Thomas Andrews

Volker,
I hope as time goes on and I discuss this topic you will be able to see exactly what it is Jet2Ask and I are talking about. In the mean time, take care.

judge

Hi Thomas!...I look forward to your further posts on this topic. I notice also you have stated the following.....

Thomas Andrews:
" The Wednesday crucifixion scheme is first noticed in the 2nd century A.D. by a group of christians in Asia Minor. They held to the belief that Jesus held the last supper on Tuesday night, was betrayed, and was finally crucified on Wednesday afternoon. The "gospel of Peter" which was circulating about this time, clearly taught there were two sabbaths in Palestine the week Jesus was crucified. "

Judge:
Are you able to provide further information or a reference here?

Thanks in advance.

Volker.Doormann

No. Thank you, Thomas.

Volker

Thomas Andrews

Hello judge!

One quick reference regarding the early belief in a Wednesday crucifixion can be found on a googlgroup Usenet search. In the search window type in Ed Form W.H.Carter 'Times and Seasons' and hit the enter button. Ed From posted a two part series on alt.messianic titled Re: We believe. In these two posts he quotes extensively from a book by W. H. Carter titled "Times and Seasons". It refers to these early Christians who held to the Wednesday crucifixon view. Carter calls Asia Minor "lesser Asia" in his treatise.

Part 1:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ed...k.co.uk&rnum=4

Part 2:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ed...k.co.uk&rnum=3

Keep in mind Ed Form is defending the mid-week crucifixion scheme, which is, in my opinion, an error. But I will back up that opinion anon.

There is more information on the subject however. Charles F. DeLoach in 1971 wrote a book that attempted to debunk the doctrines of Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong. On one point, however, he sided with them and that was on the day Jesus supposedly died (Wednesday). In Chapter 8 of his book, DeLoach defended his view by quoting from Philip Schaff's 'History of the Christian Church'. Schaff had evidently written in Volume II and page 205 that "the early churches eventually came to disagree as to the day on which Christ was crucified. Some observed Fridays as "days of penance, or watch-days, and half-fasting (which lasted till three o'clock in the afternoon...other churches observed Wednesdays as the "weekly commemoration of the sufferings and death of the Lord."

DeLoach goes on to write that Friday "seemed" to have the support of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Wednesday was but a tradition, he writes, with perhaps the chief argument in its favor being that once the Friday tradition was established it would seem very difficult indeed for the Wednesday date to have gained any acceptance whatever. DeLoach concludes from this that the Wednesday date appeared to have been the earliest tradition.

DeLoach also appeals to the 'Didascalia", an eary Christian work preserved in Syriac but which was probably written originally in Greek. In this work, he writes, the apostles are quoted as saying that it was on Tuesday evening that they ate the Passover with Jesus, and on Wednesday that he was taken captive and held in custody in the house of Caiaphas (quoting from Jack Finegan's 'The Handbook of Bible Chronology [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964], p.288). DeLoach points out that Epiphanius, a post-Nicene writer, protests that Jesus could not have been arrested on the night of Thursday-Friday; the false tradition for him is that which puts the Lord's Supper on Thursday evening; the correct one, according to Epiphanius, is the one which puts it on Tuesday evening. This is quoted from A. Gilmore's "Date and Significance of the Last Supper" in the *Scottish Journal of Theology*, September, 1961, pp.256-259.

Additionally, DeLoach refers to an early chronology worked out by Victorinus of Pettau that arrived at the conclusion that Jesus *must* have been arrested on Wednesday. Finally, Deloach claims there is evidence found in the writings of the Early Fathers for the Last Supper having taken place on the 13th of Nisan, i.e., Tuesday evening. The two references in this paragraph were taken from the Scottish Journal of Theology mentioned in the above paragraph.

This isn't all the evidence available. Harold W. Hoehner presents some of the arguments, pro and con, for the Wednesday view in his book 'Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ". This book was published by Zondervan in 1977 and contains an entire Chapter on determing which day of the week Jesus died.

Herbert W. Armstrong uses some of the same references adduced by DeLoach, but he adds an article written by James A. Walther titled "The Chronology of Passion Week' in the June 1958 issue of *Journal of Biblical Literature*. Walther mentions that numerous Catholic writers for centuries maintained that Jesus ate the Passover Tuesday night-that early Wednesday morning he was taken by the Jewish mob.

Last of all, Ralph Woodrow, a minister who once held to the Wednesday crucifixon view for most of his adult life, rethought his position and repudiated it, writing a book in 1993 defending his change of heart titled "Three Days & Three Nights-Reconsidered In Light of Scripture." Those interested in reading his compelling reasons for his change can write him at POB 21, Palm Springs, CA 92263. I think the book costs four dollars, postage included, but the price may have increased. It is 56 pages, but packed with information on this topic.

I know it was the 19th century when the mid-week crucifixion view reappeared among fundametalist-type Christians. In the Robert's-Bradlaugh during the summer of 1876 (about the time of Custer's last stand), the agnostic Bradlaugh argued for a contradiction in Matthew 12:40 and the Friday death-Sunday resurrection scenario. Mr. Roberts defended by claiming Jesus actually died mid-week and resurrected sometime after sunset Saturday night. This debate is in the Secular Web archives.

I am not an inerrantist but I do know that there are serious problems with either the Friday view or the Wednesday view, and even, for some, the Thursday view. They all have their strengths, and ultimately,their weaknesses that doom them and render the prophecy in Matthew 12:40 a false prophecy.

Well, judge, this is for you. I hope it has been helpful. Maybe it will help you search further and discover new information on this topic. Take care,
Tom

judge

Thomas:
Well, judge, this is for you. I hope it has been helpful. Maybe it will help you search further and discover new information on this topic. Take care,
Tom

judge:
Thanks very much for your time here. Are you able to briefly state the problems with a Wed crucifixion

Marduk

In a related issue, I was watching the History Channel, a show about funerary rites over time, they said Jewish law states that a newly dead body, when put in a tomb, must be checked by a family member each day for 3 days BEFORE the stone is put in front of the tomb. People feared premature burial, they made sure the body began to decay before sealing the tomb.

godfry n. glad

Ummm... I'm obviously missing something here.

I'm assuming that our apologists are attempting to justify these two points:

1. Jesus' tomb found empty first thing Sunday morning,
2. Jesus in the tomb (dead, in the womb of the earth) 3 days and 3 nights.

Working backwards from Sunday at first light, we have:

- Saturday night, Sunday morning before sunrise (1 night)
- Saturday daylight (1 day)
- Friday night, Saturday morning before sunrise (1 night)
- Friday daylight (1 day)
- Thursday night, Friday morning before sunrise (1 night)
- Thursday daylight (1 day)

Which leaves us at Wednesday night, Thursday morning before sunrise as the time this Jesus figure must have died to meet the stipulated conditions.

This does not match the whole discussion over why Jesus' body was removed from the cross _and entombed_ before the onset of the sabbath (just before nightfall).

To be taken down and buried at nightfall and be entombed for 3 days and three nights would require that the empty tomb be discovered at nightfall, rather than sunrise, wouldn't it? Otherwise, it would be 3 days and 4 nights or 3 nights and 2 days.

Of course, I can see a wriggle out of this, but it would require that the apologist maintain that Jesus arose from his tomb before nightfall the day before the empty tomb was discovered, but it just wasn't known until it was discovered the following morning, after sunrise....heh.

godfry n. glad

the_cave

It's also the case that in ancient Hebrew poetics, "three days" could simply refer to "some time in the future".

godfry n. glad

Oh...well...

If you wish to claim that the NT is a long, complicated poem, rather than biography or history, then....fine. That's okay with me.

godfry

Thomas Andrews

Hi Judge,

the problems with the Wednesday crucifixon scheme in brief are:

1. There was no such thing as a midweek Passover sabbath until long after the time of Jesus. In the Old Testament, only the day of Atonement was called a sabbath (not counting Saturday or the 7th year sabbath) and that day fell in the fall, not the spring.

2. In the KJV, there were three more fall festival days called a sabbath (see Leviticus 23), but all three were called by a different hebrew word for sabbath that did not entail the full rest of the weekly sabbath. At no time in the Tanach were the spring holydays or Pentecost ever called a sabbath. They weren't called a sabbath until long after Titus sacked Jerusalem and the Pharisees became the dominant force in orthodox Judaism.

3. The Wednesday theorists make a great deal over Matthew 28:1, pointing out (correctly) that the greek word for sabbath in this passage is in the plural. This they say proves there was more than one sabbath that week. However, the greek word for sabbath is used with the plural form a number of times in the NT when only a single day was in view. It was simply an alternate spelling. Yes, I can back this up, but I will do so later, perhaps tomorrow night when I have my materials at hand.

There are other points, but I will wait until tomorrow night to begin. I am hoping to have someone defend the Wednesday crucifixion so I will have something to bounce off of. If no one steps up, I will have to use my notes. And that gets BORING. It is always more intellectually stimulating to have a live "opponent".

Until then, here is a debate that occurred in 1999 on a newsgroup. David Lee presents the arguments that I would present, so reading them may be of help.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=St...ave.net&rnum=2


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=St...ave.net&rnum=7


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...ave.net&rnum=2

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...ave.net&rnum=3

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...ave.net&rnum=1

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...ave.net&rnum=3