Pages

Saturday, March 07, 2020

The apostle John and the Chief Priest

15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, 16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in (Jn 18:15-16).

1. This enigmatic statement raises some issues germane to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel: 

i) Is the anonymous disciple the Beloved Disciple? 

ii) Is the Beloved Disciple just a character in the Gospel, or is he the eyewitness narrator? 

iii) Is the Beloved Disciple the apostle John? 

Last year the White Horse Inn had a roundtable discussion regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel:



2. One issue is how it came to be that the apostle John might be known to the high priest? Some scholars postulate that his father's fishing business supplied food to the household of the high priest. I think they lean too heavily on that speculation, and even if it was the case, it may not be the right kind of familiarity to explain his access. There are two distinct issues here:

i) His relationship to the high priest

I think a kinsmen angle (which Keener entertains) is more promising than the fishing business angle–which some scholars push that much too hard.  Both Wenham and J. A. T. Robinson document that John Zebedee may have had a priestly lineage (via a Salome/Elizabeth connection). If so, that raises the question of whether he was related to the high priest. 

If, say, John was a young (upper teens, early 20s) nephew of the high priest, I don't find anything implausible about his uncle inviting him to sit in (quietly) on family business. Those are the kinds of informal perks that often come with extended families. Servants, consigns et al. hang around. And on this occasion, it wasn't even an official trial, but a last-minute, extralegal inquest. Official business and family business would tend to blend in the household of the high priest. It's a headquarters for both. 

ii) His relationship to the doorkeeper 

It's possible that John and the servant girl had a natural youthful attraction to each other, and so it was boy charming a girl and a girl charming a boy. That happens all the time in ordinary life. Young men and women who have instant rapport or "chemistry". Innocent flirtations. She thinks he's cute. He thinks she's cute. It's playful. Or maybe they're related (e.g. cousins). 

In fact, it wouldn't have to be a direct invitation from the high priest. If John's a relative, he'd be known to the entourage of the high priest, and have ways to get himself invited to religious or household events by other age-mates who tag along with the retinue–the way young people hang out. 

At one level the only entrée he needs is to get past the doorkeeper. But once inside, if his presence was detected, he might be challenged as unauthorized personnel  unless he enjoys some deeper kind of entrée, which might be the case if he's a young kinsman and/or has priestly lineage. 

3. Richard  Bauckham says: 

in  the  synoptic  gospels,  John  is  always  mentioned  along  with   his  brother  James, James  and  John, the  sons  of  Zebedee. They're  an  inseparable  pair  in  the   synoptic  gospels. In  John's  gospel,  James does  not  appear  at  all  until  in  chapter  21. Chapter   21  has  a  single  reference  to  the  sons of Zebedee. They're  not  named,  but  the  sons  of   Zebedee  are  in  chapter  21. So,  both  sons  of Zebedee  are  named  there. But  if  the  beloved   disciple  is  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  we  would expect his  brother,  James,  to  come  into  the   picture  from  time  to  time,  at  least,  whereas,  he's  notably absent  from  this  narrative.

That's an interesting objection. I'd just say two things:

i) In the case of the Synoptics, you have a narrator writing about the two brothers. That's biographical. If, however, the Fourth Gospel is written by one of the two brothers, then it's not surprising if it has a different perspective. That's autobiographical.

ii) Familial relationships can be notorious for their emotional complication. I knew my maternal grandmother fairly well. She lived in town until I started junior high. We saw her a few times after she moved away. I was 19 when she died.

She adored her father. She had a sister she never said anything about. As I recall, she had a brother she never said anything about. And most conspicuous, she never talked about her mother. But she never tired of talking about what a wonderful father she had. 

The fact that James and John were brothers says nothing about how close they were. Mainly they're together because Jesus called them both. 

iii) And Lydia McGrew has her own argument: 

One  could  argue  that  he's  made  this  decision  to  not  name  himself,  and  therefore,  he  can't   name  his  brother  either  because  it  would  be  awkward,  because  they're  generally  named   together  and  so  he just leaves him out.

I think Lydia's point is that if John wishes to preserve his role as the anonymous eyewitness narrator, he keeps his relation with James out of the picture since that association would blow his anonymity. He can't keep his true identity oblique if he's recognizably the brother of James. If readers make that connection. 

2 comments:

  1. Yeah, my idea is something like this: Suppose that all of the stories that John would otherwise tell about James are such that it would be most natural to name both of them, as we find in the Synoptics. (I have to confirm this, but I believe in the Synoptics James is never named without also naming John.) But John has already decided for whatever reason not to name himself. He's obviously not going to say, "James the son of Zebedee and the other son of Zebedee" and just give the first name of one of them. The Synoptics just say, "James and John" very naturally, but he can't do that if he's decided not to name himself. So it's simpler for him just never to give the first name of either and to refer to them as such only in one place where he gives no first names. Plausibly there was no story that he had an interest in telling where James the son of Zebedee was featured all by himself. That's what we find in the Synoptics anyway. Even in Acts, while John the son of Zebedee begins having a role with Peter in various scenes, the only time James the son of Zebedee is mentioned alone is when Acts records his death.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must say, though I'll read what Bauckham eventually publishes on the fish trade, he's being awfully dogmatic. For one thing, Magdala is on the Sea of Galilee. Why should the dominance of the fish trade by Magdala mean that the Zebedees didn't trade to Jerusalem. Maybe they did some business through Magdala! It's not that far away from Capernaum. If anything the evidence of the salted fish trade from Magdala to Jerusalem shows that that sort of thing went on between Galilee and Jerusalem. It's hard to believe that 2,000 years later we can be definite on the question, "Would Zebedee and his sons have traded fish to the high priest's household in Jerusalem?"

    ReplyDelete