Albert Barnes Commentary Mark 15:25

"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." — Mark 15:25 (ASV)

And it was the third hour, etc. In John 19:14, it is said, And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour, etc. Much difficulty has been felt in reconciling these passages, and skeptics have usually cited them to prove that the evangelists have contradicted themselves. In reconciling them, the following remarks may perhaps make the matter clear.

1. The Jews divided both the night and the day into four equal parts of three hours each (See Barnes on Matthew 14:25). The first division of the day commenced at six o'clock in the morning and ended at nine; the second commenced at nine and ended at twelve, etc. The third hour, mentioned by Mark, would therefore correspond with our nine o'clock; the sixth hour, mentioned by John, would correspond with our twelve, or noon.

2. Mark states he is giving the time accurately; John does not. John says it was about the sixth hour, without affirming that this was exactly the time.

3. A mistake in numbers is easily made. If it should be admitted that such an error had crept into the text here, it would be nothing more than what has occurred in many ancient writings. It has been proved, moreover, that it was common not to write the words indicating numbers at length, but to use letters. The Greeks designated numbers by the letters of the alphabet, and this mode of computation is found in ancient manuscripts. For example, the Cambridge Manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark not the word third written out, but the letter g (Gamma), the usual notation for third. Now, it is well known that it would be easy to mistake this for the mark denoting six (the numeral 6). An error of this kind in an early manuscript might be extensively propagated and could have led to the present reading of the text. Such an error is actually known to exist in the “Chronicon” of Paschal, where Otho is said to have reigned 6 (six) months, whereas it is known that he reigned but three. In that instance, therefore, the g (three) was mistaken for 6 (six).

4. There is some external authority for reading “third” in John 19:14. The Cambridge Manuscript has this reading. Nonnus, who lived in the fifth century, says that this was the true reading (Wetstein). Peter of Alexandria, in a fragment concerning the Passover, as quoted by Usher, says, “It was the preparation of the Passover, and about the third hour, as,” he adds, “the most accurate copies of the Bible have it; and this was the handwriting of the Evangelist (John) which is kept, by the grace of God, in his most holy church at Ephesus” (Mill).

   It must be admitted, however, that no great reliance is to be placed on this account. That a mistake might have occurred in the early manuscripts is not improbable. No one can prove that it did not so occur; and as long as this cannot be proved, the passages should not be cited as conclusive proof of contradiction.

After all, perhaps the whole difficulty may be removed by the following statements:

1. Calvary was without (that is, outside) the walls of Jerusalem. It was a considerable distance from the place where Jesus was tried and condemned. Some time—more or less—would be occupied in going there and in the preparatory measures for crucifying Him.

2. It is not necessary to understand Mark as saying that it was precisely nine o'clock, according to our way of speaking. With the Jews, the period from six o'clock until seven was designated as the sixth hour; the third hour lasted until the fourth commenced; and the ninth until the tenth. They included in the third hour the whole time from the actual third hour to the beginning of the fourth. They adopted the same method regarding their days (See Barnes on Matthew 12:40).

3. It is not unduly pressing the matter to suppose that Mark spoke of the time when the process for crucifixion commenced; that is, when He was condemned, when they began the process, when they made the preparation. Between that and the time when He was taken out of Jerusalem to Mount Calvary, and when He was actually nailed to the tree, there is no improbability in supposing that there might have been an interval of more than an hour. Indeed, the presumption is that considerably more time than that would elapse.

4. John does not claim, as has been remarked, to be strictly accurate. He says, “it was about the sixth hour,” etc.

5. Now suppose that John meant to indicate the time when He was actually suspended on the cross; that he spoke of the crucifixion as denoting the act of suspension, as it struck him, and there is no difficulty. Any other two men—indeed, many witnesses—might give just such an account now. One man would speak of the time when the process for an execution commenced, another perhaps of the very act of the execution, and both would speak of it in general terms, saying that a man was executed at such a time. And the circumstantial variation would prove that there was no collusion—no agreement to impose on a court—that they were honest witnesses. That is proved here.

6. That this is the true account of the matter is clear from the evangelists themselves, and especially from Mark. The first three evangelists concur in stating that there was a remarkable darkness over the whole land from the sixth to the ninth hour (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). This fact would seem to indicate that the actual crucifixion continued only during that time—that He was, in fact, suspended at about the sixth hour, though the preparations for crucifying Him had been going on (according to Mark) for two hours before.

   The fact that Mark (Mark 15:33) mentions this darkness as commencing at the sixth and not at the third hour is one of the unintentionally occurring circumstances that seems to signify that the crucifixion then had actually taken place—though the various arrangements for it (Mark 15:26) had been going on from the third hour.

One thing is conclusively proved by this: that the evangelists did not conspire together to impose on the world. They are independent witnesses, and they were honest men. And the circumstance referred to here is one that is allowed to be of great value in testimony in courts of justice—circumstantial variation with essential agreement.