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.
524 Michael Martin
It is the last heading listed by Aphthonius that draws our interest. Despite
the resemblance of Neyrey’s list to Aphthonius’s, Neyrey does not look for an
epilogue in the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of Jesus, perhaps because
Aphthonius is alone in describing epilogue as a topic or heading on par with
geography, generation, etc.. A cursory examination of the Fourth Gospel’s
conclusion, however, in the light of Aphthonius’s instruction reveals that not
one, but two epilogues are nonetheless employed in the Fourth Gospel
(lending further support to Neyrey’s analysis). Both are, in fact, remarkably
similar to the examples of epilogue seen at the end of Aphthonius’s model
encomia, invective, and comparison, employing the same “many other things
. . . but/if†form as these:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which
are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through
believing you may have life in his name (John 20,30-31).
But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of
them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not
contain the books that would be written (John 21,25).
Many other things could be said about Thucydides, if the mass of his
praises did not fall short of telling everything (“An Encomion of
Thucydidesâ€; Aphthonius, 38 [Kennedy]).
Many other things could be listed about wisdom, but it is
impracticable to go into them all (from “An Encomion of Wisdomâ€;
Aphthonius, 40 [Kennedy]).
When Philip was alive he know not when to stop, but the one who is
describing him must stop somewhere (“An Invective against Philipâ€;
Aphthonius, 42 [Kennedy]).
There are many other things that could be said about the virtue of both,
if it were not that both had nearly equal fame from their deeds (“A
Comparison of Achilles and Hectorâ€; Aphthonius, 44 [Kennedy]).
Other bioi (3) too, close with what may be described as epilogues,
including Philo’s De vita Mosis and Josephus’s Vita, the latter having been
shown by Neyrey in another study (4), to employ the traditional encomiastic
topics in its overall structure:
Such, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures, was the life and such the end
of Moses, king, lawgiver, high priest, prophet (Philo, De vita Mosis,
2,292 [Colson, LCL]).
Such are the events of my whole life; from them let others judge as
they will of my character (Josephus, Vita, 430 [Thackeray, LCL]).
(3) On the Gospels, Philo’s De vita Mosis, and Josephus’s Vita as “bioi,†see R.A.
BURRIDGE, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Grand
Rapids, MI 22004); cf. C.H. TALBERT, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical
Gospels (Philadelphia 1977); ID., “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of
Religious Propoganda in Mediterranean Antiquityâ€, ANRW 16.2,1619-1651; ID., “Once
Again: Gospel Genreâ€, Semeia 43 (1988) 53-73; ID., “Ancient Biographyâ€, ABD I, 745-749.
(4) J.H. NEYREY, “Josephus’ Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model of Personalityâ€,
JSJ 25 (1994) 177-206.