Do The Gospels Disagree On The Passion Story Timelines?

Do the Synoptic Gospels disagree with John about the time of events surrounding the crucifixion and death of Jesus? Many skeptics claim that Matthew, Mark, and Luke contradict John regarding the day and timing of Jesus' crucifixion. Do they actually contradict one another? On the surface, it does seem like they are listing different times, but as you will see, this is the result of imposing our modern time-keeping standards on the text. We have a very precise time-keeping system, but in the 1st century, nobody had watches or phones that told them the time at the ease of a glance. The Gospels actually do not contradict one another, for if they were, they would be claiming that Jesus both died and didn't die at a certain time, but they don't. Therefore, the skeptic would need to show more than just cherry picking verses in order to actually prove a contradiction is present. But how do the Gospels not disagree?

What Day Did The Crucifixion And Death Of Jesus Happen On?

Matthew 26:19 says that Jesus was crucified on the day after the Passover meal, while John 19:14 says He was crucified before Passover, during the preparation day for it. This disagreement claim is a two-part contradiction. In the sense that it is making two separate claims, both of which will be dealt with in this article. The first of which is that the Synoptics and John contradict the day Jesus was crucified (the verses mentioned above). The Synoptic Gospels all agree that Jesus' last supper was the Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16, Luke 22:7-13). They all provide a timeline of Jesus being arrested on Thursday and crucified on Friday. But it seems to be a different case with John, as, on the surface, he may be suggesting Jesus was crucified before Passover.

The reason some people think John says this can be traced to multiple instances in the book. John 18:28 tells us that the priests who were turning in Jesus did not enter Pontius Pilate's headquarters because they did not want to be defiled for "the Passover". John 19:14 also says that it was the "Day of Preparation," leading some to suggest he is referring to the day before the Passover. It is because of these two verses that some suggest John is implying Jesus was arrested on Wednesday and crucified on Thursday, ultimately contradicting the Synoptics. At first glance, this seems to be a viable objection until we examine the context of John's narration of the crucifixion.

The chapters before these verses begin with Jesus offering instructions to His disciples during the last supper (chapters 13-17). After the meal, in chapter 18, they go to Gethsemane. Inspiring Philosophy provides a useful analysis of this supposed contradiction. At the beginning of chapter 13, verse 1 says, "Now before the Feast of Passover," obviously referring to the Passover meal. Then, verse 2 begins with "During Supper," referring to the Passover meal mentioned in verse 1. It is blatantly obvious that John is saying the Passover meal is already happening, and therefore will have taken place, continuing from this point. And New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg agrees with this:

“Verses 1-2 would thus describe the depth of the love Jesus already had for his disciples before the Passover. Such love led him to see his mission through to the end, culminating in the Last Supper.”¹

Craig mentions that we should also keep in mind the fact of what word Passover in Hebrew (Pascha) referred to. Passover did not just mean the singular meal held during the celebration, but commonly referred to the entire week-long event. John even uses this word in this manner in multiple places (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). And in 13:29, he uses the Greek word for feast in the manner that refers to the entire event of Passover used in the Synoptics and elsewhere (Mark 14:1, Luke 2:41, John 2:23). In 13:29, the discples are wandering why Judas left after dipping his bread. They thought that perhaps Judas left to gather things for the "feast" as he had access to the finances (the money box). Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) says that it doesn’t make much sense for Judas to leave to buy provisions for the meal 24 hours before it took place, as it would just spoil overnight. Instead, food was commonly bought the day of the meal.

Thus, it makes more sense that the disciples thought Judas left to buy provisions that would have been used throughout the week-long event after the last supper, and not for the Passover meal. Furthermore, 13:29 also says that the disciples thought Judas may have left to give alms to the poor. This would have been rather spontaneous on a random day, but on the first day of Passover, it was commanded to give alms to the poor (Mishnah Pesachim 10:1). So it makes much more sense that John is describing events during the Passover meal, at the start of Passover, meaning Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal on Friday. With this context in mind, the first verse used by skeptics, John 18:28, says that the priests did not want to enter Pontius Pilate's headquarters because they did not want to be defiled for the Passover. The issue for the skeptic is that this verse actually agrees with the Synoptics and does not introduce any contradictions into the text. John is not referring to the Passover meal on Thursday.

Leviticus 15:5-11 says that defilement that happened during the day would expire at sunset, when the Passover meal took place. So the priests wouldn't have had to worry about being defiled before the Passover meal on Thursday, because they would have been cleansed whenever it started. They would have to worry about being defiled for a planned mid-day meal during Passover, which aligns much more with what the text is saying. Scholars interpret the Passover mentioned in 18:28 to mean the Hagigah meal on mid-day Friday, after the Passover meal took place on Thursday, and this makes much more sense than what the skeptic claims John is actually saying. Moreover, 2 Chronicles 35:7-9 seems to suggest that meals and offerings later in the week were also called the Passover.

“It is true that the later meals are not singled out apart from the initial Passover dinner, but, if John has already narrated this first meal, readers would understand that it could not be included again”²

But what about John 19:14? This verse explicitly says it was the "Day of Preparation" of the Passover, right? This is a misunderstanding of what the text is saying. John most likely is referring to a Day of Preparation during the Passover week, not to the Passover meal. In fact, the skeptic has to add words into John's mouth, as he never explicitly says the Passover meal, but just uses the general Passover. The actual Greek word used was also commonly used to refer to Friday, the day before the Sabbath. So John is probably referring to the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath during the Passover week. And this is the case for the Synoptics aswell, as they all refer to Friday as the Day of Preparation (Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, Didache 8.1). We also know this from sources other than the Gospels, like the Martyrdom of Polycarp:

"His pursuers then, along with horsemen and taking the youth with them, went forth at supper-time on the day of preparation..."3

John 19:31 and 42 both call Friday the Day of Preparation, with 31 even mentioning that it was before the Sabbath on Saturday. Therefore, John 19:14 is referring to Friday and not Thursday. The Day of Preparation for the Sabbath, not the Passover meal. There is no contradiction between what the Synoptics and John say about when Jesus was crucified. John agrees with the Synoptics that Jesus was arrested on Thursday and crucified on Friday. This supposed contradiction is the result of cherry-picking verses and ignoring context, but do the Gospels contradict on the time of the crucifixion and death of Jesus?

What Time Did The Crucifixion And Death Of Jesus Happen At?

The skeptic may give up the first half of this objection, ultimately agreeing that the Gospels do not contradict each other on the day Jesus was crucified. They may now introduce the second half of the objection: although they agree on the days of the timeline, they surely contradict each other on the exact times of the events in that timeline. In other words, the Synoptics do not agree with John about when Jesus was crucified.

According to Mark 15:25, it says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, which would be around 9 am, darkness fell over the land at the sixth hour, around 12 pm, with Jesus dying on the cross at the ninth hour, around 3 pm. But John 19:14 says that Jesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour, when Mark says darkness fell upon the land while Jesus was on the cross. Is John contradicting Mark? At face value, it seems to be a contradiction, but let's dig deeper into this supposed problem.

There are two main solutions for this supposed contradiction. The first solution is to posit that the Synoptics are using the Jewish time system (with the beginning of the day at 6 am), while John, with a Gentile audience, is using the Roman time system (with the beginning of the day at 12 am). This would solve the issue, as John would be saying Jesus was before Pilate at 6 am, with the Synoptics filling in the rest with the crucifixion 3 hours later at 9 am, with Jesus dying around 3 pm.⁴ But once again, Craig Blomberg raises an issue with this solution, offering a second one. He says that this first solution is imposing a modern, precise time-keeping view on the text. We do need to keep in mind that precise time-keeping is a modern invention (1656).

The second solution, offered by Blomberg, is to take into account the fact that ancient people kept time much differently than we do today. He says that Mark and John are offering rough time estimates.⁵ It was very common to refer to the times of the day as quarters in the Roman Empire. When we understand this fact, this would mean that Mark and John are providing a rough estimate of the time being somewhere close to midday on Friday. And this makes sense, as the ancients didn't have watches or portable clocks. They would have kept time in a general sense, lacking the technology for precise timekeeping. Theologian Wes Huff also notes that most scholars agree that, with regard to the sixth-hour estimate, you have about a three-hour window for that event to take place. You can also notice this in the other Gospels and Acts, as times are referred to in either the third hour, sixth hour, ninth hour, etc., hour to mark the timeframe. They are using the common quarters that split up the periods of the day that were used in the Roman Empire. ⁶

Blomberg also notes that Mark's third hour could mean anywhere from 9 am to 12 pm, and John's sixth hour could be anytime before midday.⁷ So you cannot really say the two Gospels contradict each other with either solution. But the most likely explanation, given what we know about timekeeping in antiquity, they were probably making rough estimates using the common time-quarter references that people reading at that time would be familiar with. For this to be a contradiction, one Gospel would have to say Jesus was crucified at an exact time, and another say He wasn't crucified at that exact time. But we do not have that scenario to deal with, so there is no contradiction. Instead, they offer rough estimates that totally fit into their cultural background in the 1st century Roman Empire in Jerusalem.

It is very obvious that the Gospels do not contradict each other about the time and day of Jesus crucifixion. We should avoid imposing our modern views onto ancient texts, as we often miss the point and message (as we have seen here). By investigating these superficial contradictions and objections, we have the opportunity to learn new and valuable things. And this should serve as the fuel for the engine we are to defend the faith our Lord Jesus Christ has left us, with sound reasoning and good philosophy.

(1) (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, pg 223)

(2) (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, pg 224)

(3) Rev Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1913, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Volume 1, pg 40, Martyrdom of Polycarp 7:1)

(4) (John Bagnell Bury, History of The Roman Empire from its Foundation to the Death of Marcus Aurelius (27BC-180AD), pg 633)

(5) (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels)

(6) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mRNdGnQSOo&t=62)

(7) (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels)