Contradiction claim
At what hour was Jesus crucified or condemned?
Mark states that it was the third hour when they crucified him. John places Pilate’s presentation of Jesus at about the sixth hour on the day of preparation, which is before the crucifixion in John’s sequence.
2 source records · no review date recorded
How to read this record
Passages side by side
TextThe primary text, as seeded. Nothing here is summarised or paraphrased.
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
Why they appear to conflict
AnalysisEach side states a proposition attributable to its passages. A claim is not assumed to have exactly two sides.
Mark
The crucifixion took place at the third hour.
Third hour
Mark 15:25
John
Pilate presented Jesus to the crowd at about the sixth hour.
About the sixth hour, before the crucifixion
John 19:14
Formal analysis
AnalysisA contradiction requires a proposition and its incompatible counterpart under materially equivalent conditions. Every dimension below must hold for the formal test to succeed.
Proposition A
hour(crucifixion) = 3Proposition B
hour(presentation_to_crowd) = ~6, and presentation precedes crucifixion| Dimension | Question | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Same subject | Do both propositions predicate of the same subject? | Yes |
| Same referent | Do the referring expressions pick out the same individual? | Yes |
| Same event | Do both describe the same event token, not merely the same event type? | No |
| Same time | Do both describe the same time or time-window? | No |
| Same sense | Are the key terms used in the same sense? | Uncertain |
| Same scope | Are quantifiers, counting criteria and boundaries the same? | Uncertain |
| Same textual tradition | Are both readings secure in the same textual tradition? | Uncertain |
The two statements are not about the same event: Mark times the crucifixion, John times an earlier moment in the trial. The tension is that John’s earlier moment carries a later hour, which is a conflict about the hour-reckoning convention rather than about a single timed event. same_sense is unresolved because neither Gospel states which convention it uses.
Analytical questions
AnalysisWhat a researcher must answer to classify this record. Open questions are recorded, not resolved by preference.
- Do Mark and John use the same hour-reckoning convention?
- Does "about the sixth hour" indicate approximation wide enough to overlap the third hour?
- Are the two statements about the same moment, or about condemnation and crucifixion respectively?
- Do the Greek manuscripts of John 19:14 agree on the numeral?
Hebrew / Greek relevance
LanguageNo original-language dependency has been recorded for this claim.
Textual variants
ManuscriptA variant is a transmission phenomenon, never in itself a logical contradiction.
No textual variant record is linked to this claim.
Manuscript evidence
ManuscriptManuscript evidence has not yet been curated for this record.
Narrator and speaker analysis
AnalysisWhat the narration establishes, distinguished from what would additionally establish that the reported event occurred.
No narrator or speaker analysis has been recorded for these passages yet.
Proposed harmonisations
InterpretationEach proposal records the premises it must supply that the text does not state. Premises are never injected silently.
Different hour-reckoning conventions
John counts hours from a different starting point than Mark.
Premises this proposal must supply
- historicalJohn uses a reckoning convention different from Mark’s.
Editorial Harmonisation Cost Heuristic
3 / 5 — One substantial unstated premise
Neither Gospel states its convention. The proposal is coherent but rests on a premise supplied entirely from outside both texts. One substantial unstated premise.
Reviewed by CodexTrace Editorial Board on 2026-09-07. This is an editorial heuristic, not an objective measurement.
Broad approximation of daytime divisions
Both are approximate references to broad divisions of the day rather than clock times.
Premises this proposal must supply
- historicalThe hour references denote three-hour blocks rather than points.
Critical responses
InterpretationArguments that the proposed reconciliations do not succeed, treated structurally the same way as the harmonisations.
No critical response has been recorded for this claim yet.
Analytical classification
Analysis- Classification
- Chronological discrepancy
- What it means
- Accounts place the same event at different times or in different sequences.
- Requires formal analysis
- Yes
- Review status
- reviewed
- Categories
- Chronology & sequencePassion narrative
- Source collections
- codextrace_research
Sources
SourceEvery externally-sourced claim on this page resolves to one of these records.
- [1]
CodexTrace. "CodexTrace editorial research". licence: CC-BY-4.0
Critical / scholarlyotherCC-BY-4.0 - [2]
King James Version (Authorised Version)
"King James Version (Authorised Version)". licence: public-domain-us
Primarytranslationpublic-domain-usLink unverified
Related records
TextCommunity
CommunityCommunity discussion requires a configured Supabase project on this deployment. Research pages are unaffected.