Following below are two sections from George Smiga's upcoming commentary on John which is to be published by Paulist Press and Stimulus Books as part of The Word Set Free series. This series provides pastors and preachers insights into lectionary selections and their presentations of Jews and possible anti-Judaism.

The first selection is from the introduction, specifically its treatment of the opponents of Jesus in the gospel and the use of hoi Ioudaioi in the gospel.  The second is the entry for Good Friday treating the Passion of John.

Our thanks to George for providing this helpful material!

Within the gospel the hostility drawn from the later periods of the community’s history becomes linked to John’s exclusive dualism. This creates a powerful engine of rejection for the opponents of Jesus and of the Johannine community. There is no question about the fate of those who oppose Jesus and the Johannine community’s belief in him. They are quickly relegated to the outer darkness. Therefore, if we are to properly assess the potential for anti-Judaic statements within the gospel narration, it will be helpful to examine the manner in which the Gospel of John portrays Jewish groups in their opposition to Jesus.

Opposition to Jesus begins early in the Gospel of John. The opening prologue does not take long to assert that "the Word" who came into the world was rejected: "He came to what was his own, and his own people did not receive him" (John 1:11). Within the spiritual dualism of the gospel, "his own people" certainly refer to all those people who should belong to Jesus but refuse to believe in him. When read within the Jewish matrix of the gospel, however, the assertion carries a specific connotation of Jesus’ fellow Jews.

After the prologue, the narration of Jesus' ministry begins with the testimony of John the Baptist (1:19). A large part of the opposition to Jesus during his ministry is presented as coming from certain Jewish groups. This is a similar picture to the one presented in the synoptic gospels. Yet the Gospel of John refers to fewer opposition groups than do the first three gospels. The Herodians and the Sadducees are not mentioned in John. The scribes and the elders appear only one time each, and this is in the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 7:53-8:11) which most scholars see as a non-Johannine addition to the gospel. John shares only three terms with the synoptics by which to describe Jewish opposition groups: the chief priests, the authorities and the Pharisees. Let us examine each in turn.

The term for chief priest (archiereus) occurs nineteen times in John. Ten of those occurrences are in the singular referring to either Caiaphas or Annas. The other nine occurrences identify a religious leadership group. Consistent with their role in the synoptics, the chief priests provide significant opposition to Jesus. In the synoptic gospels their opposition is limited to Jerusalem and the passion. Outside of the passion predictions which occur during Jesus' ministry, the synoptics do not mention the chief priests as a force against Jesus until his entry into Jerusalem. In John the chief priests continue to play a central role during the passion. They send guards to arrest Jesus in the garden (18:3); Pilate identifies them as the ones to hand Jesus over (18:35); they call for Jesus' crucifixion (19:6); they inform Pilate that they have no king but Caesar (19:15); and they demand that Pilate not write that Jesus was the King of the Jews (19:21).

Unlike the synoptic gospels, however, the chief priests in John begin to oppose Jesus even before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem in 12:12. As early as 7:32 the chief priests together with the Pharisees send troops to arrest Jesus, but the effort fails (7:45-46). In 11:45-57 the chief priests together with the Pharisees convene the Sanhedrin and decide to arrest and kill Jesus, and in 12:10 we discover that the chief priests have decided to kill Lazarus as well. As in the synoptics, the chief priests remain major opponents of Jesus, primarily connected with his death. Their presence in John, however, is more pervasive, plotting Jesus' destruction even before the passion begins.

The second term of religious leadership which John shares with the synoptics does not describe a specific Jewish sect but rather a general category of people. John speaks of the "authorities" or "rulers" or "leaders" (hoi archontes) on seven occasions. Three of these (12:31; 14:30; 16:11) are in the singular and refer to Satan. In 3:1 Nicodemus is described as "a leader of the Jews." The remaining three occurrences are in the plural and seem to refer to those who exercise some kind of authority over the people. In all three cases, however, these authorities seem less opposed to Jesus than do the chief priests or the Pharisees. The three cases occur in 7:26, 7:48, and 12:42. Not without some Johannine irony, in 7:26 some in the crowd ask, "Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah?" In 7:48 the Pharisees ask the officers who have failed to arrest Jesus, "Has anyone of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?" In 12:42 we receive the remarkable answer to that question: "Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue."

The use of "the authorities" in these last three cases, together with its reference to Nicodemus, give to the term a semi-positive thrust when it refers to human agents in John. The term seems to be used by John to describe rulers or authorities whose faith is not strong but is nevertheless real. They certainly do not engage in the opposition to Jesus which characterizes the chief priests and Pharisees.

The Pharisees are the last opposition group which John shares with the synoptics. With the one exception of Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee nurturing faith in Jesus (3:1-10; 7:50-51; 19:39), John consistently presents the Pharisees as adversaries of Jesus. They question and argue with Jesus (1:24; 8:13; 9:40), cause Jesus to leave Judea (4:1), attack those who are inclined to judge him positively (7:47, 48; 9:13, 15, 16; 12:42), complain that the whole world has gone after Jesus (12:19), and attempt to arrest and kill him (7:32, 45; 11:46, 47, 57). The normal partners of the Pharisees in the synoptics are the scribes, but this group is missing in John. In the Fourth Gospel the Pharisees act on their own or in conjunction with the chief priests. Together with the chief priests, they plan Jesus' death.

This union between the Pharisees and chief priests is an unusual one for the gospels, occurring only two times outside of John (Matt 21:45; 27:62). At least one clear historical problem is caused by it. In John 11:47 the Pharisees are said to convoke the Sanhedrin together with the chief priests. The three groups usually associated with the Sanhedrin were the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. This is reflected in the synoptics and seems historically accurate. Why then are the Pharisees connected to the chief priests in John? There is a tendency in John to insert the Pharisees as replacements for other opposition groups. For example, Matthew (26:3-4) asserts that the chief priests and elders conspire with Caiaphas to arrest and kill Jesus. John (11:47-53) replaces the elders with the Pharisees. In Mark (14:43) the crowd which comes to arrest Jesus in the garden is sent by the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. In John (18:3) the soldiers who come to arrest Jesus are sent by the chief priests and the Pharisees.

What is going on here? When we consider John's inclination to insert the Pharisees into the narrative and their unlikely linkage with the chief priests, it seems likely that John is reading some of the history of his own community back into the events of Jesus' ministry and death. After the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., the Pharisees assumed a more prominent position in Judaism. In that prominence they came to be the chief opponents of the Johannine community. This explains why the evangelist is more interested in them than the other Jewish groups which had come down to him in the tradition. The chief priests were too central to the tradition to be altered. The elders and the scribes, however, were less established. This made it easier for John to replace them with the Pharisees who had much more relevance to his own community. In other words, the mention of the Pharisees in connection to Jesus' arrest in the garden (18:3) and their linkage with the chief priests in convening the Sanhedrin (11:47) seem to reflect their prominence in the history of the Johannine community. We should not, therefore, assume that the presence of the Pharisees in these scenes is any indication of the powers they may have possessed or associations they may have held before the destruction of the temple.

The most problematic term which John uses to describe a Jewish group within the gospel is the Greek phrase hoi Ioudaioi. This phrase is usually translated "the Jews." However, as will soon become clear, there continues to be significant debate over the appropriateness of that translation. Within the four gospels the word occurs 87 times. Of those occurrences 71 are present in John. It is clear, then, that the term has special meaning in John’s gospel. It will take us some time to outline what that meaning could be.

It is useful to distinguish between a neutral and a polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi. In the neutral use a group of people are being presented as a distinct religious or cultural entity without any negative evaluation. Thus the gospel mentions "Jewish rites of purification" (2:6), "a festival of the Jews" (5:1), "Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews" (3:1) or the Samaritan woman’s comment to Jesus, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me?" (4:9). The neutral use also includes groups which betray no hostility to Jesus or his disciples such as the Jews who believed in Jesus (11:45) and those who read the inscription on the cross (19:20). The phrase "the King of the Jews" occurs six times in John and should also be included in the neutral sense.

There is a second way in which hoi Ioudaioi can be used in John’s gospel. This is the polemical sense. It occurs in at least 31 of the 71 instances of hoi Ioudaioi within the gospel. The polemical use is characterized by a hostility towards Jesus. Those who are described in this sense try to slander, attack, and kill Jesus. Sometimes the stance is lessened to only skepticism or disagreement. But those who are described by the polemical usage are clearly Jesus’ opponents. They are never portrayed in a positive light.

Moreover, within the text of John the polemical sense can suddenly emerge as a replacement for another more traditional Jewish group. The Pharisees can find themselves abruptly dismissed from a particular story and replaced by hoi Ioudaioi (8:22; 9:18). This same unexpected exchange occurs with the crowd in 6:41. Throughout the passion narrative, roles which within the synoptic gospels are played by the chief priests, elders and scribes are filled in John by hoi Ioudaioi. They are the ones who send their police to arrest Jesus (18:12), who call for his death (19:7, 12, 14) and into whose hands Jesus says he will be handed over (18:36).

Therefore, in scenes throughout the gospel when there is opposition to Jesus, the evangelist shows remarkable freedom in inserting hoi Ioudaioi as a replacement for opposition groups which are described with much more specificity in the synoptics and even in other places in John’s own gospel.

We have already noted how the Pharisees in John can displace other Jewish groups. Now we see hoi Ioudaioi following a similar pattern with the Pharisees. When this tendency is related to the history of the Johannine community, a plausible explanation can be suggested. When the Johannine community began to experience opposition resulting from its increasing elevation of the identity of Jesus, that opposition came from Pharisaic sources. In revising its gospel traditions, the community felt free to replace the more traditional opposition to Jesus (the elders and the scribes) with its own opponents, the Pharisees. Still later in the history of the community, when its beliefs had occasioned expulsion from the synagogue, the evangelist chose to replace Jewish groups including the Pharisees with hoi Ioudaioi. The imprecision and anachronistic quality of this term did not seem to bother the evangelist, writing in a period in which the bonds with Jews outside his community had been severed. Overall, then, the use of more and more recent terms to replace the opponents of Jesus within the gospel seems to follow the stages of the history of the Johannine community which developed from its Jewish beginnings to an eventual separation from the synagogue.

No doubt, the observant reader already has noticed my reluctance to translate hoi Ioudaioi into English. This results from an ongoing debate within the scholarly community as to what the correct translation should be. The complex manner in which we have seen this term read back into the gospel creates a barrage of problems in ascertaining its proper reference. Because the polemical use of the term aligns it with the negative side of John’s dualism, this debate is played for very high stakes. The gospel clearly uses hoi Ioudaioi to identify those who do not believe in Jesus and who actively oppose him. They are therefore in John the premier example of those who are opposed to Jesus and those who are opposed to God. Who, then, are those to whom the evangelist assigns such a fateful role?

On one level the answer to this question is simple. They are the Jews who refused to accept Johannine community’s belief in Jesus and who expelled John’s community from the synagogue. For as we have seen, it was most likely this later experience of rejection that motivated the gospel writer to employ this term. But it will not do to translate hoi Ioudaioi in this light. Only confusion would result from a verse which reads: "Then Jesus said to those Jews who expelled the Johannine community from the synagogue around 90 C.E." In translations, historical horizons must be respected. Since the term has been read back into a narration presenting events which are taking place at the beginning of the first century, the translator must decide what characters it describes within the time period of the story.

It is on the level of the gospel story that the problems of understanding hoi Ioudaioi become most complex. For, as we have already seen, the term in its polemical sense will suddenly emerge as a replacement for another term, and then at times as quickly recede again. Thus the translator will need to determine the group to which the term refers chiefly by context. Thankfully, one referent of the term is very difficult to maintain--that hoi Ioudaioi is meant to refer to all Jewish people. When examining a polemical usage, to translate the term as referring "all the Jews" or "the whole Jewish nation" frequently does not fit the story. For example, the gospel tells us that a man who was cured reports to "the Jews" (5:16). Later, we are informed that the parents of the man born blind and the disciples after the resurrection both stand in "fear of the Jews" (9:22; 20:19). Yet it is clear that the man who was cured, the parents of the man born blind and the disciples are all Jewish themselves. Therefore, hoi Ioudaioi in these verses must refer to some subset of Jews within the story.

What subset could this be? One opinion would hold that hoi Ioudaioi should be translated "the Judeans." Hoi Ioudaioi can refer to all Jews as opposed to other religions such as Samaritans, Romans or Greeks. But it can also refer only to those Jews who are connected to the tribe of Judah. It can be argued, therefore, that hoi Ioudaioi does not refer to all Jews but only to those who live in the land of Judah. In this view, our translations would consistently talk of "the Judeans" rather than "the Jews."

This argument works well in certain verses of the gospel. For example, it makes sense for the narrator to say that Jesus did not wish to go to Judea "because the Judeans were looking for an opportunity to kill him" (7:1). Likewise when Jesus announces that he wishes to go again to Judea, it is actually clearer for the disciples to say "Rabbi, the Judeans were just now going to stone you, and you are going there again?" (11:8). When, however, this translation is attempted for other occurrences of hoi Ioudaioi within the gospel, we end up with some rather strange expressions, such as "the Passover of the Judeans" (2:13) and "the king of the Judeans" (19:19). It seems that at a number of points within the gospel "the Judeans" would be a fitting translation of hoi Ioudaioi. But in most of the polemical usages it is difficult to find a reason why the gospel would be singling out this particular subgroup of Jews as the enemies of Jesus.

A more promising referent for hoi Ioudaioi is "the Jewish temple leadership." We have already seen how the term can suddenly replace the Pharisees and other religious groups. Moreover in many of the polemical usages of hoi Ioudaioi, those to whom it refers are doing things which the temple authorities do: sending priests and Levites on a mission (1:19), deciding to excommunicate (9:22), sending police for an arrest (18:12). In most of the cases in which the polemical usage occurs, the context seems to point to "the temple leadership" as the term’s true referent.

Yet even though the temple leadership would fit most of the cases we need to address. There are still a number of occurrences in which this approach does not work. For example in chapter six of the gospel (6:41,52), Jesus is arguing with "the crowd" and suddenly is said to be arguing with hoi Ioudaioi. Here it seems that the term would best be understood to refer to "the crowd."

The problem of how to understand and translate hoi Ioudaioi does not, therefore, lend itself to a simple solution. Although it can refer to all the Jewish people, in its polemical usages in John’s gospel it does not seem to carry that connotation. In most contexts the temple authorities would serve as the Jewish subgroup to which the phrase refers. Yet even that approach must allow for exceptions. It seems best to examine each occurrence and translate it according to our best evaluation of its associations and context.

The complexity of translating the polemical usage of hoi Ioudaioi arises from the influence which later historical events have imposed on the gospel. This influence has originated from the opposition experienced by the Johannine community at the end of the first century rather than from events or debates contemporaneous with the ministry and passion of Jesus. Therefore, wherever Jesus faces opposition in the narrative from the Pharisees, chief priests, or crowds, John is inclined to insert hoi Ioudaioi in place of those subgroups of Jews.

Pastoral Sensitivity in the Use of hoi Ioudaioi

Since the polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi is always aligned with the negative side of John’s exclusive dualism, understanding the significance of the term is of extreme importance. When a polemical usage is translated "the Jews," there is no distinction present in the translation which separates it from the neutral usages. Therefore a reader can easily draw the conclusion that it was the entire Jewish people who were always opposed to Jesus and constantly seeking his death. The Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews recognized this problem when it issued "Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostrae Aetate (n.4)" in 1975. In guiding the translators of liturgical texts, the Commission encourages the use of biblical studies to bring out the explicit meaning of the original languages. It uses the example of hoi Ioudaioi, stating that in John’s gospel it "sometimes according to context means ‘the leaders of the Jews,’ or ‘the adversaries of Jesus,’ terms which express better the thought of the Evangelist and avoid appearing to arraign the Jewish people as such."

The preacher and catechist should be aware of the complexity of this term within John’s gospel and find ways to remind those they serve of the danger of applying it to the whole Jewish people. A careful reading of the gospel itself will demonstrate that not all Jews were opposed to Jesus. There still remains among some Christians a stubborn core of false beliefs regarding Jesus and the Jewish people. Among these misconceptions are included the claims that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death and that they have been therefore rejected by God. To allow our congregations to understand hoi Ioudaioi as simply "the Jews" would support these dangerous errors, giving the impression that such beliefs could be supported on scriptural or historical grounds.

Throughout our discussion of Jesus’ opponents in John, it has already become clear that the conflicts which the Johannine community experienced have been read back into the gospel. John enhances this tendency by reading back into earlier scenes of Jesus' ministry some of the actions which were taken against Jesus at his arrest, trial, and execution.

John is certainly the most theological of the gospels and his theme of the cross is pervasive throughout the narrative. His concern to present the cross as the chosen means of Jesus' glorification overrides any desire for sequential development or empirical history. Therefore, throughout his account of Jesus' ministry, John scatters many references to the constant desire to kill Jesus (5:18; 7:1, 25; 8:37, 40, 59; 10:31; 11:8, 50). It seems to be simply a given in John's narrative that there is a plot to destroy Jesus. This should not lead us to conclude that there was such a scheme from the opening days of Jesus' historical ministry. Rather, it seems more likely that John, writing from a theological-spiritual perspective, sees the opposition to Jesus in terms of a dualistic and cosmic constant. If there is light, there is darkness. If there is faith, there is unbelief. If there are those who love Jesus, there are those who seek to kill him.

John adds to the pervasive the opposition to Jesus by moving forward in the narrative the official decision to kill Jesus. Both Mark (14:53-65) and Matthew (26:57-68) present a night trial before the Sanhedrin resulting in the verdict of death. Luke (22:66-71) presents the meeting of the Sanhedrin in the morning resulting in the decision to hand him over to Pilate. John has no meeting of the Sanhedrin during the passion. There is only an inquiry before Annas in which we hear none of the synoptic charges and receive no verdict (18:19-24). There is, however, an official Sanhedrin meeting in John. It is called by the chief priests and Pharisees several weeks before Passover in response to Jesus' raising of Lazarus (11:45-53). Thus, in John, Jesus is not condemned by the Sanhedrin after his arrest but even before his entry into Jerusalem.

Moreover, the questions and charges which are part of the session before the Sanhedrin in the synoptics also seem to have been moved forward by John into the debates that Jesus has with his opponents during his ministry. For example, the question of Jesus' identity as "the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One" found in all the synoptic sessions before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:62; Matt 26:63-64; Luke 22:67) is very similar to the matter debated by Jesus and his opponents on the feast of the Dedication (John 10:24-25, 33, 36). As a result of this, in John’s gospel the interrogation of Jesus by those who seek to kill him is not limited to a single scene during the passion. It is scattered throughout the ministry (primarily chapters 5-12) as Jesus debates with his opponents.

The bitter controversies which the Johannine community fought with its opponents not only color the narration of the gospel in the final days of Jesus' life but shape the christological debates between Jesus and his opponents throughout the entire gospel. Indeed, if we accept the charge of rejection found in the prologue (1:11) as an indication of the opposition which is to follow, the polemic between Jesus and those who will not believe begins even before the public ministry. It is set as a constant in John's cosmic dualism. We must be careful not to conclude that these early plots against Jesus in John’s gospel accurately reflect an opposition which was leveled against the historical Jesus.

The longest section from the Gospel of John contained within the lectionary is the passion narrative which is read during all three cycles on Good Friday. Since the passion narrative presents the evangelist’s expression of how Jesus was arrested, convicted, executed and buried, it relates directly to the issue of Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death. The preacher and catechist must always keep in mind that, as we discussed in the Introduction, the gospel narratives are a mixture of history from the life of Jesus together with later theological reflection. Therefore, as we examine John’s account of Jesus’ passion, we must be aware that the historical remembrances preserved within it have been reshaped by John’s theology and the situation of the Johannine community. In short, we cannot read John’s passion as if we were reading an account of modern history.

This has a direct bearing on how we understand the circumstances of Jesus’ death. Since the Second Vatican Council, Catholics are forbidden to rest the responsibility for Jesus’ death on all the Jewish people of Jesus’ day or of our own time (Nostra Aetate #4). Yet there are some striking passages in John’s passion account which could lead the ordinary reader to find support for just such beliefs. The preacher or catechist, then, bears a serious responsibility to proclaim the good news of John’s passion narrative without supporting false and offensive understandings of Jesus’ death.

Before examining John’s presentation of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, it will be helpful to outline what historical factors can be uncovered to explain this brutal execution. There is no doubt that Jesus died by a Roman form of execution: crucifixion. The title which all four gospels assert was posted on the cross, "The King of the Jews," indicates that the charge on which he was condemned by the Romans was a political rather than a religious one. With one exception, only the Roman governor had the authority to sentence anyone to death. Rome did allow the temple authorities to immediately execute any Gentile who transgressed certain areas of the temple. But any other execution, including that of Jesus, could only be carried out through Roman auspices. Therefore, Roman involvement in Jesus’ death is central and certain.

However, what motivation can make historical sense out of Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death? Why would any Jew desire to turn over a fellow Jew to the destructive power of Rome? A variety of reasons for Jewish involvement have been suggested by those who attempt to uncover the circumstances of Jesus’ crucifixion. It has been suggested that certain Jews were outraged at Jesus’ teaching and actions or jealous over his popularity. Another theory posits the corruption of those in authority as the cause of Jesus’ death. None of these motives appear to be historically probable. Various Jews in Jesus time were outraged at the teaching and actions of other Jews. It was not, however, common practice to hand over their opponents to the Romans for execution. Nor, we might add, would the Roman governor be inclined to involve himself in taking sides within Jewish theological debates. Disagreement over Jesus’ teaching and practice would not on its own lead to his execution.

As to the charge of jealously, it would be a historical stretch to imagine that the temple authorities would be envious of Jesus’ limited influence and small band of followers. Christians honor Jesus in the light of his resurrection and enlarged by the wide acceptance of the Christian gospel. In the historical mix of first century Judaism, however, Jesus and his followers were one movement among many and would not pose any serious competition to those in authority.

What of the charge that the temple leadership was simply corrupt and motivated by evil intent? Some evil people can be found in every time and place. But to posit villainy as the cause for Jesus’ death levels a charge with little historical justification. Joseph Caiaphas, who was High Priest during Jesus arrest and execution, was by all accounts a rather successful and respected official. He served seventeen years, longer than any other High Priest under Roman authority.

Rather than involving ourselves in the merits and liabilities of these hypothetical motivations, we can connect Jewish involvement to a factor which is both historically reliable and persuasive. Historically members of the temple leadership could have been involved in Jesus’ death simply because they saw him as a threat to public order. As we saw in the Introduction, such a threat would undermine their forced alliance with the governor to keep the Roman peace. It must be remembered that Jesus was executed at Passover time. Such Jewish festivals were times at which Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims and the possibility of civil unrest was very high. It was a time at which the Roman governor was counting on the temple authorities to maintain order.

All four gospels report that Jesus was involved in turning over some tables in the temple. When the temple authorities added this disturbing action to reports that Jesus had a small band of followers and had entered the holy city with some public display, they would have sufficient reason to hand him over to Pilate. All that would be historically necessary for them to take such an action was their concern that his activities might spark public unrest. This they could not afford, because the Roman imperial system would not tolerate it and would hold them accountable were it to occur. Pilate for his part upon receiving an accused troublemaker would be quick to sentence him to death. Life was cheap in occupied Judea, especially when the execution might prevent a disturbance which would endanger the governor’s own standing before the emperor.

The central historical cause for Jesus’ death, then, can be briefly stated: he was perceived by Pilate and by the temple leadership allied with Pilate as a threat to civil order. The execution followed as it would for any Jew who was so perceived. The temple authorities may well have disagreed with aspects of Jesus’ teaching. They may have questioned his origins or his motives. But they knew that such concerns would not have mattered to Pilate. It was only when Jesus was seen as a potential threat to Roman peace that the forced alliance between Pilate and the temple authorities became relevant. It was then that the way was opened to the cross.

It should be added here that as we move away from the historical circumstances of Jesus’ death in stage one of the gospel tradition, there is a general tendency in all four gospels (stage three) to reduce the amount of Roman involvement in Jesus’ crucifixion and increase Jewish responsibility. In the gospels the initiative for Jesus’ crucifixion and its driving force are often assigned to the temple leadership. The gospels show little awareness that the swift execution of perceived troublemakers was a demand of the Roman occupying forces. Pilate is frequently portrayed as a weak vacillating man who sentences Jesus to death because he is intimidated by the temple leadership. This is a far different Pilate than the one presented to us by Josephus who reports several incidents in which Pilate freely exercises his authority with conviction and brutality. The kinder, more introspective Pilate seems to be the creation of the early church which is inclined to portray Roman officials as pawns in the hands of the temple authorities.

Why would such a distortion prove attractive to the early church? A likely explanation is that the evangelists were taking their audiences into consideration. As the Christian movement spread, it found little response from Jewish groups. Gentiles, however, entered it in great numbers. Christian missionaries were therefore eager to have the death of Jesus less associated with Gentile or Roman power. This explains the penchant in the gospels to enlarge Jewish involvement and diminish the participation of Roman forces.

Care must be taken in the use of the passion narratives lest we affirm the false impression that the primary responsibility for Jesus’ death lies in the hands of the temple authorities with Pilate as an innocent bystander. At its worst the careless treatment of these texts can seem to support the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus which has been authoritatively rejected by the Catholic Church as a false reading of the sacred scriptures.

As we proceed now to examine John’s passion narrative, we will discover that John uses many terms to describe Jewish opposition to Jesus and involvement in his death. Some of these terms seem to enlarge Jewish responsibility beyond that of the temple leadership and give the impression that Jesus’ death was almost completely organized and supported by the Jewish people as a whole. Because such an impression has led to disastrous consequences throughout history and has been officially rejected by the Catholic Church, I will frequently argue that the text is not referring to the whole Jewish people but rather some of their leaders. When these arguments are presented, the reader must recall two further points. Namely that the temple leaders in question were themselves compromised by their forced alliance with Rome and that this pervasive and contaminating influence of Roman imperialism is not readily apparent in John’s narrative. In other words, even when we are able to limit Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death to the temple leadership, it must be remembered that such leaders were not acting as independent authorities in their own land but as officials tied to the imposed interests of the Roman state. It is only when these factors are appreciated that the preacher will be able to recognize the historical realities which underlie John’s passion account and proclaim the gospel message without perpetuating false and destructive beliefs.

In the following pages I will first attempt to cue the preacher or catechist to the opportunities within John’s passion account to emphasize a more historically accurate understanding of Roman and Jewish involvement in Jesus’ suffering and death. I will then discuss those characteristics which have the potential to foster an inaccurate and harmful anti-Judaism.

in John's Presentation of Jesus' Passion and Death

There is no official hearing before the Sanhedrin in the passion of John. The inquiry before sending Jesus to Pilate is reduced to a hearing before Annas (18:19-24) and one before Caiaphas which is not specifically described (18:24, 28). Compared to the synoptic gospels, then, the involvement by temple authorities in John’s passion narrative is less formal and less public. This fact significantly lessens the impression of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death.

The abuse of Jesus while in Jewish hands is limited in John. In Mark (14:65) and Matthew (26:67-68), Jesus is insulted and struck by a number of people in the very presence of the Sanhedrin and possibly by members of the council itself. Luke (22:63-65) has those who were holding Jesus abuse him before the council meets. In John the abuse of Jesus is confined to the action of one person, and it consists of a single blow (18:22).

The abuse of Jesus on the cross is also absent in John. In Mark (15:29-32) and Matthew (27:39-44) passersby, the chief priests, the scribes and elders, and the two robbers crucified with Jesus all taunt him. In Luke (23:35-39) the taunts are limited to only the authorities, the soldiers, and one of the robbers. In John the mocking of Jesus on the cross does not occur. Since the majority of those who taunted Jesus in the synoptic accounts were Jewish, this particular negative presentation of Jews is avoided in John.

The passion account in John ends with a positive Jewish image. Two Jewish believers in Jesus ask for his body in order to provide a Jewish burial (19:38-42). Joseph of Arimathea appears in all four gospels to request Jesus' body. In John he is joined by Nicodemus who assists in the burial. Joseph is said to be a secret disciple of Jesus (19:38) and the reader realizes that Nicodemus has previously spoken in Jesus' favor before the Pharisees (7:50-51). Although the faith of both men seems tentative and weak, their action of kindness toward Jesus ends the passion narrative with a thrust positive to Jews and Judaism.

Jewish involvement in Jesus' death is clearly expressed throughout the gospel. However, within the passion narrative John shows a greater willingness than the synoptics in admitting Roman responsibility for the death of Jesus. Because there is no Sanhedrin session in John's passion, the emphasis in John falls on the trial before Pilate. Moreover, although the religious issue of Jesus' identity is mentioned in the accusations before Pilate (19:7), the primary issue before Pilate is a political one: Is Jesus the King of the Jews (18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 12, 14, 19, 21). This political orientation is confirmed later in the account when the chief priests declare their opposition to Jesus in political terms: "We have no king but the emperor!" (19:15).

John is also the only gospel which mentions Roman involvement in the arrest of Jesus. In the synoptics Jesus is arrested by a crowd sent from the chief priests, scribes and elders. John describes the arrest differently. He claims that Judas arrived with "a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees" (18:3). The term translated "detachment of soldiers" is in Greek speira, which is literally "cohort" and always refers to Roman soldiers. At the end of the arrest scene (18:12), the Greek word for "officer" (chiliarchos) is another Roman military term which is more precisely rendered "tribune." Moreover, the clear contrast between the soldiers with their officer and "the Jewish police" leaves no doubt that John sees the soldiers as Roman.

A Roman cohort consisted of six hundred soldiers. To assume that such a large force was sent out to arrest a single suspect appears rather unlikely. Perhaps John is being imprecise in his military terminology. What is more likely is that the evangelist is presenting a symbolic image to show Jesus’ power over both Roman and Jewish forces--they both fall to the ground before him (18:6). Yet even though the presence of Roman forces here might be symbolic, the symbolism can be used to correct a historical imbalance. The Roman involvement in this scene is a reminder that historically Jesus could not have been crucified without full and deliberate Roman participation. As we have discussed above, the gospels imply that the Roman authorities were manipulated, deceived or intimidated by Jewish forces. However, the political situation at the time of Jesus’ arrest was determined primarily by the aims of Roman imperial policy, in which policy the Jewish temple leadership was assigned a supporting role.

In summary, the passion narrative of John seems in many ways more favorable to Jews than the synoptic accounts. There is no official meeting of the Sanhedrin. There is significantly less abuse of Jesus by Jews during the passion. Roman involvement is heightened in both the arrest of Jesus and the prominence given to the trial before Pilate. Finally, two weak but kindly Jewish disciples close the passion by providing Jesus with a burial according to Jewish burial customs.

in John's Presentation of Jesus' Passion and Death

Despite the positive tendencies mentioned above, a number of other elements of John's passion account seem more negative to Jews and Judaism than the synoptic accounts. Remarkably enough, the first of these is one which was enumerated under the positive factors above: the trial before Pilate. As we have seen, John's emphasis on this trial rather than on the formal session of the Sanhedrin which is presented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke lessens the emphasis on Jewish involvement. In John, the only formal hearing or trial is a Roman one. Yet when the trial before Pilate is examined in terms of its meaning and structure, it is questionable whether the Jewish characters are presented any more positively than in the synoptics.

In John the trial of Jesus is a Roman trial. However, the trial is presented in such a way that the Jewish opponents of Jesus play a major role. Pilate moves back and forth in an elaborate pattern between quiet conversations with Jesus inside the praetorium and ever-louder confrontations with Jesus' accusers in the outside court. The careful plotting of the scenes betrays a conscious literary structure on the part of the evangelist to emphasize Pilate's struggle to choose between Jesus and his opponents. The Jewish characters are, therefore, a consistent component of the Roman trial. They deliver Jesus to Pilate (18:28), insist he is a criminal (18:30), reject Jesus for Barabbas (18:40), call for his death (19:6-7, 15), and claim they have no king but Caesar (19:15).

The Jewish opposition insists to Pilate that, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death" (18:31). At first, this conviction--which is expressed only in John--seems to lessen Jewish responsibility by its claim that the death penalty could be imposed only by a Roman court. However, when the statement is read in light of John's overall narrative, it is likely that John uses it as a way to explain how the Jewish opposition can be responsible for Jesus' death even though crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.

Therefore, the trial before Pilate in John cannot be used unambiguously to argue for a favorable presentation of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Because the trial centers so clearly on the choice of Pilate between Jesus and his accusers, the real motivators of Jesus' death and the true villains of the scene are easily found in the Jewish opposition. Even though the Roman trial replaces the Sanhedrin hearings of the synoptics, the Jewish opposition remains a constitutive element of the Johannine trial scene and indeed its guiding force.

An additional twist which intensifies Jewish responsibility in John's passion account occurs after the end of the trial. Note the flow of the pronouns seemingly following a reference to the chief priests in John 19:15c-18:

(15c) The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor!" (16) Then he [Pilate] handed him over to them to be crucified. (17) So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. (18) There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

By omitting any new reference to the agents of the crucifixion, John gives the initial impression that Pilate handed Jesus over to the chief priests so that they might crucify him. By 19:19 this impression is corrected. There John reports a dispute between Pilate and the chief priests over the title affixed to the cross. This clearly indicates Roman control of the crucifixion. Nevertheless, the initial impression given after the trial is that Jesus was handed over into Jewish hands.

The negative factors we have already considered derive from context and implication. However, when we examine the manner in which John identifies Jesus’ opponents in the passion narrative, the adverse impressions become more explicit. In 18:3 we are told that the group which came to arrest Jesus included police who were sent from the chief priests and the Pharisees. The mention of the Pharisees in this scene is unusual. Besides one mention of them in Matthew 27:62, this is the only time in any canonical gospel that they are associated with the events of Jesus’ passion. Their presence in Matthew seems to come from a popular story, probably about Jesus’ resurrection, which Matthew included in his gospel. This story might well have developed rather late in the gospel tradition, when Matthew’s community was already struggling with opponents of a Pharisaic persuasion. This would explain the unusual appearance of the Pharisees in Matthew’s passion account.

John, finding his community also in a struggle with Pharisaic opponents, may have inserted this one reference to the Pharisees into his arrest scene in order to render the opposition to Jesus more relevant to his own situation. Except for these two occurrences in Matthew and John, there is no further mention of the Pharisees in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ passion. Since the Pharisees so frequently emerge as the opponents of Jesus in the gospels’ accounts of his ministry, their absence in the passion narratives strongly indicates that they were not associated with the death of Jesus in the historical remembrances passed down to the gospel writers.

The one entrance of the Pharisees occurs early in John’s passion account. No sooner do they depart, however, than a more serious problem emerges: the frequent polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi. In 18:3 we were told that Judas brought "a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees." By 18:12, however, "the police of the chief priests (and the Pharisees) has become "the Jewish police" or "the police of the Jews." This is the first time in the passion narrative that hoi Ioudaioi is used. Typical of the polemical use of this term (see Introduction), it demonstrates the ability to replace more specific terms for Jesus’ opponents. This is exactly what begins to happen now within the passion narrative. From this point on, the precision of terms referring to Jesus' opponents begins to slip. Distinctions among the various agents within the passion become muddled under the cover of the all-embracing term, hoi Ioudaioi.

Hoi Ioudaioi is used twenty-two times in John’s passion narrative. Of these, six times (18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21b, 21c) it is part of the title associated with Jesus in all the gospels, "the King of the Jews." These six occurrences would not be considered a polemical use of the term. There are another six occurrences when hoi Ioudaioi is used in a neutral sense. Here the phrase refers to those who worship in the temple (18:20), those who read the inscription on the cross (19:20), the nationality of a person (18:35), of leaders (19:21a), of burial customs (19:40) or of a feast (19:42). In these six uses the intention seems to be more identification than hostility.

We have already noted the use of hoi Ioudaioi in 18:12 where it covers over the referent to the chief priests and the Pharisees. The remaining nine occurrences of hoi Ioudaioi are classic polemical uses. All of them are best understood as replacements for the temple authorities in Jerusalem. In 18:14 we are told that Caiaphas was the one who had advised hoi Ioudaioi that it was better to have one person die for the people. Earlier in the gospel (11:45-53) Caiaphas gave that advice before the Sanhedrin. It is likely, then, that hoi Ioudaioi has been used to replace a reference to that religious body.

In 18:28 John says, "they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters." No proper subject is specified. The careful reader will follow back and realize that the chief priests and their attendants are intended. But the next time a subject is given (18:31), Pilate is arguing with hoi Ioudaioi. When this is translated as "the Jews," the impression is given that the entire trial scene is between Pilate and the Jewish people rather than between Pilate and the chief priests. This is surely the most dangerous section in John’s passion narrative, for it leads the reader to believe that it is the whole Jewish people who have plotted and managed Jesus’ sentence of death. Indeed there are times when the chief priests rise again into view. In 19:6 it is the chief priests and the police who cry out for crucifixion, and in 19:15 it is the chief priests who assert that they have no king but the emperor. Yet in the rest of the trial scene hoi Ioudaioi covers the activity of the chief priests (18:38; 19:7, 12, 14). Thus it appears that somehow the entire Jewish population is involved. Pilate seems to say as much when he remarks to Jesus, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me," (18:35). Jesus in his response to Pilate (18:36) appears to agree when he talks about being handed over to hoi Ioudaioi.

On the level of Jesus’ historical trial, it makes little sense to charge that Jesus’ "nation" handed him over. But how often do we stop to consider that implausibility? Without reflection, such lines generate an impression that Jesus was not a part of the Jewish nation and that somehow all Jews in Jesus’ time were involved in handing him over. It is easy to forget that some of the temple leadership in forced alliance with Pilate may have indeed handed him over, but certainly not the Jewish people as a whole. When we understand John’s tendency to equate the opponents of his own time with the temple leadership, we can appreciate why this dialogue is written as it is. Yet without that understanding, the harmful effects of the passage may well run unchecked.

The polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi extends beyond the trial of Jesus. When a request is made of Pilate to have the legs of those crucified broken so that the bodies would not remain on the crosses during the Sabbath, we are told hoi Ioudaioi made the request (19:31). If hoi Ioudaioi is translated as "the Jews," this verse cannot be understood as referring to "all Jews." There is no way to imagine the whole nation approaching Pilate. Here clearly we have hoi Ioudaioi standing in for the temple authorities who were aligned with Pilate. Later, when Joseph of Arimathea is said to be a secret disciple of Jesus "for fear of hoi Ioudaioi" (18:38), the same point can be made. How can Joseph be afraid of "the Jews" when he is Jewish himself? Again we must understand here a subgroup of Jews, such as the chief priests whose position was dependent upon keeping the Roman peace.

Therefore, the scope of responsibility for Jesus' death and the scope of the polemic of the passion narrative are significantly widened by John's use of hoi Ioudaioi. In a translation without nuance, the anti-Jewish potential of the passion narrative is immensely increased because the reader is left with the impression that Jesus was put to death not primarily by the chief priests nor the Pharisees nor the crowds nor even the Romans--but simply by "the Jews."

Because of the length and richness of John’s passion account, the preacher or catechist will have many important truths to highlight within the text. The primary focus of any preaching should be the good news of Jesus’ saving death for our salvation. It would be tedious, and perhaps improper, to include within the preaching a discussion of the complex nature of John’s passion which we have just discussed. What the preacher can do, however, is to assure that the anti-Jewish potential within the text is minimized. This can be achieved in a number of ways.

First, the preacher or catechist should be careful not to repeat the polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi as he or she is recalling a scene from the passion. Using phrases such as "Jesus’ accusers" or "the temple authorities" will more accurately capture the reference of hoi Ioudaioi and at the same time limit the false impression of widespread Jewish responsibility.

Second, since the preacher is aware that the polemical use of hoi Ioudaioi in the passion can give the impression of involvement of the whole Jewish people in Jesus’ death, it should be stated clearly in the preaching that we as Christians do not believe that the Jewish people are responsible then or now for Jesus’ crucifixion. This is simply restating the official teaching of Nostra Aetate #4, and there could be no better time to do it. It need not be a major point of the preaching or even of catechesis. However, mentioning it succinctly at some point will go a long way in undercutting the perception of mass Jewish responsibility in the minds of those in our assemblies.

Third, the preacher could use the increased recognition of Roman involvement in John’s passion narrative to correct the overly innocent presentation of Roman responsibility which the other gospels portray. It could be suggested in preaching that Jesus’ crucifixion did not result primarily from disputes over his teaching but rather from the overriding concern of the Roman empire to eliminate any person whose presence could spark the unrest of an oppressed populace.

Fourth, the preacher could explore the possibility of integrating into the preaching one of the positive points discussed above. For example, it could prove helpful to mention that John probably gives us a more historically accurate presentation of Jesus’ interrogation before the Jewish authorities by omitting the Sanhedrin session of the synoptics with its accompanying mockery and abuse of Jesus. Also, the burial scene could be used to present the faithfulness and love of discipleship as well as Jesus’ Jewish heritage.

Finally, opportunities to discuss the issue of Jewish responsibility in Jesus’ death at greater length outside of the preaching event should be encouraged. As Holy Week approaches, a fuller understanding of the historical circumstances of Jesus’ crucifixion and the characteristics of John’s narration could be promoted through adult education sessions, the catechesis of those preparing for baptism and articles in the parish bulletin or newsletter.