De Moor’s Scope in Composing This Theological Disputation

While each one in the Writers cited will be able to satisfy his desire for knowledge unto satiety, as to what is thought and furnished by learned Men in either resolving or cutting this knot: I, in this little Dissertation, shall touch only lightly upon the sum of matters; and, with those things dismissed that withdraw farther from the straight path, I shall especially linger over those things that approve themselves to me as more probable, and shall strive to confirm them more distinctly.

The Literature on the Supposed Contradiction

I would do what has already been done, and lose my labor, if I should wish to review all the diverse ways that the most learned Interpreters have undertaken to remove this uncertainty; and I would memorialize the difficulties that are able to be moved against the particulars of those opinions: which the very patrons of the same generally acknowledge, whence you will hardly find a sentence in which they thought themselves to be able to stand on solid ground:  but they everywhere spoke very doubtfully in this intricate matter.  This is to be acknowledged without reluctance, while in δυσνοήτοις, things hard to be understood, of this sort, in which a certain demonstration is sought in vain, it is sufficient to show that the matter holds good in this or that way.  Now, you may find the conjectures of Learned Men concerning the resolution of this ἐναντιοφανεῖ, apparent contradiction, related and also called to examination in JOHANN CHRISTIAN WOLFF’S Curis philologicis et criticis on John 19:14, and quite a few other erudite men, who he commends, STEPHANUS MORINUS[1] in his Dissertatione de Horis Salvificæ Passionis Jesu Christi; JOHANNES LOMEIERUS in his Dierum Genialium Decade prima Dissertatione quinta; ANTONIUS BYNÆUS[2] in his de Morte Jesu Christi, book III, chapter IV, § 37-44; to whom WOLFF adds from the Lutherans, FRANZ WORGER;[3] THOMAS ITTIG;[4] SALOMON DEYLING, whom see in his Observationibus Sacris, part I, Observations XLVII, LII, § 4; CHRISTOPH HEINRICH ZEIBICH;[5] FRIEDRICH ERNST KETTNER;[6] GUSTAV GEORG ZELTNER,[7] whose threefold Dissertation, certainly worthy of reading, de Horologio Johannis, de Horologio Cajaphæ, and de Horologio Pilati, has been inserted in in HASE’S and IKEN’S Thesauro Novo Dissertationum in Novum Testamentum.  To which are added ROBERT BAILLIE[8] in his Opere historico et chronologico, book II, chapter II, question XIV, pages 86-90; FRIEDRICH SPANHEIM the Younger in his Chronologia Sacram, part I, chapter XIV, columns 66, 67; ABRAHAM CALOVIUS, Bibliis Illustratis, tome I, Chronico Biblico, section VIII, question XIII, page 146-150.  With these join in addition those that are conversant in narrating the History of our Lord’s Passion, or in the explication of Jewish Antiquities.  While JOHANNES MARCKIUS also, in his Exercitationibus textualibus XXXIV, Part IV, § 2, has briefly set forth the various opinions concerning this question.

[1]  Étienne Morin (1625-1700) was Professor of Oriental Languages at Amsterdam (1686-1699).

[2] Antonius Bynæus (1654-1698) was Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages at Deventer.

[3] Franz Worger (1643-1708) was a Lutheran Minister and Theologian.

[4] Thomas Ittig (1643-1710) was German Lutheran Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Leipzig (1697-1710).

[5] Christoph Heinrich Zeibich (1677-1748) was a German Lutheran Minister and Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Wittenburg.

[6] Friedrich Ernst Kettner (1671-1722) was a German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.

[7] Gustav Georg Zeltner (1672-1738) was a German Lutheran Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Altdorf (1706-1730).

[8] Robert Baillie (1602-1662) was a Scottish Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian.  During the English Civil War, he was among the Scottish Commissioners sent to the Westminster Assembly.  His writings preserve invaluable information about the history of the times.

Apparent Contradiction between Mark 15:25 and John 19:14

New Course on Christian Political Theory.

There is a most famous ἐναντιοφανὲς, apparent contradiction, that occurs in the History of the Lord’s Passion, if you compare Mark with John in the placement of a certain fixed point of time regarding the Passion of the Lord.  Namely, Mark in the narration of those things that the Lord suffered on Golgotha, has in Mark 15:25, ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη, καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.  But John, being about the exhibit the final scene, which Pilate acted out with the Lord, and in which he next delivered Him to be crucified, notes in John 19:14, ἦν δὲ Παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα δὲ ὡσεὶ ἕκτη, and it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.  But, if it was already roughly the Sixth Hour, when Pilate condemned our Lord to death, in what manner was Mark able to make mention of the Third Hour when he is dwelling on relating the history of the suffering of the Cross, which Christ afterwards suffered on Mount Golgotha?