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 525
The obvious implication of the presence of these two Fourth Gospel
epilogues is that we have, as Johannine scholars have long argued (5), two
conclusions to the Gospel, the original (which echoes in its claim that the
Christ is Jesus the prologue [cf. 1,17] — or to use Aphthonius’s term, the
“prooemionâ€), and one that was added later. Hence rhetorical criticism offers
new evidence for an old thesis.
Lubbock Christian University Michael MARTIN
5601 19th Street
Lubbock, TX; USA
SUMMARY
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.
(5) See, e.g., R.E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (AB 29a; Garden City, NY
1970) 1077-1082.