Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

Is That in the Bible?

Exploring the Judeo-Christian Scriptures

Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and


Chronology of the Fourth Gospel

German theologian Rudolf Bultmann, in his famous and still widely cited commentary on John,
wrote many decades ago:

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 1/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

The thesis has been represented, occasionally even in very early times but strongly from the beginning of
this century, that the original order of the text [of John] has been disturbed, through an interchange of leaves
or by some other means. it must be presumed that the present order of our Gospel is not derived from the
author. It is not enough to reckon with a simple exchange of the pages of a loose codex, for the sections
that appear to demand a change of position are of unequal length. The assumption lies closest to hand that
the Gospel of John was edited from the authors literary remains on the basis of separate manuscript pages,
left without order. In any case, the present form of our Gospel is due to the work of a redactor. (pp. 1112)

Bulfmanns observations on the incongruities of the Gospel have been made and expanded on by
many biblical scholars since then. Some agree that the Gospel seems to be out of sequence, as though
an early manuscript were dropped and the pages put back in the wrong order. Others have proposed
complicated source theories or stages of redaction, whether by the same author or an authorial
community. Still others have simply ignored the problem altogether.

Regardless of which (if any) of these hypotheses is correct, the passages in John that have prompted
this debate are worth having a look at.

The Best Evidence for a Redactor: Johns Ending

For any book of the Bible, but especially the New Testament, there are many conservative scholars
whose audience is primarily devotional or pastoral and would prefer to understand the scriptures as
discreet, synchronic workseach wri en by the person whose name appears in the title if at all
possible, although that ship has long sailed for the most part.

As John Ashton (h ps://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/content/1140-dr-john-ashton) notes, the lack of


manuscript evidence is often cited by scholars in order to dismiss proposals for redaction and
interpolation of texts. Chapter 21 of John is so clearly a secondary addition to the book, however, that
this objection cannot be sustained.

Once this rampart has been breached the enemy is within the gate: there can be no further defence of integral
unity as a ma er of principle, and the familiar argument that there is no manuscript evidence, either here or
elsewhere, of editorial insertions or modications loses all its force. (p. 42)

Some of the best reasons for considering John 21 (the Johannine Appendix) to be a later addition
are the following:

The story appears to end with a resounding conclusion in 20:3031:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not wri en in this book. But
these are wri en so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through
believing you may have life in his name.

Chapter 21 makes the unnamed Beloved Disciple out to be the author of the book (21:24). This is
not stated or suggested at any previous point. At the same time, the narrator takes pains to dispel
rumours that the Beloved Disciple (whoever he was) would not die. As Bultmann puts it, the ction
that the author himself puts himself forward here as identical with the Beloved Disciple, and at the
same time wishes to a est his own death [v. 23] is quite unbelievable (quoted in Ashton, 43).

The style of the Johannine Appendix and nature of the miraculous catch of sh are considered to be
quite dierent from the rest of John.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 2/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

The chapter is hard to understand from a narrative point of view. In chapter 20, Jesus appears to the
disciples in a locked room, commissions them, and bestows the Holy Spirit upon them. And then in
chapter 21, they go back to their old jobs as Galilean shermenwhich, unlike the Synoptics, is not
even hinted at in John when the disciples are rst called.

With Passover Approaching, Jesus Goes Up to Jerusalem by James Tissot, 1886-1894

Geographical Aporias

Scholars often refer to the discontinuities in John as aporias, or paradoxes that cannot be resolved
within the narrative. Some of these are geographical in nature. Jesus movements throughout the
Gospel are frequently described in detail. Jesus went here, and the next day he went here, and then a
few days later he went somewhere else, and so on. The author clearly intends to portray a coherent
and meaningful sequence of destinations around Palestine where Jesus preaches and performs
miracles. If you pay close a ention, however, the geography of Jesus travels is often confusing, if not
downright contradictory.

John 6.1: One small step for a man

In John 5, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a festival. From verse 14 onward, Jesus is in the temple giving a
sermon. And then, suddenly, in the very next verse (6.1), Jesus goes to the other side of the Sea of
Galilee, implying he had been by the lakeside instead of in faraway Jerusalem. For this reason,

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 3/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

Bultmann and others have suspected that chapter 6 originally followed 4, with chapter 5 misplaced in
between. Other scholars see this as an indication of later editing or revision.

John 6.3, 15: Jesus and the mountain(s)

In John 6:3, Jesus goes up a mountain with his disciples and performs the miracle of the loaves and
shes. When the exuberant crowd decides to make Jesus king, he again withdraws to the mountain.
The story seems to be missing something (h ps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=john+6%3A3-15&version=NRSV), since no departure from the mountain is mentioned in the
meantime.

John 6.59: Synagogue scene change

After the miracle of the loaves and shes, Jesus goes across the sea. The crowd follows him there, and
when they nd him at the sea, he gives a sermon. At the end of the sermon, we are told that Jesus has
been speaking in a synagogue, though none was previously mentioned.

John 7.1: Judea or Galilee?

Another minor discontinuity takes place in John 7.1, which suggests that Jesus has left Judea and
gone to Galilee. However, he was already in Galilee in the preceding chapter. Bultmann proposed
that ch. 7 originally followed ch. 5, in which Jesus is is in Judea; and that both followed chs. 4 and 6,
in which Jesus is in Galilee.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 4/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

Healing at the Pool of Bethesda by Carl Bloch, 1883

Chronological Aporias

Similarly, the timing of events in John is often confusing, despite (or perhaps because of) the frequent
use of time markers.

John 2.1: How many days?

Johns story begins with John the Baptist at Bethany beyond the Jordan being questioned by priests
and Levites. The next day, John sees Jesus (1.24). The next day again, two of Johns disciples
leave him to follow Jesus (1.3542). The next day after that, Jesus decides to go to Galilee (1.43).
Then, on the third day, a wedding takes place in Cana of Galilee (2.1). (Read the entire passage
here. (h ps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+1%3A19-2%3A1&version=NRSV)) If the
third day of the narrative is meant, we are already on the fth day. If the third day of Jesus trip to
Galilee meant, the geography is problematic; thats a journey of about 110 kilometres (70 miles),
which cannot realistically be accomplished in three days (see Brodie, p. 164). If Jesus and his disciples
are travelling by donkey, one can expect a speed of about 1012 miles per day.

John 10.22: Where does the time go?

In 7.10, Jesus goes in secret to Judea for the festival of Booths. Jesus spends the festival preaching, as
well as healing a man blind from birth, with no change in time or place suggested. Yet suddenly in
10.22, it is two months later, and the feast of the Dedication is taking place.

We may also note that the transition from Jesus arguments with the Pharisees at the end of ch. 9 to
his discourse on the Good Shepherd in 10.118 is very abrupt (read it online here
(h ps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9%3A35-10%3A18&version=NRSV)), with no
clear logical connection. This section is followed by a controversy about Jesus being demon-possessed
in 10.1921 (h ps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A19-21&version=NRSV),
which contextually belongs with the healing of the blind man at the beginning of ch. 9. (Similarly, all
three Synoptics use Jesus healing of the blind/mute man to introduce a controversy on demon-
possession.)

Furthermore, Ashton notes that chapters 9 and 10 presuppose dierent historical situations for the
Johannine community. Ch. 9 implies that the Christians are still part of the Jewish synagogue but
are in danger of being expelled for professing their beliefs in Christ. In chapter 10, and in the Good
Shepherd discourse particularly, the Christian community is portrayed as a self-sucient group that
is threatened by outsiders. (Ashton 2007, 4849)

It is easy to see why many take the passage to have been composed in stages and possibly out of
order.

John 11.2: Theres something about Mary

In chapter 11, we learn that Lazarus of Bethany, brother of Mary and Martha, has fallen ill. The
narrator explains that this is the same Mary who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet
with her hair. The odd thing about this explanation is that Marys anointing of Jesus hasnt
happened yet at this point in the story. (It takes place in chapter 12.)

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 5/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

John 12.44: Hiding in plain sight

John 12 has Jesus preaching to the crowd (12.2736), and then leaving and hiding from them because
of their unbelief. However, his public preaching inexplicably resumes in v. 44.

John 14.31: The Sermon in the Alley

In chapter 12, Jesus pays his nal visit to Jerusalem and spends the Last Supper with his disciples.
After spending two chapters preaching the Farewell Discourse to them, Jesus apparently decides to
leave, saying, Rise, let us be on our way (14.31). He then continues his speech (15.1) for another
three chapters as if nothing had changed until he and his disciples actually leave in 18.1. Some
scholars think the Farewell Discourse originally ended at 14.31, and that chs. 15 and 16 are an
addition reecting a later situation in the Johannine community (Ashton 2007, 137).

John 13:36, 16:5: Quo vadis?

In John 16:5, Jesus declares, But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me,
Where are you going? However, Simon Peter just recently asked in 13:36, Lord, where are you
going? Paul N. Anderson asks,

Was the text disordered and reordered wrongly, was Jesus not paying a ention, or does this perplexity
reect a diachronic relationship between the material in John 13 and 16, alleviated by seeing one passage
or the other as part of another source or edition? (2009, p. 248)

Christ Taking Leave of the Apostles by Duccio, between 1308 and 1311

Conclusion
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 6/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

There are plenty of other oddities in Johnfar too many to thoroughly discuss in a blog articlebut I
think this will do for a rough overview of Johns narrative disjunctions and the reasons for thinking
that the book has been composed in several stages and been at least partially rearranged. The only
viable alternative, held (for example) by Thomas L. Brodie, is that these aporias are intentional, and
that the author was unconcerned whether the story made geographical and chronological sense, since
the meaning was supposed to be interpreted in purely theological terms.

There are additional avenues worth exploring in future articles, particularly on the relationship of
John and the Synoptics. (It seems a near-certainty that John was familiar with most or all of them, and
there are many instances where the fourth Gospel appears to rely on the readers knowledge of the
rst three.)

Bibliography

Rudolf Gultmann and Paul N. Anderson, The Gospel of John: A Commentary


(h p://amzn.to/1LeSZCh), 2014.
John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (h p://amzn.to/1WydD6J), Second Edition, 2007.
Paul N. Anderson, Introduction to Part 3: Aspects of Historicity in John 1321, John, Jesus, and
History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (h p://amzn.to/1WydQXx), 2009.
Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 1997.

Posted on August 17, 2015July 28, 2016 by Paul D. 32 Comments


Posted in Early Christianity, Higher Criticism Tagged aporia, Gospels, Jesus, John, New Testament

32 thoughts on Is John out of Order? The Strange


Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel

John Kesler
August 18, 2015 at 12:59 am
The later writers clumsy ending, apparently intended to mimic that in John 20, is another tip-o
that another hand wrote chapter 21:

John 20:30-31:
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not wri en in this book.
31But these are wri en so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and
that through believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:25
25But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were wri en down, I
suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be wri en.

Why did John need to say twice that not everything Jesus did is wri en in his gospel? And did
he not consider the miraculous catch of sh recorded in chapter 21 a sign? Some conservatives
posit that maybe the same John tacked on chapter 21 later, but there is another problem for them.
John 21:14 states that, This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 7/18
02/10/2017 pp Gospel | Is That in the p
Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Bible?

was raised from the dead. However, this creates a contradiction, since this would be at least the
fourth appearance. There are two prior appearances mentioned in John 20 (v:19 ; v;26 ), which
are obviously what the new author had in mind. Even assuming that Lukes resurrection narrative
is the same as the rst one mentioned in John 20, what about Ma hews risen Jesus who appears
to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, which Ma hew obviously intends to say was the day of
the resurrection (Ma hew 28:7, 10, 16-20)?

Reply
1.
Paul D.
August 18, 2015 at 9:27 am
Yeah, obviously theres no way to harmonize the resurrection appearances across the dierent
Gospels, though your point is that conservative interpreters have to at least try.

As far as the conclusion in John 20:30-31 goes, its been noted by Ashton and others that this
conclusion summarizes the narrative portions of Johns Gospel, which emphasize signs as
proof of Jesus mission and the truth of the Christian faith. It does not really correspond well
with the discourses of the second half. (One more reason why people think John includes or
originally consisted of a signs narrative-Gospel, with the other material being added later.)

Reply

John Kesler
August 18, 2015 at 10:07 am
Im really leaning toward Streeters hypothesis that John 21 at least reects knowledge of
the lost ending of Mark, though it was edited by a redactor (e.g. v:14, which I mention
above) to try to cohere it with the rest of the gospel. Contra the rest of John, John 21 paints
Peter in a positive light, contains an appearance in Galilee (predicted in Mark 14:28
and16:7), refers to the disciples as shermen, and is more consistent with a rst, rather than
third, appearance to the disciples after the resurrectionall things consistent with Mark but
inconsistent with John 1-20. Even the miraculous catch bookends nicely with the beginning
of Jesus ministry in Mark:

Mark 1:16 As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew
casting a net into the lakefor they were shermen. 17And Jesus said to them, Follow me and I
will make you sh for people.

John 21:
1 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias3Simon
Peter said to them, I am going shing. They said to him, We will go with you. They went out
and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing6He said to them, Cast the net to the
right side of the boat, and you will nd some. So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul
it in because there were so many sh.

Mike Z
August 19, 2015 at 11:19 am
John K., agreedJn 21 reects the lost ending of GMk, and there is no need for a theory of
rearrangement. John knew Signs and GMk, and then there is also some original material.
That explains most or all of these examples.

2.
jamesbradfordpate

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 8/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

August 18, 2015 at 2:52 am


Reblogged this on James' Ramblings.

Reply
3.
Ian
August 19, 2015 at 1:52 am
Quite a few of these are addressed by Bauckham in his John for Readers of Mark. As you say,
there is absolutely no manuscript evidence whatsoever for any rearrangement.

The problem is that Johns writing does not satisfy our expectations as 21st-century critical
scholars. The question then is where does that problem lie?

I think many contemporary scholars would regard Bultmanns work as seriously defective in his
assessment of John. When teaching this gospel I seriously wondered whether to mention him,
since each time it would be followed by But x has shown this to be wrong

Reply
Ian
August 19, 2015 at 2:03 am
For a very detailed engagement with all the points Bultmann makes, see the chapter on the ending
of John in Stanley Porters John, his Gospel, and Jesus (2015). He concludes: As we can see, there
is no text-critical or language-based argument that prevents John 21 being composed by the
Johannine author and being integral to the Gospel itself. (p 243)

Reply
4.
Evan Powell
September 6, 2015 at 4:18 am
Whether there is any text-critical or language based argument against the authenticity of J21 is
debatable, but that would not be the most relevant basis on which to assess the ma er. More
compelling is the fact that J21 unexpectedly reverses the political fortunes of both Peter and the
BD. In John 1-20, Peter is the untrustworthy loose cannon and the BD is uniquely favored by
Jesus. Then suddenly, out of the blue, in John 21 Peter is anointed the unrivaled leader of the
movement, and the BD is relegated to second class status (pointedly shown walking behind
Jesus and Peter while they discuss his fate). Beyond the politics of the account, compare the
two endings. John 20:30-31 says that Jesus did many other things, but *these* stories in
particular have been selected for their potential to inspire belief. Conversely, in John 21:24-25,
the redactor says that the materials in John are true as far as they go, but there is a vast amount
of material that does not appear in John that, by implication, is equally if not more relevant
than that which is recorded in John. It is very dicult to avoid the inference that the redactor
who added J21 did so for political reasons, both to arm the authority of Peter (contra the
gospel thru ch.20), and to alert readers to the fact that 4G is not the last word on the subject. It
is simply not believable to me that the author of John 1-20 would have added an appendix that
undermines his entire project.

Reply
5.
Jerome Herr
August 19, 2015 at 9:09 pm
I agree with the content over all, except for this:

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 9/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

thats a journey of about 110 kilometres (70 miles), which cannot realistically be accomplished in
three days (see Brodie, p. 164). If Jesus and his disciples are travelling by donkey, one can expect a
speed of about 1012 miles per day. > if youre t then you can actually walk 40 km/day
although, agreed, maybe it was more dicult with the shoes/sandals that they were wearing at
the time? but people generally underestimate the distances that you can go on foot! I did 800
kilometers in 4 weeks.

Reply
Andrew Dowling
August 25, 2015 at 10:26 pm
I generally adhere to Raymond Browns community authorship of John model, with various
stages and redactors (I think outside of conservative evangelical scholarship this is fairly
accepted with certain nuanced dierences here and there).

Pointing to a lack of manuscript evidence is a pre y weak argument; one can point to a lack of
manuscript evidence (and external referencing) and conclude none of the Gospels are earlier than
the 2nd century, with many of the NT books not being composed until the 3rd, if one wants to go
that route.

Reply
6.
Ian
August 25, 2015 at 11:01 pm
Andrew, I think you are making an error of logic here. If John were composed of wri en
sources, it is not unreasonable to think that, in the process of reproduction, some evidence of
these sources might make themselves felt, not least in variant readings.

The question of how back the manuscript record goes back is quite a separate question.

Reply
7.
Andrew Dowling
August 26, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Ian, we barely have actual manuscript evidence for the canonical texts through Christianitys rst
3 centuries, so yes I would not nd it plausible to nd the various reactionary documents as well.
As for variant readings, John was one of the least quoted Gospels among the early Patristics,
notably because it was heavily favored by some Gnostic groups.

Reply
Andrew Dowling
August 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm
Ugh, thats redactionary . .smart phone typing.

On a separate note, I do not think John 21 was the original ending of Mark, although I
understand why that would be an a ractive opotion for many. The language of that passage, even
assuming much redaction by the Johannine author, doesnt t with Mark, nor does the overall
motif. From a thematic standpoint it would basically come out of nowhere save the fact the
appearance is in Galilee. I DO think it was clearly the ending of the Gospel of Peter, and is likely
one of the earliest, if not the earliest, appearance story.

Reply
8.
John Kesler
September 9, 2015 at 3:08 am
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 10/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

There are connections between Marks gospel and John 21 in addition to the predicted
appearance in Galilee:
1) Reference to the son(s) of Zebedee (Mark 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35)absent in John 1-20 but in 21:2
2) Identication of the disciples as sherman (Mark 1:16-17)absent in John 1-20 but in 21:3 .
3) In Mark 1:16, Simon and Andrew cast a net into the sea; in John 21:7, Simon Peter casts
himself into the sea.
4) Peters three professions of love for Jesus (John 21:15-17) counter the three denials (Mark 14).

Reply
9.
Paul D.
September 6, 2015 at 8:17 am
Thanks for all the comments. I apologize for the lack of responses I was on vacation for several
weeks immediately after posting this article.

Reply
10.
Evan Powell
September 9, 2015 at 4:36 am
In addition to the connections that John Kesler cites, I would add that the rst words spoken by
Jesus to an apostle in Mark are follow me, and they are spoken to Peter and Andrew. The last
words spoken by Jesus in John 21 are also follow me, and they are also spoken to Peter. Are we
to suppose this is merely a coincidence? Also, the dramatic opening Markan prophecy, I will
make you become shers of men is dropped and never heard of again through 16:8. However,
John 21 shows the miraculous catch of 153 sh, symbolizing all souls saved in the act of
redemption. Here the disciples have become shers of men, fullling Jesus opening prophecy. In
my view it is dicult to dismiss this as a coincidence. The storyline in John 21:1-19 is a potent
theological and literary conclusion to Marks gospelfar more compelling than 16:9-20. I would
argue that the original literary objective of Mark was to double bracket the entire ministry of Jesus
with the themes, Follow me and I will make you become shers of men. The questions we
should be focused on are (a) why it was this text suppressed from Mark and (b) how/why was it
edited and appended to John?

Reply
Andrew Dowling
September 14, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Or more likely, the redactor simply knew Mark and wanted to create a lost ending just like most
later Mark manuscripts had. That doesnt mean it came from Mark originally.

And Mark paints a rather negative picture of Peter, not a positive one. Like the other disciples, he
never gets it, which is why Mark makes sense ending like it does and while John 21 as the
ending would be a completely forced ending. Like the directors cut ending of Blade Runner
compared to the watered down ending shown in theaters.

Reply
11.
Evan Powell
September 14, 2015 at 11:45 pm
How would the story of John 21:1-19 be a forced ending to Mark? Mark predicts that Jesus will
make the disciples become shers of men, and John 21 fullls this. Mark 14:27-30 gives us
three tightly associated elementsJesus will reunite with the disciples in Galilee, the shepherd
is struck down (requiring a new shepherd), and Peter will deny Jesus three times. All of this is
neatly fullled thematically in John 21. I dont see anything forced about it.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 11/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

I suggest doing this thought experiment: If Mark had wri en this J21 story as a closing
bookend to complement Mark 1, how would he have opened it? Quite clearly, he would have
introduced Peter, Andrew, James and John who had returned to their nets, shing by the sea
of Galilee. This would have constituted an obvious Markan signature that could not be
transferred to John. What was the editors solution? He erased those elements and replaced
them with a heavy-handed Johannine signature Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, and
Nathanael shing by the sea of Tiberias. Note that all of those names are in some way unique
to John. What are the odds an editor strung together those particular names for any purpose
other than to make the text appear to be Johannine in origin? If there is anything forced here, it
is the notion that these three disciples would go shing at the end of John.

Reply
John Kesler
September 15, 2015 at 10:46 pm
To add to what Evan says, I agree with Andrew that the picture of the disciples, Peter included, is
mostly negative. However, I dont think its accurate to say that they never get it, because Jesus
predicts in Mark 14:27b-28 that,

You will all become deserters; for it is wri en,I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be
sca ered. 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

In Mark 16:7, Peter is even singled out:

Mark 16:7
7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just
as he told you.

Jesus knew that at least some of the apostles would understand his ministry and suer for his
sake:

Mark 13:9,13a
9 As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in
synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to
them13and you will be hated by all because of my name.

There is nothing like this anywhere in John 1-20. John is anti-Peter until chapter 21, which ts
much be er with the preceding verses from Mark.

Reply
12.
Paul D.
September 15, 2015 at 10:59 pm
Interesting comments, Andrew, Evan, and John. I have some thoughts of my own, but Ill
probably wait until I can arrange them coherently and write a blog post.

Reply

Erap10
May 16, 2016 at 10:35 am
Could it be that Levi is the beloved disciple? The same resurrection appearance in Jn21 is
similar to the fragmentary ending of the Gospel of Peter. But then the Gospel of Peter ends
with Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord...

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 12/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

Paul D.
May 16, 2016 at 10:45 am
Interesting idea. I think its more likely, though, that the text would have said something
like whom the Lord called, based on the passage in Mark about Levi son of Alphaeus.

The extant half of the phrase found in the Gospel of Peter, ,


doesnt really match Johns phrase, .

robert2016
May 9, 2016 at 6:38 pm
You will all become deserters; for it is wri en,I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will
be sca ered. 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

but why include the verse 28 when the author knew that the women would not tell anyone
anything because they were afraid?

Reply
13.
Andrew Dowling
September 16, 2015 at 9:36 pm
I concur; good discussion John and Evan. If I may bow out with a few points:

i) Evan, I think you are making too much of the shers of men passage in Mark. After Marks
opening that is never any motif or theme that is visited again, unless one wants to stretch and
point to the feeding of the 5000 with sh. Like I said before, J21 strikes me as someone who
KNEW Mark and was thus creating an ending that would t it (thus the 3 denials, 3 armations
parallel), but it doesnt t the actual Mark.

ii) In agreement with many scholars, Mark 13 sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of Mark,
and I think its a separate apocalyptic text used by the Markan author; I would put much stock in
Mark 13:9 as containing some Markan hint at Peter understanding everything at the end.

iii) Finally, and to me this is the coup de grace, if J21, was the original ending, why did that not
simply get tacked back on? Why does a completely separate, esoteric ending (I call it the snake
handling ending because of its later ramications) get quickly accepted by the Christian
community? If J21 was the original ending, that means it was a fairly widespread narrative which
found its way to 3 sources (Mark, GPeter and John) but a completely dierent ending becomes
accepted as the proper ending to Mark as early as the early-mid 2nd century? I nd that highly
implausible.

Reply
14.
Andrew Dowling
September 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Meant to saynot put too much stock in . .

Reply
15.
Evan Powell
September 17, 2015 at 2:34 am
Absolutely Andrew, with your third point you have put your nger precisely on the most
essential question why would this have been done? Why delete it from Mark? I suspect that the
reason the academy does not see Marks missing ending in J21 is that the rationale for the transfer
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 13/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

is not obvious. But I submit that the rationale becomes obvious once the story is removed from
John and rea ached to Mark 16:8. In this case, what do we have? We have a GMk which arms
the authority of Peter, and which uses the three denials as the vehicle by which his authority is
armed. Meanwhile, we have a 4G which ends at 20:31. The 4G narrative contains a blistering
denigration of Peter, with an intentional association of Peter with Judas. The author makes this
association in order to color Peter as a second betrayer of the movement, and at the same time
promotes the BD as the rightful heir to leadership. Seen in this light, GMk as originally composed
appears to be a direct rebu al of the narrative in 4G. Mark seizes upon the triple denial story with
which John condemns Peter, and turns it 180 degrees into the event that leads to Peters anointing
as the new shepherd. The transfer of the ending from Mark to John eliminates the appearance of
political hostility between the two gospels. Thus it was done in order to prevent the airing of dirty
laundry within the movement to the outside world. But none of this is visible until one begins to
read both of these texts as countervailing arguments between two political factions within the
movement.

Of course, this raises one more thorny question how could Mark have wri en a rebu al to a 4G
that had not yet been wri en? This is too much to address here, but the quick answer is this: The
underlying narrative of 4G (less all of the theological overlays), was wri en before Mark, and
prior to the martyrdom of Peter. Nobody would have wri en the scathing condemnation of Peter
that is present in 4G after the death of Peter. (See my Ur-John Thesis for more detail if you wish. It
is online at h p://www.historical-jesus.com )

Reply
James Dowden
October 31, 2015 at 3:01 am
Apologies for being very late to the party here. To my mind, the disorder thesis doesnt hold up
all too well once one admits Johns familiarity with the other Gospels, and particularly the way
that the events of Johns Gospel follow Ma hews order i.e. Brodie must be more-or-less right
about most of the aporias. Certainly the big deal disruptions e.g. the early Temple Cleansing, the
late Triumphal Entry are more likely to be authorial than redactional, as they would point to a
thoroughly incompetent redactor if he managed to harmonize the order of things where doublets
would be tolerable (e.g. healing miracles), but not of the things that actually created diculties for
people composing Gospel harmonies!

John does not of course pick out every incident from Ma hew and write a discourse upon it
(otherwise John would be a very long book indeed), but those that he does choose follow Ma hew
with only the occasional transposition (usually against all three Synoptics; e.g. Calling the
Disciples before the Journey into Galilee, the programmatic nature of which is evident from a
comparison of Mt 4.12 and Jn 4.1-3) or scene or detail/reminiscence sourced elsewhere (if I ever
get away from the real world and back to blogging, this is something Im meaning to go into in
detail).

To go through the examples one by one:


CHAPTER 21
1) Chapter 21. Another argument for its inauthenticity is that the Ma haean parallels, which are
strong from Jn 11.45 / Mt 26.1, stop at the end of Jn 20 / Mt 28. Its normal for the parallels to go
weak or disordered or non-existent in a discourse arising from an event, but this is not the form of
Jn 21 at all.
GEOGRAPHICAL APORIAS
2) Jn 6.1. The incidents that chapters 5 and 6 are based on are taken in sequence (Mt 9.1-8; 14.13-
32). I think the issue here is that the Johannine se ing of chapter 5 is derived from an unfortunate
interpretation of at Mt 9.1 its not Capernaum; its Jerusalem. Add a
reminiscence that it happened in his house (from Mark) and there you go.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 14/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

3) Jn 6.3,15. This is just fatigue. Jn 6.15 thoughtlessly replicates Mt 14.23.


4) Jn 6.59. This is strange. What seems to be going on is that John is incorporating some of the
material hes skipped into the Bread of Life discourse in this case the Rejection at Nazareth (Jn
6.42 = Mt 13.55) and has somehow taken the se ing across.
5) Jn 7.1. I just take this as a radical reworking of Mt 17.22-23. John has jumped from one Passion
Prediction (the Confession of Peter) to the next and is trying to make things work against the
unsuitability of his choice.
CHRONOLOGICAL APORIAS
6) Jn 2.1. Commentators often point to a seven-day week preguring thing in this section of John.
It seems like theology rather than history to me. Either that or John has made a gross geographical
blunder. And if the commentators are right in identifying the Sabbath, he could only have gone
half as far
7) Jn 10.22. Agreed that John 10 is very strange. Jn 10.40-42 picks up Mt 19.1-2, but what goes
before is seriously dicult.
8) Jn 11.2. Not sure that this is intended to be chronological, rather than an a empt at identifying
which Mary it is.
9&10) Jn 12.44 and 14.31. Yes, these are messy.
11) Jn 13.36 and 16.5. Jn 13.36 is in its proper place against Ma hew the order Judas betrayal
predicted, Institution Narrative (or the New Commandment in John), Peters denial predicted is
common. This does, however, make chapters 15 and 16 look even more remarkable maybe
Ashton has a point.

So the sections Id admit as potential loci for tampering are Jn 10.1-39; 12.44-50; and 15-16. One
thing thats immediately apparent there is that this includes every instance of the word
(the Johannine term for a parable). Interesting.

Reply
16.
Paul D.
October 31, 2015 at 10:23 am
Great observations, James. Johns use of the Synoptics may indeed explain some of the aporias.
In some cases, like his explanation regarding Mary, he might even expect his audience to be
familiar with the Synoptics (Luke in this case).

As you note, in cases like John 10.1 and 12.44, we also have some narrative discontinuities that
may be examples of the same phenomenon.

Reply

Greg G.
November 24, 2015 at 11:31 am
Hi James,

I have been looking at this stu myself but I think John was using Mark and that Ma hew was
using Mark and John, but mostly Mark.

Mt 9.1-8 = Mk 2:1-12
Jn 6.15 = Mt 14.23 = Mk 6:45
Mt 25 = Mk 14
Mt 17.22-23 = Mk 9:31
Jn 6.42 = Mt 13.55 = Mk 6:3

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 15/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

Jn 6.59 =
There are two Great Omissions. Luke follows Mark but adds some monologue from Ma hew.
After the Feeding of the 5000, Luke 9:18 jumps from Mark 6:46 to Mark 8:27 in mid-sentence as
if he didnt know chapter 7 was missing along with adjoining material. John follows the
Feeding of the 5000, the Walking on Water, and the Visit to Gennasaret where he has the Bread
of Life discourse, then entertaining a question from Mark 8:11-12. John may have known
something was missing and tried to ll it with the BoL discourse. Was it the place where Jesus
called the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog that oended Christians into ripping sections out of
Mark?

Ma hew also has Joseph as Jesus father in the genealogy. Ma hew and John have Caiaphas as
high priest. Mark has neither of those names. Things like that make me suspect that Ma hew
and John had contact but I was puzzled by the direction. The conundrum of John 7:41-43
se led the question for me. John has people wondering if Christ could come out of Galilee, like
Marks Jesus, when the scripture says he was supposed to be descended from David and from
Bethlehem. Ma hew then would have provided a solution to the problem with his nativity
story and his genealogy. Johns conundrum wouldnt have been a big deal if Ma hew had
already answered the problem.

Another reason I think John used Mark is the Mocking of Jesus. Mark 15:15-20 seems to be
based on the Mocking of Carabbas in The Works of Philo Judaeus Flaccus, VI. (I think Mark
modied the name to Barabbas to have two Son of the Fathers for a scapegoat scenario.)
Philo didnt give a color for how they dressed Carabbas but Mark and John say Jesus was
dressed in purple while Ma hew changed it to scarlet.

Reply
Bernard Muller
February 25, 2016 at 10:46 am
I did a lot of research on Johns gospel: h p://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
Cordially, Bernard

Reply
17.
DBlocker
July 21, 2016 at 11:40 am
I just discovered this interesting post, I hope I have not arrived too late to contribute to the
discussion.

Here are links to essays and comparison tables which show a literary relationship between
Johns Lazarus Revival and the healing miracles in Mark (and the other synoptics). One has to
ask the question, did John take all the healing miracle stories that appear in the synoptic
gospels and conate them into the single story of reviving Lazarus, OR, did Mark use the
reviving Lazarus story as the template for all of his healing miracle stories?
Another question: If the so-called Secret Mark or Longer Mark which included the revival of
the un-named young man was the rst edition of Mark, was this pericope later removed so
Marks dependency on John would not be so obvious? The pericope of the revived young man
and the original ending of longer Mark could have been removed at the same time, when the
short redacted version of Mark was distributed.

The complete essays

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/overlaps-between-secret-mark-the-raising-of-
lazarus-in-john-and-the-gerasene-swine-episode-in-mark/

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 16/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/the-literary-relationship-of-the-raising-of-
lazarus-story-to-the-secret-gospel-of-mark-excerpts-quoted-in-the-mar-saba-le er-of-clement-
and-miraculous-healing-stories-in-the-synoptic-gospels/

The tables comparing passages of Mark and John


h ps://rogerviklund.les.wordpress.com/2011/09/sm_jnlazarus_mkswine.pdf
h ps://rogerviklund.les.wordpress.com/2012/08/parallel-passages-in-the-gospels-of-
secretmark_john_mark_luke-and-ma hew.pdf

The implication of the literary relationships demonstrated above is that Mark was based on a
now lost version of John.

Finally this might open other avenues of John research

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/an-occult-priestly-installation-ritual-in-the-
secret-gospel-of-mark/

The revival of the dead youth episode in Clements le er to Theodore about Secret Gospel of
Mark has vocabulary overlaps with the Torahs recipe for installing the High Priest. Instead
of being a mysterious baptismal ceremony as proposed by the academy (How did they come
up with this idea when there is no water in the story?) , the text may be a highly redacted story
about an initiation into the priest hood, the creation of an alternate High Priest to the one
installed by the Romans.
Since this story and the Raising of Lazarus are parallel narratives, the Rasing of Lazarus might
also be a redacted or censored story about initiating a high priest outside of the connes of the
Temple and without the approval of either the Romans or the Roman supported Jerusalem
establishment.

Reply
18.
DBlocker
July 21, 2016 at 11:47 am
I just discovered this interesting post, I hope I have not arrived too late to contribute to the
discussion.

Here are links to essays and comparison tables which show a literary relationship between Johns
Lazarus Revival and the healing miracles in Mark (and the other synoptics). One has to ask the
question, did John take all the healing miracle stories that appear in the synoptic gospels and
conate them into the single story of reviving Lazarus, OR, did Mark use the reviving Lazarus
story as the template for all of his healing miracle stories?
Another question: If the so-called Secret Mark or Longer Mark which included the revival of the
un-named young man was the rst edition of Mark, was this pericope later removed so Marks
dependency on John would not be so obvious? The pericope of the revived young man and the
original ending of longer Mark could have been removed at the same time, when the short
redacted version of Mark was distributed.

The complete essays

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/overlaps-between-secret-mark-the-raising-of-
lazarus-in-john-and-the-gerasene-swine-episode-in-mark/

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/the-literary-relationship-of-the-raising-of-lazarus-
story-to-the-secret-gospel-of-mark-excerpts-quoted-in-the-mar-saba-le er-of-clement-and-
miraculous-healing-stories-in-the-synoptic-gospels/
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 17/18
02/10/2017 Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel | Is That in the Bible?

The tables comparing passages of Mark and John


h ps://rogerviklund.les.wordpress.com/2011/09/sm_jnlazarus_mkswine.pdf
h ps://rogerviklund.les.wordpress.com/2012/08/parallel-passages-in-the-gospels-of-
secretmark_john_mark_luke-and-ma hew.pdf

The implication of the literary relationships demonstrated above is that Mark was based on a now
lost version of John.

Finally this might open other avenues of John research

h ps://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/an-occult-priestly-installation-ritual-in-the-secret-
gospel-of-mark/

The revival of the dead youth episode in Clements le er to Theodore about Secret Gospel of
Mark has vocabulary overlaps with the Torahs recipe for installing the High Priest. Instead of
being an occult baptismal ceremony as proposed by the academy (How did they come up with
this idea when there is no water in the story?) , the text may be a highly redacted story about an
initiation into the priest hood, the creation of an alternate High Priest to the one installed by the
Romans.
Since this story and the Raising of Lazarus are parallel narratives, the Raising of Lazarus might
also be a redacted or censored story about initiating a high priest outside of the connes of the
Temple and without the approval of either the Romans or the Roman supported Jerusalem
establishment.

Reply

Blog at WordPress.com.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/is-john-out-of-order-the-strange-geography-and-chronology-of-the-fourth-gospel/ 18/18

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi