In any study of the Jesus of history the place of the Fourth Gospel and the use to be made of its evidence is problematic. And nowhere is this issue more acute than in the events leading up to his conviction and death. For John has an extensive and detailed narrative of these events which differs at a number of vital points – not least in its chronology – and yet where the degree of overlap with the other accounts is greater than anywhere else. C. H. Dodd has observed how extensive and detailed this parallelism is – so much so that one of two conclusions is inevitable. Either John's account evinces literary dependence on that of the synoptists or it embodies an independent tradition with serious claims to take us back to the facts and interpretation that created and controlled the common Christian preaching. With now the growing weight of contemporary scholarship, I cannot find the former a credible explanation, and Dodd's own examination of the passion narrative, from which he begins his massive exposition, is a sufficient statement of the case. But if John's is an independent voice, how are we to assess how he stands to the truth of the matter? For the claim of the Johannine community is that ‘his witness is true’ (John 21: 24), which in turn is based on the personal testimony of 19:35: ‘This is vouched for by an eyewitness, whose evidence is to be trusted. He knows that he speaks the truth, so that you too may believe.’