What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

I wonder if anyone can actually add to the discussion related to the OP.

In the mean time, I'll be editing, deleting, and re-arranging my posts to shield myself from my opponents' criticisms.

 

[esmith]

Will give it a try. I will be using information from a lecture by Professor Gary A. Rendsburg, Professor of Religious Studies at Rutgers University. The DVD lecture was on "The Dead Sea Scrolls". Professor Rendsburg puts forth that the Qumran sect included festival days in its annual calendar that were not mentioned in the Torah. The Halakhic Letter begins with a calendar laying out the weeks of the year and the holidays and mentioning a festival unknown from the Torah. The differences between the two calendar systems may clarify a discrepancy in the Gospels on the actual date of the "Last Supper". Could it be that the different New Testament writers were using different calendars?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could it be that the different New Testament writers were using different calendars?

I think about that quite a bit, but I don't think that it solves the problem of the three days or the contradictions in the Gospels.

Very good thought, though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

O, do you mean that one Gospel writer was using one calendar and another was using a different one?

 

[esmith]

O, do you mean that one Gospel writer was using one calendar and another was using a different one?

Yes, that is what Professor Rendsburg was implying. Will have to go back and look at my notes, but he also mentioned that a Rabbinic practice involved adjusting the calendar so that certain festivals (Yom Kappur) would never fall on a Friday or Sunday.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, that is what Professor Rendsburg was implying. Will have to go back and look at my notes, but he also mentioned that a Rabbinic practice involved adjusting the calendar so that certain festivals (Yom Kappur) would never fall on a Friday or Sunday.

Wow, that's cool. I'll remember this when I study the Gospels again.

If it's true, it could speak to the divisions and disparity in the church... and is direct proof [as if most of us need any] that the writers of the Gospels didn't know eachother and probably were not eyewitnesses. It's one thing to get confused and write something different in old age (etc) and quite another if you're using a different calendar, which indicates a pretty big separation between the writers.

 

[Harmonious]

Angellous, based on what I've read, it seems more likely that non-Jewish authors (or Jews who had strayed so far from Judaism to no longer care about the details of the Jewish calendar) wrote about things happening that sounded good to a primarily ignorant audience.

You know... During the Spanish Inquisition, Conversos were held to excruciating torture to confess to not eating bread on April 15. April 15 has no real relevance on the Jewish calendar, but to someone who wasn't truly familiar with Jewish practices to know the actual relevant date, Nissan and April seem close enough.

While the gospels were written far earlier than the Inquisition, the principle seems to hold true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous, based on what I've read, it seems more likely that non-Jewish authors (or Jews who had strayed so far from Judaism to no longer care about the details of the Jewish calendar) wrote about things happening that sounded good to a primarily ignorant audience.

You know... During the Spanish Inquisition, Conversos were held to excruciating torture to confess to not eating bread on April 15. April 15 has no real relevance on the Jewish calendar, but to someone who wasn't truly familiar with Jewish practices to know the actual relevant date, Nissan and April seem close enough.

While the gospels were written far earlier than the Inquisition, the principle seems to hold true.

Do you mean non-Jewish authors writing about Jewish topics, like in the NT... or all non-Jewish authors?

 

[esmith]

The standard Jewish calendar that has dominated for millennia is a luni-solar calendar whose origins go back to the Babylonian calendrical system. The annual calendar is comprised of 12 lunar months, totaling 354 days. Since this falls 11 days short of a solar year, and since the harvest festivals (Passover, Shavu'ot, Sukkott) need to occur at the appropriate time of the year, the calendar adds a leap month approximately once every three years. Since neither the 354 days of the regular year nor the 383 or 384 days of the leap year is divisible by 7, holidays fall on different days of the week year after year.

An alternative calendar, based strictly on the solar cycle, developed in late antiquity. This system has 52 weeks, each comprised of 7 days, for a total of 364 days. Since 364 is divisible by 7, the holidays occur on the same day of the week each year. Of course, a 364-day system means that each calendrical system compensated for the difference over time. No leap day is possible, since this would upset everything. The solar calendar is reflected in the books of Enoch and Jubilees, and the Qumran community used this calendar as well. This explains why many Dead Sea Scrolls texts castigate the sect's opponents for celebrating the holidays on the wrong dates. The most telling passage is from Pesher Habakkuk, where we learn that the Wicked Priest attacked the Teacher Of Righteousness on Yom Kippur (1QpHab 11:5-8). The pasage can be explained only by assuming different days for the observance of the holiest day of the year. Note that according to the Qumran calendar, Yom Kippur always falls on Friday, while according to the standard system, especially as manipulated by the rabbis, Yom Kippur can never fall of Friday.

The preceding was directly copied from Professor Rendsburg course "Guidebook on the Dead Sea Scrolls".

 

[Harmonious]

Do you mean non-Jewish authors writing about Jewish topics, like in the NT... or all non-Jewish authors?

I was thinking about the NT, specifically.

When I first posted, my post was right under yours. The intervening posts took away that specific context, and I'm sorry about that.

I know that there ARE non-Jews who actually DO care about the Jewish calendar, and folks who DO take the time to understand Jewish things.

I'm just not convinced that the authors of the gospels were overly concerned about such things, and whether they were Jews or non-Jews, wrote what sounded good primarily for an ignorant audience.

Otherwise, what seems to be the three most important days to the foundation of the Christian faith would have details matched up a bit better, to themselves and to Jewish reality...

 

[fallingblood]

I think about that quite a bit, but I don't think that it solves the problem of the three days or the contradictions in the Gospels.

Very good thought, though.

There is another problem with the three days as well. The Gospels never state when Jesus was resurrected. I just finished reading Raymond E. Browns short book on the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection, and he points this out. All we really know is that sometime between the burial, and the time in which the women go to visit the tomb, Jesus has been resurrected.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is another problem with the three days as well. The Gospels never state when Jesus was resurrected. I just finished reading Raymond E. Browns short book on the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection, and he points this out. All we really know is that sometime between the burial, and the time in which the women go to visit the tomb, Jesus has been resurrected.

I think that the three days comes from other Scriptures - like that he will rebuild the temple in three days, and that after three days he will rise again. There's also the passage in Justin Martyr where he calls Sunday the "Lord's Day" because of the resurrection. It may not be in the passion story, but the three days are quite early in Christian tradition (both the Scriptures and Justin).

 

[smokydot]

Smoky, I am not angellous. That is part one.
Part 2: Your blase attitude regarding the CONCEPT of plagiarism is what I was criticizing, not any particular point you were making.

I understand that.

Part 3: While I wasn't participating in that conversation, I remember that you were particularly insistent that angellous was not using a concordance, as you attempted to say per Poisonshady's disgust at those who would ignore the translations of Hebrew by those who USE Hebrew and prefer to use a concordance that doesn't take common usage or context into account.
And after hounding him for several pages, you cited something or other, and angellous asked YOU where you got your translation of your Greek. You claimed your translation as your own, and then angellous called you on it: it was not your own translation, but the interlinear translation.

Looks like you've decided who's right and who's wrong on the issue.

Do you mean interlinear instead of concordance, because a concordance does not give translations?
And are you sure you're correct on this?. . .because I'm not remembering any point regarding angellous and concordances.

Also, let me say that, while very close to accurate, your understanding of it needs some clarification on two quite small matters ("text" and "qualifiers")
which are very significant here, and constitute the heart of this matter.

The problem is that clarification of "he said, she said" takes a lot of ink. One of the reasons this remains an issue is because it takes time and attention to reckon
with clarifications, and so they are skimmed over, at best, but more likely they are just skipped over.
However, I will present once more the actual facts of the matter, trusting you will take the time and attention to reckon with them.

To begin with, that's not quite how it went down.
First, the issue was the correct translation of the Greek parthenos to mean "virgin" or "maiden."
He maintained that it always meant "maiden". . .unless it was accompanied by a specific kind of qualifier.
I provided verses from my Bible where it was translated "virgin" and pointed out that "it was not accompanied by such qualifiers."

He asked how I knew that. I said I could read the text (meaning there were no qualifiers in the text of my Bible, and yet parthenos was still translated "virgin").
(I had no idea "text" was a code word for "text of the original language.")

He then presented a text in Greek and asked me to translate it.
I didn't know why he asked (and I didn't bother to ask him, because I suspected I would just get one of his useless cryptic responses), but nevertheless,
I translated it from an interlinear. . .I thought maybe he wanted to show some obscure meaning of one of the words in the sentence,
so I provided a word-for-word translation of the sentence (which in English is grammatically incorrect) as the basis to work from.

And he went ballistic. . .said it was more than obvious that it was not my translation (duh!). . .accused me of plagiarism. . .said I claimed it was my own personal translation of the Greek (false--show where I actually said that). . .and the rest is history. . .of the infamous kind.

It took me a while to understand what was really going on there, why he went so ballistic, and why he had so much vested in his false charge of plagiarism.
That understanding is explained here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277247-post678.html

No one would have faulted you for using a translation, Smoky. I use a translation somewhat regularly. However, I would not have the audacity to claim that a translation I used was my own, unless it truly was. You claimed the interlinear translation as your OWN translation. That was the first claim that you had plagiarized.

I did no such thing, I made no such claim. . .he asked for a translation of the Greek and I provided one. How was I to know he wanted me to personally translate it myself?
I didn't know "text" was a code word, which to him evidently means "text of the original language," while to me it means "text of my Bible," which is English, not Greek.

When I said, "I can read the text," I was referring to the "text of my Bible," which had no qualifiers in the sentence, and yet still translated parthenos as "virgin". . .
I was not referring to the "text of the original language."
Not realizing he wanted me to personally interpret the Greek text he quoted, I gave him the interpretation from an interlinear. . .I don't know Greek!

Not because you USED a translation, but because you claimed the translation to be your own work when it clearly was not. I was not a part of your argument about your individual usage of plagiarism.

I understand that, and am not too sure why you are getting into it now.

I merely took objection to your blithe mention of how "lovers of the Bible" don't object to plagiarism, when in the name of sharing knowledge.

I realize that. . .and the issue there was not in reference to using the interlinear, it was in reference to the list of titles from my Sunday school teacher.

You'll note these two issues of supposed "plagiarism" are not the plagiarism with full knowledge and consent which they are still misrepresented to be:
the first was a false claim of what did not occur. . .and the second was an honest mistake, it never occurring to me it was plagiarism.
A mountain has been made out of a mole hill here.

BTW: I don't know for sure that my Sunday school teacher got that info from Roberts, until he tells me so.
He may have gotten it somewhere else where it was common knowledge. I'm not comfortable with assuming that he got it from Roberts when he hasn't told me so.
I like to ascertain things for myself. . .otherwise, that's how things get misrepresented and facts get screwed up. . .I may have acted hastily and have to revisit this.

For some reason, you wish to include me in your argument with angellous (which he excluded himself from), fallingblood, esmith, and whoever else is calling you on whatever plagiarism they are pinning on you.

Are you referring to me asking you to show him in my post (link below) where the references were located? That was all I was requesting from you.
I was not requesting that you get involved in the argument itself. I guess I wasn't clear enough to you at the time.

I don't care about that. Your argument about that is with them. I was arguing with you on the principle of the matter: Bible-lovers do indeed object to plagiarism.

I know all this. . .I didn't mean for you to get involved in the argument itself. . .but just to point out the physical location of the references he said were not there in

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html

I hope this finally puts this nonsense to bed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[youtube]W5FfJ89rGPc[/youtube]
YouTube - WAR - Why Can't We Be Friends

 

[smokydot]

I was thinking about the NT, specifically.
When I first posted, my post was right under yours. The intervening posts took away that specific context, and I'm sorry about that.
I know that there ARE non-Jews who actually DO care about the Jewish calendar, and folks who DO take the time to understand Jewish things.
I'm just not convinced that the authors of the gospels were overly concerned about such things, and whether they were Jews or non-Jews, wrote what sounded good primarily for an ignorant audience.
Otherwise, what seems to be the three most important days to the foundation of the Christian faith would have details matched up a bit better, to themselves and to Jewish reality...

Well, now that the nonsense which so rudely interrupted the OP has been put to bed)(, I can give you my conclusion on the day Jesus died.

The problem is the seeming conflict between Mark and John's accounting.

The Day Jesus Was Crucified:

Mk 14:12 (NIV) -- on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb -- that's Nissan 14,

but which was eaten in the early part (the night) of Nissan 15, which was Nissan 15 until the following sunset the next day.

In Mark, Jesus died on Nissan 15.

Jn 19:14 (NV) -- Pilate is on the judge's seat, on the Day of Preparation of Passover Week -- Nissan ? ? ?

The NIV translators use "Passover Week." I trust both their Greek and Hebrew scholarship, and their sources for accuracy.

"Week" shows the reconciliation point between Mark and John, because all Friday's were called the "Day of Preparation" (for Saturday Sabbath).

In John's account, "Day of Preparation" means the Friday in Passover Week, -- Nissan 15
which is the day before the Saturday Sabbath -- Nissan 16
which is the day before the first day of the week, Sunday -- Nissan 17.

In John, Jesus died on Nissan 15.

Therefore, there is no true conflict between Mark's and John's accounts.

The Day Jesus Rose from the Dead:

Then Matthew's account gives the facts which locate Jesus' resurrection on Sunday, Nissan 17:
--at dawn the two Mary's went to look at the tomb -- Mt 28:1
--now there had been a violent earthquake. . .the guards were so afraid they shook and became like dead men -- Mt 28:2, 4
--while the women were on their way to the tomb at dawn, guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. -- Mt 28:11

There is no reason to maintain the guards would have waited several hours after the event to go scurrying back to the city, instead of going immediately
after the event. . .which then locates the resurrection in the area of dawn on the first day of the week, Sunday.

So my conclusion is: Jesus died on Friday, Nissan 15. . .and rose on Sunday, Nissan 17. . .both of which are shown above, and has been the testimony of the Christian church since the beginning.

And finally:
The truth of both the OT and the NT is a matter of faith for me, it's not a matter of proof.

Whether or not it was three days and three nights. . .three days. . .or whether he simply rose on the third day is inconsequential to me.
The point of all three references was his resurrection, it was not how many hours before his resurrection.
Now had he not risen, which was the issue in all the references, that would be extremely consequential to me.

And this resolves for me the days of Jesus' death and resurrection. . .and puts this one to bed also.

 

[smokydot]

[youtube]W5FfJ89rGPc[/youtube]
YouTube - WAR - Why Can't We Be Friends

(1) I don't trust mocking, ridiculing, scorning or scoffing as a strategy for discrediting someone's argument.

(2) I don't trust flippant, cryptic or misleading comments.

(3) I don't trust dismissive, evasive or deflecting responses.

(4) And I don't trust refusal to acknowledge irrefutable annihilations of false assertions about the Scriptures; for example, in

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1070.html.

(5) I trust simple, straight forward and substantive engagement.

Harmonious does that, when she has a mind to.

Can you?

 

[smokydot]

I wonder if anyone can actually add to the discussion related to the OP.
In the mean time, I'll be editing, deleting, and re-arranging my posts to shield myself from my opponents' criticisms.

Editing, deleting and re-arranging your posts cannot shield you from your opponent's criticism if the facts aren't on your side.

The only real shield from your opponent's criticism are the irrefutable facts. . .particularly, if criticism only is your opponent's chief argument,
due to having nothing else of substance for refutation.

 

[smokydot]

There is another problem with the three days as well. The Gospels never state when Jesus was resurrected. I just finished reading Raymond E. Browns short book on the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection, and he points this out. All we really know is that sometime between the burial, and the time in which the women go to visit the tomb, Jesus has been resurrected.

Raymond E. Brown is a lousy student of Scripture.

Matthew's account locates the time of Jesus' resurrection:

Mt 28:1 -- at dawn on the first day of the week, the Mary's went to the tomb

Mt 28:2 -- now there had been a violent earthquake, an angel of the Lord came down, rolled back the stone and sat on it

Mt 28:4 -- the guards were so afraid they shook and became like dead men

Mt 28:11 -- while the women were on their way at dawn, the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that happened.

Matthew locates the resurrection at dawn on Sunday.

There is no reason to think that the guards would have waited hours to rush into town with their report of the remarkable events, rather than hurrying immediately
in their shock and fear to report what they had witnessed.

Raymond Brown also says (TIME, 4/4/94, "Why was Jesus Crucified?") that the Jews were not guilty of, as distinguished from repsonsible for, Jesus' death.

And Jesus disagreed.

Jn 8:38-47 -- He declared them guilty when he said they were not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil. . .because they sought to kill him.
(Jn 8:38-47)

Mt 23:29-36 -- He also declared them guilty, and condemned them to hell (v.33), when he declared that the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zechariah
was on their heads, because in seeking to murder him, the prophet who was to come (Dt 18:17-19; Jn 1:21, 6:14), and subsequently to murder his apostles (vv.33-34),
they were endorsing all such murders committed by their forefathers (vv.30-32), and would suffer the penalty for all those murders.

Which is why the apostles say the same: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html

Raymond Brown is a lousy student of Scripture, neither knowing (shown above) nor understanding (Mt 27:24-25) what it says.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is another problem with the three days as well. The Gospels never state when Jesus was resurrected. I just finished reading Raymond E. Browns short book on the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection, and he points this out. All we really know is that sometime between the burial, and the time in which the women go to visit the tomb, Jesus has been resurrected.

For those of you who don't know who Raymond E. Brown is... Raymond E. Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He wrote one of the standard (most respected) scholarly introductions to the NT, which I own (prae jeebus!), and it's excellent.

 

[smokydot]

I think about that quite a bit, but I don't think that it solves the problem of the three days or the contradictions in the Gospels.

The seeming "contradictions" regarding the day Jesus died are resolved when it is understood
that all Friday's were called the "day of Preparation" (for the Saturday Sabbath).

The seeming "contradiction" is between Mk 14:12 and Jn 19:14:

Mk 14:12 -- the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb - Nissan 14, which Jesus ate with them that night,
which was the first part of Nissan 15, and was Nissan 15 until the next day's sunset, which was the day Jesus was crucified.

In Mark's gospel, Jesus was crucifed on Nissan 15.

Jn 19:14 (NIV) -- the "day of Preparation" for Passover Week, Pilate sat down on the judge's seat

The eminent Jewish and Greek scholars of the NIV, and their sources for accuracy, use Passover Week, making clear the time frame.

Since all Friday's were called the "day of Preparation" (for the Saturday Sabbath), in Jn 19:14 above, it means the Friday that fell within Passover Week, Nissan 15,
which would be the day before the Saturday Sabbath, which was the day before Jesus rose from the dead.

In John's gospel, Jesus was crucified on Nissan 15.

Based on the eminent Jewish and Greek scholars of the NIV, and their sources for accuracy, there is no contradiction in the NT regarding the day Jesus died.
Jesus died on Friday, Nissan 15.