Rome and the East
took him. But as the narrative unfolds it becomes clear that the execution,
and the division of Jesus’ clothing (fulfilling Ps. :), is being conducted
by Roman soldiers (:–). John’s detailed and concrete narrative style is
demonstrated to the end, though he makes no reference to Simon the Cyre-
naican. Jesus is brought ‘‘to the place called (place of ) a skull, or, as is said
Hebraïsti, ‘Golgotha’ ’’; he thus reverses the equivalence stated by Mark (:
). The element which is central to all accounts of the crucifixion, the in-
scription on the cross, is given here in much more detailed form. First, a
longer version of the text itself is offered: ‘‘Jesus the Nazarene, the king of
the Jews’’ (:). John goes on to say that many Jews read the inscription
(titlon) since it was writtenHebraïsti,Rōmaïsti,Hellēnisti(in Hebrew or Ara-
maic, in Latin, in Greek). The use of the Latin loan-wordtitlos(fromtitulus)
is unique to John among the four Gospels. So is the indication of the tri-
lingual character of the inscription. John alone concludes his narrative with
an exchange between Pilate and ‘‘the high priests of theIoudaioi,’’ who com-
plain that the appellation ‘‘king’’ should have been set out as what Jesus had
claimed to have been, and not as the actual truth.
A step-by-step analysis of the structure of John’s narrative is essential if
we are to avoid the trap of attempting to amalgamate the separate accounts,
or of selecting convincing details from each, to make up a historical recon-
struction of ‘‘what really happened.’’ John’s account is in no way compatible
with those of the Synoptics. It is not only that there are many different de-
tails, or even that the sequence of events unfolds quite differently. It is that
the overall setting of these events in relation to the Jewish calendar is differ-
ent, and significantly different: the Last Supper does not have the character
of a paschal meal, and the nature of the exchanges between Pilate and the
Jewish leaders is entirely determined by their refusal to enter thepraetorium
in order to avoid pollution, and thus not be prevented from eating thepascha
later that day.
It has to be admitted that no precise explanation can be offered as to why
John should have presumed that entering thepraetoriumwould (or might)
have entailed defilement. All that we know of the period suggests that, with
certain momentary exceptions, the Romans avoided bringing into Jerusalem
images which would offend Jewish sensibilities. Nor is there any reason to
suppose that appearing before the governor would have involved any hospi-
tality by way of food or drink. The context does, however, clearly suggest the
idea either that the location, indoors, itself might impart pollution, or that
contact with gentiles, in a relatively confined space indoors, as opposed to
the open-air courtyard, might do likewise. None the less, however uncertain
we may be as to the precise rules of purity involved, it is not impossible to