# Good Friday = Good Wednesday?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2001, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083 "2001-04-06T19:04:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/1 "2001-04-06T19:04:36Z")
I was recently reading a book from around 1908 that was supposed to clear up some of the more obvious contradictions in the Bible. It had some intersting ideas (a pre-adamic race) and some loopy ones (that wine used in the New Testement was simple grape juice), but one that caught my attention was in regards to Good Friday. You know the whole three days/three nights thing right? Obviously, can’t be reconciled between Friday evening and Sunday morning… that’s less than 48 hours. If I remember correctly, he wrote that the reason people keep Good Friday is because of a passage in Mark about the death of Jesus: > [@](#): > > And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath - [Mark 15:42](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bg?passage=MARK+15&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off) Day before the Sabbath = Friday. Simple enough, right? > [@](#): > > The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an **high day** ,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - [John 19:31](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bg?passage=JOHN+19&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off) So this was a high Sabbath, a holy day. Probably refers to this: > [@](#): > > And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. - [Lev 23:6-7](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bg?passage=LEV+23&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off) Since it was a high day, it could fall on any day of the week. So, if you wanted, you could count back 72 hours from the time he rose and come up with the idea that he died on a Wednesday. This made some sense to me. I have read in recent years that scholars have said that “three days” or “three days/three nights” in the Hebrew usage didn’t necessarily mean 72 hours, but instead could have covered the time between Good Friday and Sunday morning. To me, however, this seems like an after-the-fact explanation (or whatever mistake it’s known as). So, should it be Good Wednesday? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/2 "2001-04-06T21:25:42Z")
I’ve never heard the “three days/three nights” thing, only “on the third day”, which does work: 1st day - Thursday sunset 'till Friday sunset 2nd day - Friday sunset 'till Saturday sunset (Sabbath} 3rd day - Saturday sunset 'till Sunday sunset ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/3 "2001-04-06T23:19:05Z")
Luke 23:56 > [@](#): > > **They returned and prepared spices and perfumed oils. Then they rested on the sabbath according to the commandment** Luke 24:1 > [@](#): > > **But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb** To use the Gospel that **Skott** used, Mark 16:9 says: > [@](#): > > **When he had risen, early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdelene…** There are similar references to the first day of the week in Matthew and John, but I did not note a reference to “three days and three nights” in any of them. **Skott** , if you have a reference to this, please let me know. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/4 "2001-04-06T23:19:36Z")
He’s probably referring to [Mat 12:39-40](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matt+12%3A39-40&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english). ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/5 "2001-04-07T02:44:16Z")
Scott, I read your post four times and I’m still confused. I have no idea what the book is trying to say. Jesus clearly rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Sunday. On this the Bible is unequivocably clear. From this, we can deduce when he was executed, which was clearly a Friday: Lk. 23:54-24:1 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. This seems clear as day to me: Jesus was executed on Friday, right before the Sabbath was about to begin. The women wait a day, and then go the tomb on Sunday. How does anyone get Wednesday out of this? This book’s argument seems to rest on the idea that “Sabbath” meant any day of rest, not just the normal, every-Saturday Sabbath. But Luke clearly dispels this. He mentions that it was Preparation Day, _and_ the Sabbath was about to begin. Furthermore, the women rested on the Sabbath in accordance with the commandment, which only covers the Saturday Sabbath. As far as reconciling the three days/three nights thing with the time frame, that’s a job for Biblical apologists. ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-friday-good-wednesday/61083/6 "2001-04-09T17:05:16Z")
My apologies if my initial post was confusing. Let me see if I can deal with the questions on a point by point basis :} 1. The three days/three nights did indeed come from Matthew as **emarkp** mentioned: > [@](#): > > But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matthew 12:39-40. 1. The fact that Jesus did rise from the dead on the first day of the week is not in question. Remember that the Hebrew day begins at sundown… so what we consider Saturday night would actually be considered part of Sunday, and certainly “early” on the first day of the week Was he unequivocably instead raised Sunday morning at sunrise? Personally, I have my doubts, since when the stone was rolled away, the body of Jesus wasn’t in there. > [@](#): > > He [Jesus] is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. - [Matt 28:6](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+28&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off) 1. It was the preperation day and the Sabbath was about to begin, as **Opus1** pointed out; however, there’s more than one Sabbath… each of the holy days (Passover, Pentecost, etc.) are considered Sabbaths. As John mentioned, it _was_ a high Sabbath that they were preparing for (as I quoted above). It is true that the high Sabbath did fall on a Saturday around the time (33 AD), but it also fell on a Thursday around the same time (30 AD). The guy gets Wednesday out of this by figuring if the women only waited a day, then it couldn’t have been the three days/three nights spoken of by Jesus and that the tradition is wrong. The theory seems viable to me. But that’s just me… does that make me a Biblical apologist?