The Crucifixion Timeline is a House Divided Against Itself.

Timeline of the Crucifixion from "The Mission: Part Two"

The crucifixion accounts can establish some level of testimony unlike the birth stories of Jesus, but they're not without their errors. One must be willing to look at their errors and contradictions honestly and not pretend that the accounts are inerrant, and therefore, one must be willing to admit that the emperor is not wearing new clothes but is in fact naked.

Frank Turek on Cross Examined on YouTube

There are some Christian apologists, however, who're convinced that if they just convey enough confidence that they can give other people permission to believe anything. With more access to information and more visualizations of the data, however, the case for these differences becomes less reliant on someone's argumentation to conjure up the data, which can be obscured and hijacked in debates or discussions with apologists, and it deprives the apologist of their previous power to sabotage.

One factor that makes what's happening in the Gospel accounts difficult to understand is the definition of "days" that the New Testament implements, which is Judaism's definitions but still a bit foreign to modern sensibilities. It's only in understanding these definitions that the additional day in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew becomes clear.

Dr. James D. Tabor has also made the same observation as one of the New Testament scholars with an appreciation for Judaism in his understanding early Christianity, but it's difficult for people to see when it's only words on a page and talking.

Another confusing factor is that there's not a consistent definition of "the Day of Preparation" as the text will mention it as the day before Passover and as the day before the Sabbath, and this often allow some wiggle room among dishonest individuals, who use these discrepancies to change the boundaries and definitions enough to muddy the waters.

Certain opinions about the text of the New Testament can appear right when perceptions of the text are reserved to the well-guarded prison paddock playground of words in some magic trick, but it's another to have to place these bits of information into precise locations on a timeline from each book while providing an overview of each for an ease of comparison.

Frank Turek on Cross Examined on YouTube

"A house divided against itself cannot stand", and most are familiar with this teaching from Jesus because of Abraham Lincoln's use of it, however, when Jesus said this it was in the context of rebuking the claim that he was casting out demons with demons. In context, Jesus then went on to remind them that if it was by the Holy Spirit, then the Kingdom of Heaven has come near or whatever, and it’s when it comes to the Holy Spirit and claims of Divine "Inspiration" for passages of the Bible that the claims to inerrancy force the Holy Spirit to be divided against itself in a house that cannot stand.

Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12.31-32 NRSVUE

An inerrant believer has to contend with the teaching that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the one thing that can't be forgiven, not by faith, not by baptism, not by the Eucharist, not through the crucifixion, not through the sacrifice of Jesus, not through the blood of Jesus, not by his resurrection, nothing, and therefore, this insistence on inerrancy is itself putting a stumbling block before the blind.

The truth is that whatever "truths" Christians want to believe about Christianity will still be true even after they left go of inerrancy while viewing the gospels and Acts as reconstructions of past events with at least 7 (6 by me) authentic Pauline Epistles serving as primary sources.

Of course, allowing the illusion of inerrancy to crumble away does reveal the truth about morality itself in a way that separates it from these beliefs and dogmas about Jesus, that is, that morality's always been a matter of people using their individual moral intuitions to sort through available choices based on a combination of negotiating their needs with other people and evolution through observable things like archetype and innate senses of preferred behaviors.

Once inerrancy goes out the window, then it becomes clear that whatever you thought about God and the Bible were products of your own faculties of perception and understanding. In addition, the mechanism that you've been using to accept some parts and reject or ignore other parts like contradictions and scribal errors has always ever been the product of your own evolved moral intuition, which is separate of divine intervention and supernatural revelation.

Just because the illusion of inerrancy crumbles, however, it doesn't mean faith has to crumble as well. The same process of deconstruction is waiting on the other side of the New Testament and "Old Testament" divide where the belief that the Torah was penned by Moses and preserved over generations will turn out to be a crumbling illusion all the same.

Just because inerrancy makes the Bible into a "house divided against itself", it doesn't mean that it has to be that way because people keep saying that it has to be that way all while declaring that the emperor is wearing new clothes when in fact he's naked.

If you allow yourself the vulnerability of stepping into the unknown, which is when you need faith the most, then the Hebrew Bible and New Testament can be places to make discoveries.

Inerrancy is a stumbling block before the blind, and it transforms the crucifixion timeline into a "house divided against itself".