Michael Martin, «A Note on the Two Endings of John», Vol. 87 (2006) 523-525
This note argues that rhetorical canons supply new evidence for the
thesis that the
Fourth Gospel has two endings, the original (20,30-31) and one that was added
later (21,25). Citing Neyrey.s and Müller.s studies of the Fourth Gospel.s use of
encomiastic topics in its description of Jesus, the note argues that the topic of
epilogue (a topic not observed by either) is also employed in the Gospel and in
conformity to Aphthonius.s instruction. Indeed, the topic is employed not once,
as expected, but twice, evidencing the presence of both an original conclusion and
an amended one.
A Note on the Two Endings of John
At last Fall’s Society of Biblical Literature conference in Philadelphia,
Jerome Neyrey argued that the traditional topics of encomium are employed
in the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of Jesus both from the perspective of
outsiders (vituperation) and insiders (encomium) (1). In a handout Neyrey
listed the topics as (1) Geography and Generation, (2) Nurture and Training,
(3) Accomplishments: Deeds of the Soul, (4) Comparison, and (5) Death and
Posthumous honors, showing how each is employed in the description of
insider and outsider understandings of the person of Jesus. For example, with
regard to the topic of geography and generation, Jesus’ opponents are
described as claiming to know where Jesus is from (6,41-42; 7,27-29.41-
42.52) and who his parents are (6,42), and in contrast to the insider view of
Jesus’ origins, both geographical (1,9; 3,13.31; 6,38.50-51) and familial
(5,17.43; 10,25.30; 17,11.12.26). Neyrey’s study, which shows the Fourth
Evangelist’s awareness of and conformity to canons of ancient rhetoric, is
anticipated by another study from across that Atlantic that focuses strictly on
comparison, Neyrey’s fourth topic. The article, written by Christoph Müller,
examines the Fourth Gospel’s comparison of Jesus and John in the light of
ancient rhetoricians’ prescriptions regarding synkrisis and shows its
conformity to the same (2).
Neyrey’s list of topics is derived from the rhetoricians’ descriptions of
encomium, and while no two of the theorists’ lists of topics are identical, all
more or less resemble Neyrey’s distillation. Of those found in the extant
Greek progymnasmata, Aphthonius’s list is closest in form to Neyrey’s.
According to Aphthonius, the “headings†of encomium are: prooemion,
origin (“which you will divide into nation, homeland, ancestors, and parentsâ€;
cf. topics 1 and 2 in Neyrey’s list), upbringing, deeds, comparison, and
epilogue (Aphthonius, 36).
(1) J.H. NEYREY, “What You See Is What You Get: Convention and Stereotype and
Ancient Persons†(paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Philadelphia, 19
November 2005). On encomium in the Gospels, see P.L. SHULER, A Genre for the Gospels.
The Biographical Character of Matthew (Philadelphia 1982); ID., “The Synoptic Gospels
and the Problem of Genre†(Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1975); ID., “The Genre(s) of
the Gospelsâ€, The Interrelations of the Gospels (Leuven 1990) 459-83; cf. L. PERNOT, La
rhéthorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain (Paris 1993) I, 134-178.
(2) C.G. MÜLLER, “Der Zeuge und das Licht: Joh 1,1–4,3 und das Darstellungsprinzip
der suvgkrisi"â€, Bib 84 (2003) 479-509. On synkrisis in Luke, see J. ALETTI, Quand Luc
raconte. Le récit comme théologie (Paris 1998) 69-112; F. O’FEARGHAIL, The Introduction
to Luke-Acts. A Study of the Role of Luke 1,1–4,44 in the Composition of Luke’s Two-
Volume Work (AnBib 126; Rome 1991) 34; J.A. DARR, On Character Building. The
Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville, KY 1992) 60-84;
and C.G. MÜLLER, Mehr als ein Prophet. Die Charakterzeichnung Johannes des Täufers im
lukanischen Erzählwerk (Herders Biblische Studien 31; Freiburg 2001) 49-152. For
synkrisis in Hebrews, see A. VANHOYE, La structure littéraire de l’épître aux Hébreux
(Paris-Bruges 21976) 144-151, 206-207; T.W. SEID, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The
Rhetorical Structure and Strategyâ€, Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture (Sheffield 1999)
322-347.