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 parents”; 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 Gospels”, 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"”, 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 Strategy”, Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture (Sheffield 1999) 322-347.