Thus the one example that has been most confi- dently quoted to prove the existence of a peculiar way of numbering the hours in Asia Minor turns out to be an example of the ordinary custom. In truth, the idea that in Asia Minor people counted the hours from midnight is even more improbable than it would be in other countries ; for, as has been shown above, there are many instances of even the civil Day, as well as the natural day, being reckoned there to begin with sunrise. More. over, why should St. John in that one case count his hours from midnight? It is certain and ad- mitted that elsewhere he counts them from sunrise.
The more closely the subject is examined, the more clear does it become that the numbering of the hours in popular usage always started from the beginning of the natural day. While the other kind of hours, the equinoctial, were some- times used in scientific calculations, there is no appearance that they were numbered. The very idea of numbering the hours is a matter of prac- tical convenience in everyday life, and has no scientific character.
It must be recognized that there is an absolute —and perhaps intentional and deliberate—differ- ence between St. John and the Synoptists: the latter declare that the Crucifixion took place about three hours earlier in the day than the former admits. With regard to this ditterence
| there arise several questions bearing on the sub-
ject of this article: Which Evangelist shows him- self most attentive and observant of details of time? what is the cause of the error which must exist on one side or on the other? what is its importance? with whom does it lie ?
There can be no doubt that St. John is more careful about recording points and details of time. The two disciples of the Baptist went to the place where Jesus was, ‘about the tenth hour’ (1e2)5 Why does the historian record such a minute and in itself valueless detail ? Obviously, he was natu- rally attentive to details of time, and that one remained in his memory because he had seen and known. ‘About the sixth hour’ Jesus sat down on the well of Jacob to rest (48). The official’s son became free from the fever ‘at the seventh hour? (4), In these cases there is no intrinsic import- ance (as there is in the case of the Crucifixion) to make the time of day memorable. The time when they occurred is stated, because the narrator re. membered the details from personal knowledge ; and only a person attentive to time-notes would have remembered what was the hour at which each event occurred.
While the question which cannot be discussed without a far wider estimate of facts and characteristics than belongs to the present article, yet the inference from the above- stated facts is in favour of St. John’s superior trustworthiness in any statement of time; and the long interval of three hours which the Synoptists place between the consummation of the Crucifixion and the beginning of the darkness seems improb- able,
The cause of the difference in this matter lies probably or certainly in the want of attention to the lapse of time on one side or the other. St. J. ohn shows himself distinctly more attentive, through a certain personal character, whereas most of the
authority is right
NUMBERS, HOURS, AND YEARS NUMBERS, HOURS, AND YEARS 479
simple country people to whom the Synoptic tradition must go back are very unlikely to have paid any attention to an exact estimate of the pas- sage of time, and may quite probably have erred in their recollection of the time. The reason for the difference lies simply in that inaccuracy in esti- mating and measuring the lapse of time which is observable in the thought and language of the ancients. The difference in opinion is not due to correct. memory being obscured in the lapse of time; it dates from the event, and would be found in accounts written at the time, if witnesses of various character had been then ordered to state their impressions in writing.
As to the degree of importance to be attached to the contradiction between the witnesses, it is evident from the general considerations already stated that there is no importance in such a difference of recollection. Three events occurred successively during the day: the memory of most of the witnesses marked the sequence by record- ing that they occurred respectively at the third, the sixth, and the ninth hour, the only three divisions which the popular mind was used to note. But those three divisions were by most people used vaguely and roughly, without any accurate estimate of the precise hour indicated on the dial; and so it was in this case. The people who assigned the time of the Crucifixion as the third hour would have probably been much surprised if any one had in their presence used their testimony to pin down the event to an exact hour. Their thought and mind were not trained to such accuracy, they saw no importance in being accurate, and they were from habit not capable of even attempting to be accurate in respect of the lapse of time. The sixth hour, as being midday, was better marked than any other; but even in regard to it we must allow considerable latitude when ordinary persons speak of it. St. John alone in the NT stands out as habitually careful and accurate in this respect. The distinction between him and the other NT writers on this point is like the difference between Romans and Greeks. The Greeks made little use of the hours, and spoke little about them. The Romans used the hours in all departments of life, regulated their business and private life by them, and spoke frequently about them. St. John stood on the Roman plane.