Amaleq13

I do not assume my conclusion so as to reach it so this is simply false.

Pilate is described as surprised that Jesus is dead. A plain reading of the text indicates he was on the cross for 3 hours.

3 hours is a surprisingly short time given that the whole point was to induce a slow, painful, humiliating death.

There is nothing circular about this reasoning. Taking the text as it reads simply makes sense. There does not appear to be any legitimate reason to insert your extra hours.

That, on the other hand, is circular.

Were the other two scourged as well?

Whatever the reason? Authors don't tend to randomly choose the scenes they depict or the words they place in the mouths of their characters even if the story is based on historical events.

Unfortunately for your position, none of those factors appear to be supported by the actual text.

Larsguy47

March 15:25 syas he was impaled at the "third hour". His trial was a noon, the "sixth hour". The next "third hour" would be 9:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. is shortly after the new Jewish day began at nightfall. This was a time when people were around, just after dinner, and not at work in the fields, etc. A night execution is suggested by Joseph when an eclipse takes place the same day (night?) to rabbis are killed by Herod. The eclipse was a lunar eclipse, not a solar eclipse; lunar eclipses occur at night.

The fact that Mark just gave the hour and didn't stipulate day or night suggests the common people would have known by implication of the custom that this was either at night or in the morning, so we could presume it was actually the custom to impale at night or in the early evening. Certainly, if there was just one day before sabbath when the bodies were to be taken down and some public opportunity to mock and have the condemned suffer would be served if they were impaled that night so they would be on the cross for the greater part of the day.

Another suggestion this took place at night was that Simon of Syrene who came to help Jesus bear the stake was said to be coming from the "field" or the country where he might have been employed as a day laborer in the fields gathering grain. If this were after sundown and after the work in the field was over, he would not only have been available but obviously willing to be paid some small sum as a dayworker to help Jesus out. If he were a day laborer, though, he certainly would have been in the fields at 9:00 a.m.

Pilate for some reason thought Jesus should have still been alive. We don't know precisely why that was. But those with him were still alive because they had their legs broken. That suggests one reason right there. But since Jesus' case was exceptional, especially since he was associated with miracles and healing Pilate's surprise could have been based on any number of things or a combination thereof. Therefore we can't presume why he should not have been surprised . His surprise is sufficient indication that he had cause to be.

We can wonder all we want to as to why he was suprised, but it's not our position to wonder why he wasn't suprised.

LG47

spamandham

I'm not arguing for 'coincidence', I'm arguing for 'fiction'. This crap simply never happened. It's just a story in a book.

I have no interest in pages long contorted twisting psychotic nonsense on how this word from this passage combines with some cloud photo and a painting and some unrelated passage written 800 years earlier to somehow claim a prediction of 1940-1947.

The 'great tribulation' happened 1950 years ago, not 50 years ago.

Doug Shaver

Creatively.

Amaleq13

Yes, and that is 9:00am.


No, Mark 15:33 tells us that the darkness began at the sixth hour (ie noon) and that it lasted until the ninth hour (ie 3pm) when Jesus died. His trial was "in the morning" according to Mark 15:1.

I was incorrect before and should have said Jesus died after only 6 hours on the cross.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean but your chronology does not match the text of Mark.

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]The "third hour" could be 9:00 a.m. or 9:00 p.m.

Acts 23:23 And he summoned a certain two of the army officers and said: “Get two hundred soldiers ready to march clear to Caes·a·re´a, also seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen, at the third hour of the night.

ACTS 2:15 "15 These [people] are, in fact, not drunk, as YOU suppose, for it is the third hour of the day.

In the meantime John 19:14 specifically indicates that Jesus trial was underway at the "sixth hour":

13 Therefore Pilate, after hearing these words, brought Jesus outside, and he sat down on a judgment seat in a place called The Stone Pavement, but, in Hebrew, Gab´ba·tha. 14 Now it was preparation of the passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews: “See! YOUR king!”

Mark specifically says that Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrine at dawn, but does not state how long that trial with the Sanhedrine was, just that he was later brought to Pilate. But this was not the same day anyway, as after Jesus saw Pilate he was then sent to Herod who conducted his own trial and then returned Jesus to Pilate on the day one prisoner was to be released and the rest were impaled. This was the same day Jesus was arrested the very same night he ate Passover, which makes this the "first day of unfermented cakes" and thus Saturday, Nisan 15th. This was not the day of "preparation", therefore, and not the same trial at noon when Jesus was finally condemned after having returned from Pilate.

Mark 15:1 And immediately at dawn the chief priests with the older men and the scribes, even the whole San´he·drin, conducted a consultation, and they bound Jesus and led him off and handed him over to Pilate.

Per YOUR interpretation, on the night immediately after Passover, which would have been the same night the Jews left Egypt, which was the 15th (Numbers 33:3) and a sabbath day, Jesus would have been seen at the Sanhedrine. Then before 9:00 a.m. he was taken to Pilate who interrogated Jesus and found out he came from Galilee and then sent him to Herod, who wasn't expecting him. Had a trial before Herod and then returned to Pilate for a final trial. Condemned Jesus after which he made that long walk out to Calvary, needing assistance by Simon of Syrene to do so, and then impaled on the cross. All that in the span of about three hours or so? I don't think so.

Further you have direct contradictions. After all, if we go by John which shows Jesus' last trial was not until "noon", then Jesus would have had to have been taken off the cross and sent back to Pilate for that trial at noon, which must have been a minute or two just before noon, and then Jesus rushed back and put back on the cross so that at exactly noon it could get dark. This still doesn't work, because Jesus' died on the "day of preparation" which ends at sundown on Nisan 14th. Once it becomes sundown, then it's the sabbath day of the "first day of unfermented cakes."

SOLOTION? Jesus must have died on the next "day of preparation for passover" which is the second day before the "sabbath of passover" that week, Nisan 21st. That is, there were two sabbath days of passover, which were the 15th and 21st, and thus two preparation days of passover, the 14th and the 20th. Thus could only be the second "preparation for passover" which is the 20th.

Exactly. But John 19:14 says it was noon when Jesus was on trial on the day of "but preparation [de paraskeuh for passover. When "de" is used in front of the time of the day it signifies "just before" that time of the day. When it is left off, it means "during" that time of the day. "De" is translated as "but" in English, thus there is a difference between "but preparation" at John 19:14 and all the other references to the actual day of preparation when Jesus is being placed into the tomb. (Compare Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31, 42).

A clear example of this subtle use of "but" when used to designate "just before" is when Jesus rose and when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb.

Mark 16: After he rose early [but early, de proi] on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Mag´da·lene, from whom he had expelled seven demons."

But John 20:1 also indicating it was "early" does not use "but" in front of "early":

1 On the first day of the week Mary Mag´da·lene came to the memorial tomb early [proi], while there was still darkness, and she beheld the stone already taken away from the memorial tomb.

The Greek term proi in this case, is a reference to the "early morning watch" that is from 3:00 a.m. to sunrise (3:00 to 6:00 a.m. generally speaking). Thus Jesus rose "just before" (but early) the early morning watch of 3-6 a.m.; however, Mary Magdalene came during the "early" watch and thus sometime after 3:00 a.m., while it was still dark.

Of course, to make things complicated, there were two "early" watches. One an "early morning" watch and one an "early evening" watch. There were three evening watches. Commonly referred to as "early", simply "evening" and "late." The watches were 3 hours each, as you have noticed. The "early evening" watch was from Noon to 3:00 p.m., the just "evening" watch was from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (sunset), and the "late evening" watch was from 6:00 p.m. (sundown) to 9:00 p.m. I'm just using the times "generally" because they vary throughout the year, but those were the general divisions of the day.

Thus also pertinent to precisely when Jesus saw Pilate the first time is the reference in John 18:28:

28 Then they led Jesus from Ca´ia·phas to the governor’s palace. It was now early [but early, de proi] in the day. This means it was specifically, just before the early watch, that is, the early evening watch and thus just before noon.

Therefore, there is a consistency for when Pilate saw the people, sometime just before midday. He wasn't going to get out of his bed early in the morning at 7:00 a.m. to see the people. Every time Pilate deals with the people, it's just before noon.

But having noted the above, you now have three separate versus of events occurring at Noon:

1) When Jesus first sees Pilate just before noon (John 18:28, de proi)

2) When Jesus sees Pilate the second time around noon (John 19:14, sixth hour)

3) When it becomes dark at noon after Jesus is impaled (Mark 15:33).

These three events, obviously did not occur on the same day.

1) Occurs on Nisan 15th, the first day of unfermented cakes, the day there was a "solemn assembly" at the temple. This is why the Jews didn't want to enter Pilates dwelling or else they would become unclean for "passover" that is the passover-connected special celebration at the temple that day.

2) This Noon-time trial occurs on the "but preparation" day, that is, the day just before preparation for the second passover sabbath, and thus Wednesday, Nisan 19th. Preparation would officially begin that nightfall and thus when Jesus is impaled at the "third hour" that night at 9:00 p.m. it was the day of preparation.

3) The third noon-time reference when it becomes dark, is on the day of preparation, Thursday, Nisan 20th. It is now "preparation for passover", that is preparation for a special "passover sabbath" day. Friday is not the usual sabbath. That is why this sabbath is called a "high sabbath" day, it's a special sabbath day and not the usual Saturday. Obviously, with Friday the 21st being a special "Passover sabbath" day, followed by the regular sabbath, Jesus would be in the tomb for "three days and three [separate] nights" (Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night). Thus all is fulfilled.

IN CONCLUSION: There is absolutely not contradiction between the gospels for when Jesus died or was on trial. The misunderstandings come from the the brevity of the account, not understanding specific Greek syntax in relation to times of the day and especially not understanding that the Passover Seder meal occurs on the first day of unfermented cakes, which is a sabbath day. If that alone were understood it would be clear Jesus did not die the same day he was arrested.

But, now we know.

If you insist, since Mark does not say it was the third hour of the day or night, you can keep Jesus in prison all night and have him impaled at 9:00 a.m. in the morning if you wish. Thus he would have been on the cross for three hours before it gets dark for three hours and then, of course, Pilate would have been very surprised Jesus had died by 3 p.m. I don't have a problem with that, presuming there is no actual specific timing issue I'm not considering.

But you've got a lot going on in that three-hour period. Jesus has to have a quiet moment with John where he tells him to take care of his mother. Pilate was at the impalement and wrote the sign above Jesus' head, so that was a lot of activity and people. When some people passed by the sign and saw it said "King of the Jews" they went to Pilate and asked it to be removed and changed to "he claims he was the king of the Jews". Did that happen just an hour or so after Pilate left, or had that sign been made the night before and now Jews in the morning coming by for the first time see that sign and run to Pilate to have it corrected since many more throughout the day would see it? Then there is Simon of Syrene "coming from the country/field" who was employed to help Jesus. Was he a dayworker, clearly available for an few extra coins? He would have been on his way to the country or already there in the morning after sunrise, whereas if this was after sundown, he would have been finished for the day and thus "coming from the field" likely with many others at the end of the work day, etc.

But, as I said, these are "circumstantial" so "third hour" 9:00 a.m. or 9:00 p.m. is up for grabs.


Yes it does. My chronology coordinates all the gospels, including John. This is the correct and only way it will work and have all the gospels harmonize.

LG47

Amaleq13

Given the context provided by Mark 15:1 (ie in the morning), the former is the obvious choice.

Is that how all the evidence reads? IIRC, several mss and church fathers had "third hour". I've also read that many scholars understand this to refer to 6am though I'm not sure that is a valid interpretation.

Regardless, I have no difficulty accepting this as yet another discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. It really does not help you connect your chronology to Mark's text which was my interest.

Doesn't the use of "immediately" (15:1, eutheos) suggest they were rushing the process?

Mark says no such thing. Your efforts say less about what Mark tells us that they do about the difficulties of harmonizing the Synoptics and John. That said, you do offer an interesting harmonization, though, I'm not convinced that it truly makes sense. I'll have to return to it when I have more time.

Can you identify the scholars who support your reading?

Larsguy47

Actually, since Mark does not specify "in the morning" or "at night" I believe we must presume that being morning or night would have been obvious in the context so that it would have been redundant to specify morning or evening. I'm not sure exactly what that was, but if impalements were done at this time of the night per custom then that would be enough to confirm it was at night. The context of what Jesus did while impaled, especially the quite time with John suggests the crowd had died down and this was sometime during that night. So it's apparent to me it was at night. But Mark doesn't specify.

Oh, I forgot about that idea of the gospels all have their own separate hour designations. However, providing everybody is on the same clock, if the sixth hour is noon, then the 12th hour is 6:00 p.m. Then the hours start over again: 7pm is 1, 8 pm is 2 and 9pm is 3, the "third hour".
So 6am is definitely out. Besides, Jesus was not taken to the Sanhedrine until SUNRISE, which was about 6 am. Of course, I'm presuming you're trying to squeeze everything into the same day.


Just a thought. How could the "sixth hour" be noon, as I think everyone understands, and the third hour be 6am? It has to be 9 a.m. or 9 p.m. And the Synoptics and John are in complete harmony. There is no discpreancy.

No. The word "immediately" used with a watch is just the opposite of when "de" is used. De used with a watch, such as "early" means just before. The term "immediately" is understood a little differently in Greek and it means more "immediately after". So when used with early, it just means the early morning watch has just ended; it's "immediately after the morning watch", meaning right after sunrise. The early morning watch is from basically 3-6 am.


No scholars, just my own text comparisons. Who needs a scholar? :notworthy:

LG47

Amaleq13

The author does specify "morning" (proi) in the first verse.

I hope you understand that the fact your position involves such fundamental unsubstantiated speculation does not inspire confidence.

I think you ignored the more important point (ie manuscript/church father evidence of "third hour" instead of "sixth hour").

I'm not trying to do anything but take Mark's story as it is written and it is written as though all the events took place on the same day.

Can you provide a scholarly source to support all of this?

Given everything you've claimed about yourself? You do.

Larsguy47

Regarding need for scholars:

Actually, I don't. But you may. YOUR next step, is just to take he text comparisons to a scholar and get their feedback. Language is a very, very fluid thing. Colloquialisms, idioms, etc. in language is the basis for the very well known saying: "LOST IN TRANSLATION."

Now scholars and scholarhip are like the lexicon and the dictionary. They define words and their etymology. But idioms by their nature don't fit the definitions in context sometimes. Koine Greek was the "common" Greek, not the fancy Greek. So take for example a common Black reference that I'm not even sure about that it means but I've heard it: "That's FLY!"

I think I know what it means by the way it is being used. But if I looked up "fly" in an older dictionary, it's not going to help me. But maybe in a couple of years it might appear in a new dictionary of slang and it will explain what that means. But the clue is in the USAGE not the definition.

Therefore, a scholar can't go beyond the USAGE. If by interpretation of the context the normal definition of a word is changed or is not applicable, then that very act of the new popular usage adds a new defition. So in the old dictionary "fly" would describe a pesky insect, a zipper opening on some trousers and a means of bird and plane transportation, but it wouldn't help me understand "That was FLY!" in the common reference in that part of the black culture. But LATER, it might indeed explain "fly" is a slang expression meaning "cool", "all right", "hip" or "hep". Even the term "hip" didn't work when that word first came out during the time of the "hippies."

So in this case, I'm claiming this is actually a subtle reference to the "time of the day" that is missed by linguists because it is so colloquial and because to understand it, you need to know about Jewish tradition and timekeeping, etc.

Further, scholars are not known to be all that sensitive to picking up on these euphemisms in ancient tongue that show up, or truncated words.

Case in point, again. The CELLULAR PHONE. When a word is used often it tends to get abbreviated. "Cellular phone" became "cell phone" and then that has become just "cell". So if someone says: "What's your cell" and they're not in the prison yard at San Quinten then we assume they are talking about our cell phone number, right? But try finding that in a dictionary before the cellphone was invented! Or try understanding that out of context. You can't. Thus USAGE again DEFINES and REDEFINES the terms. And that is all that the scholars can go on.

Now here's an example of how, what I call "lazy" the scholars tend to be. They are not that aggressive about matching the context with the actual words. And sometimes it gets by because there is not that much of a contrast. The term I have in mind is "camel."

Now in our culture a "camel" is a cigaret or a beast with a hump, and a "camel toe" can be a slang reference to a girls tightfitting pants.

Back then, "camel" meant the animal with the hump, but also the concept in sewing of a lump in the thread that can't go through a needle or that bunches up behind the eye of an needle where you have some threads going through and the others being stopped. That resembles a camel in that it's head is narrow and can go through a narrow hole but it's body can't always follow, especially with that hump. Also, like we call a huge enornous fly a "horsefly" they likely called the same huge fly a "camelfly" but for short just called it a "camel."

So in usage, when Jesus said, It was harder for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven than for a "camel" to get through the eye of a needle, he did not have a reference to a literal camel, but to the common reference to a lump in the tread that bunches up behind the eye of a needle. Yet without the correct explanation, our mental image with just "camel" is imagining a literal camel not being able to fit through the eye of a regular sewing needle. But what kind of an illustration is THAT? That's overkill. But the scholars didn't figure out Jesus wasn't talking about a literal camel in this case, even though it's obvious women weren't grabbing literal camels out of the back to help hem up their garment. People don't sew with camels.

Same with the reference of how a Pharisee would strain out the tiny little gnat that could get into his wine, but would "gulp down the camel." Since when would a literal camel acidentally fly into a wine glass. Now, it could have been a really-really-really-really bit wine glass, this is true, but camels can't fly, so that rules that out for us here, right? (I'm really trying here!!) Thus, the comparison is not to a literal camel and a tiny little gnat, but a very large insect, the "camelfly/horsefly" abbrebiated just as "camel" and the tiny gnat. So he was basically saying they went to all the trouble to strain out the tiny little gnat but gulped down the horsefly.

See how much more sense that makes. How the illustration itself fits into a "normal circumstance" that people would understand back then?

But, did the Biblical scholars figure that out? Noooo. Did they bother trying? No.

So do we got to "sholars" for advice on colloquial and idiomatic issues they've obviously missed already? No.

Now we do check in with them, of course, to see if there are other instances or exceptional uses for terms and stuff like that already on the books, but they are the ones behind the cutting edge at this point.

But you're very impressed with scholarship, so by all means consult them, and in fact, try to find an 18th century dictionary and look up "cell" and see what you get and then apply that to modern language usage.

Scholars are wonderful, especially on dates, since they have so much they can talk about. But sometimes they don't think past the words themselves to understand their special usage and so we get a lot of "lost in translation" issues. But scholars know this and they understand if you can appropriate demonstrate some "selective" usage for a term in a consistent manner by comparison texts that they can update.

What's ironic to me, is that you have the DIRECT INFORMATION, which you refuse to accept or maybe can't understand. We'll take this to some Greek linguists and explain it in the context of it's cultural usage back then and then one or more of them might decide it's correct and then they will publish this, and THEN all of a sudden, it's now acceptable, because some scholar said it, even though, we still check out the explanation and text comparisons the scholar still must give before we accept his argument.

So there's something fundamentally wrong with the picture where someone without a degree, or without a degree he's not telling you about, presents the same argument and conclusion as someone with a degree, and that argument is logical or not logical simply based upon whether that person has a degree or not. Which means the argument itself, the text comparisons themselves are not credible either way.

So scholars are great, all cute as can be standing in a straight row, but if they get out of line they are meant to be grabbed by the collar and thown onto the carpet and updated. Trust me on this.

LG47