though it is otherwise clear that the crucifixion occurred on a Friday (cf. 19:31; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:54). The attempt has been made to establish on this basis a new chronology of Holy Week, notably by A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island, N.Y., 1965), but the balance of critical opinion seems to be that the attempt has failed (see the extensive surveys of the French original of this book in NTA 1 [1957] § 184; 2 [1957-58] § 15, 26, 261, 514; 3 [1958] § 50; and esp. 4 [1960] § 856r-62r; but cf. E. Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus [N.Y., 1965]). Lacking other evidence, it seems that we must dispense with the hypothesis of two Passovers. Although most authors tend to settle questions of "historicity" in favor of the Syn against Jn, in the present instance it seems preferable to recognize the eyewitness record of Jn as to the actual dating of the Last Supper and to conclude that the Syn tradition has given the name "Passover" to a meal which resembled it and served as the inauguration of the Christian Eucharist, but which had not been an actual celebration of the Jewish Passover (for the arguments opposed to this view, see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel, 39-41). the hour had come: As in 12:23, see comment on 2:4. to depart from this world [see 1:10] to the Father: Cf. 14:12, 28; 16:10, 28. The actions and words that follow during this Last Supper are all conditioned by this moment. having loved his own who were in this world: The theme of love that pervades the entire scene and discourse to follow is set by the Evangelist. he exhibited his love for them to the end [or, to the utmost]: Jn states that what is to come is Jesus’ final display of his love, or, perhaps more likely, that it was a supreme exemplification of that love.

Keith Gray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241503#Comment_241503

If you have the journals, Dr. Hoehner in BibSac goes through the days of crucifixion --

There is his conclusion at the bottom which I hightlighted

Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ
Part IV:
The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion

Harold W. Hoehner

[Harold W. Hoehner, Associate Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.]
Before one can determine the year of Christ’s crucifixion, it is necessary to discuss the day Jesus died. In this article, then, there will be a discussion of the day of the week and the day of the Jewish month on which Jesus was crucified. The two problems are quite independent, and hence they will be considered separately.
The Day of the Week
There are three views for the day of Christ’s death, namely, the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday crucifixion.

The Wednesday Crucifixion
Statement of the view. Those who hold the Wednesday crucifixion view believe that Jesus died around sunset on Wednesday, and He arose exactly seventy-two hours later. The most well-known exponent of this view of recent days is Scroggie. He states that there are two main reasons that support the Wednesday crucifixion date.
The primary support for this view is the literal interpretation of Matthew 12:40 where Jesus states: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The proponents of this view feel that although it is recognized that the Jews reckoned any part of a day as a whole day, when nights are mentioned as well as days, then it ceases to be an idiom. Therefore, one must accept it literally as three whole days. There are not three whole days between Friday evening and Sunday morning.
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 242
The second support for a Wednesday crucifixion is that in the Friday view there are too many events (Scroggie lists twenty) between Christ’s crucifixion at 3 p.m. and His death at 6 p.m. Scroggie proposes that Jesus was buried on Wednesday evening, the body remained in the tomb during Thursday, Nisan 15, the Passover Sabbath, and then on Friday, the day between the Sabbaths, the body was embalmed.
In addition to these two main arguments, there is also the argument from typology whereby the lamb was chosen on Nisan 10. In the triumphal entry, Christ, the Lamb of God, appeared in Jerusalem on Saturday, Nisan 10.
Thus, with the literal interpretation of Matthew 12:40, a proper amount of time for the many events between the death and embalmment of Christ, and with the corroborative typology, it is felt that the crucifixion of Christ occurring on Wednesday best satisfies the evidence.
Critique of the view. This view has not been widely accepted. It is not as strong as it might appear. First, it is based primarily on one verse of Scripture, namely, Matthew 12:40. Admittedly, this is the most difficult verse for those who hold to a Friday crucifixion. However, if one looks at other New Testament passages referring to Christ’s resurrection, it will be immediately obvious that Jesus rose on the third day and not on the fourth (cf. Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; John 2:19–22; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4). Also, it is a well-known fact that the Jews reckoned any part of a day as a whole day.
Thus, the three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40 is an idiomatic expression of the same time period (viz., the third day) mentioned in the above cited New Testament passages rather than a literal seventy-two hour period. There will be a more detailed examination of evidence of Jewish reckoning when discussing the Friday view. Suffice it to say here, Matthew 12:40 is not as great an obstacle as the proponents of the Wednesday view would have one to believe.
Second, if one takes Matthew 12:40 as referring to a seventy-two hour period, Christ must have risen no later than 6 p.m. on
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 243
Saturday evening. Otherwise, He would have risen on the fourth day. But Christians celebrate it on the first day of the week. (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) and not on the Sabbath.
Third, it is true that many events occurred between Christ’s death and burial; but the list is not so great when one examines it, for several things could have been done simultaneously by various people. Also, some things could have been done before He actually died.
Fourth, the corroboration of typology is very weak indeed. This means that Jesus’ triumphal entry was on Saturday, the Sabbath. This is unlikely for two reasons: (1) Since Jesus was riding on an animal, He would have been breaking the Mosaic Law which states that even animals were not to work on the Sabbath (Deut 5:14). (2) Since the people were cutting down branches from the trees (Matt 21:8; Mark 11:8), they would have also violated the Law (cf. Deut 5:14; Num 15:32–36). Certainly if Jesus had violated the Sabbath and caused others to do so, it seems that His enemies would have mentioned something of this during the Passion Week.
Therefore, it is concluded that when one examines all the passages referring to Christ’s resurrection, it is evident that Jesus was raised on the third day and not necessarily after seventy-two hours; that Christ’s resurrection was on Sunday and not Saturday; that the many events listed by Scroggie could have been accomplished within a short time; and that it is unlikely for Christ’s triumphal entry to have occurred on the Sabbath. Hence, the Wednesday view of crucifixion is not a satisfactory solution. In fact, if one did not have Matthew 12:40, it is unlikely that the Wednesday theory would have been suggested.

The Thursday Crucifixion
Statement of the view. As with the previous view, those who hold to a Thursday crucifixion date camp on Matthew 12:40. They think the Friday view has three days but only two nights. The most well-known advocate is Westcott but also is elaborated in detail by
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 244
Aldrich and most recently by Rusk. The adherents of the Thursday view would outline the calendar of events. as follows: (1) The triumphal entry on Sunday, Nisan 10 would fulfill the Old Testament typology of a Passover lamb selected, namely, Christ Himself. (2) Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday Jesus appeared in Jerusalem several times and had the Last Supper on Wednesday evening. This, then, eliminates the silent Wednesday of the traditional Friday view. (3) Thursday, Nisan 14, Christ the Passover Lamb was slain. (4) The next day, Nisan 15, was the first day of Unleavened Bread, and this was a day of holy convocation on which no one was to work (Lev 23:7). Hence, it is concluded that this day of rest is a Sabbath. Thus, when Nisan 15 fell on any other day than the weekly Sabbath, it was called the Sabbath of the Passover. It is felt that John 19:31, which reads: “The day of the Sabbath was a high day” was not the weekly Sabbath but the Passover Sabbath. In the year our Lord was crucified, the Passover Sabbath (Nisan 15) fell on Friday, and then the weekly Sabbath fell on the next day. Also, the advocates point out that the Passover Sabbath on Friday followed immediately by the regular weekly Sabbath is supported by Matthew 28:1. One will notice in the Greek text the plural form of the word “Sabbath” is used, and thus it should be translated “at the end of the Sabbaths.” (5) Christ was resurrected early Sunday morning, and thus He was in the grave three full nights and two full days and a portion of the third day.
Critique of the view. Although the Thursday crucifixion seems to solve the problem of Matthew 12:40, it also has not been widely accepted because there are some real difficulties with the theory. First, it is doubted that anyone would hold to either a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion date if it were not for Matthew 12:40. When one compares with other Scriptures, the statement in Matthew 12:40 is to be taken as referring to the same time period as the repeated expression in the New Testament “on the third day.” This will be discussed in more detail in connection with the Friday crucifixion.
Second, with the Thursday crucifixion date, Christ’s triumphal entry on Sunday fulfills the Old Testament typology of being the Passover lamb selected for the Passover. However, there is nothing to
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 245
prevent the triumphal entry to have occurred on Monday. This would mean not only that Christ was presented as the lamb for Passover on Nisan 10, but also it would eliminate the silent Wednesday which has been criticized against the Friday view by those who hold the Thursday view.
Third, the argument that since Nisan 15 is a holy convocation on which no one works and thus conclude that it was a Sabbath is a non sequitur. There is no evidence for this anywhere. This is a creation of those who hold this theory only to fit their theory. Futhermore, to support their theory that John 19:31 (“the day of the Sabbath was great”) points to a Passover Sabbath rather than a weekly Sabbath is unlikely. The Friday crucifixion better explains this by seeing that Nisan 15 fell on the weekly Sabbath, and hence in the year of Christ’s crucifixion, that weekly Sabbath was indeed great. Further, to think there is support for the Thursday crucifixion in the plural form of the Sabbath in Matthew 28:1 (lit. “at the end of the Sabbaths”), which would indicate that the Passover Sabbath (Friday) and the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) were back to back is untenable. The term Sabbath is frequently (one-third of all of its New Testament occurrences) in the plural form in the New Testament when only one day is in view. For example, in Matthew 12:1–12 both the singular and the plural forms are used (cf. esp. v. 5). There is then no real case for a Passover Sabbath which occurred the day before the regular weekly Sabbath.
Fourth, the Thursday view is forced to make the expression “the day of preparation” (παρασκευή) refer to the preparations for the Passover rather than its normal usage referring to Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath. Those who hold to the Thursday view feel that John 19:14 supports their thesis. It states: “The day of preparation for the Passover” and would indicate the day before the Passover rather than Friday specifically. Hence, according to their view, “the day of preparation” was Thursday and not Friday. But this is unacceptable on three grounds: (1) It necessitates the unnatural meaning of παρασκευή. Both the Scriptures (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42) and Josephus indicate the day of preparation is the day before the weekly Sabbaths, namely, Friday. Even Westcott, who holds to a Thursday crucifixion, concedes that the normal use of the phrase refers to
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 246
Friday. (2) Mark 15:42 exclusively points to “the day of preparation” as being Friday when it states: “and when the evening had come, because it was the day of preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” In reading Mark, one sees that he is speaking of the regular weekly Sabbath, and hence the παρασκευή refers to Friday. (3) The statement “the day of preparation for the Passover” in John 19:14 seems to have reference to the Friday in the Passover week rather than the day before the Passover. The reason for this is that there is no evidence that the day of preparation for the Passover is the day before the Passover; while there is evidence for παρασκευή as being Friday. This is also substantiated in the immediate context where it specifically states that the bodies should be taken off the cross on the day of preparation so that they would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, and they put Jesus in the tomb on the “Jewish day of preparation” (John 19:31, 42). Certainly in these two verses, παρασκευή is Friday, and the Sabbath refers to the weekly Sabbath.
Therefore, in conclusion the Thursday view has too many problems to make it a real, viable solution. Because of not recognizing that the three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40 is idiomatic of a three-day period, the Thursday view must propose theories that have far more problems than the one it attempts to solve.

The Friday Crucifixion
Statement of the view. Jesus predicted that He would die and be raised on the third day (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). When one reads these events in the gospels, one clearly receives the impression that Jesus rose on the third day. Jesus’ body was laid in the tomb on the evening of the day of preparation (Friday), the day before the Sabbath (Matt 27:62; 28:1; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54, 56; John 19:31, 42). The women returned home and rested on the Sabbath (Saturday, Luke 23:56). Early on the first day of the week (Sunday), they went to the tomb (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1–2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) which was empty. Furthermore, on the
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 247
same day He arose from the grave, Jesus walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13), and they told Him that their Master was crucified and “now it is the third day since this occurred” (Luke 24:21). This, then, points to His crucifixion as having occurred on Friday. With all this evidence, the only viable conclusion is that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday.
This view also fits well with Old Testament typology. On Monday, Nisan 10, Jesus presented Himself as the Paschal lamb at the triumphal entry. On Nisan 14 He was sacrificed as the Paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7), and on Nisan 16 His resurrection was a type of the offering of First Fruits (1 Cor 15:23).
In conclusion then, with the most natural reading of the New Testament, one would conclude that Jesus was crucified on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. This is also the common concensus of the Church Fathers and scholars throughout church history, and it is the generally accepted view today.
Critique of the view. The one problem that is proposed against the Friday view is Matthew 12:40, that He would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Admittedly, this is the most difficult verse for those who hold the Friday view, but it is not as formidable as it first appears. One must examine all the evidence at hand. First to be discussed is the New Testament evidence. The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection is to have occurred on the third day (not the fourth day) (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4). In John 2:19–22 where Jesus spoke of His resurrection, He stated that He would be raised up in three days and not on the fourth day. There are four passages (Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) which speak of Christ’s resurrection as occurring “after three days,” but this is speaking of the same time period as on “the third day” for the following two reasons: (1) The three Markan passages are paralleled by one or two of the other synoptic gospels, and in each case the other synoptic does not use “after three days” as Mark does but “on the third day” (Mark 8:31 = Matt 16:21/Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31 = Matt 17:23; Mark 10:34 = Matt 20:19/Luke 18:33). Thus, the two phrases mean a period extending to the third day. (2) In Matthew 27:63 where the Pharisees before Pilate state that Jesus had predicted that “after three days I will rise again,” the Pharisees then asked Pilate if they could have a guard of soldiers to secure the sepulcher until the third day. The phrase
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 248
“after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” or otherwise the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day.
Having looked at the New Testament evidence, was this standard Jewish thinking or not? If one looks in both the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature, one sees that it would agree with the New Testament evidence. Therefore the next piece of evidence to be examined is the Old Testament. There are several Old Testament references which show that a part of a day is equivalent to the whole day. In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days, and then in verse 18 he spoke to them on the third day, and from the context released them on that day. In 1 Kings 20:29 Israel and Syria camped opposite each other for seven days, and on the seventh day they began to battle each other. In 2 Chronicles 10:5 Rehoboam stated that the people of Israel were to return to him in/after (cf. LXX) three days, and in verse 12 Jeroboam and the people came to Rehoboam on the third day. In Esther 4:16 Esther asks the Jews, “Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day,” and then she would go in to the king, and in 5:1 Esther went in to the king on the third day. Finally, in 1 Samuel 30:12 an abandoned Egyptian servant had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights, and in verse 13 he states that his master left him behind three days ago. Thus, the Old Testament gives the picture that the expressions “three days,” “the third day,” and “three days and three nights” are used to signify the same period of time.
Having seen that the Old Testament evidence lines up with the New, the final piece of evidence to be examined is the Rabbinic literature. It is interesting to note that the same concept is borne out in Rabbinic literature. There are several passages found in Jewish literature which combine Jonah 1:17 (“Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”) with the Old Testament passages listed in the above paragraph. Furthermore, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (lived ca. A.D. 100), who was the tenth in the descent
BSac 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 249
from Ezra, stated: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.”

In conclusion, when one examines all the evidence, it seems that the New Testament, the Old Testament, and Rabbinic literature all agree that a part of a day is counted as a whole day-and-night. Thus, the expressions: “the three days and three nights,” “after three days,” and “on the third day” are all one and the same time span. These all support the fact that Christ was crucified on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday.
Conclusion
Having examined the three different views, it was concluded that the Friday date for the crucifixion is the most acceptable. Both the Wednesday and Thursday views are basically built on one verse, namely, Matthew 12:40. These views are untenable because, first, the preponderance of Scripture would indicate Jesus’ crucifixion as having occurred on Friday, and, second, when one realizes that the Jews reckoned a part of a day as a whole day, these options no longer stand.

, vol. 131, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 131, 523 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1974), 240-49.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241496#Comment_241496

Try searching "Wednesday Crucifixion" without the quotation marks. It came up with several helpful articles.

Searching Entire Library for crucifixion includes Topics section. Searching for (wednesday,thursday,friday) crucifixion finds more theories and conclusions.

Also can search for passover sabbath (which should include Leviticus 23) since first day of week long Jewish feast is a Special Sabbath, a Holy Day to do no work.

Observation: on Friday before a three day weekend, can say "planing to return in 3 days", meaning Monday (the Holiday). A Logos Bible Search for "three days" finds many verses.

Keep Smiling [:)]

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241518#Comment_241518

Thanks for all the help! This looks like a good start.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241519#Comment_241519

This is just ONE MORE REASON people need an english copy of the Talmud (and Mishnah of course). Recognizing both of these are 'late bloomers' but also recognizing other 2nd Temple judaic writings, apparently quite a number of folks thought Jesus had work to do in those 3 days, which could NOT extend into the 4th day (else loosing to Satan). Just coincidentally this am I was studying Heb 2:14 which hints at it (along with Paul's 'go down and come up' allusion).

Bill Coley

For additional insight into this issue, you might want to Google the new book "The Mystery of the Last Supper," by Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge. He concludes that the Last Supper occurred on Wednesday.

Bill

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241545#Comment_241545

Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge

Do you know Humphreys credentials re: antiquities or Biblical studies? When I went to look on Amazon, there was no "back cover" to the book. That's my favorite part in making a quick judgment as to whether or not I wish to read a book.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241560#Comment_241560

Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge

Do you know Humphreys credentials re: antiquities or Biblical studies? When I went to look on Amazon, there was no "back cover" to the book. That's my favorite part in making a quick judgment as to whether or not I wish to read a book.

Seems to have no academic background in those fields. "His hobby is reconstructing what happened in ancient historical events
using modern-day science. He has written a book The Miracles of
Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying
the Biblical Miracles, published by Harper Collins in the USA and
Continuum in the UK in 2003, which came out in paperback in 2004."

http://www-hrem.msm.cam.ac.uk/people/humphreys/

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241530#Comment_241530

This is just ONE MORE REASON people need an english copy of the Talmud (and Mishnah of course).

Huh? Is the Talmud is going to convince me Jesus rose on Sunday? (or any day, for that matter?) [6] I always thought it was the official rabbinical line that his disciples stole his body. Matt. 28:11-15

I can't wait for this Pre-Pub to ship: Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud Collection (50 vols.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241563#Comment_241563

His hobby is reconstructing what happened in ancient historical events
using modern-day science.

Thanks Rosie

Lynden O. Williams

Search three OR third NEAR day in the ESV and notice that "in three days", "on the third day" and "within three days" are used synonimously. They all mean the same thing. Similar to our weekend. The week ends on Saturday, but most of us include Sunday.

The important thing is to understand what it meant to the people back then, not what it means to us now.

In Matthew 20:19 "on the third day", Matthew 26:61 "in three days" and Matthew 27:63 "after three days", Matthew 27:64 "until the third day".

A portion of Friday, all Saturday, and a portion of Sunday. Three days. They were not looking for 72 hours. We must think Eastern not western. Any part of a day is a day, in eastern thought.

The same thing can be said for the term forever. It is relative to the speaker, listener (reader) and occasion.

What did Jesus mean by a "day"? He once spoke of the day having 12 hours (John 11:9, 10), referring obviously to the daytime as opposed to the night. This was literally true as Jesus meant it, for when He lived among men the time between sunrise and sunset was divided into 12 equal parts, or "hours," which "hours" varied in length according to the season. The fact that today we use clock hours of uniform length, in which sunrise and sunset are more or less than 12 sixty-minute hours apart most of the time, does not make Jesus’ statement incorrect. Similarly His phrase "three days" must be interpreted according to what those words meant then to those people, not what they mean to us today.

Although "day" was, and is, sometimes used to mean the daylight hours, nevertheless the word, when used in counting a series of days, means in both ancient and modern usage a period including a day and a night. The Greek language, in which the New Testament was written, had a word for "night-day," nuchthēmeron (see 2 Cor. 11:25); and Genesis enumerated each successive day of creation as composed of "evening" and "morning." Jesus’ "three days and three nights" are merely "three [calendar] days," as then understood.

THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS OF THE CURCIFIXION

"In three days"

"After three days"

"The third day"

Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40

Matthew 27:63; Matthew 12:40 (and 3 nights)

Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:64

Mark 14:58 (within) KJV

Mark 8:31

Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34

Luke 9:22; Luke 18:33;Luke 24:7, 21, 46

John 2:19, 21

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002), 249.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241587#Comment_241587

Search three OR third NEAR day in the ESV and notice that "in three days", "on the third day" and "within three days" are used synonimously.

Search possibility: (three,third) BEFORE 2 WORDS day* logos4:Search;kind=Bible;q=(three,third)_BEFORE_2_WORDS_day*;match=nostem

Thanks; nice search improvement over "three days"

Also a search for (second,two) BEFORE 2 WORDS day* finds some interesting verses. logos4:Search;kind=Bible;q=(second,two)_BEFORE_2_WORDS_day*;match=nostem

Comparing English translations; Exodus 2:13 has next day = second day (time for Bible Word Study plus more learning and pondering).

Genesis enumerated each successive day of creation as composed of "evening" and "morning." Jesus’ "three days and three nights" are merely "three [calendar] days,"

Odd observation: knowing Genesis day consisted of "evening" and "morning", using "three days and three nights" (could be literally fulfilled by a Thursday crucifixion: 3 periods of daylight and darkness). Yet searching for day* WITHIN 2 WORDS night* logos4:Search;kind=Bible;q=day*_WITHIN_2_WORDS_night*;match=nostem finds other Old Testament usage of day and night along with night and day.

Also searched after BEFORE (three,third) BEFORE 2 WORDS day* logos4:Search;kind=Bible;q=after_BEFORE_(three,third)_BEFORE_2_WORDS_day*;match=nostem that included Hosea 6:2 (possibly Messianic that could be fulfilled with Thursday or Friday crucifixion, depending on time body placed in tomb).

Thankful for Logos search; can quickly find variety of verses to consider (easy to expand to include rest of library for more theories, discussions, and conclusions over many centuries).

Eternally Thankful for a tomb that lacks a body (yet tomb was not completely empty).

Keep Smiling [:)]

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241636#Comment_241636

Not to be a minor subject hijacker, but since the Talmud has been mentioned here a few times, I have heard that the Talmud has an explanation of the curtain being torn at the Holy of Holies at the time of Jesus' death, although they attribute it, and the ceasing of sacrifices, to the evil of Caiaphas. I would love to read about that and verify whether this is true (searches haven't come up with anything in my library from what I can tell)

Dennis Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241563#Comment_241563

Seems to have no academic background in those fields. "His hobby is reconstructing what happened in ancient historical events
using modern-day science. He has written a book The Miracles of
Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying
the Biblical Miracles, published by Harper Collins in the USA and
Continuum in the UK in 2003, which came out in paperback in 2004."

http://www-hrem.msm.cam.ac.uk/people/humphreys/

That's enough right there to tell me he is not a scholar I want to consider as a biblical authority on anything, he sounds more like a skeptic who wants to disprove the bible instead of believing it.

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241530#Comment_241530

people need an english copy of the Talmud (and Mishnah of course).

No offense, I guess you are aware of this, but since apparently a lot of users here are not: Before spending hundreds of dollars for resources, people should get some basics straight, else it's not very likely they will benefit from what they purchase (in this case, in fact, less would be more): The Mishnah is part and basis of both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud. (The only occassion where it would make sense to speak of 'Talmud and Mishnah' is when using 'Talmud' synonymously with 'Gemara'.) So, whoever has a copy of the Talmud already has a copy of the Mishnah. [:)]

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241798#Comment_241798

people need an english copy of the Talmud (and Mishnah of course).

No offense, I guess you are aware of this, but since apparently a lot of users here are not: Before spending hundreds of dollars for resources, people should get some basics straight, else it's not very likely they will benefit from what they purchase (in this case, in fact, less would be more): The Mishnah is part and basis of both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud. (The only occassion where it would make sense to speak of 'Talmud and Mishnah' is when using 'Talmud' synonymously with 'Gemara'.) So, whoever has a copy of the Talmud already has a copy of the Mishnah.

My understanding is that this Logos resource: http://www.logos.com/product/6667/babylonian-and-jerusalem-talmud-collection Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi - complements but does not duplicate this Logos resource: http://www.logos.com/product/297/the-mishnah-a-new-translation The Mishnah.

So even if you get Neusner's Talmuds on 4/28/2011 (projected release date), you'll still need his Mishnah to have the text that the "Talmud" (actually the Gemara portion only) is commenting on.

The Talmud is comprised of the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241799#Comment_241799

My understanding is that this Logos resource: http://www.logos.com/product/6667/babylonian-and-jerusalem-talmud-collection Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi - complements but does not duplicate this Logos resource: http://www.logos.com/product/297/the-mishnah-a-new-translation The Mishnah.

So even if you get Neusner's Talmuds on 4/28/2011 (projected release date), you'll still need his Mishnah to have the text that the "Talmud" (actually the Gemara portion only) is commenting on.

The Talmud is comprised of the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara

I haven't had a close look on these specific resources Logos is offering - so I wasn't aware that the "Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud Collection" contains the Gemara only. Thanks for the advice! Now that I know, I'd say that the title for this offering is at least unfortunate, if not misleading. Like I already said, 'Talmud' can be used synonymously with 'Gemara', but I always tend to think that this isn't academically accurate.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241798#Comment_241798

Yes ... I'm well aware of the relation of the upcoming resource release and the Mishnah. But I'd hope by this time, people would have already decided whether one or both fit into their studies. If someone hasn't, you really need to take a hard look at the likely Logos selling price in May .... these type of resources don't often get discounted later on since they target a narrow group that would likely already own it.

But that said, I included it in this thread just to remind folks that the whole sequence of events reflects a jewish perspective (in addition to the Son of God and God himself). And the number of resources that speak to the 1st century jewish culture is fairly limited (not talking of Logos). (And yes, the Mishnah and Talmud are later).

In another recent thread was a discussion of the guards. But first off, the first night was 'unguarded'. In western culture, the first night would be 'steal-the-body-night' .... maybe he's not really dead, but as a minimum, the body will really reek after that. So why put guards on the 2nd night and cover the 3rd? And why would jewish leadership even care ... they already knew the resurrection was later, as Lazarus' sister stated (and if such was even in their belief). And lastly, why was the 3rd day so significant? Matthew references Jonah, but Mark and Luke reference Ninevah (doomed if not repent). Why would jews at the time see significance in the 3rd day?

In each of these questions, there's certainly merit in discussion today. But the participants in the early sequence were all jews ... they had rabbi's. They all (if male) visited the Temple regularly. What we argue about, they likely took for granted.

That's why, at least for some in the Logos family, early jewish writings should have a place in your studies.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241807#Comment_241807

I haven't had a close look on these specific resources Logos is offering - so I wasn't aware that the "Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud Collection" contains the Gemara only. Thanks for the advice! Now that I know, I'd say that the title for this offering is at least unfortunate, if not misleading. Like I already said, 'Talmud' can be used synonymously with 'Gemara', but I always tend to think that this isn't academically accurate.

I don't know if the original sets have the Mishnah. All the CDs and the hardbound editions say is that the Mishnah extracts are in bold type:

http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/37070.trade.html?category=academic&category=all

http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/565270.trade.html?&category=all

http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/565287.trade.html?&category=all

This may refer to when the Mishnah is quoted by the Gemara, and may not mean that the Mishnah text is contained in these Talmuds.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241817#Comment_241817

Also, remember we're talking personal translations, here by the same author. The upcoming resource has click-thru to the same author's Mishnah translation and the value in owning both resources (assuming you want to click-thru that is).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241817#Comment_241817

If someone wants the definitive Logos word on the inclusion/exclusion of the Mishnah in the Talmuds for the Logos resource, it was posted in the forums when the collection first came up. I think that the Mishnah is included in the sense of quotations being commented on but not in the sense of a single continuous text.

Lonnie Ritchie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241495#Comment_241495

Carey has the most logical explanation of the phrase "three days and three nights." The crucifixion was on Friday and the Resurrection on Sunday, which constitutes in Jewish thought "three days and three nights."

Lonnie

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241913#Comment_241913

If someone wants the definitive Logos word on the inclusion/exclusion of the Mishnah in the Talmuds for the Logos resource, it was posted in the forums when the collection first came up. I think that the Mishnah is included in the sense of quotations being commented on but not in the sense of a single continuous text.

One has to wonder why Logos has to post this in the forums (where half the people interested in this collection won't recognize it) in the first place, when it would be so much easier to just make a clear statement on the product's page ...

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241978#Comment_241978

Gethsemane [start throwing monkey wrench] Define death please.

If you eat you will die – they ate - they died - but when did they die? (See Gen)

When they ate? (Spiritual death Or when they stopped breathing hundreds of years later?

Most (all?) Christian churches teach that Jesus was without sin – [was He the only truly alive person on the planet at that time?] - Then at Gethsemane He took on all of our sins. Was that the moment that He died or when He stopped breathing some 21 hours later?

By assuming He died when He took on our sins, as they died when they ate, He was also dead on Thursday night. (Spiritually) Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights give three nights!

Did He mean breath death or spiritual death? [End throwing monkey wrench]

[Throwing monkey wrench – US English saying meaning causing trouble]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242562#Comment_242562

Gethsemane [start throwing monkey wrench] Define death please.

Interesting line of thought ... thanks.

Robert Holmes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242654#Comment_242654

Not sure of the exact timing but as the song says - 'He arose'

Robert

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242705#Comment_242705

Peace and Blessing, David!

*smile*

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241978#Comment_241978

If someone wants the definitive Logos word on the inclusion/exclusion of the Mishnah in the Talmuds for the Logos resource, it was posted in the forums when the collection first came up. I think that the Mishnah is included in the sense of quotations being commented on but not in the sense of a single continuous text.

This question was answered here.

Short answer: We are producing the entirety of the Talmud--Mishnah and Gemara--but the Talmud does not comment on, and therefore does not include, the entirety of the Mishnah.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242719#Comment_242719

TO: Milford Charles Murray

thanks for the reply - there is a slight difference between the two wrenches

In the US if you want a bad result you throw a wrench

If you really want very bad results you throw the monkey wrench

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242777#Comment_242777

TO: Milford Charles Murray

thanks for the reply - there is a slight difference between the two wrenches

In the US if you want a bad result you throw a wrench

If you really want very bad results you throw the monkey wrench

And in the UK you throw a spanner into the works.

Oops, I didn't really see by Milford's post that he'd already shown the UK version of the word wrench.

And as a speaker of US English, I never knew there was a difference between the meaning of the phrase whether you use throwing a wrench or throwing a monkey wrench.

I wonder why mechanics got the reputation of being "monkeys"? We call their jumpsuits "monkey suits" and we call them "grease monkeys."

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242793#Comment_242793

And in the UK you throw a spanner into the works.

From a Logos search for throw spanner, found: "bung a spanner into the works —P. G. Altbach"

Keep Smiling [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242793#Comment_242793

I wonder why mechanics got the reputation of being "monkeys"?

"grease monkey - n. a mechanic, esp. one who works on automobiles
or airplanes. 1928 Gravatt "Pioneers" 251: All the way down the
line.from skilled draftsmen in a polished office to the 'grease
monkeys' with blackened faces and smeary over-alls." Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang

David Paul

Yesterday my pastor presented to the congregation his view of "Holy Week" and up held a Wednesday view of the Crucifixion. He made a great case for his position, and even though I've herd of the theory I've never actually look into it in detail. I ran a search of my entire library for "Wednesday NEAR Jesus NEAR Crucifixion" and found next to nothing about this theory. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Your pastor is right on the mark, John. I can help you gather the evidence you are looking for to "settle" this issue, but this forum isn't the place for it, due to forum restrictions regarding not making comments on doctrine. As far as what you can find in Logos to help with your inquiry, the best source is the Bible itself, but you have to know what to look for and how to put the info in proper context. There is one resource that you can find in Logos that addresses your concern, and if you don't have it, you can pick it up for cheap. It is R.A. Torrey's book on Bible difficulties:

http://www.logos.com/product/1160/difficulties-in-the-bible-alleged-errors-and-contradictions

The specific section you want to read is Ch. 21, "Was Jesus Really 3 Days and 3 Nights in the Heart of the Earth?"

His conclusion is "yes", and he gives the Wednesday crucifixion as the solution to the supposed difficulty. I won't go into in-depth details about the laughable excuse known as "inclusive reckoning"...however, I will say this: those folks whose explanations "live" by inclusive reckoning must face the fact that their explanations also "die" by inclusive reckoning. Inclusive reckoning, as the idea is promulgated by those who appeal to it, ought to be classified with phrenology in terms of validity and legitimacy...i.e. sheer quackery.

This subject is tied to a large variety of other subjects that don't seem to be related at first blush, but in truth they are as intertwined as threads of cloth fabric. That is why it is a subject almost universally misunderstood. If you are interested, you can email me at mindfruit at live d o t c o m. There is prophecy that makes this subject very clear. Interesting and exciting stuff, if you can accept it.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242857#Comment_242857

this forum isn't the place for it, due to forum restrictions regarding not making comments on doctrine

David you probably should have stopped there. Suggesting a resource to read is perfectly acceptable of course. But continuing on to state your beliefs of faith fired by words about other beliefs such as "laughable", and suggesting some "who misunderstannd" will die from their beliefs is offensive to users of this forum, whether they choose to believe what you attack or not. Please stop and adhere to the guidelines. Thanks and have a blessed Good Friday and Easter!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241495#Comment_241495

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where "he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights" is equated in v.13 with hayyôm š^e lōšāh ("three days ago")—which could only mean "day before yesterday." But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the "Feast of Weeks" because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day—Pentēcostē in Greek.)

taken from New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

This is a textbook example of narrow-minded lack of thought. WHY does the first phrase, "he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights" EQUATE with "three days ago"???? What if the Egyptian in question had not eaten for a day prior to being abandoned by his master? There is nothing in this verbal configuration that requires these two phrase to mean the exact same thing. A classic case of "assuming".

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242876#Comment_242876

Well, I don't know about the day of the crucifixion, but from reading the Bible, I've concluded that Jesus rose from the dead on Tuesday. According to Matthew 16:21 (the same book in which he said he'd be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth), Jesus said he would be raised (egerthênai) "on (or "in" - dative case without a preposition) the third day." And since we know that Sunday is the first day, then "the third day" would be Tuesday. Since by Jewish reckoning a day began at sundown the day before, the resurrection thus occurred between sundown Monday night and sundown Tuesday night. And though at Mark 8:31 Jesus said that he'd rise again (anastênai) "after three days," he didn't say how long after three days it would be.

Now to go write my soon-to-be-bestselling-and-controversial-book, JESUS ROSE ON TUESDAY. [H]

I can't wait until I get to have my first debate with Bart Ehrman and Norman Geisler.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242863#Comment_242863

this forum isn't the place for it, due to forum restrictions regarding not making comments on doctrine

David you probably should have stopped there. Suggesting a resource to read is perfectly acceptable of course. But continuing on to state your beliefs of faith fired by words about other beliefs such as "laughable", and suggesting some "who misunderstannd" will die from their beliefs is offensive to users of this forum, whether they choose to believe what you attack or not. Please stop and adhere to the guidelines. Thanks and have a blessed Good Friday and Easter!

Hmmm, I was going to LOL...but I've given some thought to your comment and I guess I can see where you could misunderstand my comment. My statement related to the argument for "inclusive reckoning", not people who appeal to it. What I meant when I said "folks whose explanations 'live' by inclusive reckoning also 'die' by inclusive reckoning" was that the explanations live or die by the concept of inclusive reckoning. I do see how my phrasing could be misconstrued.

My point is simply that Y'shuua said in Mt. 26:2 and Mk. 14:1 that the Passover was two days away. Following the chronology of Mark, which is the most complete chronology for the final Jerusalem ministry of Y'shuua leading up to His crucifixion, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY ON EARTH that His statement can allow for a Friday crucifixion. Taking an extreme and extended perspective of what He said only gets you up to Thursday. The most logical understanding gets you to Wednesday.

Point being, Inclusive Reckoning gives (an explanation) on one hand, but on the other hand it takes it away. There is no way that the crucifixion was on a Friday, precisely because the concept of inclusive reckoning prohibits it. Inclusive reckoning won't allow for a Friday crucifixion. There are many other reasons as to why the crucifixion wasn't on Friday either. That's all I was trying to say.

Let me say this. It is bordering on insulting to say "Jews used inclusive reckoning" when calculating time as if they did it across the board in all situations. Anyone who uses nothing but inclusive reckoning will fall into numerous absurdities without fail. To say that Jews always used this method of counting time is to essentially claim they were intellectual and cultural morons. The simply truth is that ALL PEOPLE in ALL CULTURES, at different times depending on different circumstances, use inclusive reckoning when the circumstances call for it. And when the circumstances don't call for it, they don't use it.

If I borrow your plow just after sun up and say I need it for a day, we should expect that I would return it either at sundown, or perhaps the following morning, perhaps even as late as noon. If I borrowed the same plow just before dark and say I need it for a day, we should expect that I would return it the following evening, or perhaps the morning after that. In neither case would it make sense for me to expect you to ask for it back either a hour or two later (in the first case), or the very next morning (in the second case). If inclusive reckoning prevailed, you could come over as soon as I hooked the plow to my horse and say "time's up...you've had your day". That's absurd. Likewise, if I borrowed it just before dark (so that I would be able to get an early start the following morning) and you come to fetch it soon as the sun comes up, that makes no sense. This isn't a Jewish thing. It's a common sense thing. Suggesting that any part of a day ALWAYS counts for a whole day makes a simple thing like trying to communicate with another person a nightmare. If someone wants to refer to a twelve or twenty-four hour period, they would ALWAYS have to verbalize this by using the phrase "two days". If I want to borrow your plow from 7am to 7pm, I would have to request it for "two days", just to make sure you don't come try to retrieve it an hour or two later. The whole concept is ridiculous and farcical.

Sometimes we count just in whole numbers (aka natural numbers), especially when what is counted only comes in complete totalities. Other times we count in partial amounts, as in our ages. Some reach their 30th birthday and immediately begin to say they are 31, while others say they are 29 right up until they blow out their candles. The difference between the 29-year-old and the 31-year-old?? 24 hours. Which is right? The one who is 29 can rightly say he hasn't fully reach the end of the 30th year. The 31 year old can say he has already begun his 31st year. Point being, counting inclusively is a situational concern often based on perspective, not a cultural one based on "this-is-how-everyone-does-it-all-the-time". There is no such thing as Jewish Inclusive Reckoning. Period.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/242876#Comment_242876

This is a textbook example of narrow-minded lack of thought.

David Paul, I know I sound like a broken record, but PLEASE watch your language to be acceptable in living room conversations. Your choice of language intereferes with get people to hear your message.

Franklin P Smith Sr

Greetings to you my brother John in Jesus Wonderful Name.

Jesus being crucified on "GOOD FRIDAY" [this bothered me also, because I still don't understand what was good about it?] and then rising from the dead on Sunday Morning made me wonder what else the preacher was lying about. I'd think 'he must be pretty stupid to think I believe that!! what he thinks I can't count? There are a lot of things that are in God's Holy Word that man attempts to explain and just messes up the whole deal. JOHN, DID YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE BEFORE GOD? Think about this: So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. [Romans 14:12], and" But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." [Matthew 12:36] and " Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [2nd Timothy 2:15] and .................................work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." [Philippians 2:12] BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY REMEMBER THESE TWO VERSES: ".............let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. [Romans 3:4] AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.{James 1:5]

I believe from my reasearch and study of God's Word and the "Customs and Times of the Jewish people, and ASKING GOD, that the WEDNESDAY crucifixion of Jesus is right, BUT PRAISE OUR HOLY, WISE but simplistic explaining GOD says: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." [Romans 10:9] Three days, seven days, or one day; our faith is that HE IS RISEN and RISEN INDEED! Lack Wisdom? James 1:5! Love in Christ Jesus my brother! See Ya Here, There, or N D AIR! brother franklin - http://lmmi.info/

Pardon my spelling but I did not accept the spell checker from "hostilla" that permotes being drunk to do good work!

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243735#Comment_243735

Do any of the Apostolic or Ante-Nicene Church Fathers say the crucifixion took place on a day other than Friday - i.e., on the preceding Thursday or Wednesday?

Does Eusebius give a day for the crucifixion?

If so, please give the citations and quotations. Thanks!

"But
Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is
the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and
matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose
from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn
(Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the
Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these
things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243735#Comment_243735

Greetings to you my brother John in Jesus Wonderful Name.

Welcome to the forums, Franklin.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243893#Comment_243893

With regard to this thread, "A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person", by John P. Meier, has a section starting on page 395 "Choosing between the Passion Chronologies of the Synoptics and John. It was quoted favorably by Pope Benedict XVI in his latest book, "Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week", which will be released soon. His book also has an excellent explanation of current theologians' thinking on the subject. (If you don't have the books, most discussion centers around whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, not whether the Crucifixion was on Friday, which the theologians cited all seem to agree on).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/262722#Comment_262722

Isn't it dangerous for the Pope to write books? What if he ends up being demonstrably wrong?

There is no need to choose between the Synoptics and John...they agree. Prophecy requires a Wednesday crucifixion. The Last Supper was a Passover meal. These issues won't be resolved here.

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263093#Comment_263093

Isn't it dangerous for the Pope to write books? What if he ends up being demonstrably wrong?

In case you're referring to Papal infallibility, you're obviously quite uninformed: Papal infallibility is only attributed to declarations that happen 'ex cathedra', so writing books isn't dangerous at all for the Pope. The 'Jesus of Nazareth' books weren't even written by Benedict XVI. as Pope but by Joseph Ratzinger as a private person. He also encourages his readers to enter an open theological discussion.

Of course, when doing exegesis with the same degree of theological shallowness as it shows in the question I quoted above, it's no wonder you get whatever results you want to get. [:P]

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263093#Comment_263093

There is no need to choose between the Synoptics and John...they agree.

Only if one redefines the meaning of the word "agree."

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263105#Comment_263105

There is no need to choose between the Synoptics and John...they agree.

Only if one redefines the meaning of the word "agree."

You say tomayto, I say tomahto...regardless, we are still referring to the usually red, vegetable-like fruit. The 3v1 may use different terminology, but they are speaking about the same things. Disagreements are minor, at best (worst?).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263093#Comment_263093

Isn't it dangerous for the Pope to write books? What if he ends up being demonstrably wrong?

I'd be more concerned if he doesn't end up demonstrably wrong on some points. As humans our understanding is incomplete and (fortunately) continually growing. We, as Catholics, are perfectly happy to spend a millennium or two or three debating the best understanding or wording for the mystery that is God/God's. Rumor has it that we can happily argue for decades over the number of angels that can sit on a pin. I worry far more about those poor theologians who think they HAVE all the right answers. What do they do for fun? I've never even met a Catholic theologian who thinks he has all the right QUESTIONS.