Abstract
The goal of Horsley and Thatcher’s new book is to offer a new perspective on John’s Gospel as a source of information on the historical Jesus. Since Clement of Alexandria, the Fourth Gospel has been traditionally regarded as the ‘theological’ gospel, as opposed to the ‘history’ of the Synoptics, but the authors hope to change this view.
They begin by offering a political-economic description of first-century Palestine. Horsley and Thatcher place a great deal of emphasis on the division between the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem, their scribe retainers, and the peasants of the countryside. According to them, the high priestly families identified their interests entirely with those of Rome, and ruthlessly exploited the peasant class, while the peasants themselves resented the Temple hierarchy as puppets of a foreign power. Judea, Galilee and Samaria were also divided along historical and ethnic lines, but the traditions of all three regions held out hope for a renewal of Israel, free from both Rome and the temple-state.
The authors argue for a historical reading of the gospel that focuses less on a New Quest-style painstaking analysis of verses, word-choice and the ‘authenticity’ of sayings and more on the narrative underlying the gospel – what one chapter refers to as ‘verisimilitude’ rather than ‘verification’. This method results in an understanding of John’s story as an historically plausible account of Jesus leading a renewal movement with widespread support across all areas of Israelite heritage, based on the popular, folkloric traditions of the people rather than the ‘official’ tradition represented by the priests and scribes in Jerusalem, and challenging both them and their patrons in Rome. Worried by his growing power, and fearful of a Roman intervention, the high priestly families arrange his execution. The authors entirely reject the idea that John’s Gospel reflects a conflict between Judaism and early Christianity, arguing that the term οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, used frequently in John’s Gospel, should be translated not as ‘the Jews’ but ‘the Judeans’, meaning the citizens of Judea and sometimes using it as a synecdoche for the agents of the temple-state.
The authors’ focus on the political and economic aspects of John’s Gospel is refreshing and innovative. However, directing our attention almost entirely to class-based conflict in first-century Palestine seems unnecessarily restrictive and even anachronistic, using the political ideas of an industrial, capitalist society to try and understand a very different time and place.