Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:36:28 -0500
From: "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net>
To: pmiller@memphisonline.com
CC: Jack Kilmon <jpman@accesscomm.net>, crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: GoT, doubting Thomas and GoJ

Paul Miller wrote:
> 

>  Why assume that John 20:24-29 was added later than what is commonly
> agreed as the date of John 90-100 c.e.?
> 
Greetings Paul:

The question of whether John 20:24-29 belongs to an editorial expansion
of the original Johannine gospel is quite independent of date. The fact
is that 4G contains ample signs of having been edited, despite recent
attempts to demonstrate its literary unity. 

One of those signs is the frequent appearance of statements that are not
integrated into scenes described by the Johannine narrator which
interrupt the thrust of the narrative (e.g., John 1:15, 2:4, 4:48) or
divert attention to a detail not even hinted at by the original
narrator. The statements in John 5:9c & 9:14 identifying the day as a
sabbath are apparent afterthoughts that were not integral to the stories
of the healing of the cripple & the blindman per se, but which are
fundamental to the ensuing dispute with the Pharisees about Jesus'
violation of sabbath observance. These afterthoughts look like editorial
expansions at the dialog/debate level of 4G's redaction.

John 21:24 is a similar afterthought. There is no prior hint of Thomas'
absence from the company of disciples on whom Jesus breathes the HS. His
introduction after that event is anticlimactic. He is introduced as a
new character whom the reader is not expected to know from the preceding
narrative. Despite 2 previous introductions as "Thomas called the Twin"
in John 11:16 & 14:15, he is only now identified as "one of the 12." And
his skepticism diverts attention from Jesus' spiritual empowerment of
the disciples. His demand for empirical evidence indicates a failure of
the original accounts of Jesus' appearances to Mary & the disciples to
convince 4G's audience that the crucified Jesus had in fact been raised.

Besides from a thematic viewpoint John 20:22 is a better conclusion to a
gospel that has repeatedly insisted that Jesus is the greater one that
JB predicted. For it is the only evidence in the gospels that Jesus
himself communicated the HS to others. 

Ergo, John 20:24-29 is probably a secondary addition to the original
core of GJohn. When this addition was made is another matter. It all
depends on how one reconstructs the redactional history of 4G. I have
found no reason to date any of it later than the 1st c. CE (except the
pericope *de adultera*).

Shalom!

Mahlon