Has anyone ever heard the probability of there being two Sabbaths the week Jesus was crucified?

Mark 16:1 says when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that they might come and anoint Him.

However, in Luke 23:56, the women returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.

How could these women buy the spices and ointments after the Sabbath, and yet have them prepared before the Sabbath? That 's impossible, unless there were two Sabbaths that week: --- the annual Nisan 15 Sabbath, which ushers in the first day of Unleavened Bread (Lev.23:7) and the weekly Saturday Sabbath.

If Jesus died late on Nisan 14(wed.), the next day was a 'high Sabbath'-- Nisan 15(thurs.). Next day --Nisan 16(fri.) the women buy and prepare their burial spices, for this is the first opportunity they have. Next day, Nisan 17(sat.) they rest according to the scripture. Next day, Nisan 18(sun.) they go to the tomb of Jesus very early to anoint His body --- but He is gone. He rose from the dead late Saturday, exactly 3 days and 3 nights -- 72 hours -- like He said.

Is there any truth to this article? thanks!

Interesting hypothesis, wopik!

On the other hand, it's possible that the details of the women's actions weren't remembered the same in the oral traditions that Mark and Luke drew from. But since Luke probably wrote his Gospel with Mark's to use as a reference, it might also be that Luke is correcting Mark's information.

Yes, but, I don't see any other way to support Jesus' claim that He would be 3 days / 3 nights in the tomb -- 72 hours, exactly.

http://www.centuryone.com/crucifixion.html

Watch the comma, please ----

Mark 16:9 says, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week He appeared first to Mary Magdalene......"

OR -- "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene......"

Is Mark trying to tell us that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, or that Sunday was the first time He appeared to Mary Magdalene?

Afterall, there were no eye-witnesses to the resurrection.

I don't think Mark was trying to either write a biography or sketch an historical record. Neither were the other evangelists. There is, nonetheless, an historical foundation to the Gospels. Still, they were not trying to prove the Resurrection of Jesus. They and their readers believed in it already. They are trying to show what meaning the Resurrection has for the community for which they are being written. The fact that they believed in the Resurrection and that they were otherwise credible witnesses to the events surrounding same is compelling but doesn't amount to conclusive proof. Point is, these are, inescapably, matters of faith, and were not intended to be strict historical retellings.

pax,
jb