MetaCatholic

Nick Norelli persuades me that I should add Bauckham’s book to my reading list. But on the issue of the foot-washing I have a few questions.

Does Bauckham argue that Jesus at some point in his ministry washed the feet of one or more of his disciples, or does he argue that on the night he was betrayed Jesus washed the feet of the Twelve? It seems to me possible, in the light of the rest of the gospel tradition to make a case for the former being historical. These are, I think, very different questions. I am willing to entertain the possibility of the former. I am doubtful of the historicity of the latter.

There are serious questions to put against the historicity of the event as it is presented:

• The version in the Synoptics of the “institution of the Eucharist” (anachronism) is supported by Paul, our earliest witness. The foot-washing is effectively an alternate action, and although set at a meal, the meal content provided in our other witnesses is entirely omitted. Any account of John’s narrative has to as much account for this omission as explain this addition.
• John evidences a willingness to divorce historical events from their historical position to serve a theological agenda. His placement of the “cleansing of the temple” story evidences this most clearly. Historically it is easy to see this event as a proximate cause of the crucifixion, and very difficult to see the raising of Lazarus taking its place. John may well build on events recorded in the common Jesus tradition, but he does so in a most uncommon way.
• While there is evidence of a foot-washing ritual within the early Christian centuries, I am unaware of any evidence that places it so early as to have any chance of being independent of the Fourth Gospel. Isn’t it more plausible that churches that valued this gospel also valued this tradition?

Now it might be that Bauckham answers these questions, although I get the impression from Nick’s review that he doesn’t. But I think that they need answering before any claim to historicity is remotely persuasive.