Like Any Other Book
``The books of the bible should be read like any other book'' a Victorian modernist once said. He was wrong. You would not be reading this, if it was just about some Palestinian guru, whose thoughts had been preserved in a Dead Sea Scroll---and I certainly would not have written about him.
Nevertheless there is much to learn from what he said. Hostile criticism is valuable. Cicero used to study his opponent's brief as carefully as his own. He would learn not only what arguments he had to meet, but more significantly still, what points his opponent was silently conceding. We, too, can learn much from our critics---reports of Jesus being questioned about his relationship with the Father, and being met by increasing incredulity from the Jews, ending with the gibe ``We were not born of fornication πορνεiας (porneias)'' (John 8:41).
A sceptic might dismiss it as just a casual insult---```You bastard''---but they later (v.48) go on ``Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan?'' Earlier (6:42) they had argued that Jesus could not be the Messiah, because he came from Galilee, and was the son of Joseph, and ``we know his father and mother''; and later (7:27) critics from Jerusalem make the same point, ``we know where he comes from'' .It was not just a casual insult. Jesus' parentage was something that could be thrown in his teeth around 30 AD. Though he was known to be legally the son of Joseph, doubts about his actual paternity were current. Modern critics discount as ``infancy narratives'' the accounts given in Matthew and Luke, and invite us to suppose that they were made up long after the event. but the taunts directed at Jesus during his lifetime make that supposition implausible.
The ``from Galilee'' criticism is repeated in John 7:41-42, where it is argued that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, since he comes from Galilee, whereas the Messiah was prophesied to be of the seed of David, and to come from Bethlehem. This, on the face of it, is just another criticism, of no special significance. But if readers knew that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, they would appreciate the irony of its being argued against him that he was not.[1]
The glare of post-Resurrection light obliterates all the shadows cast by the different perspectives and aspirations of Jesus' contemporaries in his earthly days. We are left with a one-dimensional picture of events moving to their pre-ordained end, with God as the only agent. But that leaves us wondering why He did things in that way, and in attempting to find answers we are led to implausible (and unChristian) doctrines of punishment. Better to go along with the critics, and to approach the Fourth Gospel as we might approach any other book, looking at the text and the ambience with a critical eye, and seeing what we can discover about the author, his intended readership, his general purpose in writing, and what he took for granted.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Benedict XVI, the former Pope, Canon Anthony Harvey, and Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, for insights that have entirely altered my understanding of New Testament scholarship.
Benedict XVI, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, cited French sociological research which
explains how St John had inside knowledge of Temple affairs, and could get St Peter admitted to the palace of the High Priest (John 18:15).[2] In Is Scripture Still Holy? Anthony Harvey discussed recent archaeological evidence which proves St Luke's veracity.[3] In places he visited with St Paul he gives officials their correct titles, which are not to be found in any literary source, and could be known by St Luke only if he had actually been there. St Luke may have sometimes made mistakes, but he gives a truthful account in his Gospel and The Acts. Rowan Williams made me aware of the ambiguity in the word Ιο)υδαiοi (Ioudaioi) in (Matthew 27:25), which has always been translated as Jews, but in that context means only Judaeans, the inhabitants of Judea in the South as opposed to the inhabitants of Israel in the North. Professor Graham Davies has patiently answered many questions, and helped me understand the exact sense of the Hebrew and Aramaic words that lie behind the Greek of the Gospels. Behind the sources of my understanding lie the labours of many New Testament scholars, on whose shoulders I have been able to stand, and to whom I acknowledge my distant debt with gratitude.
Nomenclature
This is an unreverent, not an irreverent, read. The Apostles, Evangelists and other Saints are acknowledged to be such, and have St prefixed to their names, but the texts are referred to simply as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., in accordance with common practice.
There have been several different texts of the Fourth Gospel, arguably issued by different editors. In order not pre-judge contentious issues, different titles are assigned to each edition. There must have been an original text, possibly chronologically arranged, of chapters 1-20, written by the Fourth Evangelist, succeeded by a version arranged thematically, also written by the Fourth Evangelist. To this version an epilogue (John 21:1-23) was added, arguably by the hand of the Fourth Evangelist. the next verse, (21:24) is evidently by someone else, and vouches for the reliability of what had already been written, as also the concluding verse (21:25). These texts will be called: Original, Thematic, Epilogue and Final.
Contents
Chapter 1 The Fourth Gospel
S 1.1 Text
S 1.2 Closest Friend
S 1.3 Inside Information
S 1.4 Mrs Zeberdee
S 1.5 Yes But
Chapter 2 The Fourth Gospel-and the Third
S 2.2 Samaritans
S 2.3 Theophilus
S 2.4 Dates and Tenses
S 2.5 St Luke and St John
Chapter 3 The Galilean Gospels
S 3.1 Synoptic Problems
S 3.2 Crumbs Under the Table
S 3.2 St Matthew
Chapter 4 Blasphemy?
S 4.1 Confrontation
S 4.2 A Non-Incarnational Approach
S 4.3 Show Down
S4.4 Barabbas
Chapter 5 In Defence of Pontius Pilate
Chapter 6 The Lord's Prayer
Chapter 7 Satan, Sin and Anti-Semitism
Chapter 8 The Koran
Chapter 1 The Fourth Gospel
S 1.1 The Text
S 1.2 Jesus' Closest Friend
S 1.3 Inside Information
S 1.4 Mrs Zebedee
S 1.5 Yes But
The Text
The text we have is evidently not the first edition. There must have been an earlier edition which ended with chapter 20, because the last two verses (John 20:30-31) are an ending which could not have been written if there was more to come; and there are other indications in the text of its not being the first edition. In the account of the crucifixion when the soldier pierced Jesus' side, there is inserted a note that this is an eye-witness account (John 19:35), which breaks the sequence of (John 9:34) and (John19:36), and cannot have been part of an original text, but must have been a marginal note written on an earlier document. In a later edition it would have been possible to append chapter 21 as a Postscript, to round off previous themes or resolve questions that had recently arisen; and there is a similar marginal note in the Postscript (John 21:24b), as well as two others reminding the reader that Nicodemus was the one who came by night (John 7:50 and 19:39).
The last two verses of chapter 21 (John 21:23-24) read like an external attestation of the reliability of all that has gone before. They cannot have been written by the Fourth Evangelist. He would have removed the marginal references, which are all unnecessary, and in one case (John 19:35) interrupt the flow of the text. But if he did not write the last two verses of chapter 21, did he write any of it? Again, the other marginal notes do not fit. The marginal note at (John 19:35) clearly breaks the sequence of (John 19:34) and (John 19:36), and cannot have been part of an original text. On the face of it, the Postscript could all have been an addition by a later author. It is a possibility, but again, the other marginal notes do not fit. (John 6:4b) A feast of the Jews (John 6:6) This he said to test him (John 6:71) Judas Iscariot (John 7 :39) The Holy Spirit not yet come (John 7: 50) Nicodemus (John 2:4b) Judas Iscariot (John 12:16-17) Disciples did not understand (John 12:33) What death he should die (John 9:35) Eye-Witness (John 19:39) Nicodemus (John 21:24) Eye-Witness. They read like a student's annotations, as he read the text, to help him remember who the different people were. A later editor who was adding the Postscript in a new edition of the Fourth Gospel, would have cut them out; and since the Postscript fits in with the Fourth Gospel's line on St Peter,[4] it is better to group chapter 21 (apart from the last two verses) with the rest of the Fourth Gospel, and to regard (John 21:24-25) as alone being a final addition, The author of these last two verses did not notice and remove the insertions. Why? He was working with his own copy of the text, which he had had since his first student days. It was the copy he had always had, and now was commending the text to the public. In modern terms, he was a student of the Fourth Evangelist, who on his own initiative took up cudgels to defend his master's magnum opus at a time when eye-witnesses were dying off, and it was important to emphasize its reliability.
Richard Bauckham suggests that it was John the Presbyter who was the disciple of St John the Apostle and Evangelist.[5] That would have enhanced his standing, and have led to his being regarded as Presbyter. It would also explain why the two letters attributed to him were placed together with the First Epistle of St John, which is evidently from the pen of the Fourth Evangelist; unlike the other epistles, there is no internal evidence in II John and III John that the writer was
called John. He is simply the `Presbyter’. The Early Church took it that he was called `John’, which is best explained by the supposition that he was.
The Fourth Evangelist must have been an eyewitness of some of the events he recorded.
He was clearly not St Peter. The other gospels identify St Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, St James and St John, as the inner three. St James was killed by Herod (Acts 12:2) in the early days of the church. Only St John, the other son of Zebedee fills the bill. But in the Fourth Gospel, apart from the Postscript, there is no mention of the sons of Zebedee. The author seems to be deliberately not identifying himself. Why?
The Fourth Evangelist was giving a thematic account of Jesus’ thought rather than a full account of his deeds and words. The other Evangelists had occasion to relate what the sons of Zebedee were doing, but the Fourth Evangelist had no reason to write about himself, and the fact that he did not is in turn no reason to doubt that he was indeed the younger son of Zebedee.
Although there is no mention of the sons of Zebedee in the main body of the Fourth Gospel,
there is in the Postscript, and this has led some commentators, and Bauckham among them, to argue that Lazarus,[6] and John the Presbyter were at the Last Supper. But if Lazarus had been asked to look after Jesus' mother, his sisters would have been asked too, and if John the Presbyter had been, he surely would have said so in his two letters.
Jesus' Closest Friend
The Postscript identifies the Fourth Evangelist as ``the disciple whom Jesus loved''; who was at the Last Supper, and was asked by St Peter to ask Jesus who it was that was going to betray him (13:23-25). The standard translation of <on )hγ'απα (o )Ihvo^uς (hon egapa ho Iesous) as `the disciple whom Jesus loved' is unfortunate, since `loved' in contemporary English can have erotic overtones which are absent in )hγ'απα (egapa).
Inside Information
The Fourth Evangelist had inside contacts with High Priest Establishment. He knew about Nicodemus coming by night (John 3:1ff.), and of his standing up for Jesus against the Pharisees (7:50-52) and providing a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes for his burial (19:39).
He could get St Peter into the High Priest's court yard (18:15). He knew what was said to twist Pilate's arm (19:12b). The argument used ``If you release this man, you are not not Caesar's friend; anyone who makes himself a king is against Caesar'' Ε`αν τουτον α) )απολυσης, ο)υκ ε~ί φίλος το~υ Κα’iσαρος, πας (ο βασίλεα (εαυτον ποίϖ )αντίλεγεί το Καiσαρi (Ean touton apoluseis, ouk ei philos Kaisaros: pas ho basilea heauton poion antilegei to Kaisari) is so bad that it must have been actually used. For in fact the Romans were very ready to rule through client kings, such as Herod. If the Fourth Evangelist had been making up the incident, he would have put into the mouth of the Jews a more plausible argument. He must have had inside information about their actual argument, as also of Pilate's refusal to alter the superscription (19:21-22).
St John the son of Zebedee was a fisherman. While it is quite easy to accept that a fisherman could become, like St Peter, a fisher of men, it has seemed less likely that a fisherman could have come to have the deep understanding manifest in the Fourth Gospel. But this is to bring false assumptions to bear. For St John the son of Zebedee was not a poor man. When they heard the call, St James and St John left their father in the boat with the hired servants (Mark 1:20). Zebedee was a man of substance, and his sons were not necessarily poor and uneducated.[7] And they may have had a line to the ecclesiastical establishment. Pope Benedict XVI, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, cites some French sociological research that indicates that leading citizens were sometime called upon to perform duties in the Temple. They were, so to speak, lay canons, who would take turns to be ``in residence'', as residentiary canons do in English cathedrals today. If Zebedee were a lay canon of the Temple, it would explain how his son was in the know about what was going on there. Against this, English readers may cite Acts 4:13 ``when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, . . '' But the Greek words, ]ανθρϖποί )αγρ’αμματοί ε)ίσΙ κα’ί ` ίδί^ϖταί (anthropoi agrammatoi eisi kai idiotai) do not have to mean this. ]αγραμματοί (agrammatoi) is literally `unlettered' or `letterless' although it could mean `illiterate', it could equally well mean `unqualified', in modern parlance, without letters after their names. Similarly, )ίδί^ϖταί (idiotai) need not mean `idiotic', but merely `private', that is `non-public', `without public accreditation'[8] What St Peter and St John lacked were certain scribal skills and qualifications. (Much earlier the Jews had expressed surprise at Jesus’ knowing letters, γραμματα (gramtama), not having been properly trained (John 7:15).) The scribes had mastered the art of quoting texts and giving full references for every quotation. They were qualified to give an opinion. Our age, too, is obsessed with qualifications. Although everyone is free to opinionate, little notice is taken, unless the author has a degree and has mastered ``the literature'' and has plentiful footnotes. St Peter and St John may have been effective public speakers, but they had not given any footnote references and were not graduates. Some may have recognised St John as the son of Zebedee, but a wayward son, who had dropped out, and pushed off to follow a hippy icon. It is quite reasonable, therefore, to suppose that St John, the son of Zebedee, could have had the inside information which the Fourth Evangelist evidently had. Zebedee may have been, as it were, a member of a city livery company with connections to the ecclesiastical authorities. Someone whose father is a Merchant Taylor in contemporary Britain is likely to be well educated, though not necessarily in Holy Orders or in possession of a Doctorate. The identification of the Fourth Evangelist with St John the son of Zebedee, who, admittedly, was not trained in Rabbinical studies and not authorised to expound the law, makes good sense.