Each of the gospel authors writes details into their accounts of Jesus that the other three do not. For the Synoptic writers, this usually means including stories, or bits of stories, which do not appear in the others. Not surprising, given that they all appear to be using a common source, and the later writers use the earlier ones' texts. John, the last of the canonical gospel authors, does as well, but his approach to Jesus' story is different than the synoptics, so we should not be surprised at how much "new" material appears in his account.
What is surprising, however, are the details John adds to those stories from the other three accounts that he includes in his. For instance, John alone names the woman who anoints Jesus. Only in John's account do we see soldiers and temple police rather than a crowd coming to arrest Jesus. We even have a specific number of soldiers who arrive and what they do:
John uses the technical term chiliarch for the 'officer' in charge of a cohort of a thousand men (18:12). The use of so much superfluous force is also seen as only John says that they 'tied him up'... (Burridge, p. 206)John is writing after the Jewish uprisings and the destruction of the temple, in a country still occupied by Roman troops. The inclusion of these particular details of Rome's power may be a political statement as well as a theological one. And they set the stage for what comes next.
We also get two additional details not seen in the synoptic accounts. John specifically names Peter as the Disciple who drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's slave. John also gives us the slave's name--Malchus. Perhaps John's community considered Malchus one of its forbears, an important one because he was an eyewitness to the events surrounding Jesus' final hours. John also picks up a detail from Luke not found in Matthew or Mark. He specifies that it was Malchus' right ear that Peter cut off. I wonder why John did not also include Jesus' healing of the slave's injury that is included in Luke's account?
In this particular passage, John shows another interesting deviation from the Synoptics. After arresting Jesus, the soldiers take him not to Caiaphas, who is the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. It is clear that Annas questions Jesus first, because later we learn that Annas then sends him to Caiaphas. What appears confusing is that during the scene in Annas' house, John says that a disciple of "the high priest" admitted Peter to the courtyard and that "the high priest" questioned Jesus. Is it because Annas is the real power behind the Jewish religious leadership? Burridge tells us
[Annas] was high priest from AD6 [sic] to 15. Although the Romans then deposed him, he was followed as high priest by his four sons--and now by Caiaphas, his son-in-law! (p. 206)So what is John's purpose in telling the story this way? John has a reason for everything. Sometimes we can figure it out, and sometimes, like this particular scene, we can't.
The details in this chapter take John's account--an account filled with mysticism and mystery--and ground it firmly in the real world. Whatever else Jesus is and was, John is telling us that he was present in the world, with real people, in real places, and in a specific time in history. He wants his community to remember.
He wants us to remember.
Peace,
Jeffri
No comments:
Post a Comment