Crucifixion of Jesus

[fred_conty]

Mk. 15;25 “It was the third hour when they crucified him.”
This third hour was nine in the morning.

Lk 23;46 “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.”
This took place at the nineth hour which is three in the afternoon.

Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours not 3.

What do you think?

 

[thistle]

Mk. 15;25 “It was the third hour when they crucified him.”
This third hour was nine in the morning.

Lk 23;46 “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.”
This took place at the nineth hour which is three in the afternoon.

Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours not 3.

What do you think?

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 25. St. Mark is the only evangelist who says it was the third hour. St. John says it was the sixth. But these may easily be reconciled by supposing that he was crucified towards the end of the third hour, that is, about eleven of the clock, or half-past eleven, which being near the sixth hour, or twelve, the evangelist might say it was the sixth hour. (Nicholas of Lyra) — The third hour. The ancient account divided the day into four parts, which were named from the hour from which they began: the first, third, sixth, and ninth hour. Our Lord was crucified a little before noon; before the third hour had quite expired; but when the sixth hour was near at hand. (Challoner)

 

[fred_conty]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 25. St. Mark is the only evangelist who says it was the third hour. St. John says it was the sixth. But these may easily be reconciled by supposing that he was crucified towards the end of the third hour, that is, about eleven of the clock, or half-past eleven, which being near the sixth hour, or twelve, the evangelist might say it was the sixth hour. (Nicholas of Lyra) — The third hour. The ancient account divided the day into four parts, which were named from the hour from which they began: the first, third, sixth, and ninth hour. Our Lord was crucified a little before noon; before the third hour had quite expired; but when the sixth hour was near at hand. (Challoner)

Thanks for the info.
But How do they know that it wasn’t at the beginning of the third hour instead of at the end?

 

[steve53]

John is probably the most correct.

A lot went on after Jesus was sent over to Pilate and before he was crucified- including a temporary transfer of Jesus over to Herod Antipas for questioning.

With the sun rising around seven am (??), Caiaphas would not have sent Jesus over to Pilate before then at least.

And, of course, John was written by an eyewitness…

 

[bmullins]

Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?

Probably because the story was more important to them than credit or recognition. Unlike today’s society and even today’s Christians, the early Christians weren’t as concerned with being known for their contributions, but that the Gospel get out.

 

[in_servitude]

Sure wish eyewitnesses had named themselves clearly in the text.
Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?

Here’s my guess. Given that Christians were persecuted and killed (brutally) for being Christian for almost 300 years after the Crucifixion, a person might wish to conceal their identity. Once an authority found such a document, it might have been light’s out for the author.

I’m no expert and would love to hear more ideas/facts on the subject.

 

[rdscheirer]

Agree with in servitude- put your name on a document that the Roman’s don’t like- you get crucified.

 

[rdscheirer]

Agree with in servitude- put your name on a document that the Roman’s don’t like- you get crucified.

 

[Mark1124]

Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?

The gospels are about Jesus, not about the evangelists. Matthew, Mark, and Luke saw no reason to name themselves as the authors.
John probably chose not to name himself for the same reason some novels leave the narrator unnamed: to make it easier for the reader to place himself in that role (in this case, the beloved disciple). Personally, I think that decision was because of this passage in particular:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

 

[puzzleannie]

Sure wish eyewitnesses had named themselves clearly in the text.
Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?
It?)

John clearly identifies himself at the end of his gospel and explains that it is he, the one who witnessed the crucifixion, who is writing the account.

The other writers were not anonymous. Luke is well attested and was well known as a companion of Paul and explains how he came to compile his account.

there was probably no need to identify the authors who were well known the the Church in the first century.

 

[steve53]

The number of Christians who died in persecutions the first three hundred years of Christianity as a percentage of the total number of Christians during that period is probably vanishingly small.

FWIW

 

[patrick457]

Mk. 15;25 “It was the third hour when they crucified him.”
This third hour was nine in the morning.

Lk 23;46 “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.”
This took place at the nineth hour which is three in the afternoon.

Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours not 3.

What do you think?

Nothing in particular. It isn’t really a matter of importance to me whether Jesus lasted exactly three or exactly six hours before expiring (IMHO the time indicators are just approximate): the point is that He died, if rather fairly quickly for a crucifixion victim. Crucifixion is designed so that the victim would stay alive and suffer for as long as possible ｰ probably a matter of days.

 

[patrick457]

The number of Christians who died in persecutions the first three hundred years of Christianity as a percentage of the total number of Christians during that period is probably vanishingly small.

FWIW

If I remember correctly, most of the persecutions that occurred during the first three centuries of Christianity happened on the local level, so you have a point. The really horrible ones that were more widespread over a huge part of the Empire (the kind we think of when we say ‘persecution’) occurred in stages during the latter half of that period - the 3rd and early 4th centuries AD.

Christians were indeed disliked by many people and were now and again the target of things like mob violence and discrimination by local governments, but the first documented Empire-wide persecution was during the reign of Maximinius Thrax (235-8), though only the clergy were specifically targeted.

 

[steve53]

From Josephus, the High Priest’s took advantage of Festus’ death and reconvened the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62.

They swiftly convicted and executed the leading Jerusalem Christians of the time, including James the Just.

The common Jewish people were so outraged at this that Agrippa II was forced to remove the High Priest Ananus (the son of Ananus).

I think this emphasizes that once people got used to the Christians, they found them very benign if not likable. It was the organized religious elements of society- i.e. the Jewish High Priesthood and some of the established Pagan hierarchies centered around certain Dieties, who caused the problem.

Some argue that the Roman emperors who persecuted the Christians were actually being artfully used by these religious groups.

 

[bogeydogg]

Mk. 15;25 “It was the third hour when they crucified him.”
This third hour was nine in the morning.

Lk 23;46 “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.”
This took place at the nineth hour which is three in the afternoon.

Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours not 3.

What do you think?

Mark is writing from a Jewish reckoning which begins the day at sunrise, or about 6AM. So the third hour would be nine in the morning. But remember Mark’s is probably the first Gospel written and as such would be most concerned with the Palestinian audience.

Luke is writing to a much wider audience, the Greeks, who reckoned time based on the Roman watches. The Roman day began at the first watch which is midnight (which is why we reckon our days from midnight) so the ninth hour would be 9AM.

So they agree on what time he was crucified.

Then you must consider that there is the time it took Him to die (three hours or so) which is remarkably fast for someone being crucified.

The Sanhedrin asking Pilate to break the legs so they will not be on the cross during passover.

The soldiers discovering he is dead already.

Nicodemus and Joseph of asking for the body from Pilate before actually taking it down.

It is possible He was crucified at 9AM, died at noon,but was not removed from the cross until 3PM.

Remember there was not much time because Luke tells us both Nicodemus, Joseph and the women made great haste to either lay the body and wrap it (N&J) or see where it was (the women) before being home, and this by foot, by 6PM.

I think the timeline actually lines up pretty well.

God Bless

 

[CatholicRoots]

Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?

Or assuming that it was the Disciples, do you not suspect that the authors would be well known enough (and their writings) not to have explicitly mentioned themselves within the text? If you think about it, since the Gospels are the crux of Christianity then the writers would have been held in high regard; it would probably be pointless to write their names? But this is just speculation.

 

[patrick457]

Sure wish eyewitnesses had named themselves clearly in the text.
Why do you think the gospel writers wanted to be anonymous?
It was just “tradition” to write that way?
So that the stories would not be upstaged by the messenger(s), so to speak?
(The four disciple names were added to the books in the 2nd century, yes?)

Also I think it is because the authors wanted to give their works an air of authority. An anonymous history, after all, tends to be considered as having a higher claim than a named work, kind of like an encyclopedia article today: it implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. The Gospels would have had less impact if they went on like “this is my version of Jesus’ life” instead of “this is what Jesus said and did.”

This is where we see a difference between most apocryphal literature and the canonical Gospels: whereas many apocryphal gospels tried to lend themselves an air of authority through association (claiming to be written by this or that Biblical personage), the canonical Gospels go the other way and give themselves weight by NOT naming who wrote them.

 

[steve53]

Also I think it is because the authors wanted to give their works an air of authority. An anonymous history, after all, tends to be considered as having a higher claim than a named work, kind of like an encyclopedia article today: it implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. The Gospels would have had less impact if they went on like “this is my version of Jesus’ life” instead of “this is what Jesus said and did.”

This is where we see a difference between most apocryphal literature and the canonical Gospels: whereas many apocryphal gospels tried to lend themselves an air of authority through association (claiming to be written by this or that Biblical personage), the canonical Gospels go the other way and give themselves weight by NOT naming who wrote them.

The apocryphal gospels also have no independent historical references in them. The fraudsters are just taking known NT situations and characters and running with them.

 

[patrick457]

The apocryphal gospels also have no independent historical references in them. The fraudsters are just taking known NT situations and characters and running with them.

I often like to compare the apocryphal gospels with the modern fanfiction. According to Wikipedia:

Fan fiction (alternatively referred to as fanfiction, fanfic, FF, or fic) is a broadly-defined term for fan labor regarding stories about characters or settings written by fans of the original work, rather than by the original creator. Works of fan fiction are rarely commissioned or authorized by the original work’s owner, creator, or publisher; also, they are almost never professionally published. Because of this, many fan fictions written often contain a disclaimer stating that the creator of the work owns none of the characters. Fan fiction, therefore, is defined by being both related to its subject’s canonical fictional universe and simultaneously existing outside the canon of that universe. Most fan fiction writers assume that their work is read primarily by other fans, and therefore tend to presume that their readers have knowledge of the canon universe (created by a professional writer) in which their works are based.

Aside from the disclaimers part, it also pretty much sums up what apocryphal gospels are.