Apr 09

John’s foot-washing

Tag: Historical Jesus, John — doug @ 12:27 am

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.

7 Responses to “John’s foot-washing”

  1. Nick Norelli says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 12:49 am

    Doug,

    I’ll give the chapter a quick skim and see if he addresses any of your concerns. If he does I’ll leave a comment a little later.

    And I don’t know what’s going on with the pingbacks. I usually get them from your blog. Maybe WP 2.5 is still working out some bugs.

  2. Nick Norelli says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 1:24 am

    Doug,

    Bauckham says:

    Whatever might be the relationships between John and the Synoptic Gospels, it is scarcely credible that John did not have far more stories about Jesus available to him than he includes in the Gospel (cf. 20:30). This being so, his selection is no doubt determined by the potential of the stories for the kind of interpretation they receive within the Gospel. But given the scope for selectivity that he must have had and given that some of the stories most important to him (such as the cleansing of the temple or the feeding of the five thousand) were, as we can tell from their parallels in the Synoptics, certainly traditional, and easy resort to free creation of narratives, which has often been attributed to him, would seem unnecessary. John’s genius as a narrator and interpreter of the story of Jesus seems to lie in telling the traditional stories in such a way as to indicate and incorporate profound and extensive reflection on their meaning. Since he undoubtedly does this in some cases, the onus of proof would seem to lie with those who attribute to him in other cases a kind of theological fiction, consciously inventing stories as carriers of the theological meaning he wishes to propound. (p. 197-98)

    He goes on to say that without the view that John is dependent on the the Synoptics, with no other Gospel traditions to draw from:

    “there is no good reason to attribute to John’s theological creativity the free creation of narratives ex nihilo, as distinct from and in addition to the interpretation of existing stories. [...] The probability is that in chapter 13, as in the other two cases [i.e., Jo. 2:19 & 12:14-15], John sees, with postresurrection hindsight, a deeper significance in a feature of the tradition of Jesus’ words and deeds, rather than creating an event to which he attributes such significance. (p. 198)

    I apologize for the length… Don’t know if this clears anything up (I admit I might not have been as clear in my review as I could have been), but I hope it does.

  3. Jim says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 2:20 am

    Like Nick, you need to take part in our colloquium with Richard which begins Sunday and you can ask him yourself.

  4. doug says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Nick, thanks for such a detailed reply. I find myself wondering if Bauckham is deliberately blurring the distinction between saying “Jesus washed (one or more) disciple’s feet at some time” and “Jesus did this at the Last Supper”.

  5. James McGrath says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    I haven’t read Bauckham’s book yet, but it seems to me that some sort of footwashing incident is historically plausible, since it was such a culturally shocking action. Would someone have made up such a story later?

    I found Bauckham’s earlier attempt to completely demolish our understanding of oral tradition, literary developments and the Gospels underwhelming. Perhaps I’ll like this book better!

  6. Nick Norelli says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Doug,

    Yeah, I’m a little fuzzy on that myself.

  7. Sam Norton says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Just read that interview with you, where you call John’s gospel “a deeply sectarian work with docetic tendencies”!!!

    Please do write a blog saying a bit more about that :-)

Leave a Reply