No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The Johannine text about the decision of the High Priests and the Pharisees to have Jesus killed has so far attracted mainly historical and text-historical interest. Authors enquire about the relation of the text to its synoptic parallels – as Mark 14.1–2 par. – or about some pre-Johannine source lying behind our textual unit. The gathering of the High Priests and Pharisees, their reasoning, and the answer of Caiaphas are mainly attributed to pre-Johannine material, the reflection of the evangelist at the end to John himself or even a post-Johannine hand. The reason for this kind of literary criticism can be found in the idea of a death of Jesus for the ‘scattered children of God’ which seems to be alien to the earlier synoptic or synoptic-like material. The limitation to investigations of this kind leads to the inconvenience that the ‘making’ of the Johannine text as such does not come into focus. It seems to me that the final text merits our first attention, prior to any source or tradition theories. So I shall begin my short paper with a synchronic investigation into our text, followed by a diachronic approach.
1 Cf. Dodd, C. H., ‘The Prophecy of Caiaphas (Jn 11.47–53)’ (1962), More New Testament Studies (Manchester: UP, 1968) 58–68Google Scholar; Bammel, E., ‘Ex ilia itaque die consilium fecerunt’, The Trial of Jesus (Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule; ed. Bammel, E.; London: SCM, 1970) 11–40Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium 2 (HThK 4/2; Freiburg i.B. etc.: Herder, 1971) 446–7Google Scholar; Fortna, R. T., The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 128–37.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Becker, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes 2 (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 4/2; Gütersloh-Würzburg: Mohn-Echter, 1981) 128–37.Google Scholar
3 An exception is Aus, R. D., ‘The Death of One for AH in John 11:45–54 in Light of Judaic Traditions’, Barabbas and Esther and Other Studies in the Judaic Illumination of Earliest Christianity (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 54; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992) 29–63Google Scholar, who mentions it in passing (43–4); see below, 2, for his diachronic approach.
4 Cf. Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John 1 (AnB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 95.Google Scholar
5 Cf. Beutler, J., ‘Zur Struktur von Johannes 6’, SNTU 16 (1991) 89–104.Google Scholar
6 See for a positive evaluation of the proposal of Caiaphas Wolbert, W., ‘Besser, daβ ein Mensch für das Volk stirbt, als daβ das ganze Volk zugrunde geht.’ (Joh 11.50) Überlegungen zur Devise des Kajaphas’, ThGl 80 (1990) 478–94.Google Scholar
7 Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Johanneseuangelium 2.449–50, against C. H. Dodd.
8 Cf. Pancaro, S., ‘“People of God” in St John's Gospel’, NTS 16 (1969–70) 114–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 The contrast between the life-giving action of Jesus and the decision of the Jewish leaders is seen among other authors by Lohfink, G., ‘Gott schafft sich eine neue Gesellschaft’, Gottes Taten gehen weiter (Freiburg i.B. etc.: Herder, 1985) 103–16Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., ‘The Decision of the Supreme Court to put Jesus to Death (John 11:47–57) in Its Context: Tradition and Redaction in the Gospel of John’, Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. Moule, E. Bammel-C. F. D.; Cambridge: UP, 1988) 295–318Google Scholar; Schneiders, S. M., ‘Death in the Community of Eternal Life: History, Theology and Spirituality in John 11’, Interp. 41 (1987) 44–56Google Scholar; Kieffer, R., ‘Olika nivåer i johanneiskt bildspråk’, SvTK 65 (1989) 9–15.Google Scholar
10 For the biblical and rabbinic background of the proposal of Caiaphas see R. D. Aus, ‘Death’. He sees behind our text a tradition based on the text concerning the death of Sheba for the sake of his town, 2 Sam 20.
11 J. Becker, Johannes 2.369, and to the relevant texts.
12 Cf. Beutler, J., ‘Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium nach Joh 13,1–20’, Der Tod Jesu. Deutungen im Neuen Testament (QD 74; ed. Kertelge, K.; Freiburg i.B. etc.: Herder, 2nd ed. 1982) 188–204: 190–2.Google Scholar
13 Beutler, J., ‘Der alttestamentlich-jüdische Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in Johannes 10’, The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context NTS MS 67; ed. Fortna, J. Beutler-R. T.; Cambridge: UP, 1991) 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 The relevance of Isa 43.5 for John 11.47–53 is underlined by Grimm, W., ‘Die Preisgabe eines Menschen zur Rettung des Volkes. Priesterliche Tradition bei Johannes und Josephus’, Josephus-Studien (Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet; ed. Betz, O., et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 133–46Google Scholar: 145–6; id., ‘Das Opfer eines Menschen. Eine Auslegung von Joh 11,47–53’, Israel hat dennoch Gott zum Trost (Festschrift für Sch. Ben-Chorin; ed. G. Müller; Trier: Paulinus, 1978) 61–82.Google Scholar
15 Hofius, O. sees this text behind John 10.16 and 11.51–2: ‘Die Sammlung der Heiden zur Herde Israels (Joh 10,16; 11,51f)’, ZNW 58 (1967) 289–91.Google Scholar
16 Cf. Ménard, J., ‘Le “rassemblement” dans le Nouveau Testament et la gnose’, StEv 6 (TU 112; ed. Livingstone, E. A.; Berlin: Akademie, 1973) 366–71Google Scholar; a Jewish-rabbinic alternative is proposed by Manns, F., ‘Lecture midrashique de Jean 11’, SBFLA 39 (1989) 49–76: 56–63.Google Scholar
17 Paris: Grasset, 1972.
18 Munich: Kösel, 1978.
19 R. D. Aus, ‘Death’, 59–60, sees the tradition about the scapegoat from Lev 16 directly behind our textual unit, but concludes less convincingly that this connection excludes a dependence of John 11.46–53 on the tradition of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.