Mark 15.25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19.14. ... and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews

The apparent disagreement between these two statements has caused some perplexity to commentators, editors, translators and readers of the Holy Scriptures for more than fifteen hundred years. Nearly all of the manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations by early writers, have “third hour” in Mark and “about the sixth hour” in John, so it cannot be fairly claimed that the “disagreement” arises from insufficient documentary evidence. These readings are not merely those of the Greek text underlying the Authorised Version, but are also found in the Greek texts followed by all the modern versions.

The Holy Scriptures make it plain that they are a revelation from God, given by Divine inspiration — in words “which the Holy Ghost teacheth” — and if this is acknowledged, it will also be admitted that both of the statements are correct records of what took place. The reader will then assume that as both statements are true, the two writers reckoned their hours from a different starting point, one following the Jewish method, and the other the Roman. Alternatively the reader may conclude that the references to “hours” in both instances relate to the periods of three hours each into which the Jews divided their days, and that “the third hour” means that the event took place in the period between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, while “about the sixth hour” means that the period from noon to 3 p.m. had not yet been reached. It is clear that the “disagreement” is only apparent and is easily reconciled.

The English Versions

If the translators will translate what they find in the Greek, then the reader, the student and the expositor, although perhaps a little puzzled at first, may be led to an explanation which neither denies inspiration, nor assumes that practically all of the documents are defective. Several modern versions render these passages in such a way as to make it impossible to reconcile them. Mark 15.25. John 19, 14.
New English Bible nine in the morning — about noon
New Berkeley Version nine in the morning — about twelve o'clock
New American Standard Version third hour — about the sixth hour (note: Compare John 19.14: Mk. 15.33) (note: i.e. noon-compare Mk. 15.25, Matt. 27.45)
Amplified the third hour (about 9 in the morning) about the sixth hour — (about 12 o'clock noon)
(The editors of the Amplified Version profess to have followed the text of Westcott and Hort with scrupulous care. In this instance the WH text has “about the sixth hour” and Westcott's commentary on John devotes a full page to the reasons for taking this to mean 6 a.m.- not “about 12 o'clock noon” as in the Amplified Version).
Phillips about nine o'clock — getting on towards mid-day
Living Gospels about 9 o'clock — about noon
Goodspeed It was nine in the morning -about noon
Jehovah’s Witnesses Diaglott — third hour — about the sixth hour (note: six in the morning)
Jehovah's Witnesses’ “New World Translation” third hour (note: 9 a . m.) — about the sixth hour
William Barclay 1968 nine o'clock (note: counting from sunrise or 6 a.m. hence 12 noon) in the morning —about twelve o'clock mid-day
Other versions with “twelve noon” or “mid-day” are those of Ferrar Fenton, Moffatt, Weymouth, Twentieth Century, C. B. Williams (Moody Press), C. K. Williams, E. A. Spencer (Roman Catholic). The Jerusalem Bible retains “third” and “sixth” in the text, and adds footnotes in Mark “9 a.m. or more vaguely, some time between 9 a .m. and noon”; John—“about noon”. All of these versions make John contradict Mark.

The Concordant Version of 1931 makes John say “It was about the third hour”, and a note asserts that “the reading “third” (instead of the usual “sixth” ) is used on the evidence of the editor of Sinaiticus”. The first hand of Sinaiticus undoubtedly has “sixth” and the alteration to “third” was an early, but misguided attempt to reconcile John with Mark, without taking into account the fact that John was reckoning from midnight.

The Correct Rendering

The versions which correctly render the Greek “third hour” in Mark, and “about the sixth hour” in John, are the Authorised Version, J . N. Darby, Samuel Sharpe, Dean Alford, John Bowes, Book of Books (R.T.S.), Basic English, Young’s Literal Translation, G . M . Lamsa (The Holy Bible from ancient eastern mss.), the R.S.V., E.V. Rieu, Wuest, the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douay Version, the Confraternity Version, the R.C.R.S.V. and the translation by Ronald Knox. Knox adds a footnote — “It is generally thought that Mark is here treating the space between 9 a.m. and noon as a single stretch of time, which he calls “the third hour”: we are not therefore to suppose that our Lord was nailed to the cross at 9 o'clock and hung six hours upon it. If He was crucified at 11 a.m. even 11.30, it would still be during “the 3rd hour” in the sense that “the sixth hour” had not yet begun”.

John’s method of referring to the time

An alternative view is expressed in the note in the New Scofield Reference Bible — John uses Roman time with the hours starting at 12 midnight and 12 noon as is done today. However, the Synoptics use Hebrew reckoning, beginning with sunrise, (i.e. 6 a.m.-7 a.m. being “the first hour” etc.). This is apparent from the care with which the Gospels specify particular hours in relation to the crucifixion. Our Lord was put on the cross at 9 a.m. (“third hour” Mk. 15.25); darkness was over the land from noon until 3 p.m. (“sixth” till “ninth” hour — Matt. 27. 45, 46; Mk. 15. 33, 34; Lu. 23.44). Thus here (John 19.14) “sixth hour” could not be Hebrew time (noon), but rather 6 a.m. “when morning was come” (Matt. 27. 1-2).

Conflicting opinions of Biblical scholars

Bishop J. C. Ryle comments upon the problem in his “Expository thoughts on the Gospels”—1873. “John 19.14 And about the sixth hour ... The expression raises a grave difficulty, and one which in every age has perplexed the minds of Bible readers. The difficulty lies in the fact that Mark expressly says “it was the third hour and they crucified Him” ... while John says our Lord was only condemned at the sixth hour. Yet both wrote by inspiration, and both were incapable of making a mistake. How then are we to reconcile and harmonise these two conflicting statements? The solutions suggested are many and various.
(a) Rationalistic writers say that one of the evangelists made a blunder and that one of the accounts is therefore false. This is a solution which will satisfy no reverent-minded Christian ...
(b) Some say, as Theophylact, Beza, Nonnus, Tittman, Leigh, Usher (vii. 176), Bengel, Alford etc., that the discrepancy has probably been caused by an error of the manuscript writers, and that the true reading of John should be “third” and not “sixth”. This, however, is a very short-cut road out of the difficulty, and the immense proportion of the old manuscripts are flatly against it.
(c) Some say, as Augustine and Bullinger, “that at the third hour the Lord was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers”. This, to say the least, is a weak and childish explanation  … open to the grave objection that it would make our Lord to be only three hours on the cross, and all that time in the dark, and consequently not seen by any one! At that rate the inscription over His head on the cross would not have been read by many.
(d) Some say that Mark reckoned time on the Jewish plan, by which hours began to count from the morning … while John reckoned on our English plan, which is the same as the Roman one, and John’s “sixth hour” literally meant about six in the morning. According to this theory Jesus was condemned at six and crucified it nine o'clock in the morning.”

(Ryle rejects this explanation, although it was ably presented by Wordsworth, Lee and Burgon-and by Westcott's commentary in 1880, which Ryle had not seen. Ryle's case against this view is not very weighty).

The Manuscripts

Some scholars have insisted that the manuscripts are practically all wrong and that the correct reading is preserved only in the very small number of documents which have “third hour” in John 19.14 in place of “sixth hour”. Thomas Hartwell Home’s “Introduction to the Critical Study and knowledge of the Scriptures” (Vol. II. p.576-7th edn.) summarises their case — “As in ancient times all numbers were written in manuscripts, not at length, but with numerical letters, it was easy for “three” to be taken for “six”. Of this opinion are Griesbach, Semler, Rosenmuller, Doddridge, Whitby, Bengel, Coccius, Beza, Erasmus, etc.” In favour of “correcting” the text in this way Horne then quotes Beza’s Codex of the 5th century, one of the 8th century and four others. Horne also mentions the Alexandrian Chronicle “which professes to cite ancient mss — even the autograph copy of John himself.” On this passage Horne draws largely from the notes in Griesbach's edition of the New Testament. He does not mention that although Beza had the 5th century Codex D in his possession he did not allow his judgment to be dominated by it, and when he made his Latin translation from the Greek Beza did not follow Codex D, but the majority, reading “sixth” in John 19.14. The claim of the Alexandrian Chronicle cannot be sustained.

Evidence favourable to six in the morning

Karl Wieseler wrote on the subject in his “Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels”, and the following extracts are taken from the 2nd edition of 1877 translated by the Rev. E. Venables, M.A. — Pilate pronounces sentence of death — “The time when this occurred ... is fixed by John — about the sixth hour ... and yet it appears to contradict Mark 15.25 which places our Lord’s crucifixion at the third hour. The difficulty was felt in the earliest times, and it gave rise to the various readings of Codex D, L,72, 88, 123 “about the third” instead of “sixth”. Modem expositors have recognized the discrepancy and decided in favour of John, imagining that they were but giving up Mark for the Gospel of an actual Apostle. But if we examine the matter more accurately we can hardly be satisfied with the correctness of this conclusion …

“The hypothesis of Rettig, who has been followed by Olshausen, Meyer, Tholuck, etc., that John intended Roman hours, which were calculated as with us from midnight to midnight, so that the sixth hour corresponded with our 6 o’clock a.m. appears probable enough. Indeed, if we adopt it, all discrepancy between John and the Synoptists is at once removed ...” [Here Wiesler adds that he does not think this has been satisfactorily demonstrated, and adds the following explanation].

“The chronologer Ideler remarks … The Romans ... divided the natural day as well as the night into twelve hours all through the year, reckoned from the rising of the sun to its setting, and again from its setting to its rising, so that mid-day corresponded with the beginning of the seventh hour of the day, and mid-night with that of the seventh hour of the night …

“The use of hours of variable length was not discarded until the invention of mechanical clocks in the 12th century. Some time, however, before the birth of our Lord, hours corresponding to the twenty-fourth part of the civil day became generally known. It was only at the time of the equinoxes (and therefore at the 15th of Nisan) that these hours exactly corresponded with the variable hours, and therefore at that time the hours of the day could be counted from midnight without interfering with the methods usually adopted for measuring time. This is what John must have done in the passage in question ...

“Our Lord hung on the cross six hours before His death, from the third to the ninth hour, i.e. from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.”.

The Scriptural evidence presented by Wordsworth Bishop Christopher

Wordsworth in his Commentary on the Greek New Testament draws attention to the different ways in which Mark, John, Luke and Paul refer to the time at which certain events took place. Writing on our Lord's discourse with the woman of Samaria in John 4.6, Wordsworth comments — “The sixth hour — six in the evening. It is not likely that this was at noon: that was not a usual hour for drawing water: but six in the evening was. In Genesis 24.11 the evening is described as the time that women go out to draw water.

“The woman, after a short discourse, leaves her water pot and goes to the city, where she finds the men of Sychar, as usual in the evening, collected for conversation, and brings them to Jesus, and they entreat Him to stay the night.

“Among other things in which John is distinguished from the Jews and from the earlier evangelists, is, it would seem, his method of reckoning time. He specifies hours oftener than any of the other evangelists, and he seems to calculate them according to a different mode of computation. That method is identical with our own. It has been shown from the history of the martyrdom of Polycarp, the scholar of John, in one of the seven churches of Asia, that this method of reckoning the hours was there received ...

“This was it seems, the mode of reckoning received by the Asiatic Churches of the second century. John wrote his Gospel in Asia ... and for the use of those Churches. It is therefore probable that John found such a mode of reckoning in the country where and for which he wrote his Gospel, and adapted his narrative to it." Wordsworth believed that the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that this instance was no exception.

The usage of Paul, Luke, Mark and John

1 Thess. 2.9. “Night and day” — so 3.10 and 2 Thess. 3.8; 1 Tim. 5.5; 2 Tim. 1.3 — in all these Paul puts nights before day. Luke puts day before night in Acts 9.24, but not where he relates two speeches of Paul (20.31; 26.7) — there the night is put before the day, as in Paul’s Epistles.

Luke in his Gospel uses the Jewish mode of speaking in this respect — see Luke 2.37. Mark puts night first in 4.27; 5.5. It is observable that John in the Apocalypse uses the expression “day and night” five times — 4.8; 7.15; 12.10; 14.11; 20.10, and never puts the night first. This remark may serve to confirm what has been said above concerning John’s mode of reckoning the hours of the day, as distinguished from that usual in Palestine, where time was calculated from sunset: and may serve to illustrate the important questions in his Gospel which turn on this point.

With regard to John 19.14. Wordsworth explains that “John reckons his hours (as we do) from midnight to noon, and from noon to midnight”. The time described by John here as “about the sixth hour” is about six in the morning. Mark (15.25) says that it was nine o’clock when they crucified Him; so that there were three hours between the hearing before Pilate and the crucifixion.

Admissible renderings in modern English, using italics to indicate words supplied to complete the sense, would be —

Mark 15.25 “It was the third hour after sunrise, and they crucified Him.”
John 19.14 “It was about the sixth hour after midnight; and he said to the Jews, Behold your King.”

First published in Quarterly Record 435.