POINTS OF CONFUSION
by Jared Collard
© June 29, 1989

In the June 22nd (1989) issue of the [Cheltenham] "Observer," the Rev. Richard Griffiths contributed an article entitled ''Is the Bible really true?'' I agree that there is a substantial amount of historical accuracy in the Bible, but there is also much inaccuracy about some of the basic historical facts. This inaccuracy has created no end of confusion and controversy that have lasted the better part of twenty centuries.

One of the most significant points of confusion is the attempt to reconcile the two dates given in the New Testament for the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew states that his birth occurred during the latter years of the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Luke, however, coincides the event with the first Roman census which, according to the Jewish historian Josephus, was taken in AD 6-7: a discrepancy of about ten years!

Another problem has been to accurately date the crucifixion of Jesus. According to information supplied by Josephus, and verified by the late Dr. Hugh Schonfield and other eminent Biblical historians, John the Baptist was executed in AD 35. Further, it has been established by both Roman and Jewish records that Pontius Pilate was relieved of his post shortly after the Passover of AD 37 following the dismissal of Caiaphas, the High Priest. Since Jesus presumably was executed after the death of the Baptist and while Pilate was still procurator, the only feasible date for the crucifixion is around the time of the Passover of AD 36. This creates a problem for Biblical literalists, however, for this would make Jesus somewhere between 40 and 45 at the time of his death, depending upon which Gospel account of his birth that one accepts, and not the 33 years of age that tradition holds.

The Gospel of John indicates that Jesus began his ministry when he was about 30 years of age, but this Gospel also contains a declaration by one of the Jews in Jerusalem: "Thou are not yet fifty years old!'' This is a strange thing to say to someone in his early thirties. It would seem to indicate that Jesus was probably in his forties when crucified. If this calculation is accurate and his ministry began at age thirty, then it must have lasted for more than ten years, not three years as generally accepted.

The Rev. Griffiths makes a premise, which he than "proves'' by citing only the scholarship that supports his position, ignoring the expertise of any other scholars who may disagree. He praises the historical accuracy of John's Gospel, but he makes the customary error of assuming the author was the John, the son of Zebedee, a simple Galilean fisherman. One need only to read this text to appreciate the fact that it was composed by one who was highly educated and well-versed in Greek dialectics.

According to scholarship apparently unfamiliar to Rev. Griffiths, it is highly probable that there were two Johns involved in the authorship of this gospel. The first John was the enigmatic "Beloved Disciple." a term he may have modestly applied to himself to avoid compromising his position as a priest of the Temple and a member of the Sanhedrin. This John was a secret follower who was convinced that Jesus was the genuine Messiah, long-anticipated deliverer of the Jews. He probably owned the house where Jesus and his friends celebrated the Passover sedar (the Last Supper) and it was in this house that the bewildered disciples, Mary Magdalene and the mother of Jesus were hidden after the crucifixion.

According to the eminent historian, Dr. Hugh Schonfield, John the Priest contributed much valuable historical background to this gospel that bears his name, without which our knowledge of these events would have been lost.

While there may be places where the gospels generally agree in content, there are places they do not. For example, there is confusion between some of the episodes related in John and those of other gospels. For example, Matthew, Mark and Luke place the cleansing of the Temple of the money changers at the end of Jesus' ministry, but John puts the event near the start of his ministry just after the wedding at Cana. This is a curious dichotomy in view of the historical accuracy that Rev. Griffiths attributes to the Gospel of John. If John is right, then the other three Gospel authors must be wrong! It has been proposed that Jesus did it twice, but this is a feeble attempt to bring the two variations into agreement. The Temple cleansing was a highly political act and a direct attack upon the authority of the High Priest. It would surely have focused attention upon Jesus just at the time when he was telling his disciples to keep a lot of the information he was telling them to themselves.

Who, then, was the second John? According to Dr. Schonfield: "Tradition makes John the Beloved Disciple and seer of the Revelation die at an advanced age at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan, after being persuaded against his inclination to dictate his reminiscences of Jesus. Yet the study of the Fourth Gospel shows that is not his work as it stands. Another major hand can he detected, which from the style can be identified with the author of the Epistles of John, who is called the Elder.

"Eusibius speaks of the graves of two Johns being shown at Ephesus. This John the Elder was still living in the time of Papias (circa AD140), and is cited as an authority by Irenaeus. As we can discern, he was able to employ the memoirs of the aged priest in a Gospel, which otherwise is entirely his own, but distinguishes himself from the Beloved Disciple in two footnotes (John xix. 35 and xxi. 24. cp. I John 1.2).

"What the relationship was between the Greek EIder and the aged Jewish priest it is impossible to know; but in some way the Elder became the inheritor of his material and can claim to be the repository of his testimony. This put him in a very strong and authoritative position and helped to create a confusion of identity." ("The Passover Plot" pp. 255-56).

In view of the above, the Rev. Griffiths' final statement that there is "the strongest presumption" in favor of the Bible's historical accuracy "from first page to last" is at best wishful thinking. Like all books of faith, the Bible must be tested by scholarship of all religious persuasions, including that of the Jew, Muslim and atheist, and not by just those who are sympathetic believers who gloss over inconsistencies in an attempt to perpetuate the myth that the Bible was inspired by a Supreme Being to receptive men who faithfully and accurately recorded every word.

Top of Page