Religion 3

the opposition to Jesus: the world which does not know the Father who has

sent Jesus into the world (17: 25–6).

Was Judas in charge of the arresting party (18. 3)? The REB (and some

other translations) leaves the question open: ‘Judas made his way there with

a detachment of soldiers, and with the temple police.’ One can visualize

Judas mingling with the arresting party. The NRSV (and other transla-

tions) reflect the Greek much more accurately: ‘Judas brought a detach-

ment of soldiers.’ Judas takes the initiative, leads the way, and hence is fully

culpable.

John 18: 13 records that Jesus was taken first of all ‘to Annas, who was the

father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year’. Annas is then referred

to twice as ‘high priest’ (18: 19, 22). Since there could only be one high

priest in post at any one time, is the evangelist’s reference to both Annas

and Caiaphas as ‘high priest’ hopelessly muddled? Probably not. It is likely

that the title ‘high priest’ continued to be used for Annas even after his

departure from office: he held a ‘patriarchal’ position in high-priestly cir-

cles (cf. Luke 3: 2; Acts 4: 6), and still enjoyed the courtesy title, ‘high

priest’, as did some other respected high priests (Josephus, Antiquities §34).

The comment that Caiaphas was high priest ‘that year’ does not necessarily

imply that the evangelist believed (wrongly) that the office was held for

only one year: most scholars accept that the sense is ‘that particularly

memorable year’.

The preceding discussion of some of the issues raised by a close reading

of John 18 confirms that this gospel is like a stream in which children can

wade and elephants swim. My hope is that my readers will want to become

elephants and wade further into other parts of this fascinating but

enigmatic gospel.

Purpose and setting

In the final verse of the gospel proper, the evangelist seems to state his

purpose very clearly: the signs written in this book are recorded ‘so that

you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God’ (20: 31). But does

the evangelist mean that these are written ‘so that you may continue to

believe’ or ‘in order that you may come to believe’? Is the gospel written to

strengthen faith or is it intended to be a missionary tract? Unfortunately

116 | the four gospels

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 2. O UP O xf or d. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de

r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 3/15/2020 1:53 PM via SAINT LEO UNIV AN: 478397 ; Stanton, Graham.; The Gospels and Jesus Account: stleocol

the Greek is ambiguous. And to make matters worse two forms of the verb

are found in the early manuscripts.

Most scholars accept that the evangelist writes with his own Christian

readers and listeners primarily in mind. In 6: 68–9 Peter speaks for the

reader: ‘Lord . . . you have the words of eternal life. We have come to

believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’ Passages such as 8: 31

(‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples’) and 15: 4 ff.

(‘Abide in me . . . those who abide in me, and I in them bear much fruit’)

are addressed to believers. At the climax of the Prologue in 1: 14, the faith

not only of the evangelist himself, but also of Christians associated with

him, is confessed in the words: ‘we have beheld his glory, glory as of the

only Son from the Father’ (cf. also 1: 16).

What do we know about the recipients of this gospel? We have already

noted passages which indicate that they are involved in fierce controversy

with the Jewish synagogue. (See pp. 99 and 111.) This is a pervasive theme.

The rejection of Jesus by ‘his own people’ is noted in the Prologue (1: 11). In

the dialogue with Nicodemus there is a dramatic change at 3: 11. Up until

that point Jesus and Nicodemus have been speaking as individuals. But

suddenly the evangelist switches to plural pronouns: this change cannot be

brought out in English translations unless we resort to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ in

the preceding verses. In 3: 11 we move to John’s day and to discussion

between Christians and Jews: ‘We (Christians) speak of what we know, and

testify to what we have seen; but you (Jews) do not receive our testimony.’

In chapters 5–9 there are repeated references to the theological disputes

between Christians and Jews. The evangelist’s readers are undoubtedly at

loggerheads with their Jewish neighbours.

At least some members of the evangelist’s communities have parted

company painfully with local synagogues. Down through history minority

religious groups which have parted with the ‘parent’ group have tended to

become inward-looking and isolated from the world ‘outside’. This atti-

tude is often said to be ‘sectarian’, though that term begs questions of

definition. What is hardly in doubt is that the evangelist and his readers are

at odds not only with Judaism but with the world in general. This is

reflected clearly in the farewell discourses addressed by Jesus to the

disciples—but on another level the evangelist is speaking to his own

readers and listeners. In 15: 18–19 Jesus says: ‘If the world hates you, be

aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world,

john’s gospel: ‘i am the way’ | 117

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 2. O UP O xf or d. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de

r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 3/15/2020 1:53 PM via SAINT LEO UNIV AN: 478397 ; Stanton, Graham.; The Gospels and Jesus Account: stleocol

the world would love you as its own. But because you do not belong to the

world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates

you.’

This isolation from the world is also expressed clearly at the climax of

the farewell discourses in chapter 17. Jesus does not pray for the world, but

‘on behalf of those whom you gave me’ (v. 9). The disciples are ‘not of the

world, just as I am not of the world’ (vv. 14, 16).

Not surprisingly, the ethical teaching in this gospel is directed almost

entirely to Christians. The ‘new commandment’ which Jesus gives his dis-

ciples is ‘love one another’ (13: 34). This is the central ethical principle in

John: it is love for one’s fellow-Christian which is being expressed, not love

for one’s neighbour or enemy. This is in strong contrast to Matt. 5: 44, ‘I

say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’, and

to the parable of the good Samaritan which is the reply to the lawyer’s

question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ (Luke 10: 25–37; cf. also Mark 12: 31 ff.).

The sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels on marriage, divorce, property,

and the state are all missing in John. There is no sign of Luke’s insistence

that the story of Jesus is related in any way to world history (see above,

pp. 80–1).

The recipients of this gospel, then, do seem to be decidedly at odds both

with their Jewish neighbours and also with the world in general. What was

their relationship to other strands of early Christianity? This is an interest-

ing but difficult question: it raises numerous issues which we cannot pur-

sue here. In his influential commentary Rudolf Bultmann (1971) argued

that some passages in John were added by an ‘ecclesiastical redactor’ after

its composition in order to bring it into line with ‘mainstream’ Christian-

ity at the end of the first century. He claimed that in genuine Johannine

thought there is no room for the sacraments; the passages which seem to

allude to them most clearly were later additions. Similarly, the passages

which refer to future judgement ‘at the last day’ (5: 28–9; 6: 39–40, 44, 54;

12: 48) are taken as additions. Bultmann insisted that the evangelist’s

primary emphasis was on the judgement which takes place in the present

when people are confronted with the claims of Jesus, so there can be no

room for future judgement.

If Bultmann’s analysis is correct, then this gospel does represent a form

of Christianity which is very different from most of the strands we can

trace in the closing decades of the first century. But even if, with most

118 | the four gospels

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 2. O UP O xf or d. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du

ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de

r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 3/15/2020 1:53 PM via SAINT LEO UNIV AN: 478397 ; Stanton, Graham.; The Gospels and Jesus Account: stleocol