"The Difficulties of the Jesus Last Hours" Part II

 

In this post we are examining another claim brought forth by the so call Tyson video we examined in Part One. The video points out that the Gospels do not agree on the crucifixion day. The text in question are the following. 

Mark 14:12, And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover? 
    13, And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him; 
    14, and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? 
    15, And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready: and there make ready for us. 
    16, And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. 
    17, And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve. 
    18, And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me. 

Then in contrast. 

John 18:28, They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. 

John 19:14, Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! 
    15, They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 
    16, Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified. 

The synoptic Gospels clearly state Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal, but the plain reading of John's Gospel places the crucifixion before the Passover meal. There is a real tension between the text, and it is not something that can be easily resolved. 

However, the video is misleading again as it puts forward the idea this is something almost no one recognizes. Nevertheless, it is such a plain reading almost no one paying attention misses it. Over the centuries various ways have been put forward that would explain the differences. They range from the two different calenders that were used in that era, to Greek word translated “Passover” having a broad range of meaning. John's reference that the Jews, “might eat the Passover” does not necessarily demand it was the actual passover meal that Jesus at with his disciples, but could refer to another one of Passover festivals meals. The construction of the text also allows for the possibility that Jesus may have eaten the Passover Meal or what we know as the Last Supper earlier, knowing his passion was approaching. There is historical evidence that demonstrates the Passover meal was celebrated at different times by different groups. 

The video also tries to reconstruct the events given in the Gospels and develop a timeline of those events to demonstrate there was simply not enough time for it all to occur as the scripture describes. Of course, there is no possible way to determine a precise or even somewhat precise timeline, one would just be assigning their guesses to how long each scenario would take. As the events of that night took place, how long did their meal last? How long did it take to walk from one place to another? How long did the trials deliberate? How much time was spent on discussions? Questions, questions, questions, none of which we have answers too. Based upon what is written in the text, a Christian could develop a scenario where it all works out perfectly. However, an atheist could take the same text and just as easily develop a scenario where it couldn't possibly work out and both could make a good case. 

The bottom line is, we know what the text says, but because we are 2,000 years removed from the actual event, it is impossible to determine with certainty exactly what every phrase and reference is leading too. There is nothing in the text or in history that proves one account is different from the other. There are various ways both accounts could be describing the same things, even though the plain reading appears to present otherwise. 

The video is correct in pointing out the difficulties we find in these texts. But it falls short in acknowledging the various ways to solve those difficulties. The claim it has discovered something that would deconstruct the Christian faith if one would only read it is a false claim. It is a well documented difficulty that has been acknowledged and debated from the second century forward. What they present proves nothing, however, it is one of those things the Christian can't prove their accusation is wrong, and that is why they keep putting it forward. This issue hasn't been settled with certainly in nearly 2,000 years, and neither does this video settle it. There is one big thing staring everyone in the face, all the Gospels with one clear precise voice tell the story of the Christ and Cross presented for sinful man. 

David 

"The Difficulties of Jesus Last Hours" Part 1

Questioning Christianity has posted an interesting video that is attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It has been circulating through the internet for some time. Its purpose is to discredit the Biblical account of the last hours of Jesus and expose the discrepancies presented within the text. You can watch the video by following this link: https://questioning-christianity.org/2026/08/22/the-final-hours-of-jesus/ 

Before we get to the claims of the video itself, there are some things you need to know about the video. Even though it is Neil deGrasse Tyson's voice and the image presented as it plays is Tyson, it is not him nor is the video associated with him. It is an A.I. generated video using Tyson to grain credibility. This is not a new tactic, during the second century when someone wanted to get a publication read, they would assign a well-known author to the work and pass it off as an original. Biblical examples are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. They are sudo-works being pass off as originals. We know this to be true of this video because of the disclaimer presented by the video itself is posted below. 

The disclaimer states: (AI & CONTENT DISCLAIMER: This video may contain synthetic media, dramatized narration, fictionalized dialogue, and editorial framing for educational and philosophical purposes. The title uses a provocative editorial premise and should not be interpreted as a verified quotation, lecture, or argument made by Neil deGrasse Tyson unless an original source is explicitly identified - This video is not affiliated with Neil deGrasse Tyson or any religious institution.)

This is a huge red flag for anyone desiring a truthful discussion on the subject. The words in the disclaimer such as, “dramatized narration” “fictionalized dialogue” “editorial framing” immediately informs us the content information as been dramatized, fictionalized, and framed to fit a particular point of view.   

Another red flag is the statement made by the speaker starting at, 1:20 minutes

“Because here is what I have spent considerable time thinking about. And here is what I think almost nobody,

1:27

not the believers, not the skeptics, not the historians, not the scientists

1:35

who have weighed in on this. Almost nobody has sat down and done what I am going to do with you today.

:23

Almost nobody notices it. And I think I know why almost nobody notices it. Because to

3:30

notice it, you have to do something that does not come naturally when you are inside a story you have been told since

3:37

childhood. You have to stop reading the narrative and start interrogating the timeline.

 

This is to set the mind of anyone who is uniformed upon the subject he is addressing that he has discovered something no one else has. I see this a lot in videos produced for such purposes. The biblical text is considered one of the most studied and scrutinized texts in history, with thousands of manuscripts available for comparison, making it the best attested document of all ancient writings. The most acquit minds of the past two thousand years have poured over its content, and when an A.I. generated video claims to have discovered something no one else ever has, it's a red flag moment.

 

The first discrepancy no one notices which he presents is found in the Gospel of John where he suggests the synoptic Gospels don't agree on the finial hours of Jesus's life. However, his statement that it is something hardly no one notices must be one of those “fabricated” statements the disclaimer warned about. I remember noticing the difference as a young teenager. I didn't know what to make of it at first, but I soon discovered it has been noticed by almost everyone who reads their Bible regularly. You can find discussions about it as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so he is misleading his listeners from the very start. (Red Flag). Here are the passages in question. Mark states: 15:22, And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. 
    23, And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. 
    24, And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take. 
    25, And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 

 

Then in John we read: 19: 12, Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. 
    13, When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 
    14, Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! 
    15, They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 
    16, Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified. 

 

The video points out that Mark as well as the other synoptic Gospels record Jesus taken to be crucified about the 3rd hour of the day, which according to the Jewish way of reckoning time would be around 9AM in the morning. However, you may have noticed John records the account to have been about the 6th hour, which would be around noon as we reckon time. The video draws the conclusion from this variant reading that one or both of the narratives are false. 

 

We must admit this is a real problem, and we don't want to sweep it away by saying, “Oh, there's obviously an easy answer.” There isn't an obvious answer. Scholars have debated it for a very long time, however, there are several possible explanations. I will not take the time to address all the possible reasons Johns record may differ from the other Gospels. I will only mention the one that intrigues me the most as a possible answer.

 

The Romans used a solar calendar and began their day at midnight, while the Jews followed a lunar calendar and started their day at sunset. This difference in timekeeping created overlaps and discrepancies in how events were dated and understood between the two cultures. There is evidence based on other factors recorded in the Gospels that could suggest John was reckoning time according the Roman system, while the synoptic Gospels were reckoning time using the Jewish system.  If John were counting from midnight rather than sunrise, the sixth hour then becomes approximately 6 a.m., therefore, the chronology would follow, 6 a.m., Pilate's judgment, 9 a.m., crucifixion. With that being the case, John's account with the other Gospels fits very well. 

 

The problem remains that John did not tell us what system of time he was recording his account with. He was recording events that involved the Roman procurator and the Roman pro-council, which could propose why John would reckon time with the Roman system instead of being consistent with his use of the Jewish system when recording this event. 

 

The skeptic will say prove it, we cannot. But neither can the skeptic prove he didn't. The bottom line is, there is a textual variant here between the Gospels, but it doesn't prove what the video implies. It proves there is a variant reading in text, of which are several possibles reasons why, none of which suggests the narrative is false or contains error.

 

In the next post we will examine another claim made by this video circulating the internet.

 

David