De Moor's Theological Disputation on Mark 15:25 and John 19:14: The Preferred Harmonization

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

More than other ways of reconciliation, that has long pleased me that refers the determination of the time occurring in Mark 15:25, not to the time of day of the Crucifixion; but to the interval of time that came between the Crucifixion of the Lord and the parting of His garments.  And so the words of the text of Mark 15:25, ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη, καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, are to be rendered, but it was the third hour and they crucified Him, that is, from which they had crucified Him, after they had crucified Him.  DANIEL HEINSIUS greatly commends this opinion in his Exercitationibus Sacris on Mark 15:25, whom, although he dissembles, BAILLIE in his Opere historico et chronologico, book II, chapter II, question XIV, page 88, conjectures to have been able to receive it from that most learned Roman Monk MARCELLUS.  LOMEIERUS, in his Dierum Genialium Decade prima Dissertatione quinta, follows Heinsius.  With a certain measure of doubt CALOVIUS, in his Chronico Biblico, section VIII, question XIII, page 149, supports this opinion.  Perhaps, says he, the explanation of Daniel Heinsius is rather to be approved, etc., which he then frees from the objections moved by Baillie, Opere historico et chronologico, book II, chapter II, question XIV, pages 88, 89:  yet subjoining thereafter, we nevertheless add another solution to be evaluated by the learned, etc.  To this DEYLING also, in his Observationibus Sacris, part I, Observation XLVII, § 5, especially inclines:  “After so many learned men have exerted themselves in vain to reconcile John with Mark, it appears that it is hardly possible for us to determine which opinion might be closer to the truth.  At the same time, since something must be said and set up, I would subscribe to the opinion of DANIEL HEINSIUS before the others, etc.”  Nevertheless, it soon follows in § 6:  “However, lest I conceal anything, this opinion itself is not without difficulty.”  However, the difficulty that he then mentions is of almost no moment.  WOLF, in Miscellaneis Lipsiensibus, and also Observationibus XLVII, § 6, with all things rightly weighed, indicates that he retreats especially unto this same opinion:  “Having thus finished this labor, we will descend no further into an examination of the remaining positions, in the place of which we would declare that the opinion of Heinsius pleases us above the others.”  RELAND, in his Antiquitatibus Hebræorum Sacris, part IV, chapter I, § 17, with the reconciliation that is sought out of the distinction between these greater and lesser hours rejected, subjoins disjunctively:  “And so I would believe that those things of Mark, and it was the third hour, and they crucified him, are to be referred to the division of the garments of Christ, which was done in the third hour after Christ had been crucified:  as in Nehemiah 7:73 it is read, καὶ ἔφθασεν ὁ μὴν ὁ ἕβδομος καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐν πόλεσιν αὐτῶν,[1] and the seventh month came on first, and the sons of Israel were in their city.  Or, if the act of crucifixion is able to be said to have taken its beginning at the third hour, in John 19:14 τρίτη/third should be read in the place of ἕκτη/sixth, etc.”  The solution of Heinsius OFFERHAUS prefers to the others, Spicilegiorum historico-chronologicorum, Dissertatione de Vita Salvatoris, page 544, where, with other ways of reconciliation rejected, he concludes:  “And so to me the explanation of Daniel Heinsius on Mark 15:25 is still especially satisfying, who translates the copula καὶ/and as after, after which.  So that the words of Mark 15:24, 25 are to be rendered:  And those that had led Him to the cross divided His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.  It was indeed the third hour, AFTER they had crucified Him:  so that it indicates the time when they divided His garments, the third hour after the crucifixion:  at least the particle καὶ/and ought to be taken in this sense in the Septuagint of Joshua 7:25, and they burned them with fire καὶ/AFTER they had stoned them with stones.  CHRISTIANUS STOCKIUS,[2] Observationibus ad Novum Testamentum, yields to this same opinion.

[1] Thus the Septuagint.

[2] Christian Stock (1672-1733) was a German philologist and professor of oriental languages at Jena (1698).