Good Thursday, not Good Friday

[snopes]

Comment: The ceremony of "Good Friday", signifying the death of Jesus on
the cross, Is apparently not true. He was crucified on Thursday.
Rationale: The Jewish Sanhedrin did not want him hanging on the cross
during their Sabbath.
The Bible, John 19/31, records that the Jews had a special Passover
celebratipn scheduled on Friday," a day of Preparation:. Therefore the
Christ spent three nights and three days in the "tomb" . Thursday, Friday
and Saturday nights and Friday, Saturday and rising on "The Third day",
Sunday. Comment??

[lord_feldon]

I thought it was generally accepted by most people that the days and dates of Christian holidays are just dates of convenience... I guess someone needs the memo.

[Admiraldinty]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

I thought it was generally accepted by most people that the days and dates of Christian holidays are just dates of convenience... I guess someone needs the memo.

While that argument can be made about other holidays, I don't think this is the case with Easter. However, I don't know enough about the Jewish calendar to be able to make a good argument. Jason (formerly Jason Threadslayer) is good at that stuff.

[bluestocking]

Well, obviously there's some element of "convenience" in choosing the date for Easter, since annual celebrations don't naturally fall on the same day of the week year after year (e.g. if you were married on a Saturday, your first anniversary will probably fall on a Sunday, your second on a Monday, etc.)

If I have time I may post again with more detailed information--gotta get ready to go to work to earn the money to pay for my internet connection!

[Loyhargil]

Bugger, I don't have time to look it up this morning, but since Easter is based on a "movable feast" calculation, they calculate the date based on something aside from a specific date (obviously, since the date changes from year too year).

Ah, from Wikipedia:

The ecclesiastical rules are:

Easter falls on the first Sunday following the first ecclesiastical full moon that occurs on or after March 21 (the day of the ecclesiastical vernal equinox).
This particular ecclesiastical full moon is the 14th day of a tabular lunation (new moon).

Now, as far as the third day, my understanding was Friday was considered the "first" day, then Saturday, then Sunday was the "third" day. I heard this on a radio program so I don't have a site available, but I recall a Biblical scholar discussing the importance of the crucifixion being on a Friday, because that's when Jewish sacrifices were made at that time, and that depending on how you calculated the hour that Jesus actually died, the death occurred at something like 3 pm, which is the time of day the sacrifices were actually done, since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. I wish I remembered what scholar I was listening to so I could provide a site, and I'm getting ready for work so I don't have time to look it up right now. Sorry.

I'm sure someone out there who doesn't have to rely on memory like me at the moment will fill in the gaps before I get off work tonight. If not, I'll get to lookin'.

[UEL]

When I was in Israel, the Sabbath started at sunset on Friday and lasted until sunset on Saturday.

Thus, when Jesus was crucified, the order came to break the criminals' legs to hasten death so that they were dead by sundown. This would happen on a Friday.

[hambubba]

According to what I know of Jewish timekeeping, historically, any part of a day was considered "a day". Thus, there were "three days" involved in the crucifixion.

Keep in mind, that they did not have clocks back then to look at and determine exact 24-hour or fractional parts of days. Of course, hours were known as a unit of measure. The sunset being a marker for day-change is significantly different than our current usage of midnight.

This, I think, is where this argument keeps coming from - the difference in ways of marking "what is a day?"

[rogue74656]

Originally Posted by hambubba

According to what I know of Jewish timekeeping, historically, any part of a day was considered "a day".

Do you have a cite for this?
I have heard this many times from literalists who must show that every word of the bible is true. So far I have NEVER seen any scholar of Jewish history say anthing like this or point out any evidence of this practice. It has always been mentioned in context with the crucifiction.

Originally Posted by hambubba

Keep in mind, that they did not have clocks back then to look at and determine exact 24-hour or fractional parts of days.

They had both sundials and water clocks. Sundials being the most common, but waterclocks had been invented long before and improved on in Greece before Jesus' birth. (http://www.arcytech.org/java/clock/clock_history.html agrees with the information I saw on History Channel about ancient inventions)

Even if the common man did not have access to waterclocks, the rulers and priesthood (who were sticklers for following the letter of the ritual) would have.

Originally Posted by hambubba

The sunset being a marker for day-change is significantly different than our current usage of midnight.

Obviously if the beginning of the day has a major significance, as it does in the Jewish religion, the traditional division between days is likely to remain the same, as it has for Jews up to the modern day. I do not believe that this in any way indicates an inability to accurately measure time...

In placing the DAY the cruicifiction, one should start with the meal Christ shared with his disciples (the last supper) which was the passover feast, and working your way forward. This places the cruicifiction on Friday earliest. I don't have access to it right now, but "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" does just this. I will look it up tomorrow if no one beats me to it.

-Rogue

Now, I have to ask the question, here. What is the significance?

December 25 was selected as the day Jesus was born because of its significance in a few pagan religions - sort of a way of compromising when trying to achieve religious domination of an area. Or, at least - as far as I have seen from a number of sources.

The common idea is that the Magi arrived hours after Jesus was born - when, in reality, it would have been years - likely following an astrological sign as opposed to a visibly bright star in the horizon.

There's also the common conception that Joseph and Mary took up shelter in a stable. And, from studies done re-analyzing the original texts (or I guess as close to the original we can find), A number of homonyms are used - and, putting the customs of the time into play, it is likely the family had a specific cave that they took up residence in. The animals lived on the lower portion, and the upper portion is where the people stayed. There was no room up where the people were staying, so they had to take up residence with the animals.

All of those have very little impact on the overall meaning.

And so much of it all falls into "Well... if they were writing this on the 23rd of November, with the sun shining on the page at 47 degrees, exactly - and at these global coordinates, and a monkey was on their head - then this is what they meant." "But, if they were sitting next to an elephant - then they meant this." "Yes, but if the monkey was still on their head - then they meant something completely different." So it really gets difficult to say one way or another what the intent of the text is.

Although futile debates are often some of the most interesting and entertaining....

in Judaism, doesn't the day run from sunset to sunset?

[Chloe]

Talk! And where the heck have you been, missy?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Aim-64C

. . . And so much of it all falls into "Well... if they were writing this on the 23rd of November, with the sun shining on the page at 47 degrees, exactly - and at these global coordinates, and a monkey was on their head - then this is what they meant." "But, if they were sitting next to an elephant - then they meant this." "Yes, but if the monkey was still on their head - then they meant something completely different." So it really gets difficult to say one way or another what the intent of the text is.

Although futile debates are often some of the most interesting and entertaining....

I missed this post earlier; excellent points, and nicely expressed!

In my opinion, "pilpul" of this sort is the most fun when we have an actual object -- thus objectivity! -- upon which the debates are founded. As opposed to abstract philosophical maunderings ("what is 'good?'") we have concrete maunderings.

Sherlock Holmes fans have been doing the same thing for more than a century: when Watson says, "It was the year 18--" but he mentions that it was a rainy Monday in November -- these guys actually go and dig up weather reports from the era and see which Mondays in November actually were rainy!

It's fun, because there is an actual process, a kind of calculus or method, that can be followed. It's like the difference between chess and poker!

Silas

[Grand Illusion]

The clarafication I've always heard is that Jesus was arrested on a Thursday and his trial was over early Friday. He was crucified Friday. Since that sundown would constitute Passover, they wanted to break his legs to speed him on his way that afternoon before sundown. He was placed in the tomb probably within a few hours + or - of sundown and he was in the tomb all day Saturday and until early Sunday morning. The three "days" of actual death were probably more like 48 hours.

As to the correspondance of modern Easter and Passover to the ancient events in question, I can't say.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by Aim-64C

...
There's also the common conception that Joseph and Mary took up shelter in a stable. And, from studies done re-analyzing the original texts (or I guess as close to the original we can find), A number of homonyms are used - and, putting the customs of the time into play, it is likely the family had a specific cave that they took up residence in. ....

In fact, in Eastern Orthodox hymnography and iconography about Christmas a cave is depicted.

Nick

Originally Posted by rogue74656

Do you have a cite for this?
I have heard this many times from literalists who must show that every word of the bible is true. So far I have NEVER seen any scholar of Jewish history say anthing like this or point out any evidence of this practice. It has always been mentioned in context with the crucifiction.

Well, I don't claim to be a Jewish scholar, but I am Jewish and this is the way days are calculated. Example - my son was born on Friday afternoon about an hour before sunset. According to Jewish law, the bris should be on the 8th day. My son's bris was on the following Friday, which would be the 8th day if you count the day he was born as day 1, Friday night to Saturday night as day 2, etc.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by chaimsmom

Well, I don't claim to be a Jewish scholar, but I am Jewish and this is the way days are calculated. Example - my son was born on Friday afternoon about an hour before sunset. According to Jewish law, the bris should be on the 8th day. My son's bris was on the following Friday, which would be the 8th day if you count the day he was born as day 1, Friday night to Saturday night as day 2, etc.

This count was used in early Christianity both in the count for the days between crucifixion and resurrection and in setting a date for Christmas: December 25 was chosen so that January 1 would be the ostensible day of Jesus's bris. By satisfying the 'old' covenant first by the blood sacrifice of circumcision and later by the blood sarifice of his crucifixion, Jesus was said to be ushering in the new covenant and doing away with the need for all the old blood sacrifices. Thus the new age - Anno Domini - began with the first of these sacrifices whereby Jesus stood in for the rest of us and satisfied the old requirements once and for all. (I'm not asking anyone else to accept this as metaphysical TRUTH, but that is how the celebration of Jesus's came to be observed one week before New Years Day - or at least, so I have heard, and the eight-days-to-the-bris part seems very to support it, to me).

Originally Posted by Grand Illusion

The clarafication I've always heard is that Jesus was arrested on a Thursday and his trial was over early Friday. He was crucified Friday.

What, no appeals or anything?

Pogue

Originally Posted by hambubba

According to what I know of Jewish timekeeping, historically, any part of a day was considered "a day". Thus, there were "three days" involved in the crucifixion.

Now, while it is quite correct to speak according to Hebrew idiom of "three days" or "three years", while they are only parts of three days or three years, yet that idiom does not apply in a case like this, where "three nights" are mentioned in addition to "three days". It will be noted that the Lord not only definitely states this, but repeats the full phraseology, so that we may not mistake it. (Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 156)

I think Bullinger makes the case that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon of Wednesday and rushed into the tomb before sunset, which marked the beginning of the Thursday High Holy Day. (Both Thursday and Friday were High Holy Days that Passover week.)

If anyone is interested, see

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app156.html

...also Appendices 144 & 148.

Hello, everyone. My first post here. I can't resist a good Bible discussion.

I doubt the roman were very much concerned with the jewish holidays. I do wonder why the date of easter being accurate is so much more important than christmas being accurate.

What, no appeals or anything

that stinks too. I distictly recall that you could be retried if exonerating evidence came up.

[Base Ten]

This discusses the Wednesday/Thursday/Friday crucifixion question in great detail, and shows why Friday is the only day that works, with Sunday morning being the resurrection.

Base Ten