Vinegar and gall
… they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.
Matthew 27:34  NASB

Wine and myrrh
They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it.
Mark 15:23  NASB

The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!”
Luke 23:36-37  NASB

Vinegar and hyssop
A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
John 19:29  NASB


SAB Contradiction 466


Four drinks?
The critic suggests that Jesus being crucified received four different drinks. Hmmmm strange, how is that possible?


Wine for convicts?
With a crucifixion it was standard procedure to offer the convict wine too bad for normal use, a sort of vinegar. They mixed it with several ingredients, myrrh and gal.
The myrrh existed in powder form (John 19:39) and mixed up with the wine it worked as a drug to give a narcotic effect to the crucified. This was certainly not an expensive sort of myrrh, but of inferior quality. The usage gave a double benefit: the crucified lost his aggressive character, the guardians were less aware of the death struggle of the convicts.
The gall gave the sour wine a bitter taste and was necessary to prevent the soldiers to drink it. Being drunk they would be unable to do their task.


Matthew: vinegar and gall
The mix of wine with different ingredients is named by Matthew “wine with gall” (KJV vinegar with gall). After tasting it Jesus was unwilling to drink. The smell made Jesus immediately recognize what it was they tried to give Him. So it is appropriate that Matthew used this expression (including the gall) to make clear that Jesus did not drink nor died being stupefied.


Mark: wine and myrrh
The wine was named by Mark “wine with myrrh”. The emphasis here is also the refusal to become drugged. However the description is not emotional but rather factual. The contemporary reader could immediately understand that Jesus refused the wine because of the myrrh, the drug.


Luke: vinegar
Luke named it “sour wine” (KJV vinegar). Now it was part of the mockery of the soldiers. They offered Jesus the wine when he was crucified already and they had seen that Jesus had refused it earlier. This was simply to spite Him and so Luke didn’t give any special emphasis on it in his description using the neutral expression sour wine (vinegar, bad wine).


John: vinegar and hyssop
Just like Luke, John also gives the facts: sour wine (vinegar, bad wine) and it was offered on a stick or a branch of the hyssop plant. This happened just before Jesus died. He had cried: “I am thirsty!” and then we read that Jesus took something from the wine. It was certainly a sign that he accepted death (bad wine, sour wine, vinegar).


The wine offered unto Jesus is described effectively in several ways which is no crime, all being appropriate according to the narrated circumstances. And the conclusion must be: The critic is skilled in criticism, not in fair understanding.


No Bible Contradiction