Picking out the later changes
We might have expected the patterns observed on the previous web page to have led directly to the structure of the whole gospel. This is not the case. It soon became apparent that the extant state of the text of the gospel, as represented by the Greek New Testament, 3rd edn., edited by K.Aland et al. does not correspond exactly to the original archival text. The evidence for this is that the size of a small minority of the pericopes is not close enough to a whole multiple of 800 letters. In practice my analysis rejects the arrangement (details of the page/section match) of John's gospel if any pericope is more than 99 letters from a whole multiple of 800. Thus a small number of discrepances must be explained by differences between the extant text and the original text. These differences all consist of posited scribal additions to the original.
2:12
This verse seems pointless. This is consistent with the fact that commentators are equally divided about where a new section starts - at 2:12 or 2:13.
9:38-39a
As it stands, the story of the blind man in 9:1-41 is a little too long at 3315 letters. But 9:38-39a is omitted by two of the best textual witnesses. R.E.Brown gives several reasons for suspecting the originality of these verses.
Moreover the blind man's kneeling, as if treating Jesus as divine, detracts from the carefully planned frame of the gospel as a whole: "..... the Word was God" (1:1) matched with "My Lord and my God" (20:28).
11:54-57
Brown considers the origin of these verses to be suspicious.
[1]
18:13a,c,14,24,28b
18:13a "First"
18:13c "the father-in-law of Caiaphas"
18:28b "from Caiaphas"
Metzger lists problems with vv. 13-27.
[2]
It seems to me likely that the gospel writer believed that Annas was the high priest around the time of the death of Jesus,
[3]
and that early scribes have tried to correct this mistaken view by the insertion of the above texts including references to Caiaphas.
19:35
Lindars casts doubt on the originality of this verse.
[4]
20:20-21a
The implied criticism of Thomas in v. 29 loses much of its sting if the other disciples had already seen Jesus' hands and side. Verses 20-21a, which Haenchen attributes to the Redactor,
[5]
appear to have been interpolated into the text in order to give the other disciples the 'privilege' of seeing Jesus' hands and side. The double greeting is artificial. The editors seem to have repeated ειρηνη υμιν in order to effect a smooth transition back into the original text.
[6]
20:22-23
These two verses belong together, for the actions of v.23 require the authority and discernment imparted in v.22. However both verses are anomalous. In v.22 there is no definite article preceding 'holy spirit". In v.23, only here in the gospel is αφιημι used to mean "forgive".
These verses were interpolated by an editor wishing to enhance the authority of the disciples along the lines of Matt 16:16-19.
20:30-31
Even with the omission of 20:20-21a and 20:22-23, at 1009 letters the last episode starting at 20:19 is too long. But was 20:30-31 the original ending of the gospel as is universally assumed by critical scholars?
The gospel has been aptly described as a drama.
[7]
Each episode is a scene in the Johannine play. The label fits superbly until we come to the last two verses of chapter 20, when we are suddenly brought back to earth with a reminder that we are reading a book. But 20:28-29 was an entirely suitable ending, c.f. Fortna's comment: "This paradoxical superiority of faith-without-seeing is the point of the story of Thomas..... with which the gospel comes to its dramatic close."
[8]
The editor who added 20:30-31 had already lost sight of the gospel as a play, treating it as any other gospel "book".
21
This chapter is widely regarded as a late addition because 20:30-31 looks distinctly like an ending, and there are differences in the Greek compared to chapters 1-20.
[9]
It may have been composed primarily in order to change the image of Peter presented in the earlier chapters.
[10]
Notes for this page
1. R.E.Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii) (AB; GArden City; Doubleday, 1966) pp. 375-376
2. B.M.Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; United Bible Societies, corrected edn., 1975) pp. 251f.
3. That John should have erroneously indicated that the High Priest in office during the trial of Jesus was called "Annas" should be no surprise. Josephus lists no less than five High Priests with similar names.
4. B.Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; London; Oliphants, 1972) p.418
5. C.K.Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John(London; SPCK, 2nd. edn., 1978) p. 525
5. E.Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 : Chapters 7-21 (ET: Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1984) p.210
6. E.Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 : Chapters 7-21 (ET: Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1984) p.211
7. B.M.Metzger & M.D.Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford; OUP, 1993) p.373
8. R.T.Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1988) p. 246
9. D.C.Duling & N.Perrin, The New Testament: Proclamation and Paranesis, Myth and History (Fort Worth, Texas; Harcourt Brace, 3rd. edn., 1994) p.410
10. J.K.Elliott, Questioning Christian Origins (London; SCM, 1982) p.124