| 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) |
| The discourses that expound the miracles clarify this point further. Although healing the lame (5:5) suggests prophecies of the messianic era (Isa 35:6), Jesus» role in raising and judging the dead (5:17–29) belongs to no mortal in the Bible. Jesus is thus the one of whom Moses wrote (5:45–47)–a fitting introduction to the wilderness feeding where Jesus is the new manna ( John 6 ). When Jesus heals the blind man, the narrative reveals that being his disciple is greater than being Moses» disciple (9:28–29); he is a shepherd of Israel greater than Moses (10:1–18). The raising of Lazarus introduces Jesus as not merely a miracle worker like others (1 Kgs 17:22–23; 2 Kgs 4:35–36) but as the resurrection itself ( John 11:25–26 ). One therefore needs not only the signs but also their inspired interpretation, the testimony of the Paraclete and the disciples (15:26–27). Christology has implications for ecclesiology: Christ " s followers must be one (17:22), including ethnically (ch. 4); they must love one another (13:34–35; 15:12–17). Perhaps the Gospel polemicizes against early stages of division among believers that becomes full schism in 1 John 2 , a situation probably reflecting some of the Johannine communities. Their lives ( John 13:35; 17:21, 23 ; cf. 14:11–12) as well as their words ( John 17:20 ) thus constitute part of their witness, through which the world may believe. The function of witnesses for Jesus is the secondary motif of the proem (expressed in the Baptist material) and a primary focus of ch. 1, in which a witness interprets Christology for those who are not yet believers. But for John, witness includes how believers treat one another as well as what they proclaim. Jesus revealed the unseen God by his character of grace and truth (1:18), but his followers» love for one another must continue to do so (see 1 John 4:12 ). John " s Christological Distinctiveness John " s genre invites another question about his Christology. If John is a biographer and his speeches for Jesus reflect his understanding of the Jesus tradition, to what degree might his Christology reflect that of Jesus? Many features of Johannine Christology are attested in earlier Synoptic tradition, 2421 but John alone makes much of the Isaian divine «I am» claims. 2422 |
| The original Mandaean book cannot have been written before the rise of Mohammedanism. Yet, in spite of the fact that the Mandaean Baptist community had been considerably influenced by Eastern Christianity–if indeed it was not a strange offshoot from the church– Professor Bultmann assumes, first, that a gnostic Baptist community existed at the beginning of the second century; secondly, that the surviving Mandaean literature rests upon tradition reaching back to that time or upon documents originating then; thirdly, that the founders of the gnostic sect possessed a document containing the substance of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, but applied to John; and lastly, that this document was sufficiently accessible for the author of the Fourth Gospel to have procured it and edited it for his own purposes. 2913 Like Reitzenstein, Bultmanns student Conzelmann also cites Hermetic evidence, 2914 but this evidence again is probably dependent on Christian motifs. 2915 In the early decades of the twentieth century, scholars were already contesting the value of Reitzenstein " s hermetic parallels to John " s prologue because of the later date of the Hermetica 2916 or a possible common dependence on Greek philosophy. 2917 Given the alternatives available (see below), the later date of developed gnosticism (see introduction), and the relative lack of prominence in gnostic texts themselves (where it does occur it may depend on John " s Logos), a background in gnosticism is not probable. Parallels between the Johannine prologue and gnostic texts like the Trimorphic Protennoia (46:6–47:27) probably point to a common reservoir of language at a «gnosticizing» stage on the Wisdom trajectory, language which is hardly limited to John and gnosticism. 2918 The meaning John assigns to Logos has little in common with the gnostic idea of «a cosmic Logos answering to that contained in» the human sou1. 2919 As in the case of later orthodox writers like Justin Martyr, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the Logos theme in gnostic texts depends on John, on Hellenistic Jewish texts like Philo, or directly on Stoic and related Greek philosophy. |
| 2. The Multitude Divided (7:40–44) Because Jesus» gift of living water (7:37–38) could remind hearers of Moses» gift of water (Exod 17:1–7), 6564 the claim that Jesus is «the prophet» (7:40) probably refers to the eschatological Mosaic prophet expected on the basis of Deut 18:18 . 6565 Others suspect that he is the Christ (7:41a); both titles are true, though the popular Jewish conceptions represented in each (cf. 1:20–21) prove short of Johannine Christology (see introduction on Christology, ch. 7). But others were put off by his Galilean origin (7:41), as some had been by his apparent origin in Nazareth (1:46), though such skepticism could be surmounted by revelation and faith (1:47–49). (On regional bias in John " s tradition and its narrative function, see introduction, ch. 5.) In contrast to Jesus» hearers in the story world, the informed reader probably knows that Jesus did after all come from Bethlehem (7:42), casting the hearers» skepticism in an ironic light. 6566 Many ironies in Greek tragedies did not need to be spelled out because the story was already well known to the audience. 6567 The independent infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke–the only two extant first-century gospels with infancy narratives– both attest that many Christians accepted this tradition before John " s time, and at least by the time of Hadrian in the early second century even non-Christian residents of Bethlehem recognized a long-standing tradition of the site of Jesus» birth in a particular cave there. 6568 The tradition was probably sufficiently widely circulated to be taken for granted by John " s audience. Yet John nowhere mentions Jesus» birth in Bethlehem explicitly, because for him the crucial theological issue is not where Jesus was born, but where he was ultimately from: from above, from heaven, from God. 6569 Public divisions and factionalism such as those expressed in 7were common throughout ancient Mediterranean society. 6570 In literary works as in social reality, a public division over a person (7:43; 9:16; 10:19) could indicate that person " s prominence in the public eye. 6571 Apparently some of the officers wanted to carry out their orders (7:44; cf. 7:32) 6572 but could not do so because some of the other officers began to believe, with some of the crowd, that Jesus might be a spokesman for God (7:40–44). Although John " s characterization of Jesus» most vicious opponents is largely «flat " –that is, purely evil–he does concede that even in the Jewish establishment many respected Jesus, even if their Christology was too low to be full disciples (e.g., 3:2; 12:42). |
| 4383 2. The Setting of the Sign (2:l-3a) Before examining the sign itself, we must survey its setting. The features of the sign " s setting appear significant to John " s narrative: the location, the day, and the wedding celebration. 2A. Cana (2:1) The mention of Cana frames this pericope, bracketing it (2:1, 11). 4384 Scholars have favored especially two sites, Kefar-Kenna and Khirbet-Qanah, as the ancient site of John " s Cana; more evidence supports the claim for the latter. Despite recent traditions supporting Kefar-Kenna, older sources support Khirbet-Qanah. 4385 Further, the etymology, 4386 Roman-Byzantine pottery, 4387 and Josephus " s description of the locality 4388 also tend to support Khirbet-Qanah. Either site would represent a reasonable walk from Nazareth and explain why Jesus» family would have known the family of the groom. Kefar-Kenna is three and a half miles northeast of Nazareth and Khirbet-Qanah nine miles north of Nazareth. 4389 The mention of Cana probably functions as historical reminiscence–perhaps Nathanael " s (who may also represent the connection with the groom " s family, since he was from there, 21:2)–and as a literary cue prefiguring the sign of 4:46–54 (presumably from the same source). In its latter function «Cana of Galilee» (2:1; 4:46) addresses the contrast implied between Galileés positive reception of Jesus (2:2; 4:47, 54; cf. 2:12; 4:43–45) and his rejection in Judea (cf. 2:13–25; 5:16). 2B. The Third Day (2:1) One feature that may reinforce the idea of an assault on the old forms of ritual purification in this text is the way John has tied the first Cana narrative to Jesus» prophetic act in the temple. John has moved the temple cleansing up to the beginning of Jesus» ministry (overshadowing the entire ministry with the tradition of the passion week), and has apparently tied the two major pericopes of ch. 2 together with a literary inclusio around the key phrase «three days» (2:1,19). The «third day» of John 2has puzzled many commentators. |
| (4) A possibly first-century Diaspora Jewish text assumes that even Gentiles know the Jewish practice of baptisms in running water when turning from sins. 3973 (5) Most other initiation rituals in the ancient Mediterranean (whether to mystery cults or Qumran) at least included ceremonial washing, even if they viewed it as merely one washing among many (see comments above). (6) Given the facts that rabbinic Jews were in a position of far greater power than the early Jewish Christians in their area of geographical influence, and usually ignored or condemned the Christians teachings, it is quite unlikely that they would have borrowed initiatory baptism from Christians, and hardly more likely that they would have developed and approved it on their own once it had become associated with the Jewish Christians. 3974 Other arguments, for instance that some definite symbol of transition was necessary for women converts, are less substantial but can supplement the case. 3D. John and Proselyte Baptism In short, then, John s baptism historically summoned Israelites to turn to God the same way Jewish people expected Gentile proselytes to do so; like the Qumran sect, but with a more radical and public symbolism, he regarded only the true remnant of Israel as prepared for the Lord (see the Q material in Matt 3/Luke 3:8), and sought to turn the larger community of Israel to repentance. 3975 His greater subordination to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel does not diminish this function there, but his mission to bring Israel to repentance becomes still more christologically focused (1:31). The view that Johns mission in some sense redefined the remnant of Israel seems a legitimate interpretation of the function of John s baptism; the connection of repentance baptism with John " s christological message in the Synoptics suggests that the Johannine interpretation of 1is likewise consistent with prior tradition. To the Johannine community, expelled from the synagogues (perhaps by persons who found their christological claims more objectionable than the views that the Baptist was a prophet), the critical fact of John " s baptismal mission was that he came to reveal Israel " s king to Israel (1:31; 12:13). While some of Israel " s self-appointed guardians might remain clueless (3:10), the genuine Israelites would recognize Israel " s rightful king (1:47, 49). While his interlocutors, like the world (1:10, οκ εγνω), might fail to recognize their king (1:26, οκ οδατε), the Spirit would enable others to recognize him (1:33, οκ δειν). 3976 |
| 3. The Elite Despise Jesus (7:45–52) Annoyed that the multitude was divided (7:40–43), as were even their own officers (7:44–46), the elite retreat into the security of knowing that none of their own group has believed in Jesus (7:47–49)–unaware that even on this point they are mistaken (7:50–51). Even their rejection of Jesus on account of his Galilean origins (7:52) reflects their elite understanding, one which simply mirrors many perspectives of the higher class throughout the ancient Mediterranean. From Josephus " s portrait, one may guess that many Pharisees were members of the Jerusalem aristocracy; at the same time, it seems quite doubtful that they constituted a majority of it. 6573 John " s own elite opposition may be primarily Pharisaic in its orientation (see introduction); in Jesus» day, however, the emphasis would have been on the «elite» rather than the Pharisaic elements of opposition. Even here, the groups are not totally identified (7:48; cf. 12:42), though they overlap (cf. 3:1; 7:26, 50). John " s community probably represents a social stratum strongly differentiated from that of the elite; for that matter, the vast majority of ancient people, including urban dwellers, were not part of the elite. By presenting even the guards who came to arrest Jesus as initially reticent to do so (7:45–46; despite 18:3,22), John reinforces his portrait of the synagogue community as divided within itself (7:43), so that the real opposition to Jesus stems from only the most vocal members of the elite. In Josephus, only a small faction causes the war; in John, a small faction is mostly responsible for Israel " s unbelief. While John characterizes Jesus» opponents as «the Jews,» his narrative repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus» opposition is only a small portion of the Jewish community, namely an elite who can sometimes (albeit not always) sway the opinions of the masses. The leaders appeal to their view of Jesus as a false prophet (7:47; see comment on 7:12). Ironically, they question the competence of those who heard Jesus firsthand (7:46) without hearing from Jesus themselves (7:51), merely on the basis of social class (7:48–49). |
| Many of the bystanders responded in faith (11:45; cf. 11:15,40); the language suggests that the majority did so. 7676 (On the significance of such signs-faith, see comment on 2and related texts.) That John calls the bystanders «the Jews» indicates his continuing confidence that even among those who constitute the primary opposition (see introduction on «the Jews»), faith remains possible. Although it is not part of his purpose to emphasize it, John may even share the earlier Christian optimism in an eschatological repentance of his Jewish people ( Rom 11:26 ). 7677 But the specter of rejection remains, for some of the bystanders took word to the authorities that Jesus was again in Judea and doing signs that were influencing others» opinions ( John 11:46 ). In an analogous setting in the Fourth Gospel, a report about Jesus» signs directed toward the elite is intended not as witness (as in 7:46; 9:30–33) but as betrayal (5:15–16); given the equally immediate hostile response, such is probably in view here. New Testament miracle stories frequently include rejection, but nearly all other ancient miracle stories lack this element, although its converse, acclamation, is common. 7678 The motif of rejection or persecution after miracles 7679 undoubtedly stems from the ministry of Jesus and/or the experience of his earliest followers. 2. The Elite Plot Jesus» Death (11:47–53) The plot of the leaders (11:47–53) fittingly follows the Lazarus narrative (11:1–44); Jesus is the resurrection and the life, but to give Lazarus life must set his own in danger (11:8, 16). In this epitome of Johannine irony, Jesus would die on behalf of others (11:50). 7680 2A. Historical Plausibility Mark also draws on a tradition in an earlier passion narrative in which leaders plot against Jesus ( Mark 14:1–2 ), very likely in response to his demonstration and teaching in the temple earlier that week ( Mark 11:15–18 ). In John, the demonstration in the temple opens Jesus» public ministry, framing it with the ethos of the passion week and the Jerusalem leaders» hostility. In John, the immediate precedent and provocation for the final plotting is Lazarus " s resuscitation. Because this was Jesus» climactic sign before the cross, it suggests a rejection of his whole public ministry (1:11). 7681 |
| The Fourth Gospel speaks of a συνδριον only once (11:47), and there the term seems to refer to an ad hoc council, albeit gathered from among the elite and chaired by the high priest. 9561 The leading players in John " s account at this point are simply Pharisees and chief priests. Because the historical figures behind John " s Pharisees and chief priests were Jerusalem aristocrats, however, some comments about Jerusalem " s municipal aristocracy may be in order. 9562 The comments shed more light on 11:47, but because John " s Passion Narrative invites comparison with those of the Synoptics, we include discussion of the Sanhédrin here. Α συνδριον was a ruling council, equivalent to a βουλ, or a senate. 9563 Cities such as Tiberias had their own ruling senates composed of the leading citizens (Josephus Life 64, 69, 169, 313, 381); such assemblies were distinguishable from the larger citizen assembly (Life 3 00). 9564 Municipal senates consisted of aristocrats the Romans called decuriones, and in the eastern Mediterranean «varied in size from thirty to five hundred members.» 9565 The Jerusalem Sanhédrin was in a sense the municipal aristocracy of Jerusalem; but just as the Roman senate wielded power far beyond Rome because of Romés power, Jerusalem " s Sanhédrin wielded some influence in national affairs, to the degree that Roman prefects and Herodian princes allowed. 9566 The Sanhédrin may well have held seventy-one members, as tradition indicates; 9567 yet if it simply represented a body of ruling elders from the municipal aristocracy, this may have been simply an average figure. It is, in any case, doubtful that all members were expected to be present on all occasions (especially an emergency meeting on the night when people had eaten–or in John " s story world would the next evening eat–the Passover). 9568 The Sanhedrin included the high priest, who according to tradition could break ties. 9569 Again according to tradition, they met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount; 9570 otherwise they met close to the Temple Mount (cf. Josephus War 5.144). 9571 Our first-century sources, the NT and Josephus, include Sadducees and other groups in the Sanhedrin, under high-priestly control; later rabbis portray the Sanhedrin as an assembly of rabbis. 9572 The later portrayals should not surprise us; rabbinic portraits of the Sanhédrin include more striking anachronisms than this, depicting leaders of the Sanhedrin in biblical times. 9573 |
| John " s account of the plot (11:47–53) fits what we know of the period. Plotting seems to have characterized Jewish as well as Roman aristocratic politics in the first century; thus John of Gischalás allies «took counsel» with him how to undo Josephus (Josephus Life 236). 7682 Jerusalem " s leaders were desperate to prevent actions which would provoke the Romans (Josephus War 2.237); Josephus reports that later aristocratic priests and Pharisees desired peace and only feigned to go along with the populace to save their lives (Josephus Life 21–22). Josephus " s report of Antipas " s reason for mistrusting and executing John the Baptist fits the reasoning of these leaders. 7683 Further, one would hardly expect Jesus» execution without the cooperation of a council of Jerusalem aristocrats (see comment on the Sanhedrin at the introduction to the Passion Narrative). Local municipal aristocracies normally brought persons to trial before the Romans; 7684 indeed, the Roman legal system as a whole depended heavily on delatores, accusers. 7685 Many are thus inclined to accept a substantial amount of prior tradition in this report. 7686 Though John may add the Pharisees to preserve the unity of opposition in his Gospel, 7687 the spokesman for the opposition is Caiaphas the high priest (11:49), and the high priesthood is the part of the opposition first named (11:47). The Synoptics and Acts suggest that the most brutal opposition came especially from the Sadducean aristocracy. 7688 Such considerations argue for early tradition, not necessarily historicity. A leak from the Jerusalem aristocracy is not at all implausible and happened on other occasions where the object of discussion had allies in the aristocracy (cf., e.g., Josephus Life 204). 7689 If Joseph of Arimathea became an ally of the disciples at some point, his sharing of information with them is more probable than not. Although evidence suggests that the early Christians carefully guarded their traditions, one cannot be certain on purely historical grounds whether the tradition stems from sources like Joseph or from hearsay that a persecuted sect found believable without eyewitness verification. 2B. Caiaphas, High Priest «That Year» (11:49) |
|
|
