Summary: The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John

After introductions, the session began with a reading in multiple voices of the Johannine passion narrative. Participants were asked to hear the text with this question in mind: "Does the reading of the Johannine passion narrative on Good Friday promote anti-Jewish attitudes?"

After the reading, the group was asked to list elements of the reading that could promote negative feelings toward Jews.  These features were noted:

1. The recurrent use of the term "the Jews" (hoi Ioudaioi) can bring to listeners' minds the living Jewish community of today.  

2. Although in the P.N. the term "the Jews" can have neutral as well as negative meanings, heard collectively during the reading the negative uses absorb the neutral ones. 

3. "They" accuse Jesus before Pilate but do not enter praetorium for fear of defiling themselves (18:28).

4. "The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin (19:11) > "If this man were not a criminal we wouldn't have handed him over to you" (18:30) >  "Your own ethnos handed you over" (18:35). 

5. Pilate hands Jesus over "to them" to be crucified (19:16).  It is not made clear that the "soldiers" crucified Jesus until 19:23.  Even this perhaps has an element of ambiguity because of the "officers of the Jews" who arrested Jesus (18:12). Even thought 18:31 indicates Jews could not execute anyone, one could get the sense from the ambiguities that "they" are going to do it to Jesus anyway. 

6. The cries of "the Jews"/the chief priests when demanding Jesus' death (including Barabbas incident) is negative.

7. What is the pastoral impact of congregations crying "crucify him"? Are they identifying themselves as sinners or role-playing "the [evil] Jews" who demand Jesus' death? 

8. With which characters do members of the congregation identify?

Some comments about the liturgical practice of reading the Johannine P.N. on Good Friday were also offered:

1. There is minimal opportunity for homiletic education about the exegetical issues involved because of the protracted length of the reading and the desire to preach about the salvific importance of Jesus' death.

2. Explanatory comments about the theological rather than historical nature of the narrative made before its proclamation would frame the congregation's reception of it. 

3. There is a danger in a the inappropriate substitution of nouns for pronouns in some lectionary renditions (e.g., "they" > "the Jews"). 

4. The proclamation of the Johannine P.N. on Good Friday goes back at least to the 11th century.

5. The assigning of different voices to read different characters in the P.N. (narrator, Jesus, the crowd) is not delineated in the Roman lectionary. It stems from the practice of singing the narrative with different voices, but the scripting of the parts today is done by liturgical publishers. Therefore, this practice could be altered or discarded.

6. In hearing the Johannine P.N. listeners automatically combine it with notable features of the synoptic passion narratives, thereby increasing the likelihood that anti-Jewish attitudes are reinforced.

7. The gospel in people's heads is more powerful than the gospel on the page.

8. There are always dangers in seeing a historical event as a paradigm of divine activity.  When a currently living group is related to characters in an ancient narrative there are potential problems. Egyptians hearing the Exodus account is another example of this.

9. It is better just to read the narrative through than reading in multiple voices.

10. One participant wondered if hoi Ioudaioi could always been rendered as "the Judeans". 

11. An illustration of the influence of John was seen in the 1915 Merriam Webster's illustration of the meaning of "uncial" with the Latin text of John 19:15 non habemus regem nisi Caesarem. 

After a break, the conversation took an exegetical turn by examining what the Johannine P.N. is intending by its recurrent use of  hoi Ioudaioi.  The nature of the narrative as a developing text with a long redactive history makes determining precise intentions difficult. Some things were deliberately left "untidy" as the text emerged.

However, there was general agreement that as the text now stands, "the Jews" function symbolically as the quintessential rejecters of Jesus.  (This is true even though a few Jews come to believe.) All other opponents (e.g., Pharisees, the world) are subsumed into and pale in comparison with hoi Ioudaioi.  It was observed that just prior to the P.N. Greeks had been introduced in a positive way (12:20-21), that the Samaritans had earlier been portrayed favorably in chapter 4, but "the Jews" is hardly ever a positive term.

This use of hoi Ioudaioi as emblematic for antipathy to Jesus accords with Johannine cosmic dualism in which everything is classified as either for against him.  Liturgically, the Johannine P.N. is heard as a historical narrative even though literarily it is actually a dualistic cosmic drama. 

It seems reasonable to suppose that this negative codeword use of hoi Ioudaioi entered into the developing Johannine narrative tradition as a result of the debate with and expulsion from the local synagogue community. Some noted that this use of "the Jews" could be compared to the occasional "insider" Catholic use of "the Church," when it is actually the leadership that is meant.  The social conflict between the Johannine church and the local Jewish community seems to have been caused by Johannine christological claims. Eventually this Johannine polemic would serve as a powerful tool in the later church's campaign to distance itself from Judaism. 

This session first considered the role of Pilate in the Johannine P.N., and then the narrative's theology.

These questions launched the discussion of Pilate:

1. Does the more prominent role of Pilate in John lessen the anti-Jewish potential of the Johannine P.N.?

2. If there is an anti-Imperial agenda in John (cf. Richard Cassidy), could that lessen the narrative's anti-Jewish potential?

One way of approaching these questions would be to ask who is the true King, Jesus or Caesar? While an anti-Roman theme could be detected as part of a "two-front" war being fought by the evangelist, most felt that this theme was very minor in comparison to the anti-Jewish theme. There was some discussion as to whether Pilate comes off as stupid or politically astute, but in either case his character points the finger at Jesus' own ethnos (18:35) for handing him over.  Even if he is portrayed as bumbling or indecisive, his fault comes across as uninformed stupidity in contrast to "the Jews'" premeditated malevolence.  Similarly, if John is using hoi Ioudaioi as a strategy for indirectly attacking Rome, that would seem analogous to the Nazis claiming that they were really attacking Communists by targeting Jews. 

These further remarks were made about the Johannine Pilate:

• Pilate's shuttling inside and outside the praetorium probably makes him appear to congregations to be manipulated by hoi Ioudaioi rather than merely indecisive. 

• Although John subordinates anti-Jewish to anti-Roman concerns, the text nonetheless shows Pilate as ultimately responsible (e.g., 19:22).

• Pilate's question in 18:35, "I'm not a Jew, am I?" is really a coded question in John's cosmic drama - will Pilate be an opponent (a Jew) or one of Jesus' own (a believer).  The answer is evident by the end of their exchange. Even though "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (14:6) stands before him, Pilate concludes by asking, "What is truth?" (18:38). 

• In John, Pilate personifies the Empire and so "the world."  But God can use Pilate for God's purposes.

After a break, the discussion turned to theological matters by considering the question: What can we say about the christological and soteriological meanings of the Johannine P.N.? Is the conflict with "the Jews" essential to these meanings?

The death of Jesus in John's Gospel was seen as the "hour" of his "glory" (e.g., 17:1), when Jesus is "lifted up" (3:14; 8:28; 12:32) back to the world above from whence he came (16:28). His return home does not "leave orphaned" (14:18) those believe in him (17:3). Rather, they will share in the love-life between the Father and the Son. They have the eternal life of the world above when the Paraclete comes to make his home in them (14:10-26).  The blood and water gushing from the slain Jesus' side (19:34) symbolizes the unleashing of the Paraclete into this world below.

The timing of Jesus' death in the Johannine account, simultaneously with the slaying of the Passover lambs in the Temple, confirms his identity as the Lamb of God.  Not a bone of him is broken, they look on the one pierced, and hyssop is mentioned (19:29-37).

The Johannine cross is also the throne of the one who has been totally in control of the narrative from the outset. His last words are a statement of triumph and success. 

A lively discussion ensued as to whether the Johannine Jesus should be understood as replacing or fulfilling Judaism. Most seemed to agree that while the text could be actualized today along fulfillment lines, in its own inclinations it stresses a replacement theme.

It did seem that these theological points do not depend upon the anti-Jewish theme. This opens the possibility of devising a lectionary excerpting/translation that could communicate Johannine theology without Johannine polemic. The session ended with the question: What are we trying to accomplish in the liturgy of Good Friday?

The conversation began with an overview of the Good Friday liturgy in order to ascertain its emphases. A number of noteworthy comments were made:

1. The Reproaches were originally and for centuries thereafter sung during the Veneration of the Cross. The refrain chanted by the congregation sought divine forgiveness. However, commentaries over the centuries on the Old and New Testament texts juxtaposed in the Reproaches consistently featured anti-Jewish polemic.
2. In the fourth century the unity of the mystery of redemption was fragmented into three parts  This led to an emphasis on the shedding of Jesus' blood on Good Friday, esp. in Iberia, and this stress was brought into the New World. 
3. In medieval liturgies, snippets from all four gospels were read. The Tridentine lectionary presented only the Johannine text on Good Friday.
4. The character of the liturgy as it exists today contains the aspects of (a) a historical pilgrimage through the events of Jesus' last days; (b) prayer reflection on the salvific importance of Jesus' death; and (c) penitence for human sinfulness.
5. This could be expressed as: (a) remember; (b) repent; (c) rejoice; and (d) re-enter the mystery (with communion).
6. A distinction needs to be maintained between Jesus as cultic victim vs. social victim. If the latter prevails, anti-Jewish sentiments are more likely to emerge. 

We then turned to discuss what can be done in terms of the Good Friday reading of the Johannine P.N. to diminish its anti-Judaic potentials. These strategies were listed:

1. Education
2. Preaching
3. Lectionary revision
   1. translation / emendation (dynamic equivalence)
   2. selectivity - major (e.g., read 19:16b-40 only) or  minor 
   3. replace Johannine text entirely
   4. some combination of the above

The group decided that it would propose a shorter lectionary reading option, e.g. John 19:16b-40, and also work out a more complete lectionary rendition of the Johannine P.N. that, using the lectionary's own selection practices and pastoral sensitivities together with sound exegetical translations, would convey Johannine christology and soteriology without its anti-Jewish polemic. This decision also set the agendas for the next few years for the seminar. It will consider the synoptic P.N.s in turn, beginning next year with Matthew.  When all four gospels have been treated, a report will be submitted to the Catholic-Jewish Relations office of the N.C.C.B.

The co-conveners, John Clabeaux and Phil Cunningham will spearhead the drafting of a text and supporting documentation with the assistance of a subcommittee consisting of Gina Boisclair, Ken Morman, Gerard Sloyan, and George Smiga. Other seminar members will also review materials periodically as they are placed online.

At the 2001 meeting, the first seminar session will be devoted to reviewing and discussing the work on John, which will also be presented as a Research Report for the rest of the CBA.

The remainder of the session was spent beginning to work through the Johannine P.N. text. The results of that exchange will serve as the basis for the lectionary project.

Thanks to everyone for a terrific meeting!!!