Dick Harfield, Aethist and Christian Theology Questions

Dick Harfield writes answers to theological questions on Quora. As a self-declared atheist, his responses follow a recognisable pattern: vague where precision is needed, occasionally accurate, but consistently thin on detail. He habitually invokes the phrase "most theologians today believe" without attribution, and on the rare occasions he does cite sources, they tend to be liberal, non-believing scholars who share his sceptical presuppositions — a kind of circular credentialing.

His approach to engagement is equally revealing. He disables debate on his answers, insulating himself from challenge, and his followers tend to reinforce rather than interrogate his conclusions, often using his answers as a platform to sneer at orthodox Christianity rather than examine it seriously.

The question below is a good illustration. It is a genuinely interesting theological question — but Harfield misreads its context entirely, arriving at a confident conclusion while missing the point the questioner was actually raising. 

The question below, however, is very important as it points to each author's theology and purpose, which appears to be lost to Harfield and his readers. They believe these historical documents, i.e., the four gospels, should match in every way, and if not, they are either fake or altered and untrue. Harfield himself does not believe Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote any of the gospels. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you reconcile the discrepancy between the accounts of Jesus final hours in the Gospel of John and Mark?

You don’t. Mark’s Gospel says that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin before being taken before Pontius Pilate; John’s Gospel says there was no trial before the Sanhedrin, with Jesus just being taken for summary judgement by Annas and then by Caiaphas, before being taken before Pontius Pilate. 

Mark’s Gospel says that Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour (9 o’clock) on the day after the Passover feast; John’s Gospel says he was crucified at the 6th hour (noon) on the day before the Passover feast. Mark says that Mary Magdalene and other women viewed the crucifixion from afar; John says that Mary Magdalene was in a group that stood at the foot of the cross when Jesus told the beloved disciple to care for his mother.

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ last words on the cross were, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (copied from Psalm 22:1); In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ last words on the cross were, “It is finished” (representing a divine awareness of his role).

These discrepancies are well-known to biblical scholars and sit at the heart of debates about the historical reliability and theological purpose of the Gospels. These discrepancies are well-known to biblical scholars and sit at the heart of debates about the historical reliability and theological purpose of the Gospels. Here's an explanation of what's going on:

The Nature of the Two Gospels

Mark's Gospel (written c. 65–70 CE) is generally considered the earliest Gospel, written closer to the events, and broadly aimed at a Roman Christian audience. It tends toward a raw, urgent narrative style.

John's Gospel (written c. 90–110 CE) is a deeply theological work, written later, probably for a community with sophisticated Greek philosophical influences. John is far less concerned with chronological precision than with conveying a specific theology of who Jesus is.

The differences you've identified are not accidental. They reflect deliberate theological editing.

The Trial Narratives

Mark's full Sanhedrin trial serves a narrative purpose: it establishes the formal Jewish rejection of Jesus, with witnesses, a charge of blasphemy, and a verdict. This builds dramatic and legal momentum toward the crucifixion, rooting the story in Jewish legal process.

John's replacement of this with informal hearings before Annas and Caiaphas reflects a different theological priority. By John's time, the relationship between the Christian community and Jewish authorities had hardened considerably, and John is less interested in a formal legal process than in the theme of the world rejecting the divine Word. The "trial" in John is effectively moved — Jesus is actually put on trial before Pilate, where the real theological confrontation occurs, culminating in Pilate asking, "What is truth?" while Truth stands in front of him.

The Dating of the Crucifixion

This is one of the most studied discrepancies in the New Testament, and the divergence is almost certainly theologically intentional on John's part.

In Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples (the Last Supper is the Passover seder), and is crucified the next morning, the 15th of Nisan.

In John, Jesus is crucified on the 14th of Nisan — the day of preparation, when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. John has almost certainly shifted the chronology deliberately so that Jesus dies at the exact moment the lambs are being killed. This is consistent with John's overarching theology, announced at the very beginning of his Gospel by John the Baptist: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." The crucifixion in John is a liturgical event, not just a historical one.

The timing of the hour reinforces this. John's "sixth hour" (noon) is when the slaughter of the Passover lambs began. Mark's "third hour" (9 a.m.) is a different tradition entirely.

The Women at the Cross

Mark's version — women watching from a distance — has the feel of traumatised eyewitness memory. It is psychologically plausible for a public execution under Roman guard.

John's version, with a small group standing at the foot of the cross, enables a crucial theological and narrative scene: Jesus, even in his dying moments, is in complete control, calmly making provision for his mother's care. This is entirely consistent with John's portrayal of the crucifixion throughout — in John, Jesus carries his own cross (no Simon of Cyrene), and meets death with composure and sovereignty. The scene with the Beloved Disciple also serves John's community purpose, suggesting the Beloved Disciple becomes a spiritual son to Mary, and perhaps symbolically that the Johannine community is entrusted with Jesus' deepest legacy.

The Last Words

This is perhaps the most theologically revealing difference of all.

Mark's "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani) is a quotation of Psalm 22:1, and it is deeply unsettling. Whether or not one reads it as a cry of genuine desolation or as the opening of a psalm that ends in vindication, it presents a Jesus who suffers fully, who experiences abandonment, whose humanity is raw and agonised. This fits Mark's general Christology, sometimes called a "theology of the cross" — Jesus is the suffering servant, and his divinity is paradoxically revealed through weakness and pain.

John's "It is finished" (tetelestai) is the polar opposite in tone. The Greek word carries the sense of completion, fulfilment, and accomplishment. This is not a cry of despair but a victor's declaration. Jesus has completed the work he was sent to do. He does not die — in John's framing — he departs. This fits John's high Christology, in which Jesus is the pre-existent divine Logos who descended into the world and now, mission accomplished, returns to the Father. The crucifixion in John is, paradoxically, the moment of glorification, not humiliation.

The Broader Picture Dick!

These contradictions are irreconcilable at a purely historical level, and most mainstream scholars accept this. The two Gospels are not competing eyewitness reports they are theological portraits painted with historical materials, shaped by different communities, different concerns, and different understandings of who Jesus was.

Mark gives us a human Jesus who suffers and feels forsaken and is vindicated by resurrection.

John gives us a divine Jesus who descends, performs his mission with full foreknowledge, and ascends, with the cross itself being the moment of return to glory.

Neither author would likely have been troubled by the other's differences, because they were not primarily writing history in the modern sense. They were writing proclamation — and their differences tell us as much about the early diversity of Christian theology as they do about the events themselves.