wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (05/28/91)
Some recent articles in this newsgroup have argued that the crucifixion
of Christ took place on a Wednesday. I feel this is unlikely, and hold
to the traditional belief that He was crucified on a Friday. Here are
my reasons.
The Wednesday crucifixion theory, as I understand it, basically hinges
on a literal interpretation of the phrase "three days and three nights"
in Matthew 12:40. Those who hold to a Wednesday crucifixion insist that
"three days and three nights" cannot be an idiom and must be understood
in the modern Western sense; i.e., 72 hours.
However, in my view, there is plenty of other evidence which is consis-
tent with a shorter time period which still spanned portions of three
consecutive days (i.e., Friday afternoon to Sunday morning).
The day of Christ's resurrection is referred to as "the third day" four-
teen times in the NT (twelve times in the synoptic Gospels, once in
Acts, and once in 1st Corinthians). It is also referred to as "after
three days" twice in the synoptic Gospels. One reference (Matt. 27:63-
64) uses both terms:
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said,
while he was yet alive, After three days I will
rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure
until the third day,
If "after three days" meant 72 hours from the time in question (right
after Christ's burial), we might have expected the Jewish leaders to
have asked Pilate to seal the tomb until the "fourth" (not third) day.
So, it appears that "the third day" and "after three days" meant the
same thing -- and were also equivalent to the "three days and three
nights" used in Matt. 12:40.
That a phrase such as "after three days" could have included the first
day can be seen from John 20:26 -- when the second (presumably weekly)
post-crucifixion meeting of the disciples is said to be "after eight
days". Interestingly, this same kind of idiom is seen in some modern
languages; e.g., the German "heute in acht Tagen" (literally "today in
eight days", but meaning "a week from today").
I've been told that there is also evidence in non-Biblical Jewish writ-
ings of the phrase "a day and a night" being used as an idiom for any
fraction of a day.
Thus, I consider the evidence for a modern, Western-style interpretation
of "three days and three nights" as 72 hours to be flimsy.
Consider further the circumstances of Christ's burial. To me, Luke
23:50-24:3 strongly implies that the women who came on Sunday morning to
anoint the body of Jesus came as soon as they could after His burial --
not having had time to prepare His body on the afternoon of the cruci-
fixion because the Sabbath was imminent.
If the crucifixion had taken place on Wednesday, the women would almost
certainly not have waited until Sunday to do this. At the very latest,
they would have returned to the tomb on Friday, found the tomb sealed
and guarded, and possibly not bothered to come back on Sunday at all due
to the guard.
For that matter, the women might even have tried to attend to Christ's
body on Thursday (the presumed first day of Passover). Although the
first day of Passover is a holy day -- and the OT states (Num. 28:18)
that no work is to be done on that day -- it should be noted that at
least the current Orthodox Jewish tradition does not treat this day with
the same strictness as the Sabbath.
In particular, the currently codified Jewish tradition permits certain
activities in connection with a burial to be done on the first day of a
festival -- provided a non-Jew is available to do the bulk of the work.
(Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 4:200.) On the Sabbath, by contrast, any form of
burial activity by anyone (Jew or non-Jew) was absolutely prohibited.
Hence, the women could have tried going to the tomb on Thursday -- most
likely in the company of some "God-fearers" (righteous Gentiles who
believed in the God of Israel but who had not converted to Judaism).
Now, the Orthodox Jewish friend of mine who supplied me with the above
information cautioned me that current Jewish law was codified some time
after the first century, so he wasn't sure whether this interpretation
was in effect at that time or not. But given that the Pharisaic tradi-
tion was the one which eventually won out and fashioned the Judaism of
later times, it's reasonable to assume that this rule could have been in
effect in Jesus' time.
Some argue that John 19:31 ("for that sabbath day was an high day")
necessarily identifies the first day of Passover as being a "sabbath"
separate from the weekly Sabbath. I find this unconvincing -- first of
all because the first day of Passover wasn't really a "sabbath" anyway
(unless it fell on the weekly Sabbath), and second because I think a
much more natural interpretation of John 19:31 is that the crucifixion
was taking place on a Friday, and that the upcoming weekly Sabbath was
doubly special ("an high day") due to the fact that it was also the
first day of Passover in this particular year.
Thus, a Wednesday crucifixion does not seem to me consistent with a Sun-
day morning visit by the women with the spices.
On these two grounds (weakness of the argument regarding "three days and
three nights", and the timing of the women's attempt to anoint Christ's
body), I conclude that a Wednesday crucifixion does not seem to be con-
sistent with the Gospels. For similar reasons, I am inclined to reject
the claim (held by some) that the crucifixion took place on Thursday.
--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683