![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/04\/HeadDesk-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI will be resolving\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0of the alleged \u201ccontradictions\u201d from the web page entitled\u00a0\u201c194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0It\u2019s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are\u00a0obviously<\/em>\u00a0not logical contradictions, and how very\u00a0easy<\/em>\u00a0they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A\u00a0few<\/em>\u00a0here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n See further installments:<\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#1-25)<\/a>\u00a0[4-5-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#26-50)<\/a>\u00a0[4-6-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#51-75)<\/a> [4-7-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#101-125)<\/a> [4-8-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#126-150)<\/a> [4-9-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#151-175)<\/a> [4-11-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Refutation of 194 Biblical \u201cContradictions\u201d (#176-194)<\/a> [4-11-22]<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n 76. At the Mount of Olives, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Mt.26:30-34.<\/span> John Oakes, of the excellent Evidence for Christianity<\/em> site, answers:<\/span><\/p>\n There is no contradiction here. MML & J all agree that the scene occurred at the end of the Lord\u2019s Supper scene. Perhaps it happened as they were leaving as a little side conversation. That fits the description. By the way, the Mount of Olives is where the Garden of Gethsemane is. So, when Matthew and Mark say that after they sang, they went to the Mount of Olives, it could just as well have said that after the song they went to the Garden of Gethsemane. It is a little different that M & M say after the song they left for the Mt. of Olives, then describes the three rooster conversation, then has them actually travel to the Mount of Olives. My only thought is that perhaps all got up to go, then Jesus had the little conversation with Peter as they were preparing to leave for the Mount of Olives after the formal Seder service had ended. What is unanimous in all four gospels is that the more private conversation between Jesus and Peter happened at the end of the Seder meal, before they reached the Mt. of Olives. (<\/span>\u201cDid Jesus tell Peter he would deny him at the Mt. of Olives (Mark, Matthew) or during the Last Supper (Luke and John)?\u201d<\/a>, 4-16-12)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 77. Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed. Mt.26:34; Lk.22:34; Jn.13:38.<\/span> 78. The cock crowed once. Mt.26:74.<\/span> Note that Mark\u2019s second crow is after a first one, with a gap of time<\/em>. This is key to understanding the non-contradiction. RSV doesn\u2019t indicate when the first crow occurred, but KJV, utilizing a different (later, inferior) manuscript, has it after the first denial (14:68). Then after his third denial, the Gospel of Mark reads \u201cAnd immediately the cock crowed a second time\u201d (14:72). This alleviates any supposed difficulty, because it\u2019s not a matter of \u201cone crow only\u201d vs. \u201ctwo crows in a row at one time\u201d (after the third denial). <\/span><\/p>\n Rather, we must note what each Gospel was specifically referring<\/em> to. Matthew, Luke, and John all refer to what Mark states is the second crow: that occurred after Peter\u2019s third denial. But none of the three states that this particular crow is the \u201conly\u201d one. Therefore, it\u2019s not contradictory. Nor does it become one simply because three gospels didn\u2019t mention an additional earlier crow made after the first denial (the fallacy of argument from silence).<\/span><\/p>\n 79. Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. Mt.26:69,70.<\/span> Matthew has him answering the maid, while others nearby also<\/em> hear. We would expect this, since it was within a group of people, including \u201cbystanders\u201d (Mt 26:73; Mk 14:70) and \u201cservants and officers\u201d (Jn 18:18). He wasn\u2019t responding to them<\/em>, but to the maid.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If I was talking to my wife (say about some car repairs) and one or more of my four children (or now, grandchildren) are also listening, no one would say that I was replying \u2014 or talking to \u2014 to all<\/em> of them, when I was responding only to my wife. Nor if I were riding a bus with a friend and rather vehemently stated, \u201cI\u2019m not a Democrat!\u201d others will also<\/em> hear, but nevertheless, it\u2019s silly to think that I was replying to them<\/em>. That\u2019s how foolish and desperate this so-called \u201ccontradiction\u201d is.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But in fact, Mark, Luke, and John also make it apparent that others heard, too (while they weren\u2019t being replied to). They all mention that Peter was by a fire warming himself, with others, when he replied to the first maid (Mk 14:67-68; Lk 22:55-56; Jn 18:17-18). Obviously, then, the others around the fire would also have heard<\/em> his reply. Matthew is the only one that didn\u2019t mention the fire. But none of this is a contradiction in the slightest. Much ado about nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n 80) Peter\u2019s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71,72.<\/span> (81) Peter\u2019s third denial was to several bystanders. Mt.26:73,74; Mk.14:69,70.<\/span> Matthew specifies \u201ca maid\u201d (26:69), \u201canother maid\u201d (26:71), and \u201cbystanders\u201d (26:73). In the latter instance, a direct quote is given, so it is likely from just one<\/em> of them, as they would not \u2014 obviously \u2014 all say in unison exactly the same words.<\/span> In Mark it is \u201cone of the maids of the high priest\u201d (14:66), \u201cthe maid . . . began again to say\u201d (14:69), and \u201cthe bystanders\u201d (14:70), again with a direct quote for the latter, suggesting that only one person said it. The only possible difference with Matthew is whether it was the same maid or a second one in the second instance. Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/a><\/em> offers a solution (which occurred to me as well):<\/span><\/p>\n [I]t means the maid on duty in that particular place, the forecourt . . . Peter was a second time spoken to (or at) on the subject of his connection with Jesus, [as opposed to it being] the same person [who] spoke in both cases.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If this is the case (and the grammar permits it as a possibility), then \u201cagain\u201d would have the meaning of \u201cin addition<\/em> to the first maid.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Luke says it was \u201ca maid\u201d (22:56), \u201csome one else\u201d (22:58), and \u201cstill another\u201d (22:59). That\u2019s perfectly consistent with both Mark and Luke, provided my explanation for the \u201csecond maid\u201d in Mark is accepted.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n John has \u201cThe maid who kept the door\u201d (18:17). Thus all four specify a maid in the first instance. Then John has \u201cThey\u201d (with an exact quotation: 18:25), which can be an unspecified second maid (per Matthew and Mark), and the third inquiry in John was from \u201cOne of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off\u201d (18:26). This is a specified person, which is consistent with a \u201cbystander\u201d (Matthew and Mark) and \u201cstill another\u201d (Luke). Taking all four accounts together, we arrive at the following specific conclusions as to the identity of the three questioners:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) \u201cone of the maids of the high priest\u201d \/ \u201cThe maid who kept the door\u201d (Mk 14:66 and Jn 18:17)<\/span><\/p>\n 2) \u201canother maid\u201d: perhaps of the forecourt (Mt 26:71)<\/span><\/p>\n 3) \u201cOne of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off\u201d (Jn 18:26)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As demonstrated, then, there is no inconsistency across the four accounts in this regard. Some descriptions are merely more vague. If I\u2019m called by four different people, \u201ca man\u201d, \u201ca Catholic apologist\u201d, \u201cDave\u201d, and \u201ca guy raised in Detroit\u201d this is not contradictory at all, as all four descriptions are true statements. The one point that might be suspected to be a contradiction (Mk 14:69) has a perfectly plausible explanation. So, nice try again, but no cigar . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 82) The chief priests bought the field. Mt.27:6,7.<\/span> The Truth in Faith<\/em> website offers an excellent rebuttal:<\/p>\n [W]ho purchased the field directly? The chief priests did. Matthew focuses on how they were even being wickedly pious with the money Judas threw back at them (i.e. They said it would not be lawful to put it back in the treasury of the Temple\u2026as if they were being holy). The difference between Matthew\u2019s account and Luke\u2019s in Acts is answered by saying that in Mathew\u2019s account he shows us the chief priests, and not Judas, directly purchased<\/strong> the field. They literally directly used the money to acquire the field.<\/p>\n Then in Luke\u2019s account his focus is not on the chief priests as they are not even mentioned here. Rather Luke\u2019s focus is on the Apostles\u2019 recounting how they were minus one Apostle, Judas. So he notes that Judas was gone, because he acquired this field with blood money and hung himself. I believe Luke\u2019s version is showing us that while in Matthew\u2019s version the chief priests directly purchased<\/strong> the field, Luke puts the focus on that it was Judas\u2019 wickedness that indirectly purchased<\/strong> the field. . . .<\/p>\n Do you wish to know who literally bought the field with money? This was the chief priests who conducted themselves wickedly as Matthew catalogs in his Gospel. Do you wish to know how it was though the field came to be purchased? This was due to Judas Iscariot\u2019s wickedness and betrayal of Christ as Luke catalogs in his treatise. This is not a contradiction, it is rather two witnesses of the same event focusing on two different subjects and their actions which both lead to the same outcome (the purchase of the Field). . . .<\/p>\n You could say both Judas and the chief priests purchased the field and be right in both senses. How? Because the money can both be said to be Judas\u2019 and the chief priests. The money was given to Judas for his services in leading Jesus to be arrested. So it was payoff that belonged to Judas. Yet Judas gave it back to the chief priests in remorse, so then it also belonged to the chief priests. This is not a contradiction, it is a two angles of the same story being given by two different writers of Scripture that had two different focuses in how they shared the story. Both are true, and both have different lessons to show from the one story. (\u201cWho Purchased the Field of Blood?\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I also supplied an answer to this (citing someone else) in my paper, Resurrection #24: Judas & the Potter\u2019s Field<\/a> (5-3-21).<\/p>\n 83) Judas threw down the money and left. Mt.27:5.<\/span> See, Resurrection #19: When Was Judas Paid?<\/a> [4-30-21]<\/p>\n 84) Judas hanged himself. Mt.27:5.<\/span> This is one of the \u201cclassics.\u201d I\u2019ve dealt with it twice:<\/p>\n Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked\u00a0<\/a>[9-27-07]<\/p>\n Resurrection #23: How Did Judas Die?<\/a> [5-3-21]<\/p>\n 85) Jesus did not answer any of the charges. Mt.27:12-14; Lk.23:9.<\/span> In Matthew 27:11, right before the passage above, Jesus answered Pilate\u2019s question: \u201cAre you the King of the Jews?\u201d by saying, \u201cYou have said so\u201d: which was another way of saying \u201cyes\u201d (see my reply to #75<\/a> in my previous installment). It\u2019s not mentioned above that Matthew 27 dealt with Jesus\u2019 second<\/em> appearance before the high priest, scribes, and elders: on the morning of the day of His crucifixion.<\/p>\n The previous meeting \/ monkey trial was the night before, and He definitely answered the question of the high priest (\u201cI adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.\u201d: 26:63), by saying, \u201cYou have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven\u201d (26:64).<\/p>\n But in the second meeting, He didn\u2019t answer them (27:12). Why bother? They had already concluded He was a blasphemer, worthy of death, the night before. There was nothing left to talk about, from Jesus\u2019 perspective. Jesus had already said what He needed to say, to bear witness to Himself.<\/p>\n In Luke 23:9, we learn that Jesus didn\u2019t answer Herod.\u00a0Mark 14:61-62 records Jesus giving essentially the same answer to the high priest that Matthew records in 26:64. Thus far, no contradiction at all.\u00a0\u00a0John 18 is about Jesus\u2019 replies to Pontius Pilate. He responded with a rhetorical question regarding being King of the Jews, and then two \u201cstraight answers\u201d about the same thing, which are perfectly harmonious with Matthew 27:11.<\/p>\n So where, pray tell, is the contradiction<\/em>? Why is this nonsense even brought up at all? Two of the passages are about the same answer to the high priest. A third is about Jesus not answering Herod (apples and oranges). A fourth is about a short discussion with Pilate. \u201cApples and oranges\u201d and no contradiction again<\/em>. Zero, zilch, zip, nada . . . \u201cObjections\u201d like this one are an insult to everyone\u2019s intelligence. But it\u2019s been firmly refuted for the record, and that<\/em> is worth the twenty minutes I spent on it.<\/p>\n 86) Jesus said that eternal life would be given to all that were given to him. Jn.11:27-29; Jn.17:12.<\/span> In John 11:26 Jesus said, \u201cwhoever lives and believes in me shall never die.\u201d Judas simply stopped believing<\/em> in Him. In John 17:12 Jesus states: \u201cWhile I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.\u201d Thus the first statement above is false: Judas was \u201cgiven\u201d to Jesus but he fell away and was lost. Judas Iscariot was the exception to the rule of faithful disciples.<\/p>\n Jesus knew, of course, from the beginning that Judas would fall away and betray Him. In John 18:9 Jesus says, \u201cOf those whom thou gavest me I lost not one.\u201d He<\/em> didn\u2019t \u201close\u201d Judas. Judas brought about his own<\/em> loss of salvation and damnation. I see no contradiction here. It\u2019s straining at gnats in a futile effort to try to come up with one. So far it\u2019s a 0 for 86 record: not very impressive.<\/p>\n 87) The chief priests and elders persuade the people. Mt.27:20.<\/span> This had to do with asking for the release of Barabbas rather than Jesus. It\u2019s an argument from silence, and they never prove anything. Mark doesn\u2019t say that \u201cOnly the chief priests\u201d persuaded the people. Thus the above characterization is a misrepresentation of the biblical text. Mark wrote that \u201cthe chief priests stirred up the crowd\u201d. Yes they did; so did the elders. The lack of an exclusive term like \u201conly\u201d in Mark accounts for the difference between a contradiction and two complementary statements. This is an example of the latter.<\/p>\n Reading the three stories side-by-side, we see that the priests and elders seek to persuade the people to release Barabbas. Mark mentions only one (so what?: it\u2019s an argument from silence). After that, (in Luke) Pilate calls them and the common people together to find out who they want released. It\u2019s all perfectly harmonious.<\/p>\n Logic 0101. Please pray for these folks to take a course in logic for their own good! :-) And please add a prayer for my patience and longsuffering, too, if you could. I still have 107 of these silly pseudo-\u201cobjections\u201d to go, and will need tons of patience \u2014 only by God\u2019s grace \u2014 to endure the relentless illogic and \u201canti-logic\u201d again and again. But I press on. My patience has survived 87 assaults; I\u2019ll get to the end. Thanks so much for any prayers offered!<\/p>\n 88) Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.<\/span> Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press<\/em> aptly explains:<\/p>\n According to A.T. Robertson [Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/i>], there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints. (\u201cWas the Robe Placed on Jesus Scarlet or Purple?\u201d<\/a>, 26 May 2004)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One historical example illustrates this \u201cspectrum\u201d of colors:<\/p>\n The early Christian church adopted many of the symbols of the Roman Empire, including the importance of the color scarlet. . . . By a church edict in 1295, Cardinals of the church, second in authority to the Pope, wore red robes, but a red closer in color to the purple of the Byzantine Emperors, a color coming from murex<\/a>, a type of mollusk. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, however, the imperial purple was no longer available, and Cardinals began instead to wear scarlet made from kermes. (Wikipedia, \u201cScarlet (color)\u201d<\/a> )<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One can easily understand people variously describing these Cardinals\u2019 robes from 1295 to 1453, as scarlet<\/em> or red<\/em> or purple<\/em>. I\u2019ve gotten into friendly disputes several times with my daughter about what color something was. We simply saw it differently. The Gospel writers were human like the rest of us. Color can be a very subjective thing. I\u2019ll now cite several commentaries on Matthew 27:28:<\/p>\n Here again we have a technical word, the\u00a0chlamys<\/span><\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0paludamentum<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0used for the military cloak worn by emperors in their character as generals, and by other officers of high rank (Pliny, xxii. 2, 3). St. Mark and St. John call it purple (Mark 15:17;\u00a0John 19:2); but the \u201cpurple \u201cof the ancients was \u201ccrimson,\u201d and the same colour might easily be called by either name. (Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em>)<\/a><\/p>\n The ancients gave the name \u201cpurple\u201d to any color that had a mixture of \u201cred\u201d in it, and consequently these different colors might be sometimes called by the same name. (Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n Scarlet was the proper colour for the military chlamys. . . . St Mark has the less definite \u201cpurple;\u201d St John \u201ca purple robe.\u201d Purple, however, is used by Latin writers to denote any bright colour. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/a><\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Luke 23:11 is a different incident altogether: involving Herod<\/em>\u2018s soldiers, whereas the other three are about Pilate\u2019s Roman soldiers mocking Jesus. So Luke 23:11 is completely irrelevant to this discussion (and even if it was, it mentioned no color). The use of both \u201cpurple\u201d and \u201cscarlet\u201d has been quite adequately explained.<\/p>\n 89) The sign says, \u201cThis is Jesus the King of the Jews\u201d. Mt.27:37.<\/span> The Domain for Truth<\/em> site tackles this one:<\/p>\n 90) Jesus asks God, The Father, why he has forsaken him. Mt.27:46.<\/span> Jesus and God the Father are both God: two Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is correct. The attempted \u201ccontradiction\u201d contends that if Jesus felt \u201cforsaken\u201d by His Father, then they couldn\u2019t have been one after all. Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world, offers a cogent reply:<\/p>\n If someone were to say, \u201cI pledge allegiance to the flag\u201d or \u201cOur Father who art in heaven,\u201d most people could either finish the quotation or prayer or at least understand the ideas being expressed. That is because certain quotations in our culture, whether secular or religious, are known and even memorized because of their importance.<\/p>\n This was true of the psalms in Jesus time. He needed only to say the first line, and most Jews would have known the rest, or at least the message.<\/p>\n Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a messianic psalm that vividly describes the agony the suffering servant would endure. God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son\u2019s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often\u00a0feel<\/em>\u00a0that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn\u2019t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins\u2014and thus the feeling of abandonment\u2014must have been exceedingly heavy at that point.<\/p>\n By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm\u2019s triumphant ending. (\u201cDid God the Father Abandon His Son?\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some of the \u201ctriumphant\u201d passages in the second half of this Psalm show clearly that Jesus wasn\u2019t expressing a total abandonment at all:<\/p>\n Psalm 22:24<\/strong> For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.<\/p>\n Psalm 22:26<\/strong> The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Karlo Broussard, from the staff of Catholic Answers, adds more related information:<\/p>\n Jesus doesn\u2019t despair and God doesn\u2019t abandon him. Jesus\u2019s death on the cross, which he freely accepts (John 10:18), is a means to an end: the manifestation of God\u2019s power over his enemies and the drawing of the peoples of the earth into relationship with God.<\/p>\n Here are two ways that we can further support this interpretation.<\/p>\n First, Psalm 22 is not the only psalm\u00a0<\/strong>with prophetic overtones that Jesus cites while on the cross. He also cites Psalm 31:5 when he cries in Luke 23:46, \u201cFather, into thy hands I commit my spirit!\u201d Like Psalm 22, Psalm 31 expresses an affliction that is similar to what Jesus is experiencing:<\/p>\n I am the scorn of all my adversaries, a horror to my neighbors, an object of dread to my acquaintances; those who see me in the street flee from me. I have passed out of mind like one who is dead; I have become like a broken vessel. Yea, I hear the whispering of many\u2014terror on every side!\u2014as they scheme together against me, as they plot to take my life (vv.11-12).<\/p>\n Despite the affliction, the psalmist expresses trust and hope for deliverance: \u201cBut I trust in thee, O Lord, I say, \u2018Thou art my God.\u2019 My times are in thy hand; deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors!\u201d (vv.14-15). And later the psalmist blesses the Lord for hearing his prayer: \u201cBlessed be the Lord, for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me . . . thou didst hear my supplications, when I cried to thee for help\u201d (vv.21-22).<\/p>\n By citing this psalm, Jesus sees his suffering as fulfilling the affliction that the Psalmist describes. He also knows that God will follow through on his promise of deliverance.<\/p>\n Given this citation of Psalm 31:5, we can conclude that Jesus cites Psalm 22 to the same end: he\u2019s living out the affliction that the Psalmist describes and he knows that God will deliver him. Thus, the cry is not one of despair due to God abandoning him, but an expression of hope for deliverance. . . .<\/p>\n [W]e can be sure that Jesus\u2019s cry was not an expression of despair. It was actually the opposite: an expression of hope in God\u2019s deliverance through the resurrection and an expression of desire for the salvation of the world. (\u201cDid the Father Forsake Jesus?\u201d<\/a>, 4-18-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 91) The centurion says, \u201cTruly this was the son of God\u201d. Mt.27:54.<\/span> The centurion could have said all those things. The Synoptics simply report them a little differently (as we routinely expect from different reports of the same thing; this is actually a mark of truthfulness<\/em> and trustworthiness<\/em>, not inaccuracy), but they are harmonious and not contradictory. We must always keep in mind the logical principle expressed in #89 above: \u201cthe silence of some verses is not the same thing as a denial.\u201d<\/p>\n John\u2019s not mentioning a centurion who said this is no evidence that it didn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s only evidence that either: 1) he didn\u2019t recall it, or 2) his sources were not aware of it or 3) he decided not to include it, if he knew of it, for whatever reason. But it doesn\u2019t annihilate the report of the other three Gospels, because it doesn\u2019t deny<\/em> their report, which would actually be a contradiction.<\/p>\n No problem here!<\/p>\n 92) Jesus was crucified at the third hour. Mk.15:25.<\/span> The late great Protestant apologist Norman Geisler answers this charge:<\/p>\n Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the\u00a0Roman\u00a0time system while Mark follows the\u00a0Jewish\u00a0time system.<\/p>\n According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6 p.m. and the morning of that day began at 6 a.m. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9 a.m. John stated that Christ\u2019s trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial\u00a0before\u00a0the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers. This fits with John\u2019s other references to time. For example, he speaks about Jesus being weary from His journey from His trip from Judea to Samaria at the \u201csixth hour\u201d and asking for water from the woman at the well. Considering the length of His trip, His weariness, and the normal evening time when people come to the well to drink and to water their animals, this fits better with 6 p.m., which is \u201cthe sixth hour\u201d of the night by Roman time reckoning. The same is true of John\u2019s reference to the tenth hour in\u00a0John 1:39<\/a>, which would be 10 a.m., a more likely time to be out preaching than 4 a.m. (\u201cWas Jesus Crucified in the Third Hour or the Sixth Hour?\u201d<\/a>, Defending Inerrancy<\/em>, 2014, from a book published in 1992)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 93) The women looked on from \u201cafar\u201d. Mt.27:55; Mk.15:40; Lk.23:49.<\/span> I agree that the Synoptics report onlookers being \u201cafar off\u201d (KJV) or at a \u201cdistance\u201d (RSV). If tradition is correct, we know the spot where they stood, and I stood on it in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in October 2014. My rough estimate is that it was about half of a football field away (150 feet). This is consistent with the biblical \u201cafar\u201d or at a \u201cdistance.\u201d<\/p>\n Only the Gospel of John reports Jesus\u2019 mother having been at the crucifixion. And it\u2019s the only Gospel that alludes to one of the disciples \u2014 John Himself \u2014 being there. It appears to have been a report of a different occurrence<\/em>\u00a0from what the Synoptics detail. We have no time frame given. We know that Jesus\u2019 agony and death on the cross took about six hours.<\/p>\n In fact, we have some\u00a0possible<\/em>\u00a0clues about the time of each described observance. In terms of the order of things mentioned in the text, Mark refers to the female onlookers three verses (15:40) after He notes Jesus\u2019 death (15:37). It\u2019s not proof, but it\u2019s a hint or indication that they were there at the time of His death. Matthew utilizes the same order of report: Jesus\u2019 death (27:50) \/ description of the women (27:55-56). It\u2019s the same again in Luke: Jesus\u2019 death (23:46) and noting the women and other \u201cacquaintances\u201d present (23:49).<\/p>\n John, on the other hand, seems to place his scene shortly after Jesus was nailed to the cross, since he talks about the soldiers dividing up Jesus\u2019 garments: \u201cWhen the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts\u201d (19:23) and right after mentioning that, he describes \u201chis mother, and his mother\u2019s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag\u2019dalene\u201d who were \u201cstanding by the cross\u201d (19:25), along with John himself (19:26).<\/p>\n
\nAt the Passover meal, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Lu.22:13,14,34.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nPeter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Mk.14:30.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe cock crowed twice. Mk.14:72.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt was only to the maid. Mk.14:66-68; Lk.22:56,57; Jn.18:17.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt was to the same maid. Mk.14:69,70.<\/span>
\nIt was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.<\/span>
\nIt was to more than one person. Jn.18:25.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt was to one person. Lk.22:59,60.<\/span>
\nIt was to a servant. Jn.18:26,27.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJudas bought the field. Acts 1:16-19.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nJudas used the coins to buy the field. Acts 1:18.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJudas fell headlong and burst his head open. Acts 1:18.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJesus answered some of the charges. Mk.14:61,62.<\/span>
\nJesus answered all of the charges. Jn.18:33-37.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJesus released Judas in order to keep this promise. Jn.18:5-9.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nOnly the chief priests persuade the people. Mk.15:11.<\/span>
\nThe chief priests and the people persuade themselves. Lk.23:13-23.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.<\/span>
\nJesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe sign says, \u201cThe King of the Jews\u201d. Mk.15:26.<\/span>
\nIn three languages, the sign says, \u201cThis is the King of the Jews\u201d. Lk.23:38.<\/span>
\nIn the same three languages, the sign says, \u201cJesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews\u201d. Jn.19:19,20.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nJesus said that he and The Father were one in the same. Jn.10:30; Jn.17:11,21,22.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe centurion says, \u201cTruly this man was the son of God\u201d. Mk.15:39.<\/span>
\nThe centurion says, \u201cCertainly, this was a righteous man\u201d. Lk.23:47.<\/span>
\nThere was no centurion. Jn.19:31-37.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Jn.19:13,14.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nThe women were very close. Jn.19:25.<\/span><\/p>\n