<''''''' di&n!ru dements ltI IlK fev-'Ish Pi»tw: Jesus ""nds Onr .8"i.... !he Jew<. Onl)' the dmJOCIton 1Jtt,,'«I1 the mu< oC the ~ and it. tesrnm OCX 'onal~' PfO''eO 10 be _ 'nl}' kor lhe b\O\IlidIs(s pr=ntat1ot> of his 11wme: bIn thI$. cb~IcalI!.. Is often la ..ch • " 'ay th.t the Y-'oi... " 'ha ore distinguished &om the .,1:.10< [Cf'h """pie. 01 7..&ai.. dors nol mate 10 the ~plric:ot ..ate or the )ewUh bll' fO 11> .-eTY oalu~. ,.
'H
Into the Gos~J. I1 has done so only Oe.:tlngly;'· 1115 cenainly not ,uffictenlly PCf'l'a:;i,'C 10 account for the contlnuw enmity and distrust of the ennaelisl lo"'~rds those he call$ ... 70'&"01, But if theM' 1"',0 solution. are rej«ted. and we rondllde that tbe h , 6-.;o< cannot be straightforwardly IdcnU.6ed eiu...r with the lew~ authorities Of wllh the people of Judaea. what is Ihe a1lemkli,'C? Thougl\ for the moment the WlSw...- to thi5 question muS! be drf"rlud. It III possible to Slate one COndition !ha! any a nswer must satisfy: It must take acrounl of the spfdlkaU}' religiollS Dal~ of the antagonism between jC$\ls and the J~'11n the Fourth Gospel. (Ha,inS ....jected the .... ndenng ')lldacaus', we may now MUm 10
the more generally 8Cttp1ed 'Iev.')'.) Jestl$ IIImsclf. of coune. 1'0''''' a le... and In gMllg him the lide 'King of the Jews' 100 Gospel is appealing 10 one of the best·aneslcd SlorIe; in the ,,-hole rraditiOll. Bill when. as hU1'P"l1 lime and time agaln, he explicitly or implicitly diwxia~ himself from the lews whom he Is addressing.' J be spoeak. as I.he reprrsr:nlatlve. It I, falr 10 ,..y. of the community wb.ich acknowledge$ b.im as Its founder Ind head. And the opposition of tb.i. commun ity to the )e\\'1 . that senn of total alienation whkh permeates the pages of the Gospel. has quile c!<.arlj· a religious Inspiration. Whate1.'eT the Influence of loclll rivalries (and o!.>,;oush' the mistrust and hOStility of the Samaritans III lea st h"" a long history) the essentially relliio us ch •• ructer of rhe Gospel's anti-Jewish bias is lot$Capable.
(c)
Ral.
This mcans that Ihe question of the rol. of the Jews. th eir !unclion wilhin Ihe book. clln ~ IInJ\\..,red wllh relalh'e ell .... No on e h as ansYo'ered this question more brilliantly or telllnllli' than Rudolf Buhmann:
no.
Icrm .. ' ""'"-1... eban.ctortilk III the E\-'ai\IC'lIoI. 11""" an "'~u pottt aral oflll<> ,'1c,,,.. 0 Gftd: ",,,,,,,,,,- but .... aDd lDdcaI ""I~'
' ' ' .5.
s.. .....
a.
, . )i00i oil.."...,. la "'" 1~1lo it t • 1 In l' ~J -J~, 0.. " AI In "'" pbruo 'la)'i1III' low'. 8: 1To .0: ].11'.1. lh< Iow'~ 1ur kMof!be Jno~' (1' ']: '9' ]1: ' 0: 19= d. ,: nl.
n"-,,
pto,....
To its n~ tu re, yes. or rather essence (W.sm). since Ihe ~tial role or !he lews in lhe fourth GospeJ Is to re-p=1 and symbolize human obduracy and Inromprehtnsloo whcn confronled with lhe re,..,lalion ofJC5\Is. ThaI the mle of the J~w' Is as Bullmann de!iClibes I1 is ~Iy ~yood KOOW dispute, (d)
T/", q .....
Yet over thls elegunt exegesis hovers a historical question of some Im porta nce, whlrh Bultmann does nOl even begin 10 lado:k. Why doe. the cva ngelist pick on the Jews to play Ih(s pan' " Who can these Jew. ~ thal he loathes them so Intensely ? For It 15 nO! just the Jewish a ut horities who ~ltruct his Ire. !f h e bud wished to d" so he I;' cou ld ha,'e followoo Sy noptic u$age In putt ing most of the blame upon the Scri bes and Phari!iCeS or the chief priests. or altemati"ely have made mO~ use of the colourless word 0,1:.\0< ('crowd' ) -wbich he does in fact ~mplo)' Q score of times. It Is a surprisin g fact tbat Ihe only o"erlap between the Johannlne and the Synoptic usc of The word 'Jews' ;5 10 ~ found In the mle 'Klng of the Jews' in the passion narrnlh'e , Only once, IIlOfeOI·er. In Matt. l.M: I5. does the "-01-.1 correspond to the Iypicallohannine usage. IIomhiiusu. speaking of what he calls 'the Innennost circle of the Joha nni"" Jews'. :;ays that Ii .. rompow;d of !he leading Jews In Jcrusakm.: 'they ;rn, rite men '. PI' 86 [
" so. ~ who .,..... wtth .....
~
P. .. 6.
01 "'" _ IN. "'" It-.. _
""",,"Of
_*,
BlII ......... •• Ift\011II . - "'"' !be jowl .... tM In Iu to God. _ 'b 10. ~- .... rquallF ~ .. 1>0 ".. ,,!he:"'-'. ~ Chun:h·.
",
R, Jigwus
Gt ......sis
whom the S)'nopt1sts call "'-~
YI"'I,!'u.i,: LI !kit why then does not John sImply taU 0\'''- tlili; terminoloaY and speak hlrru;o,lf of ScrIbes and l'barlsees? Bornhii~ does no( answer Ihls quesrim.. 0.e.en ask IL Who. then. ""' the J~ of the founh Co(.sptV ,\ Iust ..~ identify
("I 'Equal \lith God· IIut J~s aRnl"
resonan~.
Certainly then: is no rilld distinction between the denotation of the Iwo terms. In John It.: l those who threaten 10 npd the disciples from the SYllagogue can be no otmr than the Jewish a UlhorltiC$. Rut the characteristic object of JeWish Venum in the Gospel Is nol the Cl>IIlIIlUnil)' as such but Jesus himself, always In C(lnnectlon with his spec ial revelation. In on!~r 10 delcnnlnc more precisely the Issues In dispute between Jesus and the Jews , and Ihe~b)' posslbly to find funher dues 10 their ldelllily, we need 10 look In some de"'il at the passages In which the spccilically relilP""s ilr1umem hct"..,.;:n the IWO parties is 11\05\ fully deployed. 1'hcrc 8l'e Ihm:: passaltes in the fiN half of the Gospel In whicb the anlagonism of the J~ reacbes munkrous proportlons:" and our ..en task Is 10 aamine these In the hope of sha~1t nur
" .. ~..
Anyone famUlar wltb the Fourth Gospel knows that the discourse folloWing the healilll "f the cripple In chapter 5 Is one of il5 high polnlJ, But Its vcry familiarity is liable \0 obscure the fact that nothlnKln the first four chapters (except perhaps the Prologue) has p~pared Ihe reader either for Ihe staggering boldnen ofJesu" claim or the murderous h""tility wlth whi~h ill s g=!ed: ·Tblll why
"'a>
the Jews !IOught uJJ rM mDre (poiUo.) 10 kmhlm· - yet thl.1s li!tjirsr IImt In the Gospel that tbey """ report..! 10 sctk hili dellth. '0 Wh)' then the I'a,u.,..' And why, indeed, Is Jesus ~hOUKhl to !Jo, clalminll equaUly ,,·ilh God simply becal15e he calls him fa~r? It is true thal the e-,·""gdist bas already OOntmenled. In two closely related PassalCS, upon the rok oflheonly Son of God· {.I [...0 •....,... ...;<1 ""k, j : t 6 - 1 1. 1 I -{,); but thesr are the oommenl$ of a \'Ilia:: offstall'. aud are IlO m"", integrated into the stoly of Jesus' dealings
1otfI. "" UO B-
tin .. "'" of _ I b < .BnV 11 tolb< Jrw( dtllIb<..-. ~ to ...... hinl l""'I_ .. JO. oo
« : t : "'Il~ 10: l"I"
" H~ ' " ~7"
h oflb In qu_ ...... Sfc E. I13mmel.. '-Jolm did no ml, .... ···• p. I ~7. Th. diIkr= bn ...un ,Il00 ',",'0 Ill"'" 01" cIeba,. ..1U b< m<>
_,os.
&I'''''
'37
undemanding or what c.ausnl. the Bnal breakdown In commuoicalion between the 1OI10\\"crs 0( Jesus and those the)' call the le .."$. These passa,e oa:ur in chapten 5. 8, and 10. and. dlsint=rcd b)'Slander ..itnesslnK any....., of these debaltS mlght weD feel thal be had dropped In on one of those fierce famU~' TO" "S (famll)', as It happens. Is a eelllral issue In the s«ond of these confrontations) which so astonish tbe outsider by their \'chem~nce and blttcmess.. Only the ren",,\lon that the real reasons for thIs bewildcrlng l1rulenee must lie bun..! in a ['ast known onl}' 10 Im jl3rtldpanl. allow! him a glimmer of understanding.
K II'
them \\ilb the Jewish nation as a wholt. in judaca and thedlaspora? In "ie", of tile essentially religious nature of the dispute thIs would S«It1 10 be tOO drastlc a ..mution; besides. it overlooks the peculiarly Jewish character of the e"aogelist's own Ideas. It \s doubtful whether H fully smisfuctory answer If) this pw;zlc can be fuuud Within the pases of the Gospel ilsdI. What is requlrr:d, It .seems. Is e,.ldcnCf' of the UK' of the word 'Iews' to refer 10 a particular religiOUS groupnot \0 be lden@ed /.OUI rourt wilh lhe Pharlsees- .... hlch might plausibly be regarded as the chier target of the c"aDgellst"s resentment. [\ should be obsen-ed that wben he comes 10 treat spmJlcaUy of the en...,.~ of the rornmunily, as ~ does In Ihe f~weU discounes, chapten 14-1 7 , he avoids the won!'Jt\\"I' ~1t~I~r. su"'muUnK the word ..... _ (world), which has ob\1ously a \'ny dift'~t
,
DUst",
I
"1th the Jews than the ProIOltuc is. Mort'Ov~r, In Ihe pre«ding ChaPI~r (ch, 4) ·Father' is simply an alternative name fur God. ThaI God WIIS Indeed the father
,nil Jirr.","", ton.;...,
'''''lludo> 10 1,,~.I1m'.
CM. ' - 4 . 0<1
wnot
I0Il0 .... , ...
t . J.
A. H ld li"i.
~60
Rdigiolll illwm
'3'
Jewish tradltlon; 'SOIlS of God' is a regular way of s~akin& or /.snel!l 8Jld a link further on the Je\\'S themselves \\111 assen mm God aud God alone Is their £atl= (s: 41 ). \Vb>', tMn. sbouId this _mlngl)' Innocent remad:. ':\ly fmMf is working still. and I urn ,,-O!klng', pr«lpil81e :RIch Implacable rage; To IIIl5wer thl. '1urstion \\-~ rnU5l fim. elllmw IIow this link p.i$$8ge jS: I? is ...,lalrd 10 what comes before and after It Closd.y connected liS It Is ",lIh the miracle story. wfeaR easily $a! that I1 has been grafu~d on to this .ubsnjuendy by the cI'angellst. 1' The 6rnt qunrrd of the Jew. Is with the cripple hlmself. who brew the law by carr)'inl his p~Uel on the sabbath (I'. 10). HII! complaint is then Iral1~rcm:d to Jesus. who 1< rracko:! down II for hal1ng JlI'1"formed an act of healing on the sabbath (I', 161. In hls ...,ply. ho,,'C,',-cr. Jesus shows no Interest In Ibis cbarge: he simP!l' declares. 'My father is working stilI. and I am working' h', '7): and It ;$ this declaration "'hkh Ihe Je",s sec as .. claim ID rqualiry "1th God and consequently 3$ a reasoD tor ba,int him kilkd. Tb~ lit=l!y ..·eld!ntls particularly cle~er, beeau$O! these transitional ,·enes also sen·e as OU\ anticipalOlV summar)" of th~ ""Bument lhal Is about 10 follo"·-I profound dt1ni1td juSlllicalioo of I.";,,,,· claim. His Sttmln&ly simple "·ords art IIlu5 loaded ",ith meaning. and bis MMm rnpond 10 lill Ibey Imply. One mlthl allTKlSt say Ih31 on Jesus· lips the name ·Father' contains in nllCt the ",hole of Ibe e,'angrlist's christology.'~ Thus the proper
f.,
and
t""".
" •. 1.. ·Stlol'od .... tb" tb~ .... ""tIod _ , '" C".Wr"Ic ond dozcru '" Ill"'" Inll"","" In hI> ortlcl<. ·lJie &..1 "'" con\M1 ( lhl _ tb< ""'" .. ~ !hi< is ~ ""' .. hI)" rnodibtloa ddpoood '" pen- tile for 'htal)" 11 '" be Iouad III 7' '~->oI- ..hid!.. as .. 0Dd0. cw-..,. m. ""'an oIremMI....•..111 cl"'lI .,....1<. '-'n ,he impI"""bIt lII!'P«Illlotl Ill., "'" entI ..... _d",f'Il ~.bw1 "", .. _b 101' 1o"!lOll. OH S. p_..", Lr.<.
____
s:
,.,!
It
."T
pp.,..,t6:$ ~ -6.
-
r_
, ' ..........1.. IRoSY) " «<WnI). d>< ....""'I ""......... of "'".... le , .. ,6. A. ~ Uan"<)' ........ Ih .. 111< ph.....",! .. GIo.Oo >hoW. bo rmdmd .. tIIt)...... [<111 'Q brloa o oh.~ ....10" ~I", · Ut"" "" f rio/. pp. ~o IL ODd nn. " f.). Thl> ....r ... rI&h' bu, n<,J ~" ,,"'" IIlrn dowo· is
·'i>rl ...
'"
context of this fI~ rqx>rt of the leW!" determ(nallon 10 ..., Jesus dead. the only one Ibat gh·e! il any rea( Imelli&lbllity. Is th~ whole of the debate. 0 ....· shmed in .-amt$1, bet\\'een the two "·arring sections within Ille Jewish eommunily: the dbdples of Jesu~ and !lis enemies. Espo:cl~Uy out~·onh)' is Ih~ sIdlful use made by the rvanKdist of ,lie lhem~ healing on tbe ~abbalh. In a weU·known S)"Iloplic Jaylng (Mark ): 4 par.) I"'us a5"s. 'Is 11 la",ful to Ileal on the sabbath?'. bUI reed"", no ~ly. Another stury. associa ted with ,Ills. concludes wilh his ~sserti(m. ·The sabbath WlIS m!,d" for man. not mHn for tile sabbath' (Mark 2: 2 7 par.~. Bm lolln, IInUke his source. is no !otlil-er lm.re,ted in Ibis kind of legal debate. QUe!tlon. of 115" halll.kah Ihat still occupy the Synoplhlll. ".Qfl)' Puut. "nd absom Ibe rabbls, art' totally I"1!mote [mm !lis concern. fur him the sabbath healing l:s Just It Slepping·smne m the affillllallon of lesus" dj'1n;ly. In maklnl the trallldtion from one theme to the other he calls 8nentloo. Odeberi poims out, to Ihe acnptt\l trulh Ibat. ,,·bert'll"i God hlms.elf 00' · 1\.e! the sabbath In .espeC! of the physiclll creation, he Dt\·er relaxes Ut all from bis ..-urk of Judgement u .... ccordingly. the concluslon of 1'. 17 suggests 'lbat lesus )tWHis in the sa.me relatlon m the Sabbath as God and Is contlnuaUy aClh'e In the same ...ork .,' u( Judgement'.26 Thi •. uf course. Is one of the two kinds of ... ork re:sen·ed for the rreatur alon~ (the olher being the besto ... al uf IIfel that are singled out in the discourse th~l (uUuws . ImpUcitly. Ihen. Jesus Is a_ning that he has perfonned a healing miracle on Ihe s~bbath because God. a. h i. Falher, Is usoclallng him ,,·,th a ...ork th at Is properly dil'ine. Consequently his ... ords coru;tilut~ a claim to equality with God. and the enra8ed ~actJon oflh( Jcws is full)' cumPll'beru;ible. l'he question that nol\' arises Is how Jesus' claim l:s tu be explain..!. a8alnSl the background (If IirSl<emury Je ... lsh rellgIou, beOefs. 1:10"' could a man. and a lew al that, pMSibly dalm dl\'lne statu...' 11 will " M,,., cid>< ...... _ ..,.,.,u "'" bftn ooocmbkd bjr Stnod._M b, IIib In ,he wft! 1Uib _ _ BuIImom! Ip. l~ 6 n. J' _ . raruobi< .. kn..,.. to Er- "till . .. 0. tn ID)" opiDIooI "'" 1_ CO<Mi«!loton
or
,b., _
w.,.,..
up"" I>M
r bI ..ph.""",>ly d.ilb<"d dh1o ....,,'" Iti=!. ~ebII,hodn<mr. PIIa"""' .• "~ r()O>h I. Ch"", .• 4' 17). IiKh pall! th< pmallJ' for hi< " p.
'"1.
1-
elf"""",. toy bril,. O<>domh<-d~
'" not do
appeal 10 I'au!. e,'en though h~ m~kC5 Ilmlla. claims (or Christ. fOT ther.. \5 no trace of hiS lnfIuence hen', As for the S)."Jloplic tradition. it 100 makes $I1'Ong claims for Jesus ($OUlI! of thr strongest I<>
put in tlw: mouths of de'1ls: Mark t: 24: J: t I: 5: 7). but not in ways !hal ha,'., discernibly lIII'ected John. And certainly ther.. is no help \0 be iound In the plctUrI: of purt and unsullied monothrism painlft! !Or us in aD the ·orthodo~· je
akin \0 a ramll), row. In which any ~of~dliallon
has already ''anl$hed and the situation is one 01"101& deadlock. Jesus" subsequent aparuloo of his mnark$ comain, no hint tbat M might be preparaI \0 modify hII claims, 10 couch them In less 011'''051\'''
or e\'eJ110 explain his
a~nl
bi;uphroiy In the face of the JrlOOS' umlerstand.:lbLe outrage.:'!'or their pan. instead orreq~ng an ap!anatlon. the Jews hne .I«,ad), deiermlned that Jesus must die. Trn, dispute Is conducted ~ 10 the borders ofa shared faith In whlch both partlts had laid elaim 10 the nclus[,.., I"""""'ion of the tnllh-a classic Instance of odium [/!(o/qlk'um. thou'" not """ that the c.angelJSt'f absolule partlallty allow5 Mm 10 aci;.nowledge. Bu[ by this tim e J<":SUs and his foUo" 'ers had alt'ead)' crossed the frontier of the faith they once s.harcd with the Jews, and they \\'ould ne;-er return. The Irrel'ocahle step had been taken, Ihe "Itimale blasphem}' ull..-ed}" On Ihe story 1e\·cI. the Jews' detennlnatlon to &ee Jesus dead has the elred of drawtng up the battle lines, not merely for all thal follows (d. Murk J: 6). bUI a lSll relrospectlvely (by Ihe ~llo.) for all [hal prcctdes. SymboUcally, Ihe separaUon of rhe /ohannine community (und. mONl generally. of Chrisllanlt)' from Judaisml is already assured, The exp lan atio n. Ihen. for the abruptness of the death I~at is that it reflects the a nger of lhe Jewish establishment at the el'l'rolllery of the /ohillWlne gl'aup within lIS ranks. John', earlir:st !'I!adtrs will ha;-e readily det«1ed the reference to a halred whose dI'= they had recently endured them.seh·n: but the natu...: of the gospel iarm is such tha[ this experience can only be alll.lded 10 obliquely by the t=n$,
evangelist, wIlb lol. <10 """" ........ /le Ajo,,1hfi ", s; ,;- jO K .............. e\1dtQ, dill. In Il1o 0;11 .... d Il1o ","pI'. _, .. oi.:q, '" jnIisb ri<ws. on,...,...., .... Gal hII Faw. mMts '*-If (IIIU'lI '" God' I"'" _ d "
RtligJous Dust'"
C~II~$IS
I'
r"'...... _
God'. P. , ~aL " ''111Il10 .... oInpd OUI \If ,...... ~ in Ill. I ,. -..... 'We bo", • !or. IUId br
w. ~-. ""'",1110 .......... P. 59-
(b)
·G ....arn-
[h~11
'4'
Abralwnr'
frsus oakI to them. inlly.IrIIi)'. I MY to )W, ~ Abnohom was, Tam_' So th~ t""Ir: up st"" .. [0 throw a, hlln. (S, Sll-<j) In some respectS chapter 8 is a raj-b.a,. EI'en after excluding I"" inaulhemlc Slory of the woman ,aken In adulttTy, Bullman n splits!t imo kn fragments. a couple of them no longer than nne verse apiece. and SClIlters them UbenJly around lSO paaes o[ his COmmentary. '!be shan sal'in.lIth~t ((lnl('I'$ us here concludes a long section (8: J 1- 591 lumped togdher by 1Iroo<'Il under the unprommng title ':\lIsl:eIIaneow cllicourses·-tbou", lain he changrs Ills mind and speaks of 'a ratber bomDltentOUS disoou.r$e'.19 Homogeneous il is not. a llhough much il is loosely !:led toget""r by a single SDing- the name of "braham (whIch does nOl 6glll'l! ebrwbert in the Gospel/. This exceptionally bitter debate ends in ,'Ioleo~. Alter el:changing angry words fO£ SlIme time the fews turn from Insults 10 inju!),. a nd slan ID pick up stones 10 huri at Jesw. To his final decLaration this Is the onl}' reply they hal'e left: ill COllU1ll:ntators agr"", it is thcir response to blllSjlhemy, On~ ~gain It Is right [0 underline the peculiarly JewIsh c haracter of Jesus' cl aim: 'Before "bra ham W85. I am.' In e;'cry case. .tranges! and clcarest of Jesus' K lf-m'dalory u llernn=. those which Immedlatel)' elici t the standard response to blasphemy. hal'e an unrnlSlakably Jewish ring: they are Illade from within the Je,,~.b tradltlon ~nd faunO! lit upl~ll!fd In arl!! o[ her "'Ill!. SLlltmann [ilils to give this sayin& af Jesus due weighl: he treats it as ~ simple Dssentoll of pre.el1nence. JO or COlInt! it Is that, but it is
or
t""
.. p. J6, for DoOd!\ Is .he....".th onO loll 0(,,," ....... of dlol<:>8 .... whloI ",1< d ,,," 10•. art ""tilled to 1 _ "'" ~. !J:r Il1o In.... _ cC "" IBIqnl "'~ (Cf. H. £. Woo, Ah"","" Jr,) Manyn. Gar!>'! eII<\..,;1' IS, JIl .... -----1I>1'nae. SI ......... p. ' ''' """ DOUL) I'
/or,.......
dIa""....
11""'" ___
__ _ .... ..,.. .:,.. In .: 'i'. For If Il1o I."., .......... "',.~ ... perapbn.orof"'" a:
1..I . ~'·.beclollllo. "o(.~_t' '''
on
.... ~ For on.....-' 551-, dlhe _ _ '1:rn• ...,b._ P_ 11.. H....,.. n..1 AlII'" lilt f _ c..,.I.
."
'"
much more~. Jews Is aJi&!ling himsrLf ,,'illI • .od IU IbIS point. laying a claim 10 di\'lnily 1II(1n9$/ok mat of the rather. llut If so, how is tilt daim bring prt$Sedr "The general amst1lSUS', acconlln8 10
srrongly. In " ,hal rollo",s. Abraham 1s]l
Odcbrrg. favours 8n Intentional ;tlluslon to the divine J!!J!£1e. '[ am , ...- ..
he' (}(1;"1 '11'1: ). On tile lace 01 I1 Ihls Is " Slrulghtforward equlvabu of ') urn Yahwch', Odd",r& objects to Ihls sotution,rhot ' K1;,\ '11'1: as a solemn d..,lamtion by Jcsus would equal "I am God" or "I Wll the Father", ~ declaratlon (hal ls dearly oUl on~ng ..1111 Ihe general mrillll of 1=' ..,If-predlcath~ utterat>tt:'l· ... RIUher than in the le\,' 'ne . wggrsts ~. the Ilnk Is 10 ~ found 'un the side of '':'1< ;'";'1( P am am'l.l.e. in rhe speculations C''OI"ftI from f.xod. \:, 1,4.". Jl Bulnnann coun!".,; this by saying that J~' statement would then mean '[ am the "'-am'··. the iyW being both suhject ~nd prrdkate. Bm Ihls Is not necessary', prOVided Iha! the l')'w oil" be (a1:CD simply as an «ha of the dj .1nl' !'e'.'c!ation. Odeberg ciles us ~ parallel the enigmatic 6gure of Mctatron. of whom I! Is said. 'Hc (Cod) called me the little (lesser) Yahweh' (j En«h 11: Si. This !eX! is closely paralleled by a passage from anOll= important pseudepigraphica] ""ritinll. Tht ApDts/!lf'Ko/ AbrahIrm. roughly contemporary 'rith the Fourth Gospel. 11115 documenl merits cardul con$lderation." The pru;.$3g< that concerns LIS [cm. 9 - 10) lQIkm.·s an imrnductory sectkln where wc arc told how Abm!!am first sees a number of idols destrc}'ed in Ihe hou:;e of his father Temh. and then watches as the house is struck by IiMhtnlng aDd burnt to the ground. Abrahiilll hlm$elf is san,d from destrucllon b}' the di=1 Imen'cnUDn of God. Knowing that Abraham 15 lIcnuind}' soekinll for the truc God. ·the God of l\ods.. tM Cll'ator". hc calll; down from the hea'"ens in a ~trcam offirt. and says'l am hc' 18: j). Then lit ICUs h im 10 Ica,'c the hQuso, .., as 10 a"old beI"ll kllled. AIle.-lllis God sptaU 10 t\brahillD again: ·Behold. It Is I. f ellr not. £or 1 am Before..the-World and Mighty. the God who crcaled prevlousl}'. before the light of the ~~c. I am the prot«lor for you. aDd )"Our helper' 19' ':-31. In all the .. introductory dedurallons the characteristic .. If·proclamallons of God ('1 am .. .'J COnIC Ihrough
.,...,K
,,'00
And U cam. to pa" thal "'hen I heard the ....lce pn)Qounclng such ",arm 10 me that I looked ,his w8y and that. ADd behold there WM. nu br~.th Df <no". An d my 'pirit w •• ~ma..,d . • nd m} ""ul tled from m•. ,\nd 1 became Ilk. u .. ""~, and f.1I foco do ... n ~PO<\ Ihe .arth. for the ... wn no Iong.r iI... nglh (n m. 10 stand up on Ihe .nlh. And whll<: I l.-al still rlcc do... n on th. around. I heard tilt I'Oice spealdni. ·Go. }'..".J ~I (Ill m ..... th"""fh llIt....o.lim Dj "'!I botffido!< ......... mn ..:"". this man band >lruo.sth." him .pi.... Iris ITCmblin,: The an..,! h • .or'" 10 me ill rltt hl:r_ Dj. ""'" Iq: Dom. i' 'Jjcame. and h. ,oot me br my ri&ht hand andllood meon my 6ett, And he said In ..... 'Stand up. Abraham foinld 01 Cnd "'hn hulovtd )'0\1. lot human ~mblin, not MFoid you! For 1o! ! "'" sent to }"OU ID .u.n~th.n you and '" bl~ you In the n.1me Df God. =at .... of h..a,..,n ly ~nd earthl), ,hlng •. who ha! lo"O!'d you, & bold and h~I"n to him. I om }'Q""/, and I ...... raIled so by him who CiWlt'S Ih"'" "1tb me on Ih. ",,·.nth t~pa",e. nn the f.rm"",,,m. le >hak •• « p""~r lh""'lll, th, oo",:II"m of hi, l...g,,& ... iIImit in ....., J .m th. onc who ha. been dlarged ",~Ini'o his
_it=
" p_ J'O_
" p. lO!!. lb:: It:! . . ..-.I..u or If>< p/Iral:< .,;.- ~-; " ,.. ....... I.,.;. .... ..-wl4 110<... to<..,.. ":lIlt a.":1I '"l~" (p. J<>!I~ "n... UT """"........... I. ~s • • ;oS: .. ~ ,o-an<Wkon ..... In~ ~ ~ ~~ cr. Go ow.
-
.. et n..-Ga!pdofrn.:.r.. J8:"1hr ,*""or..,. r.uh<1- II .... s.n·' 1 _ I... IL ' -" So
./(tliglous DUunt
'"
~Iected as blasph~mow; in John 8: 59, Segal hlnmlf concludes thal in Sj:Jlle of the compar.tth'ely lat~ dale Q( this talmudlc passage (third
rornmand ..... nL to restrain Ih< thuats 01 the th1n1l cre&lu"" of the chfrublm "alM one anolber. nd [ Lt""h lbofe ...ho Wt1 the iO£lf, throu&b the mtdium of """,·s nl&hl of the ....-emil hour. I am 11''I,oIl11ed to hold the t.t.1a1h1lIlS. beca_ dtrou&h me Is .ubjuplfd the attack and mm.a cl ""'CfY I'C'I'III•. I am ~ (0 1oo12n Had", and 10 dc.uoy tbosc ",oo..-ondrrM It the dead [ am th<: <>De who (A 6e.eJ your f.lh..... house to be bllmtd "1111 him. for be honoured ,h. dud . I .'" 1t.1 ID """ now to bkss )'0<1 and the land "'hiell he whorn you h..'. caHed the Elemlll On. h", prepared for you. f'e, !lOur ..... I hil,y [mira,ft! tilt ~"Y of rh, l.rtJ 1<1. [zed. ~J' ~QI.J. St.no up, Ahraham, i
century) 'the tradiUoo must be based on oidft' rndltions in apocalyptic or proto-.\Ierkabah DJ' proto-gnost!c tellS "'h«e: the jlrindpal angel bas • theopbDlic name' (such", the one from the Apocalyps.e of Abl'llholn wc have jUllI been considering), The scriptural pa5Silge taken i>}' R, Idl to indicate Mctatron (, My name is In him.' -uod, 1..1: 1. 11 may also lie behlnd John 17: I If,: 'Keep them (.... I kepi them) in the name which you ga\'C me; that n .. me which belong. of right 10 God alone and Is In Itsclfthe e:
of his Il'\'e(atlon. It is
If,...
Ko", e\'en could ~ sure Ihal this text "'as (ompc -d brilre Ihe fourth Gospel (aDd this '" not cntainl. There Is no qUr$tlon of MIllIng to a dinct (!cht, But IM parallels iIn' none the Irss hi&bly
suggeslh-e. Two funhn pI= of e\'idma tnld tQ support the .'Ie'" thal the IoImh evangdlst was InHumttd by the Idu ofa =ealcr-6gure ""Ill by God and endowed with the authooly of hI! name, The fir$( I~ In a passage from the llabylonlan Talmud qu.xcd by AlM Segal: R, I'ahman said, 'He who I< as ",HI..! in r..tllUn& Ihe Minim., I. R, ldi, le{ him d~ so: J>u! nOt OIherwi«': [)nce . Mi" SKid to R, Id!: 'It I. wriU~n, .1l1li ""le ,\/osn Hr J«id: (""" "I' ,s". LmllEl:, ~4: ,). lIut su~ly It mould ha". stated, c.m.. "p 10 ....f ~ 'h "'OS ~1 .. alro'" he ",plied. "'hOS<' name Is .;milar to Iha! d his ~I~st..-, for il I. written, For ,\ fy _ Is In IIIm (£I, "3: Zl~ 'But If.." we stwuld "'~ hlmr"
'0
Exodus 14: 1 Is a notorious crur. wby should God say to ,\10=, 'Come up 10 Yahweh' ratbrr than 'Come up to me', It I, one a Christian or GlI06Iic might ,,-d] seizeon.ln bls rtply R, Idl..w. ,'ery dose to the "ind by alluding to Metatroo. wbose pCl:t5 ion or the divine name SNmS to the b=tk, not surprlslngly, 0 sufficient reason for ,,'orshipping him, R, ldi aoes on to refule this rondUllioo ..1th further 2111"meol. based on the sallle text: but Ills nol difficull to detect In this contr,wersy a claim rtmarkAbty similar to the one " Two j'o>wt" 1. H Sqta!', collKtlon 01' .... )1 , 'Iudal..", Crub,I.,,;I)' .. \
1.1-5
.,
"Lso::,:;;;~~~:;~,:,~;,
name. 'Ihe lesser Yahw~h' , This is.l El1OI:h, or sixth «'IIIW')' by Philip AlcxOIllder OIlld the Qoly psetldeplgnophon 10 ha,'e been IranJmin ed by the rabbis.. .1 Enorh 11.: 5, the teJ:t qUOled by Odebel1l. testllk!; ID the ptr.;islence of a strange It'aditlon .urvil.ing 00 the 1iin&<'!I of Jud;ili;m. acconIin& to which the halLowed n;uno,..r Yahweb \\'as bestowed on an anaellc beina.. \'ah ..'eb-I:J or lbe lesser Yah ..'eh, selll by God to rn-eal hidden mystertes 10 mankloo----(ll' at least 10 «Italn chasen souls, This sliahlly more extended speculation on tbe nlUlle suggests that thtl1: m8)' be a link between these l«Iartan wfillngs and what was condemned by the Je \\,,-,h rabbI! as the heresy of the 'two poW(I'$',
Alan Segal has shown that the exegetical I'OOt of this heresy was the repetition of the name of God 10 Exod. 15: J 'Yahweh is a wEllTior, Yllhw~h is his name' ('t~'C1 :"n;"l ' ;"I""?tl W'~ :"n;"l") , Upon IhlS lext was constructed the notion Ihat thtte were rwo different self-rel'elarloos or ('.od. one a. a young man, appearlng at me Sea (the context 0( E:rodUll I ;), the other as an old man. appearing at
.....
Wheche-r or not there was any direct connection between the R<'O groups 0( tens, one beLonging 10 a sectarlan lraditlon that can be trattd back ID I liROCh. the oth .... e\1deoce of a hetny within the ranks ofJudalsm. it seems likely that one or both of the Ideas beblod them may hare malk il ea.ie. 10 believe that InUll the Messiah was also the ~pl'dllll'missary of God, bearing the ~uthorltr of bis nam~ to !'eI'eallO men ce"ain hidden !nuhs, Perhaps. howe\'er, wc shou ld be e\'en bolder In OUr Intcrpr"'alion of thtf jlil:lsaj!l', less preocrupied witb defeodln~ "t un co.!.J the thesi'
RtllgWI!S Vlmm Ihal the [ou"h cI'angeUsL like KlI good Jews. was " die-hard monothelJL J6 :\fteT till. the eailtst and most SU1Iighforward t lplanation "f 8: S8. whether Ihe allusion is to Exod, j: '4 (~. /.,2 Schnackenbul"8. etc.~ or 10 IIle dMne ocacl<: in o.,ut . 32: 39 and Second Isaiah (Barren, ilamel'. elc.l. is thal Jesus is octually claiming lhe name of Yahw~h IQr himself. Such 11 claim is not. as Odebttg 3rJ;Urs. tantamOUnt 10 saying '1 am Ihe Father·. Rather iI is an lmp~cil assc,,1on Ihal the prnlt'CIor or rcdc:cmer God. Isr""r. \Iibal delly. is not afler all 10 be idmt1llcd with the =3101".00. Fl S)..,n. bUl has m'lsiled his people In a new IIU~.n For m., fact is thal despile many resemblances. the Fourth Gospel dilkn mari;edly from lile Apoot/!l1'S'I' c! Abntlutm and 3 Enoch. Some or ito; mosl importanl leaching is unllshamedly controversial. h ~ ... 31 the cusp brtw~n the Iwin cun:es of Jewish Imdilion. one destined 10 =erge in rabbiniC ludaism. lhe "Iher branching off In 11 dilJettnl direction, h Is here thal the 1'1'0 cun'es m«l-and pdCt. The role of the 'angd inlerpreltT·. $In1clurally I'ery sImlIar. has been .. mpli6ed and streamlined 10 fil InlO Ihe slory of Ihe unhl)' ca~ of J= this Is altn all a Gospel. But hisc!aim 10 dil'ine stalus, the lerms In which il I. couched. ~nd the circumstances In wblch 11 i. uttered. all indicate Ihat 1nl. Is no! a strange foreign myth breaking Into the lewlsb religious tradition for the li!"S1 time. bul a dangerously novel manifestation of an old ~nd famWar theme. It i~ onc Ihing 10 specu lale upon an angtllc figure bearing Ihe nam~ and authorily of God when his o,dy purpose In vislllng men here below is 10 Iran spon Ih~m back 10 heaven In an apocalypllc dream. It Is quite anomer 10
-.
' ' 'm;K\on
.. The tnlllot tho, It!< ... ,hot.nc! H,..., ' .... of the Go.p..t "·Cf~ I(>o
~ ..
m. ..
" Roher! .11 .......1 ha 'Ullomd l
(ord ,he ............ ha. 1>«" <"OIl!irm<>J by ~j I""t>I< ~UIU!Y "'IWr< ro."
~h
'''oar',
'l"J'f" of oIriI)'. Fo\Iowl .... A. SlOb. St.....tt....... b< ..1b tbo< ·F... · and '!hr ...... .. """"tor ..... """'""'" """,,",or '" """""' .......nhly 0Idrr. krtil!ty "'''-- but Ioardly oCrnit>. 101_ oomIort. .i>d 'hr loo ..... _ ~ on:ho_pl,;c.,IIy ~"""- .. _ . ",'OI~ed with b.utut ........
1
-nIk._,._tor __
If<..,.."" '"
nnlll """ '£I 'Fl,..... left ptop/t wIIh _Ilarl CrbIIu1 do
.wty..........
"'"""._Goo! n...........
!
.,
tillClW thiS Hgure 10 coal~ wllh an Individual human belng who bas a~ady won a Wide followlnK as Ihe Jewish M.....iah. ObviousJ~' Ihis i$ nOllhe whole ' IOt1'. A prtclsel}' analogous mO\'e land one "'hleh Is much bett.r auested ) Is made in regard lO the 6gure ofm. Son of Man.'· And bad IIOllcsUJ wady be"n regardo:l as 11 dil'ine tmissal1' nalttd to heal'en afler bls delllb. thm iI is mosl improbable thal he would hal.., been credited ,,~th the aUlhorlty 10 echo G')lfs l'C\'elallon of his own name. Wben be did so.. through the mouth. as " 'e may lUllJllse, of one olbis 1OIlo"'ers In the lobannine camp. 1I is scartdy i urprising thal (TM)re COMer\'illi\'C lell's relt Ihrc31cned and outraged by tile appan.'lll blasphemy that was being uttered In tbe!r mldsl. (c) 'Son
IJ/ ,.od'
1be lo:o.o'S ""swtmllllm. 'Wc Slone you /or blaSphemy: btcau,", }'OU. brinK a mao. mau )·o."""lf '.od.: Jewl .0."·.....:1 thnn. 'Is il oD! wrium in your law. "I said. you arc go'!I"/lf h. eallN Ih.,." godI 10 whom the ...on:! of God ram. land 501ptUrc ,""nOl be broI:ml do you ,*y 0( him whom the: F~lh.. roIt$('O'3ll'1l.r>d scollmo the ,,'OC'ld. "You arc blaSpheming." boN:au,", I said. "I om the Soa oI'God";' (10: )4-1»
On a superiiclal reading Inls p.assagc appears quitc innocuous: Olher men arc called gods In Scrlplul'C: and since Ihls ill w. argue,; Je,; .... why should not!. sancllfied und sent. clo im Ihe title of S
..".,.
;.~
,.,
,.B spedaJ case In rclation to wha = sim1larly addressed by God. Tbis ~ntlclpatlon of Arlus is 001 a tbeoiogleal posltlon found elKwhue in the Gospel and $0 Ilecker Is indin~ to regard the p~.."ge "" an editoriaiwtru$lon .... though ~ fails to explain why an editorshould attempt 10 draw the tttth of Jo!m'sargument in this ...a~'. SurelJ' il is prcl'erable 10 look first for a "'aWng strong enough 10 JWt die context: another fierce and t",nrhanl debate with the Jews Ibat aclUnlly staTU this lime (I 0: 3 I ) 1<1th an aUus!on to their determln a, tlon to see him dead, The suggestll'n that the 8.01 in this passage might really "" .!!!'KfJi was first made In 1960 by J. A. Emcrton'" who pOInted out Ih at In Ihe Peshltta (Syrlac) ,'ersloll of the psalm 'aods' ( C,., i:lN ) In ,·v. Ib
betwCC1l God and die hea"wly rou"; even 50. we are 11 long way from die lIU5leT'" IIKKMIthrism of Deuteronomy or Second lsalab.1t is agaInst this bad.around tbll Jesus' citatioo of Psalm 82 begins to make sense. espedaUy If "'e bear in mInd lIle whole of v. 6: 'J SOI}' you are gods ( 1),.,7 1'1 . 1Ic-...1, all of you IOIIS of lIle Most High (rr7 P '1:1 . .,.'0; '*'.....,~r. The hig difJe",nce Is that In the Fourth GoaIm 82 is Identified with M(lclllf.edek, whl' Is later ,aUed ".,71'1 (tby God). Here wc have eo.1dCllCe of a theologIcal leap parallel tQ that made In the Gospel. since Melchizedek. WOOORa' appearrd on ea"h a. a man (Gen, 14) Is now gi"en what is uuque$lionably a di"ine title. I. A, Flumyer, in his careful analysis 01' this ten .... acknowledges the dllllculty by rendering Ps. 82; I lIS 'E!ohlm h"" tal:rn his WInd in lhe &=:mbly cl. El'. bUllike fmnton he blkm'5 van !In- \\'owk, the ortgInal editor, In !dmtifying this EIohInI not ,,~th God ("..lIkb Is whal tbe tmn okno1.e$ al this point In the original psalm) but <11th ~Irlchlzedek, The "loIrlm of .., 2 (In the midsl of Elohlm he gi"es Judgement') is taken by "an ref.. to MelclIiled~k ' s le~m of iillg.!s. by Emerton to refer 10 the opposing learn, led by Sell,l.'l II'hoe,'f'( is nght (and there !~ ob~-IousIJ' much unce" alnty In the Interpretation of this fnlgmentary "'XI ). dlere "",mJ Ultle doubt Ih"! "'e ha,'e heT'"
or
-- "".",....w .x;
and 615 rendl'red 'a ngels' r .,s.,d"o ). This gIVe! the lrarulation: God _ Ht
in "'" "",,_<100>
P>dzn _
01 God
!bt an ....
ll.Old. -y... ...,-"'"
""" all cl JOIl ,.,... of.br ...... Hip,'
In iI subsequent artick~' Emerton biocb this suggurlon up with further e\1dena from !he Peshltta and 8 number or !ariumlm thal O' ;"I " K Is somet:imes translared ' ansds' or '(KIllS 01) angcl5'. He also repealS his point that angds ace called C"N In ",OOus documenlS from Qumran. and mentions 'the possibllUy, accO
ruppoctw,
The text In question is part of a series of manuSCTIpt fragments subsequently grouptd together. carefully edited (by Carol N"ewsomj. and published (In 1985) lUlder Ihe title of 'Sonp of the Sabbath Sacrl8ct': What Emerton caJl.; the 'anll.t'!ogIcal \uabulary' Is InIWd remarkable. [, Includr:< angds. spirits. boly ones.. mlnislc$. princes ( .."., ' N"t1l etc.). chief. (l"'~ ' '1( and 0',,':11(. In his translation d thtse Ie):IS (DtoJd Sta StToUs-') Geza Vermes rightly reodtrs me Lust two lilies as 'gods' (usually wllh scare qUOles). Thq' are not mt'I'dy angelic IIn nsers but P'Uly dirlne belngl who surround the throne of the "KIng' or t;od' of gods and P doubt the 8~at dj"ersity Ilf tbe terms em ployed indicates a Strong distlnctil>n ' . 1'3)6
"'TIxlnlotpu..nlono(Psalmh·, " 'Mekhlud
.. Ant II"btiI!Kban.... """ ••" ,bono .. no ..-.> tu l""ado: ~. H I bdw""" .... _ mT tbe "'01 .. IlOl ~ bin ..... at' ('HO
'0'
n.... m."" " _
_
M.ktl....Jet oIWI "" ""'" T"'"""",,'. po 114~ 10, _ .. """ lb. ~1tIm1 \ k t = opeU of""(IUII _ r plo", " ""n "'" unIiI;. " " """ -.:nod lien 10 ~1<1!-rwlJe dllqui
'SO
RLli!liolU
further pcool of the ""isteD"" of It world of religious dlscourx it long way rrom the strict monothe;,,-m of Ihe Jews who an. J.. us· i!d,'ersarle$ In !he I'ounh C.qspel. No doubt the Gospells faithrullo its 1,,"1511 herllagc In continuing \0 disfingulsh betwren God and mm. IM 1I also seH Jnus (and sprrifically in the passage Wc ha,-" bern di$eusswg) III both i.riJ".-o< and Eho.. The QumrOll fragments and the Go$~t [('Stir}' \0 It boldly specula!l'"c al!cmaU\'c th...,logy that onhodor judalsm could not absorb~"r C'"Cn ucknowledge. (d) (',,"c/I<.lIon
In the Fourth Gospel there arc numerous passages h\ ..... hlch Jesus claims divine .taIUS. It Is no coindd=cc Ihat some of the strong..l ~nd mOSl explicit of tb= occur in angry ronfronlaUoru; with the Jew~ the Gospel has as one of ilS aims 10 COfI6rm Its readers in their stand against 'nOlTIlati,'C' ,udaism. The debates It records arc not:
TeildJI", daSiSlfiabk as oontTm-ersy 510nes. btu Uke the Synoptic ~pes Ih~ In somc way ,,,,,,mbl... they reflect a ~ of acrimonious IIIl1WDmI between Christiall$ ;tmd Jew¥. What is singular In the fourth Gospclls that SO man~' of lhese c:onlr(l,·ersics lum upon Jesus· claim 10 t,., divine. ~ fan:wcU dlscourses leach uS lhallhe~1 in lis finished form ""as Inlended for a Christian =dershlp. But this Is onl)' pari uf the evidence. The pulemkallone of much of the 6r51 half of the Gospd. O'"SP«ial1y In ch(1pters 5 - 10. cannot be explained exl·epl. ag~inst a background of jc wb h - Chrisllan dcootc. If the passages wc hale been considering are cat~hesis. the}" are catechesls with a bltenUl Sunduy-school lessons . but sharp remlnden of the dangerous obdu .... cr of Ihe rommunity·s lewish ad'·"I")ar1es. It musl be wC>S
..
...<1\ ""'" whictJ l...dobm IutIdious ~ will
t..""
,
Dis~1ll
I5 I
might (7: 35) he could not ha,.., el'l)ecIOO from them Ihe kind of read}· iOCCePUInce he b1amn the Inl·S "1thholdina. Only by absuactlng altogether from Ihe cirrulIlSllIllCeII of the G05pel"$ composition and !Rating it '" norhlng but I repository of .."..,akd doctrine or II~ a limd= call to faith.;u; Bultmann doe$. can one fail to I ecoanlill' iu these hot·tempered exo:hanlC'J the type of family row In which the participants face onc another across lhe room of a house which ulI hil\·~ . harM and aU CIIIl home. If thiS Is w. the Question which we have po~tponM is ., tiil knocking at the door. Why does the author piCtunl Jesus. I~w though he Is. a. dissociatin g him..,lf 50 categorically from lhe Jews' What Is the sign.ilkanc~ of the name he gll'es th~mr We are now perhaps in a poSition 10 go be}'ood the obviouS trulh th~t it is ~ religious designation. indicating a rellglous dlffcrentlatlon. I1 now S«m$lllut I1 rt'm 10 a ro"..,[villi,.., segment within the broad band 01 a eomrnon religious U1ldi.lion. 1$ there any othu e,itlena: 10 suppor t this suggrstion;
ro..
~.
THE 11tH OF HmAIU!
The ar-gument up to Ihi> point ha. comprised t,,·o the5c5. The firs( i:s thOI the origins of the Gos~J lie In what may Ioostl)< be culled heterodox Judalsm. ·Loosely·. because notions of onhodoxy and heterodoxy ure not entirely appropriate to the period under discu s_ Sion. . wheu ludaism a s we know it was SlW lull. Infancy. TIns thesis has been satisfactorily "'itablished as a plausible workJng hypothesls. 4 ' .\\oreover. this pan of the a'lumenl could also appeal for ,upport to recrut wad on the Dead Sea Strolls" aud to excellent
'5'
Rt UgiDU' Dissem
detail..:! studies ,uch as that of Alan ~al on the phrase 'ruler of this ,,-orld·.·· And i1 will receive further conlinnalion in the remainder of
Part n. Finally and conclusi'-ely, Chapter 10
,,~l!
k de"oloo to
mowing how th e roots of the Gospel reach down into the soil of Jewish apocalyptic - from the ""inl of view of its total meaning the mOSt siguiHcallt debt of all. There Is. then, no Dud ID .,,,,reh outside the Jewish tradition for the kind of historical {exlerior] explanation of the Go • ...,1 lhat will emers" from a detailed enquiry IntO its genesis.
Tbe second thesis. which concerns th e communi!}'", Jewish ad"ersaries. Is much more lemath"c , Here the main problem is to Identify those whom the Gospel c~1ls the lews. I s uggest thal this is
the name given
to
the powerful party {hal took advamage of the
dIsarray [(lllol'.;ng th e fall of Jerusalem in AD 7() and gradually a'>Sl1m~ amhority over the Jewisb people. This pariy. not to be idemified ahsollllely wilh Ihe Pharisees. laid tile foundatlons of what we know as Judaism . If the Pharis-es had a hand in this. a, they surdy did. th~ "ill ha,'~ ~n anxious to rid th=h-es of the ! 5:i Isolationist and inden! sectarian implications of their name,' o whal better chance would they ever have of establishing their claim to be the true dc=ndants of Abraham;
(a ) Th. nory oJ Q
"a",~
The Gospel uses the lenn 'Jews' more extcnsil'ely Ihan any other 10 ",fer to a rtJigio!1S group which is de6ned and characterized by ils hostility to the re" eiation of Jesw;. Only occasionallr does th e tenn ha,.e a national connotation. as wh~n I'ilate asks Jesus. 'Am I a Jew,'. ur Wriles on a placard he has aJIixed 10 th~ CCClSS the words. Tile King of the Jews' (historically onc of the best attested clemell1s in the whole tradition) . As time wem on the national 5<'nse n udaean' ) would be 10SI - the decish'e moment cominll in AD IJ5 when the Emperor Hadrian . after brutaU}' suppressing the latest !e","ish rebeWon. dro,'e all jm's olll of Jerasalem. From then on the tenn 'Iew' on the lips of a Gentile would refer to som""n~ who was JeWish by religion Or raCe. The meanIng 'Judaean' no longer had any application ." . . .... F. S ".oo.i>ly . n all"""" ro JudO< . . . u,"" 10 be 1110011>1. '" "'" . ,oIi'n ron" rrtS from l" d.i>m.
