Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

How Could the Gospel Writer John and Mark Both Be Correct About the Day Jesus Was Crucified?

The Road Toward Doubt: Examining Bart D. Ehrman’s Claim

Bart D. Ehrman’s journey toward agnosticism is well-known. He recounts how an esteemed Princeton professor, Cullen Story, posited that maybe Mark had simply made a mistake in referencing the events recorded at Mark 2:26; 1 Samuel 21:1–6. This suggestion stuck with Ehrman and prompted him to view the New Testament as containing errors. One instance, he believed, lay in Mark 4:31, where Jesus calls the mustard seed the smallest on earth, even though botanists can name seeds that are smaller. Another alleged discrepancy arises between Mark 14:12; 15:25 and John 19:14–16, where it seems Mark says Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal, while John places the crucifixion on the day before the Passover meal.

Ehrman’s viewpoint resonates with critics who suspect the Gospels of contradiction. Some modern scholars who claim inerrancy yet appear reluctant to defend it in their writings also add to confusion. In reaction, certain evangelicals like Mike Licona have even suggested that John “altered the day [Jesus was crucified]…for a theological point.” This notion that the apostle John changed the timing for symbolic or apologetic reasons can unsettle believers who accept biblical inerrancy. Nevertheless, is it correct to propose that John contradicted Mark on which day Jesus died?

The question of alleged discrepancies in the Gospels is of critical importance. Many Christians rely on biblical consistency as the bedrock for their trust in Scripture. Did John intentionally alter the timeline to serve a theological scheme? Or do consistent interpretive approaches and historical data show that Mark and John do not, in fact, contradict each other? A close examination of these texts can demonstrate that what looks like a difficulty in the Gospels often emerges from misunderstandings of ancient timekeeping practices and the biblical authors’ respective points of emphasis.

A Look at the Mustard Seed Issue

Before embarking on the timeline discrepancy regarding the crucifixion, consider the mustard seed argument that Ehrman references. In Mark 4:31, Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. Modern botany demonstrates that seeds exist smaller than mustard seeds. Did Jesus “err”? The text states: “It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth.” This utterance was directed to rural Jewish listeners for whom the mustard seed was indeed the smallest commonly sown seed. Jesus was not teaching a botany class. He was drawing an analogy relevant to everyday life in first-century Judea. The biblical text is not functioning as a scientific treatise but as a record of a simple illustration in which Jesus used something well-known to his audience.

Those seeking to interpret Scripture literally should remember that Jesus frequently taught with rhetorical tools. In that context, the mustard seed stands as a powerful representation, not a coded statement about the absolute ranking of seeds globally. The charge that Jesus, or Mark, was in error about seed size overlooks the cultural context. The real point was spiritual transformation: a tiny seed can grow into something far beyond its initial size. The impetus is not on absolute scientific classification but on the principle that great fruit can spring from something that appears almost negligible. This approach to the mustard seed resolves the question without undermining inerrancy or supposing that the text promotes flawed science.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Mark 15:25 and John 19:14–16: Apparent Discrepancy or Misunderstanding?

Mark 15:25 states that Jesus’ crucifixion began at “the third hour,” which by Jewish reckoning would be about 9:00 a.m. in modern terms. Meanwhile, John 19:14–16 suggests that Jesus was standing before Pilate “about the sixth hour,” presumably nearing the moment he was sentenced to crucifixion. If John used a similar Jewish reckoning of time, this might appear as noon, which would be three hours after Mark claims Jesus was already on the cross.

At first glance, the difference leaves the impression that Mark’s chronology conflicts with John’s. Bart D. Ehrman and others argue that John has “moved” the crucifixion day or hour to fit a theological picture, one that depicts Jesus symbolically as the Passover Lamb. But a closer reading of the New Testament’s textual information, along with an awareness of how ancients spoke of time, can alleviate the tension. Mark’s “third hour” is consistent with early morning, about 9:00 a.m. John’s “sixth hour,” if read through the lens of Jewish time-keeping, might refer to noon. But it need not be the case that both are referencing the exact same point in the crucifixion process. Alternatively, John might not be using the Jewish reckoning of sunrise, but the Roman civil day that began at midnight, which would place his “sixth hour” at around 6:00 a.m. That would align smoothly with Mark.

Ancient Timekeeping and the Approximate Notation of Hours

The Jewish day was typically calculated from sunrise. The sun’s rising inaugurated the day around 6:00 a.m. Meanwhile, the Greek or Roman approach often started the day at midnight. Given this difference, references to the third, sixth, or ninth hours were not minute-precise designations but approximate intervals. People determined time by the sun’s position rather than mechanical clocks. Hence references to third hour and sixth hour were always approximate. So the New Testament authors typically grouped occurrences into blocks corresponding to morning, midday, or afternoon. When they speak of the “third hour,” that might allow for a one-hour margin or more.

In Mark 15:25, the phrase “it was the third hour when they crucified him” could incorporate the entire process from the initial flogging leading up to the nailing to the cross. The crucifixion was not an instantaneous event but a procedure beginning with scourging, mocking, forcing the condemned to carry the cross, and culminating in raising the cross upright. Meanwhile, John 19:14 places the final sentencing at “about the sixth hour.” If John employed a Roman system that starts at midnight, “sixth hour” would be approximately 6:00 a.m. That leaves ample time for the crucifixion itself to be fully underway by 9:00 a.m. The Gospel accounts thus need not conflict.

Renowned apologist Gleason L. Archer observes that John used official Roman time. In Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 2.77, we see that the Roman civil day was counted from midnight. Macrobius similarly comments on that numbering system (Saturnalia 1.3). If John wrote his gospel in Ephesus around 98 C.E., he might well have used Roman time for clarity to an audience more familiar with that approach. The other Gospels, being earlier and more targeted to Jewish readers, follow a Jewish counting pattern from sunrise. Consequently, Mark 15:25’s mention of the third hour (9:00 a.m. Jewish time) coexists with John 19:14’s mention of the sixth hour (around 6:00 a.m. Roman time). There is no forced or artificial contradiction.

The Synoptic Timeline and John’s Emphasis

Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptics) consistently group the crucifixion events in morning, midday, and late afternoon blocks. Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44 share the statement that darkness fell over the land from the sixth hour to the ninth hour. That is from about noon to about 3:00 p.m. The final moment of Jesus’ earthly life came near 3:00 p.m. (the ninth hour). John’s Gospel, penned decades later, does not contradict that general progression. Instead, John features unique details and spiritual reflections. The Synoptics emphasize the moment Jesus was physically affixed to the cross. John, conversely, highlights the last judicial proceeding before Pilate—still relatively early in the morning by Roman count. This difference in vantage clarifies the supposed discrepancy.

Was Jesus Crucified Before or After the Passover Meal?

Ehrman’s second alleged contradiction concerns Mark 14:12 and John 19:14. Mark 14:12 says: “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, ‘Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” Mark’s account depicts Jesus’ last meal with his disciples as a Passover meal, occurring on the night that led into Nisan 14, with Jesus’ trial and crucifixion following into the daylight hours of Nisan 14. Meanwhile, John 19:14 references the “day of preparation of the Passover,” leading Ehrman to argue that John placed Jesus’ death on Nisan 14, meaning he was executed before the Passover meal was eaten the evening of Nisan 15.

Yet a close reading resolves this tension. The phrase “day of preparation of the Passover” at John 19:14 does not necessarily refer to Nisan 14, as if the lambs for the Seder were being slain that afternoon. “Preparation” (Greek paraskeuē) can apply to the day of preparation before the special Sabbath. The term “Passover” can encompass both the day of Passover (Nisan 14) and the subsequent Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15–21). In casual usage, the entire festival was often called Passover, as indicated by Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.” That conflation means the phrase “preparation of the Passover” can reference the preparation day of the entire festival period, not the narrower window of slaughtering the lambs. In fact, the day after Passover was always a Sabbath, and if it also happened to coincide with the weekly Sabbath, it was a “great” Sabbath (John 19:31). This confluence reveals that Friday in that year (33 C.E.) was the day of Passover (Nisan 14), leading into a special Sabbath on Nisan 15. John is thus consistent with the Synoptics, indicating that the day Jesus died was indeed Friday, Nisan 14, but the “preparation” referred to readiness for the festival’s special Sabbath, not the moment of the meal’s lamb slaughter. The expression “preparation day” had become a standard phrase for Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath (Mark 15:42; John 19:31).

Additionally, the temple authorities offered further sacrificial lambs publicly during the festival. It is plausible that the public lambs were sacrificed in the early afternoon of Nisan 14 and eaten that evening as part of the Passover meal. Meanwhile, Jesus and his disciples ate their own Passover meal in the preceding night. That meal, at the onset of Nisan 14, preceded the subsequent official temple sacrifices the next afternoon. These chronological details align without forcing a contradiction. Gleason Archer remarks that John 19:14 is best explained once we discern that “preparation” references not the moment lambs were being killed for the Seder but the larger “preparation day” prior to the Sabbath. The lambs were sacrificed in private homes on Nisan 14 (Exodus 12:6). The public sacrifices occurred the next day. All of these were collectively called Passover sacrifices. The Gospel accounts, recognized in their cultural setting, do not conflict. John neither changed the day nor misstated the chronology; he simply used a broader usage of “Passover” and the standard Greek term paraskeuē for the day before the Sabbath.

John’s Setting and Reasons for Time References

John wrote his Gospel later, around 98 C.E., probably from Ephesus. Addressing an environment heavily influenced by Roman administrative structures, he naturally employed Roman or provincial timekeeping, referencing hours from midnight. This approach differs from Mark, writing much earlier and aimed at an audience more familiar with the Jewish sunrise-based day. Likewise, John’s references to “day of preparation of the Passover” come from a perspective that lumps the entire festival into one term, “Passover,” and acknowledges the known pattern that Friday was the day of preparation leading into the Sabbath. Where Mark 14:12 anchors itself in the immediate Jewish vantage, John sees the festival as a whole.

If John deliberately contradicted Mark, as some allege, it would be surprising that no direct explanation or justification surfaces in his text. Instead, John’s account does not seem to sense any conflict, suggesting that John didn’t regard the timeline as different or contradictory. The phrase “it was about the sixth hour” stands in perfect harmony once recognized as Roman timing. John had presumably read the existing Synoptic traditions. If he had a concern to correct or overshadow them, he would have done so more overtly. Instead, his spiritual emphasis completes the picture given by the other three Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke detail the procedural aspects of the crucifixion, John underscores theological meanings but not by altering historical realities. He adds distinct insights that do not undermine the Synoptics.

The Crucifixion: Third Hour or Sixth Hour?

The specific question about the third hour or the sixth hour remains consistent once we see Mark’s focus on the start of the crucifixion process about 9:00 a.m. The Romans, under Pilate, likely began Jesus’ final trial around 6:00 a.m. (John’s “about the sixth hour,” employing Roman reckoning). The scourging started, culminating with Jesus actually suspended on the cross around 9:00 a.m. Mark naturally calls that the “third hour,” counting from sunrise around 6:00 a.m. The entire crucifixion process spanned from morning to mid-afternoon. Darkness descended from about noon until 3:00 p.m. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). Jesus died about the ninth hour, and the next day was a “great Sabbath” (John 19:31), i.e., the special Sabbath that started Friday evening, being both the festival Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.

Confusion Over the Day: Was Jesus Crucified Before or After the Passover Meal?

Ehrman asserts a contradiction about the day Jesus died: Mark 14:12 places the crucifixion after the Passover meal, John 19:14 places it before the meal. But the broader definitions of “Passover” unify the narratives. Mark 14:12 addresses the moment when they were preparing for the Passover meal in the sense of the standard Jewish perspective on Nisan 14. Mark notes that the meal took place that night. The Jewish day extends from sundown to sundown. So the “day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” in the sense of the private household observance occurred after twilight on Nisan 14. Meanwhile, John references the “day of preparation of the Passover,” signifying the day prior to the festival’s main Sabbath. The term “Passover” was extended to the entire festival. The slaughter in the temple might well have carried into the next day for the official sacrifices. This arrangement allowed for a consistent timeline: Jesus died on Friday, Nisan 14, in perfect alignment with the Jewish understanding that the Passover extended into the subsequent feast days.

Jesus’ role as the Passover Lamb resonates with 1 Corinthians 5:7: “For Christ our Lamb was sacrificed for us.” The timing does not require John to “move the crucifixion day” for symbolic reasons. The Synoptic timing already places Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb on Passover day. Observing the entire festival context and the Jewish practice of calling the entire week “Passover,” including the day of unleavened bread, clarifies the synergy between Mark and John.

Gleason Archer’s Explanation

Scholar Gleason L. Archer, an Old Testament authority and defender of biblical inerrancy, addresses these alleged contradictions in detail. He notes that Mark’s “third hour” (9:00 a.m.) for crucifixion and John’s “about the sixth hour” for sentencing by Pilate align perfectly if we accept that John used Roman civil time. Roman practice was well established in the first century. Authors like Pliny the Elder and Macrobius confirm the civil day started at midnight. So the “sixth hour” in Roman time occurs around 6:00 a.m., leaving a few hours until Jesus was physically on the cross, which Mark calls the “third hour” counting from sunrise. Archer likewise contends that the “preparation of the Passover” in John 19:14 signifies the Friday of the Passover week, not that the lambs had not yet been slaughtered for the Seder meal. These two complementary vantage points merge seamlessly once the relevant cultural context is acknowledged.

Could John Have Intentionally Contradicted Mark for Theology?

Bart D. Ehrman’s claim that the Gospel writer John “altered the day for theological reasons” relies on the presupposition that the Gospels cannot be harmonized. However, if John had intended to shift the timeline, we would see explicit signals to the audience. Instead, John’s record does not indicate awareness of conflict. Moreover, the approach of a first-century Jewish Christian writing from Ephesus might quite naturally adopt the Roman time scheme. No further explanation would be required, since the local audience might be more comfortable with the Roman system. Similarly, John’s phrase “day of preparation of the Passover” might be easily understood by his readers as referencing Friday of Passover week, not a re-dating of the crucifixion. The idea that John changed the day of the crucifixion to match a theological motif lacks textual or historical basis. Indeed, if John wrote knowing Mark’s account, he deliberately invites readers to see theological significance within the actual historical chronology, not in an artificially concocted timeline.

The Larger Picture of Inerrancy

Ehrman’s approach rests on the assumption that the Gospels are riddled with factual errors. He acknowledges that even if contradictions existed, it wouldn’t fundamentally negate Christ’s resurrection, which he regards as the heart of Christian faith. Yet the trustworthiness of Scripture is fundamental to many believers. The final question is whether Scripture stands as God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and factually reliable. The alleged contradictions dissolve once each text is interpreted in its own historical framework. This reveals that the impetus to label them as contradictory often stems from modern assumptions about timekeeping or from ignoring the distinct vantage points of each Gospel writer.

No textual evidence demands concluding that Mark “made mistakes” or John “intentionally revised chronology.” The solution is simpler: the differences stem from normal variations in how time was recorded and how festivals were described. Mark’s readers, steeped in a Jewish reckoning, would interpret the “third hour” as approximate mid-morning. John, likely writing to Hellenistic or Roman-readers decades later, uses a Roman civil day and lumps the entire feast as Passover. The narratives complement each other. The notion of “contradiction” evaporates upon closer inspection.

Final Considerations

Ehrman’s floodgate of doubt sprang from the premise that any single “little mistake” in Scripture allows for the possibility of numerous others. However, the alleged “mistakes” he points to often arise from not acknowledging the first-century worldview. The mustard seed illustration is not a botanical treatise but a parable. The “contradiction” on crucifixion timing can vanish if John used Roman civil hours while Mark used sunrise-based reckoning. The day of Jesus’ crucifixion also remains consistent once the phrase “preparation of the Passover” is understood in broader festival usage and the standard practice of calling Friday “the preparation day” for the Sabbath.

John’s gospel does not deviate from historical truth. None of this denies the fundamental Christian claim that Jesus died and rose again (Romans 10:9–10). Scripture stands coherent and reliable. The complexities of ancient timekeeping account for the difference. As a result, both Mark and John can be right. The apostle John hardly refuted Mark. Instead, his vantage, employing Roman time and referencing the broader scope of Passover and unleavened bread, meshes well with the Synoptic timeline. The essential gospel message remains, proclaiming Christ as the Passover Lamb. The conscientious researcher finds no contradiction, only complementary accounts requiring cultural and historical context.

You May Also Benefit From

Answering Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman on the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Burial

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).