By Alfred E. Garvie
Part XVII
XVII. THE ARREST, THE TRIALS,
AND THE CRUCIFIXION (John xviii.
and xix.).
(1) In dealing with this portion
of the Fourth Gospel we are on
ground common to it and the Synoptics, and are especially
confronted with a discrepancy as
regards the day and the hour of
the death of Jesus. (i.) As
regards the first point many
scholars give the preference to
the view of the Fourth Gospel,
that the Lord's Supper was held
· on the day prior to the
Passover (xiii. l πρὸ δὲ τῆς
ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, xviii. 28 ἵνα,
μὴ μιανθῶσιν ἀλλὰ φάγωσιν τὸ
πάσχα), and that Jesus died at
the time when the Passover Lamb
was being sacrificed. This seems
to have been also Paul's view (τὸ
πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός
l Cor. v. 7). It likewise
appears to be the primary
tradition in the Synoptics.
According to Mark xiv. 2 (=
Matt. xxvi. 5) the plan of the
Jewish rulers was to take Jesus
by craft, and to put Him to
death, but " not on the feast
day, lest there be an uproar of
the people." "To the secondary
tradition in
the Synoptics is due the
identification of the Last
Supper with the Paschal meal;
and to this view there are
several objections. Work was
going on (Mark xv. 21; Luke
xxiii. 56) and arms' were being
carried (Mark xiv. 47), both of
which, as well as a meeting of
the Sanhedrin, were strictly
prohibited on the feast day.
Some of the details preserved
by the Synoptic Gospels about
what happened on the day of the
Crucifixion and the day after
tally, in fact, with the primary
tradition, and are inconsistent
with the special identification
of the Last Supper and the
Passover. . . . The Synoptic
Gospels are inconsistent with
themselves, and the Fourth
Gospel intervenes in support of
the better tradition," (Moffatt's
Introduction, etc., p. 544). Dr. Moffatt adds a very important
general consideration. " The
recognition of this has
important bearings on the whole
question of early Christian
tradition, for if, in one case,
the typological significance of
an event is found to be derived
from the event, there is a
probability that in other cases
an incident is not to be
dismissed as unhistorical simply
because it lends itself to a
religious application or moral"
(pp. 544-5). The evangelist did
not invent history to illustrate
doctrine, but actual history
suggested doctrine to him. Dr. Moffatt also finds a
confirmation of the Johannine
view in the saying recorded by
Luke. xxii. 15-16, in which
Jesus expresses His desire to
eat the Passover with His
disciples, and also confesses
the disappointment of His hope.
The writer has preferred to set
forth the argument in favour of
the view of the Fourth Gospel in
the words of a scholar who
cannot be suspected, as he
himself might be, of a bias to
overestimate the value of the
Gospel historically. (ii.)
According to Mark xv. 25, to
turn to the second point, the
Crucifixion took place at the "
third hour,'' that is nine in
the morning; but according to
John xix. 14 at the "sixth
hour,'' that is noon, the trial
was still going on. Not only has
Mark three consistent notes of
time: Jesus is brought to
Pilate " straightway in the
morning" (verse 1); the
Crucifixion takes place at nine
o'clock; and there is darkness
from noon till three o'clock
(verse 33); but the hour
mentioned in the Fourth Gospel
does not seem to allow time for
all the events which followed
before nightfall. Mark's notes
of time might be challenged on
the ground that as the slaughter
of the Paschal lambs began at
three o'clock, that hour would
also be fixed as the time when
the sacrifice of Christ was
consummated; but against this
view is the consideration that
Mark places the Crucifixion on
the day following the paschal
meal, as he identifies the last
supper with it. The difficulty
has been evaded in several ways.
A corruption of the text in the
Fourth Gospel has been assumed
(an ancient solution), and John
is supposed to have used a
different reckoning of time,
corresponding to the modern,
from midnight to noon, but even
Westcott, who favours this
explanation, admits that this
mode was unusual (The Gospel of
St. John, p. 282), and Dr. Sanday has given it up
(Outlines, p. 147). Ramsay
appeals to the elasticity of the
reckoning of time in the East;
but allowing for this to the
utmost, could Mark's third hour
follow John's sixth ~ With Dr. Sanday we must leave the
question open, only adding that
while in this instance the
Synoptic reckoning seems more
probable than the Johannine, yet
that does not justify a
suspicion of general inaccuracy
in the Fourth Gospel.
(2) While it lies beyond the
purpose of these articles to
attempt a minute comparison of
the Fourth Gospel with the
Synoptics to produce a complete
harmony of their contents, we
may glance at the omissions and
additions in the Fourth Gospel
in so far as by these we may
learn &0mething of the character
of the Gospel and the
qualifications of the
evangelist. Westcott's Gospel of
St. John on
pp. 249-250 gives a useful
summary of these omissions and
additions. Without attempting to
deal with them all we may select
the more important. (i.) Why
does the Fourth Gospel omit an
account of the agony in
Gethsemane; and pass at once to
an account of the arrest?
(xviii. 13). As the evangelist
is not ashamed of the humanity
of Jesus, but lays stress on it,
we are not justified in saying
that the agony was doctrinally
offensive to him, and so he
passed it over. In a previous
article it was suggested that
xii. 27 sounds like a faint echo
of the Synoptic tradition of the
scene at which the evangelist
was not an eyewitness. A reason
may now be suggested for his
absence from the Garden at the
Agony, and his presence at the
Arrest. If he was, as has been
argued hitherto, an influential
citizen of Jerusalem, connected
by some close relationship, as
we shall conclude in discussing
verse 15, with the high priest,
if he was the host at the Last
Supper, and if he alone knew
why Judas had left the board, what
more probable than that, when
Jesus went to Gethsemane, he
went to the highpriest's house
to discover what was being done,
and that he came to Gethsemane
with, or soon after, the band
sent to arrest Jesus? He had
not reached the spot when Judas
gave the traitor's kiss (Mark
xiv. 44; Luke xxii. 48), and so
he does not record it. For had
he witnessed it, he, who was not
inclined to spare the traitor
any of his infamy (cf. xii. 6),
would not have passed over the
shameful act. He had arrived,
however, when Jesus made the
voluntary surrender. While the
motive which he assigns in verse
4 is in accord with his
theological attitude, the effect
of Jesus' presence he records in
verse 6 need not be regarded as
doctrine turned into history;
for a similar power to overawe a
crowd is ascribed to Jesus by
Luke (iv. 30); and there are
many authentic instances of such
influence exercised by a
strong personality, Jesus'
appeal that
His disciples should be spared
(verse 8) is quite consistent
with His character, even
although the reason given for it
in the following verse again
betrays the evangelist's
standpoint, and if intended to
indicate Jesus' motive
introduces an artificiality
which we may be sure had no
place in the "inner life" of
Jesus. The mention of the name
Malchus (verse 10) is not a
suspicious realistic touch; but
a proof of the evangelist's more
intimate knowledge of the
household of the high priest.
The words in which Jesus rebukes
Peter repeat the image of the
prayer in Gethsemane, and so
bear the mark of authenticity
(verse 11); and it is
significant that the fourth
evangelist offers us this close
link with the Synoptic record.
(ii.) Why, again, does the
Fourth Gospel alone record the
private examination before
Annas or Caiaphas (xviii. 12-14,
19-24), and omit any mention of
the public trial recorded by the Synoptics? We may here also
surely follow the clue which has
led us hitherto: The evangelist
alone was present as a
privileged spectator at the
private examination, while the
twelve who had forsaken Jesus at
His arrest and fled made no
attempt to rejoin Him for some
time, even if it had been
possible for them to gain
admission. When Peter did
venture back, it was only the
influence of the disciple known
to the high priest, i.e., the
evangelist, which secured him
admission to the outer court
(verse 16), not the inner
chamber, where the examination
was going on. It is probable
that as soon as the evangelist
learned the intentions of this
private conclave regarding
Jesus, the confirmation of which
by the public assembly of the
Sanhedrin seemed certain, he did
not wait any longer, but made
his way to the palace of Pilate
to use what influence he had to
convey to the procurator the
truth about the situation. Do
not Pilate's attitude and
conversation indicate that he
knew more about Jesus than his
accusers were imparting; and is
not a reasonable explanation the
intervention in some form of the
evangelist? It must be
admitted, however, that the
course of events is not made
quite clear in this passage. Is
the high priest referred to in verse 19 Annas or Caiaphas?
Verses 13 and 24 would indicate
Caiaphas; but if Caiaphas
examined Jesus in the house of
Annas, why did Annas send Jesus
bound to Caiaphas (verse 24) to
undergo presumably another
examination? Even if the high
priest was Annas, since he bears
that title in Acts iv. 6, and
shares it with Caiaphas in Luke
iii. 2, why after the
examination was Jesus sent to
Caiaphas? Further, the division
into two parts of the story of
Peter (verses 15-18 and 25-27)
forces on us the conclusion that
here again we are faced with a
displacement. Dr. Mofiatt (The
New Testament, p. 139) inserts
verses 19-24 between verses 14
and 15, and so makes verses
15-18 continuous with verses
25-27, while omitting 25a as a
repetition of 18a. This
arrangement requires us to
assume that the high priest in
verse 19 is Caiaphas; but if he
conducted the examination even
in the house of Annas, why are
we told in verse 24 that it was
Annas who sent Jesus to
Caiaphas? This difficulty
remains. "The dispatch of
Jesus," says Dr. Mofiatt, " to
the latter ceases to be
purposeless, as it is in the
traditional order"
(Introduction, p. 558). Surely
this claim is unjustified. unless verse 24 is placed
before verse 19. Then the order
of events becomes clear. Taken
to the house of Annas for some
purpose of which we are now
ignorant, and of which the
evangelist himself may not have
had personal knowledge, as he
may not have had as free access
to the house of Annas as to that
of Caiaphas, Jesus was sent
bound to Caiaphas, by whom the
private examination was
conducted. It is a bare
conjecture that Annas had been
more active in securing Jesus'
arrest than Caiaphas, and that
the captors would therefore go
to him
for further directions; but
that to preserve the appearance
of legality, as soon as
possible the prisoner was sent
to the high priest himself. It
may be added that verse 15
speaks of the court of the high
priest, and so presupposes that
the removal from the house of
Annas to that of Caiaphas had
taken place, a further
justification of the
rearrangement proposed. But if,
as is probable, the evangelist
was present at the private
examination within the chamber,
while Peter was outside in the
court while it was going on,
that is an additional reason for
placing verse 24 before verse
19. A minor point in this
passage demands a brief notice.
The evangelist's description of Caiaphas as "high priest that
same year" (verse 13) is no
proof of his ignorance of Jewish
customs, for the words do not
mean that he regarded the high
priesthood as an annual
appointment, but simply mean
that in the recollection of the
evangelist the year of the death
of Jesus stood out from all
other years, and the one thing
memorable about Caiaphas was
that he was the religious head
of the nation in the year which
was so significant for its
destiny.
(iii.) It has been necessary to
refer to the passage which deals
with Peter's denial, and a
restoration of its unity has
been suggested (verses 15-18,
25b-27). John's account does not
agree closely with the Synoptics; but the differences are not
such as to challenge his
trustworthiness as a historian.
As has just been suggested, he
was no eyewitness of the scene,
but was within the chamber when
the examination of Jesus was
going on at the same time. If he
got his account secondhand even
from Peter himself, the
condition of the disciple who
denied at the time was such that
he probably had not so distinct
a recollection as always to give
a quite coherent account. And it
is not impossible that the
account came to the evangelists
through some servant in the high
priest's court. Of such a. scene
different eyewitnesses would
give very varying accounts. It
is not necessary to attempt the
task of harmonising. The
significance of verses 15 and 16
as regards the personality of
the evangelist must be reserved
for subsequent discussion.
(iv.) Peculiar to the Fourth
Gospel is the account of the
first conference of the Jews
with Pilate and Pilate's private
examinations of Jesus (xviii.
28-38a; xix. 9-11). We may offer
the same explanation as before.
At the conference and private
examinations the evangelist was
present, as one who had access
to the governor as he had to the
high priest. Possibly the
language of Jesus has been
modified to some extent by the
characteristic phraseology of
the evangelist, and his
distinctive view of the truth
and witness-bearing. The
conversation between Pilate and
Jesus does not appear at all
improbable, even if we have not
a verbatim report of it. Pilate
was anxious to discover if Jesus
cherished the political ambition
charged against Him. Jesus
convinced Pilate that no danger
to the Roman dominion need be
feared from Him. In emphasising
the spirituality of His aims He
impressed Pilate as a harmless
visionary. The contemptuous,
sceptical question, What is
truth? suits both context and
occasion.
Verse 32 betrays the
evangelist's theological
interest and standpoint. Is it
likely that Jesus in speaking to
Pilate would have described His
enemies as the Jews (verse 36),
as He is also represented as
doing in addressing His
disciples (xiii. 33)? A
characteristic of the
evangelist's terminology has
been transferred to the speech
of Jesus. The account in the
Fourth Gospel covers common
ground with the Synoptics as
regards the offer of the release
of a prisoner, and the choice of
Barabbas rather than Jesus
(xviii. 39-40); but differs from the Synoptics in placing
a
scourging, a meeting by the
soldiers, and the Ecce Homo
(xix. 15) between this choice
and the call for crucifixion. He
alone reports the charge of
blasphemy made by the chief
priests and officers (verse 7),
when Pilate refused to condemn
on the political accusation;
and Pilate's attempt to probe
the matter to the bottom in the
second private interview with
Jesus (verses 9-11).
Jesus' silence at the beginning
in this second inquiry was a
rebuke of the treatment of His
previous declaration by Pilate
(xviii. 38); but it was broken
in compassion to remind Pilate,
who claimed the authority of
judge, that his position
involved the obligation of
righteous judgment. There is a
touch of pity in the declaration
that Caiaphas' sin was made the
more heinous because he was
using the Roman judge as his
tool, and in the indirect
indication that in consenting to
be so used Pilate himself could
not remain guiltless. In all
these and other additional
details there is nothing that
need excite our suspicion; as
the evangelist had sources of
information which the Synoptists
lacked, and their accounts
cannot be taken as the absolute
standard of historical accuracy.
(v.) In the final encounter of
Pilate with the Jews (1216)
ending in his weak compliance
the fourth evangelist is in
substantial agreement with the
Synoptists, although differing
in detail. His omission of the
second mockery after the
condemnation, the impressments of
Simon, the lamentations of the
women and Jesus' compassionate
warning, the repentance of the
second robber,. is no proof of
any tendency; but rather
confirms the assumption which
the writer believes all the
evidence warrants, that the
evangelist almost entirely
reported only what he had
himself seen and heard; and
this is surely a safer clue to
follow in explaining both
omissions and additions than the
constant ascription of this or
that tendency unless the
evangelist's pragmatism is
quite obvious.
(vi.) Without noticing any
further details of the narrative
we may concentrate our attention
on the words from the Cross
reported by John alone, the last
charge, the cry of bodily need,
the sigh of relief or shout of
triumph (xix. 26, 27, 28, 30).
That the mother of Jesus was
committed to the care of the
beloved disciple is not in
itself improbable, because the
brethren of Jesus had remained
unbelieving, and the tragedy of
the Cross was likely to harden
them in unbelief; because he
alone had a home in Jerusalem,
to which he could at once take
her; and because he, with his
more intimate knowledge of the
mind of Jesus, could help and
comfort her more than any of the
twelve. If, whenever the charge
was given, he led the mother
away to his home (verse 27), his
absence for a time from the
Cross may explain his silence
regarding one or two of the
sayings recorded elsewhere. Even
if he reported the confession of
thirst in opposition to the
docetism which he met with in
his later years, yet such a cry
is altogether probable, as a
burning thirst was one of the
worst tortures accompanying
crucifixion. Whatever meaning we
attach to the words " It is
finished," whether uttered in
resignation or in triumph,
there is nothing intrinsically improbable in
them. The omission of the cry of
desolation need not be explained
by the evangelist's Christology
; but it may have been uttered
during his absence for the
reason given in verse 27. Of the
phenomenon recorded in verse 34
there is said to be a
physiological explanation, and
the narrative has no hint of the
symbolical meaning which seems
to be assigned in 1 John v. 6,
although the reference there may
be to the Baptism and
Crucifixion; and we need not
here assume that history is
invented to illustrate doctrine.
The 28th verse has a suspicious
appearance at first sight, but
it vanishes if we accept Marcus
Dods' explanation.
" Jesus did not feel thirsty and
proclaim it with the intention
of fulfilling Scripture, which
would be a spurious fulfilment,
but in His complaint and the
response to it, John sees a fulfilment of Psalm lxix. 22"
(Expositor's Greek Testament, i.
p. 858). This argument from
prophecy appears also in verses
24, 36, and 37, but there is
nothing in the details in which
such fulfilment is found to
warrant the assumption that the
history was made to shape the
prophecy. In verse 35 the
evangelist may appear to "
protest too much "; but it is
by no means certain that the
verse is the evangelist's.
Probably it is an editorial
gloss, such as may be suspected
elsewhere, an attestation of the
trustworthiness of the
eyewitness whose record the
Gospel claims to be. Why it
should be inserted just at this
point it is hard to understand.
The phenomenon may have appeared
so extraordinary as to demand
specially reliable evidence. Or
a symbolical meaning afterwards
attached to it may have seemed
so important as to demand such
emphasis. Whatever the
explanation, we are not
compelled to charge the
evangelist with an ostentatious
display of his own
trustworthiness.
(3) We must now consider the
significance of the statement
in xviii. 15 that " that
disciple was known unto the high
priest." Is it likely that a
Galilean fisherman would have
such acquaintance with the high
priest, and such access to his
house? Even if, as has been
conjectured, John, the son of
Zebedee, looked after the sale
of his father's fish in
Jerusalem, and the high priest
was a customer, is the
fishmonger more likely than the
fishermen to have had this
privileged position? During the
ministry of Jesus this John was
with Jesus in Galilee, and if he
be identified with the unnamed
disciple who followed Jesus, he was with John the Baptist
before that; and so he had not
so recent a connexion with the
high priest's
household as the description
suggests. It has again and again
been pointed out how familiar
the evangelist was with the
varied and varying state of
opinion and sentiment in
Jerusalem, how well informed he
was of the designs of the
priesthood against Jesus; and in
this article it has already been
suggested as probable that he
was an eyewitness of the
private examination before
Caiaphas, and also of the
private interview of Jesus with
Pilate. This, combined with the
statement here, is surely
cumulative evidence that he was
a person of distinction and
influence in Jerusalem. A
confirmation of this view may be
found in the testimony of
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus,
in a letter written to Rome
about 190 A.D., that "John, too,
who leaned on the Lord's breast,
who had been a priest and worn
the high priest's mitre (τὸ
πέταλον), both witness (μάρτυς) and teacher he sleeps
in Ephesus" (Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History, Bk. v.,
c. 24). Professor Burkitt's
comment on this statement is, "
Here it is definitely implied
that the Fourth Evangelist was a
member of one of the chief
priestly families" (The Gospel
History, p. 251). According to
this writer the conclusions we
may draw about the evangelist
are that (1) he had been a Jew
of Jerusalem;
(2) he had been (as some
evidence in his Gospel indicates
his views of the resurrection
and angels) an adherent of the
Sadducean party; (3) he had
been a priest, for he describes
himself as known unto the high
priest (xviii. 15), and
Polycrates ascribes to him even
high priestly functions. If it
be objected that a disciple of
such position would have been
expressly mentioned in the Acts
of the Apostles, we may recall
what has been before said about
what appears to be the
intentional concealment in the
Synoptics in regard to the
family in Bethany; and we may
further observe that, if this
Gospel is to be trusted, there
were Judean disciples, and yet
in the history of the early
church these Judman disciples do
not come into prominence. Wal!I
there a reason in some family
connexion why the evangelist did
not openly cast in his lot with
the primitive community, and
hold a conspicuous position in
it? Did he hope by avoiding an
open breach with the priesthood
to continue the exercise of his
influence on behalf of the
disciples as we have conjectured
he did on behalf of the Master?
Can xii. 42-43 contain a
personal confession? Such
questions are worth pondering.
|
|