Michael Rood and John 6:4

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Raymond George Smalling III says:

    I have borrowed a copy of The Chronological Gospels from a friend. I read and mostly understood what you wrote above, about Mr. Rood. I am however disappointed that you didn’t mention your explanation for Mr. Rood’s words regarding the various Feasts or his words regarding the possible “violation of Torah” with regards to unleavened bread during the time of Passover. Mr. Rood does bring up other points as well that you did not choose to try and debate. Myself and I’m sure many other seekers of The Truth, would appreciate a more in depth, responsible & mature debate.

    • As I mentioned in the post, I only meant to discuss the external evidence that Mr. Rood provided. If the external evidence is wrong, there is little point going any further. Mr. Rood claims are thus:

      1. John 6:4 was added in the fourth century by Eusebius.
      2. A particular manuscript [miniscule 472] reflected an early state of the text and the Nestle/Aland 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament attests to this.
      3. Mr. Rood claimed no one mentioned a ministry of Jesus being longer than one year prior to Eusebius

      However, the facts are:

      1. We have multiple manuscripts (P66 and P75) from about 200 AD that contain John 6:4.
      2. Irenaeus claimed Jesus’ ministry was multiple years and cited John 6:4 as evidence of it around 180 AD.
      3. The Nestle/Aland 27th Edition of the GNT gives no significance whatsoever to miniscule 472 and considers John 6:4 to be original to the text.

      Given that John 6:4 appears centuries earlier than Rood claims and appears in all the earliest manuscripts, Mr. Rood’s assertions are wrong relating to the external evidence.

      Also note that I specifically stated that John 6:4 was not a hill I would die upon. However, with the external evidence so overwhelming against Mr. Rood’s position and his external “evidence” having been complete fabrications, I find little reason to consider his arguments in areas where I am less familiar when those in areas I am very familiar (manuscript evidence) have proven to be either dishonest or incompetent.

  2. Wanda says:

    Shame on you for claiming Michael Rood is a “date setter” akin to Harold Camping, or that he “tinkered with his calender and recalculated the date of judgment.”
    This makes you the dishonest one here.
    Why is it that Hebrew Roots haters will go to any lengths to discredit a teacher who puts forward the truth of God’s word?
    I may not agree with every word Rood teaches but I don’t agree with every word any preacher I’ve ever heard teaches. But Rood is correct on his 70 week ministry teaching.
    Jesus must return in a sabbath year, the final year of the 70th Week.

    • Perhaps before you accuse someone of being dishonest you should do a little research. I saw Mr. Rood on television in the 1990’s setting dates and saw him continue to do so well into 2000. He’s been playing with that calendar of his for a long time and has not been right yet. Just google the following:

      Michael Rood date setting
      Michael Rood September 11, 1999
      Michael Rood April 5, 2000
      Michael Rood May 5, 2000

      That should keep you busy for awhile. You must be one of his new followers. He goes through them in cycles as each new generation of Roodites discovers he is a serial false prophet.

  3. Wendell GIdeon says:

    I believe Mr. Rood is correct in his contention that this verse in John’s Gospel (John 6:4) is in error even discounting the issue about the Greek text (miniscule) which does not contain this verse (“1634″) and whether unleavened bread was served. To little old me with a pea brain, this verse stands out like a stray sunflower sticking up in a Kansas cornfield. It is inserted right smack dab in the story of the feeding of the 5,000, a story recounted in all three of the other gospels. Not one of these other gospels make mention of such a Passover taking place at this time. More importantly, how could Jesus miss such a sacred feast? Seems to me that this verse is making Jesus out to be guilty of sacrilege in that he is not only failing in his own personal, sacred obligation (to attend the Passover), he is also leading some 5,000 people astray for Mark, Matthew, Luke (and of course John) do not tell of them attending such a feast. Can you honestly say that, after reading Mark Matthew and Luke, you sense there that a Passover is even happening? Not me, my friend. How could it have happened then, for those three gospels provide competent and substantial evidence of a ministry of Jesus which spanned less than one full year and make not a mention of it? The only Passover feast referenced in the first three gospels was the one in which Jesus was crucified. You should be concerned more with saving Jesus’ reputation instead of the reputation of some anonymous scribe who was, based on a common-sense reading of John, chapter 4, “too quick with the quill”. By a three-to-one vote the Synoptic Gospels trump John and restore Jesus’ reputation to its pristine form.
    Sincerely,
    Wendell Gideon
    Columbia, MO

    • Daniel Diaz says:

      I simply want to make that the point that Jesus’ travels north to Capernaum could have been considered a distant journey. In Numbers 9, God creates an exception of celebrating/attending the Passover for people that are unclean or on a distant journey. God then instructs them to celebrate the Passover on the 14th day of the SECOND month. Jesus could have skipped that first Passover mentioned in 6:4 and made it to the second Passover a month later and still have fulfilled God’s express commandments.

  4. Wendell GIdeon says:

    In my comment sent on 5 November, I confess that I made an error in citing John, chapter 4, at the end of my email. I meant to cite John, chapter 6 (referring to verse four of that chapter) as being the one that seemed to be amiss. I suppose that, just as the anonymous writer of this fourth gospel was “too quick with the quill” in erroneously inserting (interpolating) that obviously out-of-place (incongruous) verse, I am one who was took “quick with the key pad” in providing an erroneous citation when writing about it. Seems both of us were just plain old errant mortals. I have also discovered from more intense study of this verse and issue that if we remove this guilty culprit (John 6:4) we will find that after the first Passover written about in chapter 2 of John’s Gospel, we find that Pentecost comes next (chapter 5) followed by Tabernacles (chapter 7) and then the second and final Passover (chapter 12) in 31 A.D. which I contend is the year of Jesus’ crucifixion. This is so because it was a late Passover as referenced by the fig tree with leaves incident written about in the Synoptic Gospels.. With John 6:4 remaining in this Gospel we have the first Passover followed by what Schofield Scholars believed was the feast of Pentecost then followed by another Passover (John 6:4) then followed by the feast of Tabernacles and then the last Passover. This sequence is certainly is out of place.Thus, a corrected Gospel of John reveals that there were two Passovers written about, plus one feast of Pentecost and one feast of Tabernacles, all of which Jesus is reported to have attended in proper sequence; in doing so Jesus fulfilled his sacred obligation on each and every occasion and RIGHT UP TO THE END. His death exemplified the verse which tells us that there is no greater love than this: that a man lay down his life for a friend. Jesus laid down his life for the “many” just as he said he would. He died to spare the many from the pre-messianic affliction as Schweitzer so brilliantly argued in his writings was the case.
    Sincerely,
    Wendell Gideon\
    Columbia

    • As I think I made clear in the article, John 6:4 is not a hill I would die upon and I do not think its exclusion would cause me to lose any sleep. My concern, however, is less whether John 6:4 is authentic as much as whether Mr. Rood is being knowingly dishonest in his presentation of the evidence. This is clearly the case in his accusation about the Nestle/Aland text (there is nothing to indicate the manuscript he used had any importance whatseover); in the case of his accusations about Eusebius, it may be a case of pure ignorance, but he should refrain from speaking on topics of which he knows nothing. It is quite apparent that both in textual criticism and patristics his knowledge could fit upon the head of a very small pin.

  5. Joel says:

    I have been a student of scripture for over 30 years. I heard of this incongruity about a year ago. One thing that does bare scrutiny is the fact that there was leavened bread near the supposed time of Passover, and the seeming out of step order of feasts. There is no mention of Jesus attending the Passover. Instead he travels around Capernaum and Galilee, he being found by those seeking truth and also not attending Passover. The inclusion of the verse makes the study of this portion of Johns gospel clunky. It does invite speculation, Mr. Rood not withstanding.

    • I certainly think it worth considering and I will repeat that John 6:4 is not a hill I would die upon. My main point in the blogpost was not whether the verse did or did not belong but what was clearly misinformation and conspiracy theories being promoted by Mr. Rood.

Leave a Reply