WHEN WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED? (MARK 15:25; JOHN 19:14-16)

I am a fan of good murder mystery stories, but the one I am reading now is not written in my favorite genre since it is a “time-table mystery.” This is the sort of story in which the solution to unraveling a seemingly unsolvable problem lies in doing complicated calculations as to exactly who was where at what time. A recent internet critic of the Bible has pointed to another time-table mystery – the seeming contradiction between the Gospel accounts as to the time of Jesus' crucifixion. This is not exactly a new problem. As we shall see, it is actually a very ancient one. Here is what Mark and John have to say on the subject:

“And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, 'Here is your King!' They cried out, 'Away with him, away with him, crucify him!' Pilate said to them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar.' Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.” (John 19:14-16)

It should be parenthetically noted that generally the sixth hour would indicate noon while the third hour stood for 9 AM.

Numerous ways of resolving this contradiction have been proposed over the years. I will summarize just some of them before presenting the most likely scenarios in favor among scholars today.

1. “Sixth” in John's account resulted from a simple error by a copyist. Thus, the early church historian Eusebius stated that the more accurate copies read “third” instead. This error would have been very understandable since the two words look practically the same when written in Greek. Textual expert Bruce Metzger does list eleven ancient manuscripts which have “third” in them, but feels, as do most scholars that these were obvious attempts to remove the discrepancy with Mark's account

2. Then there is the possibility that a slight change in punctuation results in applying the phrase the “sixth hour” to the Passover instead of the sixth hour of the day.

3. Others, such as Grey, feel that “the sixth hour” refers to the time of the Preparation for the Passover instead.

4. One of Augustine's suggestions was that the six hours were counted from 3 A.M. More likely is the commonly mentioned possibility that John was reckoning by Roman time (beginning with midnight) while Mark was using Jewish time (beginning at dawn). Robertson goes to great lengths to demonstrate that two different types of time reckoning were in play at that time in history. But even Westcott, who believed in this explanation, admitted that it did not resolve all the issues.

5. Or Mark might have been referring to the hour of the sentencing or scourging while John was referring to the crucifixion itself. (Mahoney)

6. A further possibility suggested by Augustine was that Jesus was crucified at the third hour by the comments of his Jewish opponents and then at the sixth hour by the Roman soldiers.

7. There are others who propose that neither author was speaking with any precision since at that time in history there was little concern about what the exact time of day was. Thus, all we need to know is that the crucifixion took place at some time between 9 and 12 in the morning. (Lipinski) This would fit with the fact that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the fields when he was conscripted to carry Jesus' cross, and such outdoor work generally stopped at noon (see Mark 15:21).

Similarly, Raymond Brown states that “as to hours we receive little historical precision from the Gospels beyond the indication that Jesus died on the cross on Friday afternoon. And Morris adds, “People in antiquity did not have clocks or watches, and the reckoning of time was always very approximate.” Mann also treats the various time indications as “'punctuation marks' in the story, convenient divisions by which to memorize the progress of events.”

8. Cowley suggests that Mark's third hour referred to a 3-hour watch from 9 to noon, but his 6^th and 9^th hours were actual times of day.

9. Despite the strong manuscript support for the inclusion of Mark 15:25, Lane argues that this was a note added by an early scribe and did not belong in the original text.

Without belaboring each of these above possibilities, it turns out that none of them really resolves the issue without running into other problems or resorting to sheer speculation. That leaves only the figurative approach given below.

10. A symbolic explanation is given by Brown instead. First, concerning John's timing, “certain rabbinic references point to noon on Passover Eve as the time for beginning some preparatory observances, e.g., no more leavened bread. Most commonly scholars point to noon as the hour when the priests in the Temple began slaughtering the lambs for the Passover meal to be eaten that night.” He points to this sort of symbolism in which John introduces themes from the Jewish observances is also found in 7:37-39; 9:5; and 10:36. In addition, the Lamb of God theme appears in John 1:29,36; 19:29; and 19:36. “That Jesus the Lamb of God was sentenced to death at the very hour when lambs for the Jewish Passover began to be killed would constitute a replacement theme (i.e., Jesus in place of a significant festal theme motif) quite at home in John's treatment of Jewish feasts.”

As for Mark's account, Brown says, “Mark has had a long and careful sequence of time indications dividing the day beginning with the Last Supper. In particular, [15:25] is the first of three time indications in the course of the crucifixion, continued by 'the sixth hour' when darkness came over thee whole earth in 15:33, and 'the ninth hour' when Jesus cried out in 15:34.”

As Anderson puts it, “The marking out of the hours has to be sure...This is God's time and throughout it his plan and purpose are steadily worked out.” Marcus concurs and adds that “the orderly progression of third, sixth, and ninth hours, like the series of sevens in the book of Revelation, implies that this dark epoch is nevertheless under the firm control of an all-powerful God.”

Brown concludes, “both indications may be theological; one may be chronological and the other theological or liturgical; but both cannot be chronologically correct.”