| 413 That John arranges his Gospel by seasons as Thucydides did (e.g., 5.26.1) could suggest deliberate chronologization; but for the dischronologization of the temple cleansing, see comments ad loc. 417 Setzer, Responses, 84, noting that John " s use of Jesus is emblematic but not allegorical, and his sources not necessarily less historical than the Synoptics. 418 This would even be the case if one accepted the putative «signs source»; Fortna, «Locale,» 60, suggests that John adapted the topography of the source, making geography more theologically prominent. 419 See Higgins, Historicity, 39. Barrett, John, 53–54, and Westcott, John, lxxxiii, do not regard the differences as irreconcilable, viewing them as in some way superficia1. 421 Cf., e.g., Ensor, « John 4.35 .» Although I have occasionally pointed these out in the commentary, I usually have not, since historical setting, rather than historicity of genre, is this commentary " s primary focus. 423 Hunter, «Trends.» Streeter, Gospels, 393–426, thinks that John knew Mark " s and Lukés Passion Narratives but had firsthand knowledge of Jerusalem. 424 See Robinson, Historical Character, 15–16; cf. Strachan, Gospel, 85; Hunter, «Trends (Continued).» 426 Charlesworth, «Scrolls and Gospel,» 66. Robinson, Priority argued that John " s portrait of Jesus was earlier than the Synoptics (though not certain that John wrote earlier). 427 Dunn contends for theological as well as historical differences, underlining the diversity of early Christianity (Dunn, «Question»). 428 Ancient writers understood that different historians would report different points according to their emphases (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.56.1), but they did not believe that true histories or other works should contradict one another (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.15, 37–38). 429 Ancient critics also took style into account–e.g., noting how a writer employed terms elsewhere (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 11.5, on Homer Od. 18.359, using I1. 21.197). 430 Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §492; cf. also Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 618–19. This could be acceptable in some sense if appropriate for the audience (cf. Rhet. Alex. 22.1434b.27–30); the Gospels, like most novels and other popular works, did not primarily address elite audiences (cf. Dowden, «Callisthenes,» 651). |
| Catchpole provides further evidence against the Roman interpretation of 18and 18:12. First, he argues, Jesus would not appeal to what he had told Romans in the temple (18:20); this argument, however, is certainly weakened by the fact that Jesus makes this statement after being brought before the high priest (the officers of 18are υπηρετν, who are certainly Jewish, as in 7:32; 18:12; 19:6). Second, he doubts that Judas would have been cooperating with the Romans. Third, would the Romans have taken Jesus to Annas, whom the Romans had deposed? Fourth, given Romés commitment to suppressing nationalists, Romans would undoubtedly have sought to arrest Peter after his action with the sword. (This presupposes that they would have caught him.) Finally, retreat before the divine name (18:4–11) may suggest a Jewish reaction. 9612 None of these arguments is completely compelling, but cumulatively they bear some weight. 2B. Roman Participation and John " s Theology? Then again, one could argue that even though the Roman involvement in the arrest is unlikely historically, John may have portrayed genuine Roman involvement in his narrative for theological reasons. Or if John had no tradition of Roman involvement, he may have used ambiguous language that would permit Roman involvement (for theological reasons) without requiring it (for historical ones). Because a σπερα usually represents a cohort of roughly six hundred troops (although occasionally a manipulus of two hundred) 9613 and because 18mentions a χιλαρχος, the tribunus militum in charge of a cohort, 9614 John may envision hundreds of troops arriving to arrest Jesus in the garden. But this scenario is historically probable neither of a Jewish nor of a Roman force; 9615 John may well refer loosely to a mere detachment from the cohort, 9616 but the presence of a commander suggests that John deliberately employs language that permits a larger interpretation–perhaps Johannine hyperbole to underline the greatness of Jesus» power (18:6; cf. Matt 26:53). John does distinguish these troops from other Jewish officers in 18and 18:12, 9617 though this distinction need not make them Gentiles. |
| More to the point, the Jerusalem high priest no longer held the office for life. Some have suggested that the text could allude «to a Roman insistence on an annual confirmation of the Jerusalem high priest,» though this is unattested elsewhere. 7701 Others suggest that it simply means, «the (memorable) year in which Jesus was executed»; this seems the most common position. 7702 This view takes the genitive temporally («in that year»), probably emphasizing especially εκενου, «that.» 7703 One may compare «that day» (11:53), 7704 John " s words about Jesus» «hour» (e.g., 2:4; 7:30; 8:20) or «time» (7:6, 8), or John " s mention of other special moments in revelation (e.g., 4:53). This view accounts for the emphatic, threefold mention of the priesthood «in that year» (11:49, 51; 18:18) better than do proposals that John simply made a mistake 7705 or accommodated audience expectations here. If, however, John can presuppose some knowledge of Jerusalem politics on the part of transplanted Judeans in his audience, he may strike a note of irony: Rome could depose priests at will; deposed high priests like Caiaphas " s father-in-law Annas could still meddle in the city " s affairs (cf. 18:13); and only a high priest who cooperated well with Rome could rule so long. Perhaps John even cynically presents the high priest as a Greek-type caretaker, an honorary office, rather than a divine appointment; he recognized that the high priesthood was an honor no one should take to oneself (Heb 5:4). Thus, for example, whereas Egyptians had hereditary priesthoods, Romans allowed Greek temples in Egypt to perpetuate Greek customs, but these temples «had no clergy, only officiators and administrators, a laity that the métropolites selected from their own class, in annual rotation, to see to the physical upkeep and cultic requirements of the shrines.» 7706 He also may link this ρχιερες with the other αρχιερες of which he is a part; 7707 he acts on behalf of the whole corrupt group. John " s complaint against the Jerusalem elite, which he believes executed Jesus and prevented a wider acceptance of the Jesus movement among his people, is political as well as religious. 7708 2C. The Leaders» Reasoning (11:47–50) |
| Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John " s story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table. 7766 Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–3 ). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition; 7767 whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–2 ) but which John places earlier ( John 11:47–53 ). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration ( Mark 9:2 ; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God " s glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14). 7768 Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch " s most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42 ). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression. |
| The gospel accounts do present problems, but disagreement with the Mishnah is not one of them.... The system as the gospels describe if corresponds to the system that we see in Josephus. The trial of Jesus agrees very well with his stories of how things happened. 9671 Further, the «trial» account of Matthew and Mark probably represents what was more technically a preliminary inquiry, in which Jesus» interrogators would be even less likely to regard the rules as constraining; 9672 the hearing is certainly not a technical trial in John ( John 18:19–24, 28 ; cf. Luke 22:66). At this point John " s account is actually easier to envision historically without corroborative evidence than Mark " s; 9673 thus Sanders opines, «There is nothing intrinsically improbable about the account in John,» 9674 and one specialist in the trial narrative suggests that John " s account of the trial «deserves the greatest respect from the point of view of historical reconstruction.» 9675 John " s portrait fits his story world as well as the historical data; the Jerusalem elite had been wanting Jesus» death for some time. 9676 In John, Annas and then Joseph Caiaphas privately interrogated Jesus without a mention of witnesses or charge (although some leading local citizens may be assumed to have been present to provide support for the charge to Pilate the following morning, 18:31,35). 9677 The Synoptic traditions also confirm that Jesus was first at the house of the high priest ( Mark 14:53–54,66 ; Luke 22:54). 9678 Josephus shows us that such informal trials could suffice for some high priests, who then made recommendations to the Roman governor. 9679 Finally, the Gospel writers probably intended to convey breach of procedure, not to pretend that the mock trial and abuse they depict were standard Jewish custom. 9680 At this point we should pause to mention possible breaches of procedure (if the laws were early and the Gospel writers or their traditions seek to portray them as breaches of procedure). To the extent that the later sources provide a reliable picture of legal ethics that the Sanhédrin would have respected (and broader Mediterranean legal ethics suggest that they would have at least regarded many of the principles later preserved in rabbinic literature as ideal), probable breaches of legal ethics indicated in the Gospel trial narratives include the following. |
| Although Jewish people in Palestine usually sat on chairs when available, 8062 they had adopted the Hellenistic custom of reclining for banquets, 8063 including the Passover, 8064 a setting that the Fourth Gospel and its first audience might assume from the Gospel tradition despite the Fourth Gospel " s symbolic shift of the Passover to one day later. 8065 It probably implies that John has, after all, revised an earlier Passover tradition. (One would not expect John to harmonize all his traditions, 8066 though his narrative may be more consistent in its portrayal of Jesus than that of Matthew or Luke is.) Authenticity and Significance of the Foot Washing Although we will offer brief comment on specific verses below, many of the critical issues surround the passage as a whole. 1. The Question of Historical Authenticity Against the tendency to suppose that whatever event is reported only in John is likely fictitious, it should be remembered that Matthew and Luke felt free to supplement Mark " s outline with other material, much of which they share in common but much of which they do not. Given the small quantity of extant data to work with, multiple attestation works as a much more valid criterion when applied positively than when applied negatively. Man-son thinks that Jesus may have washed the disciples» feet at the Last Supper, citing Luke 22:27. 8067 Certainly Jesus there uses himself as an example of one who serves (Luke 22:27), while exhorting his disciples to serve one another (Luke 22:26). 8068 Normally foot washing would precede a meal (cf. Luke 7:44), but the foot washing here follows most of the meal (13:2–4); the logic of the narrative prevents any further eating, for Jesus soon departs. 8069 Given John " s different date for Passover, 8070 however, he may deliberately omit discussion of the meal to keep the emphasis on the cross itself. 2. The Message of the Foot Washing The theology of the foot washing is, however, of greater importance to us here. Most scholars recognize the image of self-sacrifice in the foot washing. 8071 By humbly serving his disciples (13:4–16), Jesus takes the role of the Suffering Servant (cf. Isa 52:13–53:12) that John has just mentioned (12:38), epitomizing christological motifs from his Gospel and some other early Christian sources. 8072 Because biblical and early Jewish customs use foot washing in welcoming guests, some see it as an act of eschatological hospitality. 8073 |
| The high priest " s claim that it is better for one to die for the people (11:50) is important enough to John to bear repetition; it is the chief declaration for which John remembers him (18:14). If the texts that report this claim do not simply develop a commonsense tenet based on a community perspective, 7715 it might reflect a popular recognition in ancient Jewish ethics, 7716 though the Tannaim clearly opposed it under some circumstances. 7717 Using different wording, Josephus was willing to suffer more because the multitude of Galileans was so great (Josephus Life 212). 7718 Josephus elsewhere assumes this principle of greater and lesser worth when he declares that Agrippa II admonished the crowds not to fight the numerous Romans and invite wholesale slaughter of their people for the sake of a single offender and a few who suffered unjustly (War 2.353, 399); if they do fight, the Romans will burn their city and destroy their nation (War 2.397). At least in the rabbinic stream of tradition, a guilty Israelite may suffer to atone for his own sins as well as to keep Israel from being led astray. 7719 Later rabbis continued to debate whether an innocent Israelite should be sacrificed for the rest of Israel, and the view that he should apparently prevailed in the Amoraic period. 7720 Whether such views were current in the first century, however, Caiaphas " s view, as portrayed in John, stems more from «expediency» than from moral principle. 7721 At least sometimes Jerusalem aristocrats reasoned in this manner. For example, Jonathan " s allies reportedly reason that four rulers from Jerusalem are better than one (Josephus); by contrast, the masses are unpersuaded, trusting Josephus (Josephus Life 278–279). «Expediency» was a standard tool of moral reasoning among Greek philosophers, 7722 not surprising given the sort of education John " s audience could expect such elite priests to have had. But ironically the priest is quite right: it is better for the people if Jesus dies (cf. 16:7); Jesus had to die «on behalf of» his sheep (υπρ, 10:15; 11:51–52), the «scattered children of God» (10:16; 11:52). 2D. Unintended Truth (11:51–53) |
| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| The diversity mentioned above demonstrates how naturally the actual details of his mission would have redefined the messianic category for the disciples. 2484 Other factors would have contributed to a Messianic Secret during Jesus» public ministry. If Jesus knew anything at all about the political situation in Jerusalem, he would have known that a public messianic claim would lead to his immediate execution; in Mark, it does. 2485 Further, «self-boasting» was rejected in the Mediterranean world. 2486 Our limited information on first-century potential messianic claimants may suggest a reticence to declare their identity prematurely; most apparently felt they had to produce some evidence of their messiahship before publicly claiming kingship. 2487 Many teachers, both Greek and Jewish, also kept some esoteric or secret teachings private among a small circle, and sometimes revealed it reticently even to them. 2488 «Messiah» was a Jewish category, not Gentile, so it is hardly plausible that the title was invented by later Gentile Christians. «Christ» was a natural way to translate «Messiah» into Greek, 2489 and so it translates «anointed one» (not just in the royal sense) regularly in the LXX. But because that term in regular Greek usage simply meant «ointment " –an image wholly unintelligible to most Greeks 2490 –Paul in the Gentile mission normally uses it as Jesus» surname rather than as a title, 2491 in contrast to the more primitive usage in the Gospels. 2492 That John, writing in Greek, should explicitly translate «Messiah» as «Christ» (1:41), need not indicate Gentiles in his audience, as some have thought; quite the contrary, John is the only NT writer to include the Semitic term at al1. As noted in our discussion of signs, John particularly develops the new Moses expectation of early Judaism. 2493 As noted in our discussion of genre, John may borrow some aspects of Deuteronomy as a model for his writing. We should also note that explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19,22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5,12), Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58), or David (7:42). |
| The minor stylistic variations on which different authorship is posited for the Gospel and the Epistles thus appear to us inadequate to imply different authorship. Stylistically, the Gospel and the Epistles have far more in common than not. 1032 Some elements of style, such as the use of conjunctions and asyndeton, sharply distinguish the Johannine literature from other early Christian texts. In the Fourth Gospel, only the major interpolation (7:53–8:11) diverges from this stylistic pattern. 1033 While it is true that writers practiced imitation of respected teachers» style, documents purporting to derive from the same author which reflect the same basic style should not be questioned without adequate grounds, and it does not seem that the grounds are adequate in this instance. The author of 1 John claims to be an eyewitness (1:1–3); if this is not true, then the epistle is pseudonymous. Pseudonymous works, however, normally identified by name the author whose identity and authority they wished to assume. If one labels 1 John pseudonymous, one must attribute to it an attempted implicit pseudonymity–a category for which parallels are more difficult to find. 1034 Differences based on content are even less decisive. 1035 John and 1 John have much more in common than one would expect, given the different situations addressed. Differences of nuance or items included are hardly adequate to distinguish authors; were that the case, Romans and 1Corinthians could hardly have been written by the same Pau1. (Compare even stylistic variations: as mentioned above, whereas Paul seems to cite then qualify Corinthian positions in the latter–e.g., 1Cor 6:12–14 –he uses a more customary imaginary interlocutor throughout his diatribe in Romans.) No other author of antiquity could survive the nit-picking distinctions on which NT scholars, poring over a smaller corpus, often thrive. As a translator of Euripides for the Loeb series notes, Euripides» «plays, produced at times widely apart, and not in the order of the story, sometimes present situations (as in Hecuba, Daughters of Troy, and Helen) mutually exclusive, the poet not having followed the same legend throughout the series.» 1036 He would not fare well in the hands of our discipline. |
|
|
