The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John
.
In this chapter (originally published in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, New Testament Tools and Studies 28/2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 411-29.) Bauckham argues for the historicity of the narrative of Jesus washing the dicsiples’ feet in John 13. He begins the chapter by noting that:
The legacy of the nineteenth-century liberals’ distinction between historically reliable, early sources (Mark and Q) and late, theological fiction (John) endures, even if only subliminally, in the minds of many New Testament scholars and students. [p. 191]
Bauckham of course, has been arguing contrary to this position throughout the course of these essays. He mentions that it is now widely accepted that John is dependant upon Gospel traditions independant of the Synoptics (while he may also have made use of one or more of them), but that this “still rarely ensures a level playing field between John and the Synoptics when it comes to evaluating the historical value of their narrative traditions.” [p. 191]
He is heavily reliant on J. C. Thomas’ Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community, for the evidence on which his arguments rely in this chapter. A brief look is taken at footwashing in antiquity, where a few things are pointed out:
-
This was a common practice.
-
It was for hygienic purposes.
-
It was an act of hospitality.
-
Guest’s were usually required to wash their own feet.
-
It was an unpleasant task for another to wash someone’s feet.
-
The lowest slave or servant would perform the task.
Bauckham notes how it would be a contradiction of social relationships for a superior to wash an inferior’s feet, although an inferior washing a superior’s feet would be a sign of great devotion. With regard to the footwashing episode in John 13, Bauckham see two interpretations at work. The first is in Jesus’ dialogue with Peter (13:6-11) and the second is in Jesus’ speech after he resumes his seat (13:12-20). He says:
Both are christological, taking their meaning from the fact that it is Jesus the Lord who serves as a slave, but the first is christological and soteriological, the second christological and exemplary. [p. 194]
He goes on to argue that the first interpretation won’t be evident to the disciples until after Jesus’ resurrection, and that its meaning is connected with Jesus’ death. The second he sees as parallel with Philippians 2:5-11, which exemplifies Christ’s humiliation and subsequent exaltation, but is used as an example of how Christians are to treat each other.
When Bauckham turns to the question of this account being an original creation of the author of the Fourth Gospel, or an interpretation of a standing Christian tradition, he follows three lines of inquiry:
-
The evidence within the Fourth Gospel.
-
The evidence between John 13:20 and the sayings in the Synoptics.
-
The evidence of the Christian practice of footwashing outside of the Gospels.
Regarding the internal evidence, Bauckham thinks that there is no good reason to believe that John freely creates narratives at will. Rather, he notes the relatively few events recorded in John as opposed to the Synoptics, yet their extendded narration and more reflective interpretation. He believes that John, no doubt, had more traditional material to choose from, but chose only those events which were most important to him.
For the second point Bauckham focuses on thematic similarities, namely the saying of Jesus in the Synoptics that is to the effect that the greatest among the disciples must be their servant. He presents two tables that examine: (1) Luke 22:24-27 & Mark 10:41-45 = Matthew 20:24-28, and (2) Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; & Luke 9:46-48. All of this suggests to Bauckham that:
If the Synoptic sayings are not a source of John’s footwashing narrative, then they can be invoked in support of the historical value of John’s narrative by the criterion of coherence. [p. 203]
As for the evidence of footwashing outside of the Gospels, Bauckham notes that there is only one reference to the practice in 1Timothy 5:10. He disagrees with J. C. Thomas that footwashing was a “widespread religious rite…in early Christianity.” [p. 204] He sees the examples in early Christianity as examples of footwashing in its normal context, as a showing of hospitality, and preparation for fellowship meals.
Bauckham closes this chapter saying:
Footwashing was one of the most countercultural practices of Early Christianity, symbolizing most radically the status-rejecting ideals of the early Christian communities. Its origin calls for explanation. It might be a practice initiated within earliest Christianity, under the inspiration of those sayings of Jesus that require his disciples to relate to each other by humble service rather than by self-aggrandizing lordship. John’s story of the footwashing might then be an etiological myth, projecting the origin of this distinctive practice back into Jesus’ ministry. But such a speculation is less plausible than the obvious alternative: that, just as Jesus dined with outcasts and blessed children, so also he washed his disciples’ feet. [p. 206]
I have to be honst in admitting that I find the practice of footwashing to be one of the most repulsive things a person could do. But somehow, Bauckham turned such a revolting subject into something that was fascinating to read. I think there is much merit to his view of this narrative, but I am more impressed with his going against the scholarly grain, treating John’s Gospel as being every bit as historical as the Synoptics. He recognizes John’s leeway to creatively attribute words to Jesus (see p. 191, n. 1), while not recognizing such freedom to create narratives out of thin air.
B”H
Posted in Biblical Studies, Book Reviews, Historical Jesus, New Testament
