John 3 (Chrysostom’s Text)

3:1  καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων.
3:2  οὗτος ἦλθε πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς . . . ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα δύναται ποιήσαι ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.
3:3  . . . ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
3:4  πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;
3:5  ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν (1) λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.(2) 
3:6  τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστι.
3:7  μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν. 
3:8  τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος.
3:9  . . . πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι;
3:10 . . .σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;
3:11 . . . ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε. 
3:12 εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύετε;(3) 
3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.
3:14 καὶ καθὼς Μωσῆς ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
3:15 καὶ καθὼς Μωσῆς ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
3:17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ . . . ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾿ . . . (4)
3:18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν οὐ κρίνεται, ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, 
3:19 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι . . . (5) εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα.
3:20 πᾶς γὰρ ὁ [τὰ ] (6) φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ . . . (7) αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα·
3:21 . . . (8)  
3:22 Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν . . . καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν . . . καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν.
3:23 ἦν δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν Αἰνὼν . . .
3:24 οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν . . .
3:25 Ἐγένετο . . . ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετὰ Ἰουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμοῦ.
3:26 . . . ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.
3:27 οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν (9) οὐδέν, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
3:28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε εἶπον ὅτι· οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ Χριστός, ἀλλ᾿ ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου.
3:29 ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν· ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου, ὁ ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ νυμφίου . . .
3:30 ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
3:31 ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν· ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστι καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ· ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστί,
3:32 καὶ ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.
3:33 ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν.
3:34 ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεός, τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ λαλεῖ· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα.
3:35 ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.
3:36 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν (10) τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται τὴν ζωήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν.

1. αμην2 absent
2. Chrys reads βασιλειαν του ουρανου in four of nine references – a reading in א.
3. I lean toward πιστευετε as Chrys’ text as he references it once besides a lemma. He does read πιστευσετε in what seems to be an adaption of the verse in Anom. 7.222. There he uses the aorist instead of πιστεύετε1. 
4.In two adaptations, Chrys reads at the end of the verse ινα σωση τον κοσμον. It’s impossible to know if he knew σωθη ο κοσμος δι αυτου.
5. Chrys reads ηλθεν το φως in one adaptation and ελθε το φως in another.
6. Τα is found in two citations of the verse but is omitted in another; thus, the word is in parentheses.7.  In two adaptations, Chrys reads φανερωθη instead of ελεγχθη. 
8. Chrys does not reference 3:21.
9. Chrys reads αφ εαυτου λαβειν ουδεν in two adaptations. In my dissertation I chose this as Chrys’ possible reading, however, here I have opted for the reading above as it is found in the closest thing to a citation he provides.
10. Chrys reads απειθων in two citations. He reads απιστων in one, but it is a lemma, making the reading above more likely.

John 2 (Chrysostom’s Text)

2:1 . . . τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο . . . Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας . . . ἦν (1) ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ·(2) 
2:2 . . . (3)
2:3 καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ . . . οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι.
2:4 . . . τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.
2:5 . . . ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν, ποιήσατε.
2:6 ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι κείμεναι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
2:7 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος. καὶ . . .(4)  ἕως ἄνω.
2:8  . . . ἀντλήσατε νῦν καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ. καὶ ἤνεγκαν.
2:9 ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν· οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος
2:10 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησι, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσι, τότε τὸν ἐλάσσω· σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι.
2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησε τὴν ἀρχὴν (5) τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
2:12 Μετὰ τοῦτα κατέβη εἰς Καπερναοὺμ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ . . . (6) οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας.
2:13 . . . (7)
2:16 . . . τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου.
2:17 ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐστίν γεγραμμένον, ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με.
2:18 . . . τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς;
2:19 . . . λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.
2:20 . . . ἐν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν;
2:21 . . . (8)
2:22 ὅτε ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, τοτe ἐμνήσθησαν  οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγε, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
2:23 ῾Ως δὲ ἦν ἐν τοῖς ῾Ιεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει.
2:24 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ γινώσκειν πάντα,
2:25 καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.

  1. In an adaptation, Chrys reads ἦν δὲ καὶ.
  2, In an adaptation at the end of the verse, Chrys reads, και οι αδελφοι
  3. In a clear adaptation, Chrys reads καὶ ἐκλήθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸν γάμον in his only reference to the verse.
  4. Chrys reads ενεπλησαν here, in what is clearly an adaptation in his only reference to the verse.
  5. There is one citation in which Chrys reads αρχην εποιησε, however, the other two citations follow the reading above.
 6.  ησαν εκε is the reading in an adaptation. Chrys references this verse only once.
  7. There is only an allusion used by Chrys in his only reference to this verse; thus, it is impossible to know what his text read. Chrys does not reference vv. 14-15.
  8. Chrys only alludes to v. 21 There is not enough evidence to reconstruct his text.

John 1 (Chrysostom’s Text)

1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
1:2 Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
1:3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
1:4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
1:5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
1:6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης·
1:7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσι δι᾿ αὐτοῦ.
1:8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς . . .
1:9 Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
1:10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
1:11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.
1:12  ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι . . .
1:13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.
1:14 Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
1:15  Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγε λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
1:16 Καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος·
1:17  ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
1:19 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου, ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν προς αυτον (1) οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ ῾Ιεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευϊτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν· σὺ τίς εἶ;
1:20 καὶ ὡμολόγησε, καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο· καὶ ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός.
1:21 τί οὖν; Ἠλίας εἶ σύ; καὶ λέγει· οὐκ εἰμί. ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; καὶ ἀπεκρίθη, οὔ.
1:22 εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ· τίς εἶ; ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς· τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ;
1:23 ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου, καθὼς εἶπεν Ἡσαΐας ὁ προφήτης.
1:24 καὶ οἱ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων·
1:25 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ· τί οὖν βαπτίζεις, εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὔτε Ἠλίας οὔτε ὁ προφήτης;
1:26 ἐγὼ βαπτίζω μεν ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος δὲ ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε.
1:27 ουτος ἐστιν ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος (2) ἵνα λύσω τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος.
1:28 Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν βηθανιᾷ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων.
1:29 Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.
1:30 οὗτός . . . . περὶ οὗ εἶπον· ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
1:31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραήλ, διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον βαπτίζων ἐν τῷ ὕδατι.
1:32 καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι τεθέαμαι τὸ Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡςει περιστερὰν καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν.
1:33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν (3)  ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ. 
1:34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1:35 Τῇ ἐπαύριον πάλιν εἱστήκει ὁ Ἰωάννης καὶ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο,
1:36 καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ Ἰησοῦ περιπατοῦντι λέγει· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1:37 καὶ ἤκουσαν αὐτοῦ οἱ δύο μαθηταὶ λαλοῦντος, καὶ ἠκολούθησαν τῷ (αὐτῷ) (4)
1:38 στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί ζητεῖτε; . . .
ποῦ μένεις;
1:39 . . . ἔρχεσθε καὶ ἴδετε . . . ὥρα ἦν ὡς δεκάτη.
1:40 ἦν Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντων Ἰωάννου καὶ ἀκολουθησάντων αὐτῷ.
1:41 εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτος τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσίαν· ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον (ὁ)(5) Χριστός· 
1:42 καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. καὶ ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
1:43 Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· καὶ εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ἀκολούθει μοι.
1:44 ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου.
1:45  εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναὴλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὃν ἔγραψε Μωσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται, εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ.
1:46 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι; λέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος· ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.
1:47 εἶδεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ναθαναὴλ ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης, ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστι.
1:48 . . . πόθεν με γινώσκεις; . . . πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε.
1:49 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναὴλ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.
1:50 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, πιστεύεις; μείζὸνα τούτων ὄψει.
1:51 . . . ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα, καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

  1. UBS4 places προς αυτον in brackets and gives the reading a C rating.
  2. Chrys reads ικανος in four adaptations, so it is hard to determine which word is original to him. There is one clear citation with the reading found in the running text. Thus, I lean slightly toward ἄξιος.
  3. In one citation Chrys reads εκεινος εστιν
  4. αυτω in parentheses as the possible reading rather than ιησου, although Chrys quotes the verse only once, and it is a lemma.
  5. ο is in brackets as it is found in one of two citations by Chrys.


The Johannine Text of John Chrysostom: Brief Introduction

New Testament textual critics agree that there are three primary lines of evidence in the development of the original text: Greek manuscripts, early versions, and patristic quotations. More than 50 years ago, Gordon Fee called for more extensive studies of the Greek Fathers by reconstructing their NT texts.[1] It is amazing how little work has been done in this area.

I became interested in the Church Fathers and their biblical texts in a Ph.D. text criticism seminar led by Dr. Siegfried Schatzmann after doing a book review of all things.[2] In 2003, I completed my dissertation in which I reconstructed and evaluated the Johannine text of John Chrysostom.[3] Now deceased, Dr. Schatzmann’s encouragement and eye for detail helped me successfully pull off what was a critical lacuna in the field.

By far the most important part of the dissertation is the text’s reconstruction. Others have taken notice over the years. I was encouraged, for example, that my work was used by Dr. Roderic Mullen in The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. Mullen compared my work, based on Mountfaucon,[4] and his, based on manuscript Sinai Gr. 369-70

Since 2003, I have wanted to lift Chrysostom’s reconstructed text produced in my dissertation and make it available in some form. Many other duties kept me away from what no doubt would be a time-consuming project – until now. Retirement, or at least something of a retirement, gives me the time I need, and last month I returned to Chrysostom’s Johannine text after more than two decades.

I plan to use this online forum to reproduce Chrysostom’s text of the Fourth Gospel. This will be done chapter-by-chapter. While I know many people will just by-pass the posts for something more interesting and understandable (since the text is Greek), there may be someone out there in cyberspace someday who might take a look. Perhaps I’ll reproduce the text in some journal in the future, but I want to use my own forum first.

The reconstructed text of John will be provided without commentary, except in a few footnotes that accompany each chapter. It’s probable that the project will take several months to complete. I will post each chapter when they are completed. There are other topics I wish to write about on my site, so the Chrysostom text will be mixed in with those. I will hashtag them the same, so it should not be hard to pull them all up at one time once the project is finished.

I’m using the electronic version of the Byzantine Tradition as I check my work from 2003 and compare it. I expect to correct any errors found in the dissertation, and I am open to making alternative decisions on the text I reconstructed. As I’ve started this work, however, it is amazing how comfortable I still am with my text decisions.[5]

The chapter posts are self-explanatory, I think. One should be able to follow what I’ve done easily. Just one note before I post chapter 1. An ellipsis (. . .) is used when there are gaps, small or large, in the reconstructed text. That happens a lot in a narrative like John as Chrysostom often leaves out introductory phrases like, “And Jesus said to them,” or, “The disciples said to Jesus,” etc.

[1] Gordon D. Fee, “The text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations,” Biblica 52 (1971): 357-94.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (Atlanta: SBL, 1986).

[3] Known as one the greatest preachers of all time, Chrysostom was given the nickname “Golden Mouth,” to describe his eloquence. Chrysostom was Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century.

[4] Bernardi de Mountfaucon, Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant, vol. 8 (Paris: Apud Gaume Fratres, 1839).

[5] Stephen Dale Patton, “A Reconstruction and Evaluation of the Johannine Text of John Chrysostom,” (PhD diss, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003).

PERICOPE ADULTERAE: PREACH IT OR NOT?

I believe in preaching through books of the Bible. It often forces the preacher to take on texts and subjects otherwise avoided. Practically, the preacher does not have to think about what he is going to study and present on Sundays. He just goes from one passage to the next.

John is one of my favorite books. There are many ways to approach preaching from the fourth Gospel. The preacher can focus on well known passages only – a series might include the I am statements, John 3:16, the signs, and the Upper Room Discourse, for example.  The preacher can deal with themes such as faith, light/darkness, Jesus as the One sent by the Father, etc. A third way is to focus on characters found in the Gospel like Nicodemus, the woman at the well, and the beloved disciples (John).

I have done all the above at one time or another. My favorite way, however, is to preach John verse-by-verse – from 1:1 through 21:25. It takes longer to move through John this way, but it is impactful. A close examination of the entire Gospel changes lives – starting with the preacher.

There is a critical issue, however, when you decide to preach through John systematically. That is when you get to the end of chapter 7 and head to chapter 8. What are you going to do with the Pericope Adulterae (PA)?

The story of the woman caught in adultery is famous. It is so famous that I do not have to summarize it here. The powerful words from Jesus, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”[1] (8:7) warn us all about judgementalism and condemning others harshly. His response to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more” (8:11) gives us a sense of hope that even our sins can be forgiven by God.

But here is the problem. There is doubt whether the PA is part of John’s Gospel. If it is, there is no problem. It is inspired Scripture which should and must be preached. If it is not, however, the question of whether it is inspired Scripture hangs over the preacher like a dark cloud. Can a preacher legitimately teach the passage if he believes it is apocryphal?

Let us look again briefly at the external and internal evidence. Metzgar wrote, “The evidence for non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.”[2] You are hard pressed to find anyone disagreeing with him.[3]

When you look at the external evidence, it is hard to disagree with the overwhelming majority of scholarship.  

  • The story is missing from early, diverse manuscripts such as p66 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Ɵ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193.
  • The passage is missing from the oldest form of the Syriac version as well as from the Sahidic and the older Bohairic manuscripts.
  • In the West, the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts.
  • No Greek Church Father quotes from or comments on the passage before the 12th century.[4]
  • It is a bit problematic as well that the pericope appears in different places in a few manuscripts – after 7:36; 7:44; and Luke 21:38.

What about the internal evidence? Despite the insistence of scholars like Kӧstenberger, it is not as conclusive.[5]

  • Some scholars point to 7:53-8:1, “And everyone went to his home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives,” as an awkward transition from the discourses in chapter 7 to the PA. I do not see it that way. Jesus had been teaching in the Temple. At the end of the day the people were dismissed, Jesus possibly stayed in the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. Bethany was very close to the Mount of Olives. The pericope then picks up Jesus’ teaching the next morning (8:2). John inserts the fact that chapters 7 and 8 happen on separate days.
  • The argument that the PA interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 is less than compelling. If one looks at John at this point with objectivity, the day of teaching in the Temple ends with division among the people about Jesus (7:40-44); then there is division among the religious leaders (7:45-52). Jesus’ teaching starts again the next morning early (8:2), and the religious leaders bring the adulterous woman to Him (8:3-11). After that incident, Jesus begins again to teach (8:12 ff). 8:12 can be an even stronger statement considering the PA, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life.” My disciples, Jesus was saying, will not condemn as they did (darkness), but instead will show mercy as I did (light).”
  • Scholars point to the PA’s vocabulary and style. It is true that in virtually every verse are found words nowhere else in John. But, as Kӧstenberger admits, context can account for several of the Johannine hapax legomena. Style arguments should never be a deciding factor about originality – for example, we can admit the Pastoral Epistles lack many Pauline features but are authored by the Apostle.

How does one weigh the evidence? The external evidence seems hard to overcome, but a reasonable explanation of the internal evidence can be given to support authenticity and its original location in John.

There are those who simply throw the PA out as inauthentic and therefore non-canonical. It is not inspired Scripture and should not be preached as such. Case closed.[6] Others, hold that the PA has “all the earmarks of historical veracity” as a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and was “subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.”[7] Borchert calls the PA a text looking for a context and advocates for its Lukan and not Johannine origin. He believes it is inspired Scripture.[8]

So, what does a preacher do with this woman caught in adultery? It is what I call an exegetical situation. As one writer put it, “If the pericope . . . is an inspired text that has been inserted into an inspired text, then in spite of the text-critical issues surrounding it, the church may legitimately receive it and use it as sacred scripture.”[9] Practically, because of its long tradition in the church, it would be difficult to tell a congregation as you preached through John that you were skipping the PA. Some might want to elect a new pulpit committee, even though their Bible version probably has brackets around the passage and a note explaining its doubtful authenticity.

Yet that is exactly what I did when I preached through John. The inescapable conclusion based on external evidence is the PA is not part of the fourth Gospel. John did not write it. I would feel different if it could be proven it was a text looking for a context, but as much as I would love that to be true, the scholars who advocate for it simply cannot provide strong enough evidence to support that. Would I put it past the religious leaders to parade a woman caught in adultery before Jesus as the PA portrays it? No. The Gospels testify that they could very well do such a thing. Does it sound like Jesus to treat the woman with compassion and forgiveness? We do not have to know much about Jesus to say, “Absolutely!” Yet (and that is a big three letter word!) if the PA is inauthentic, then inspiration cannot be tied to it. You cannot preach apocryphal stories; you can only preach from the biblical canon.

The old cliché is good enough for ducks but not for inspired Scripture.

[1] Scripture quotes are from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1998), 187. Metzger’s quote prefaces his discussion of the external evidence.

[3] A voice crying in the wilderness, advocating for the pericope’s place in John, is Maurice Robinson. See for example, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and over One Hundred Lectionaries,” paper presented at the annual meeting of ETS, Orlando, FL, 1998.

[4] John Chrysostom, who never knew a Scripture he did not quote, is among the Greek Church Fathers silent on the pericope, as my dissertation shows, Stephen Dale Patton, “A Reconstruction and Evaluation of the Johannine Text of John Chrysostom,” Ph.D. diss. (Fort Worth: SWBTS, 2003).

[5] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 246.

[6] Kӧstenberger, John, 248.

[7] Metzger, 188.

[8] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 369-70. Borchert advocates for the PA’s canonicity.

[9] Scott J. Kaczorowski, “The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: An Inspired Text Inserted into an Inspired Text?” JETS 61, no. 2 (2018): 336-7.

SIGNS IN JOHN’S GOSPEL

The Gospel of John is considered by some one of the two great pillars of the New Testament, with Romans as the other pillar.[1] The lofty place of the fourth Gospel cannot be overstated. Augustine wrote eloquently, “John flies like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness and gazes most keenly and steadily with the eye of his heart at the light of unchangeable truth.”[2]

While there is some debate about the Gospel’s structure, it is straightforward, and there is widespread agreement about its divisions. The Gospel begins with the Prologue (1:1-18) and ends with an Epilogue (chapter 21). Between there are two major sections. The Book of Signs (1:18-12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1-20:31).

The Book of Signs revolves around seven miraculous signs performed by Jesus, providing evidence that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31). The signs are:

  • Turning water into wine (2:1-11)
  • Healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54)
  • Healing of the lame man (5:1-15)
  • Feeding the 5,000 (6:1-15)
  • Walking on water (6:16-21)
  • Healing the blind man (9:1-41)
  • Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)

I could focus on any of the signs or provide a summary of all seven, but I think it is interesting that only the first two signs are numbered (2:11; 4:54). Why? I am persuaded by Borchert that the first two serve as an inclusio. They should be seen together.

Following the first sign, the disciples believe in Jesus (2:11). The result of the second sign – the nobleman believed (4:53). It is clear from John’s purpose statement that the signs are used to invoke faith (20:31). Mission accomplished. Yet if one considers the inclusio, it is the nobleman’s faith that is emphasized here. The disciples believe after they see Jesus turning water into wine. The nobleman believes his son will be healed by Jesus without seeing it take place. The disciples believe after seeing; the nobleman believes without seeing.  

By numbering the first two signs, John communicates that they form a unit. They are telling us something about believing. The nobleman’s faith is the primary goal of the Gospel. The disciples had to see, but for the rest of us, we must believe without seeing. Jesus would say later to Thomas, who demanded physical evidence of the Lord’s resurrection, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29). As Borchert states, “The ultimate goal of this Gospel was not a believing that was based on seeing. It was a believing that was based on accepting the testimony of the witnesses without seeing.”[3]

The signs did not persuade everyone, perhaps even most. Among the saddest words in Scripture come toward the end of The Book of Signs, “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37). As Michaels points out, “Those who would not believe in Him are therefore not just one crowd at one Passover (12:29, 34), but all the crowds and all the Jewish leaders from the first Passover until now.”[4] In fact, the raising of Lazarus, the climatic sign in the first half of the Gospel, led the religious leaders to decide that Jesus had to die (11:53). To emphasize a point I made above, seeing was not always believing.

The signs John chose to focus upon in his Gospel reveal who Jesus is – the Christ, the Son of God. The purpose of those signs is to elicit faith from readers from the end of the first century when the Gospel was written until now. The result of that faith is ‘eternal life in His name’ (20:31). Believing while seeing the signs is not ideal, but a seeing faith is better than no faith. Faith without seeing is preferred and results, according to Jesus, in blessings (20:29).

[1] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 1.

[2] De consensu evangelistorum 6.

[3] Gerald L. Borchert, John 12-21, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 2002), 353.

[4] J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 738.

HE SHALL BE CALLED A NAZARENE: Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament

The first Gospel contains at least 60 quotations from the Old Testament plus numerous allusions and echoes, by far the most among the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.[1] France argues that the central theme of Matthew is fulfillment.[2]

It is hard to argue with France. Scholars agree that Matthew’s distinctive use of the Hebrew Bible revolves around his ten fulfillment formula quotations, which utilize the verb πληρόω, ‘to fulfill.’ These are prominent in the first two chapters (1:22-23; 2:15, 17, 23). Others are scattered across the rest of the Gospel (4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9).

The most debated of the first four fulfillment passages is the last one – 2:23: “He will be called a Nazarene.” As all commentators point out, the problem is that there is no biblical text referring to Messiah as a Nazarene. What does Matthew mean here? How is he using the Old Testament?

First, let us deal with the context. As Matthew wraps up his birth narrative, Joseph and his family are in Egypt. They are there because Herod wants “to destroy the child” (2:13). After his death in 4 B.C., an angel appears once again to Joseph. This is the fourth dream he has had and the third appearance of an angel of the Lord.[3] Herod is dead. It is now safe to return to Israel (2:20-21).

It is noteworthy that the angel uses the plural in v. 20, “For the ones seeking the young child’s life are dead.” Herod is the only one who died so a more collective use of the plural is probable. Herod is dead so those who followed him are no longer interested in killing the child.

It is probable that Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem (2:1), but when he learns that Herod’s son, Archelaus, now rules over Judea, he changes his mind and takes his little family to Galilee, ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Antipas. Another dream confirms Joseph’s fears (v. 22).[4]

They settle in Joseph and Mary’s hometown (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). Nazareth was no metro area. It was an obscure village, not mentioned anywhere in pre-Christian literature (BDAG). Osborne writes that its population was less than 500.[5] Matthew writes that they were in Nazareth by divine direction – “So that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.”

As stated above, nowhere in the Old Testament is this found. What is Matthew doing? How does he see this as prophetic fulfillment?

There are two ways of handling this problem:

  • Matthew is associating the place name (Nazareth) and the word for a resident (Nazarene) with either the Hebrew word for ‘branch’ [nezer] or the biblical ‘Nazarite,’ one dedicated to God. Those who hold to the former point to Isaiah 11:1, which deals with the righteous reign of one who sits on David’s throne, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.” Those who hold to the latter see fulfillment of Judges 13:5, 7; 16:17 – verses that show Samson as a Nazarite. The idea is that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of one dedicated to God.
  • Others see Matthew drawing together the obscure geographical origins of Messiah and the biblical/theological theme that he will be humble and despised.

The first view suffers as overly subtle and one needs to do philological gymnastics to make the proposed connections work. As Morris points out, “Despite the confident assertions of those who hold this view, it’s not easy to understand the connection between the Branch and (or) Nazarites in this passage.”[6] As Matthew referring to the Nazarite vow, Jesus is obviously one dedicated to God, but nothing suggests He refrained from haircuts or alcohol as required of the Nazarite in Numbers 6, and, as Blomberg makes clear, “the orthographical evidence for the linkage of these two words is lacking.”[7]

I favor the second view. There is no wordplay here. Matthew sees a general prophetic theme – thus the plural ‘prophets.’ The obscurity and humility of the Messiah is a common theme. Messiah will be rejected (Pss 22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isa 49:7; 53:2-3; Dan 9:26). Matthew stresses Jesus’ humility (11:29; 12:19; 21:5) and rejection (8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8).

An important point is Nazareth was a despised place elsewhere in the Gospels. When Nathaniel meets Jesus for the first time, he asks, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). The crowds and religious leaders are convinced that no prophet can come from Galilee (John 7:41, 52). To be among the Nazarenes in Acts led to incredible insults (24:5).[8]

If he had grown up on Bethlehem, Jesus would have been from a royal city – that of David. Jesus the Nazarene, however, carried overtones of contempt. When Matthew writes that the prophets taught He would be called a Nazarene, he sees them pointing to one who would be both despised and rejected. France concludes that Jesus would be a Messiah, “who came from the wrong place, who did not conform to the expectations of Jewish tradition, and who as a result would not be accepted by his people.”[9]

What is Matthew doing? How is he using the Old Testament in this final fulfillment formula of the birth narrative? He is doing the same here as in the others – He is showing historical patterns.[10] Events in biblical history anticipate events in Jesus’ ministry in that he fulfills them with new significance. Biblical history is fulfilled by Jesus the Messiah.[11]

The life of Jesus of Nazareth fulfills all the promises of God found in the Scriptures (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus lifts the Old Testament to a higher plane. He has completed or ‘filled up’ the Old Testament, and he is the final interpreter of Torah.[12] As for the birth narrative, Matthew is clear — the one who is declared by Herod as illegimate is, in fact, the only legimate King of Israel.

[1] See the index of quotations and allusions/verbal parallels in UBS4. No other NT book comes close to Matthew. Hebrews is next with 37 quotations. The other Gospels – Mark (31), Luke (26), John (16).

[2] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 11.

[3] Others are 1:20-21; 2:12; 2:13-14.

[4] Archelaus was ruthless. Even before he left for Rome to contest Herod’s final will, he overreacted to an uprising in the Temple at Passover by sending in troops and cavalry, killing about 3,000 pilgrims. He was banished to Gaul in about A.D. 6 (H.W. Hoehner, s.v. “Herodian Dynasty,” in DJG).

[5] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 102.

[6] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), accessed 1/8/26, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[7] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, CSC (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2025), 90. It is obvious from 11:18-19 that Jesus did not follow an ascetic lifestyle. Turner is on point when he writes, “Wordplays are based on popular associations, not on philological sophistication.” (Matthew, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 99).

[8] Paul is accused before the Roman governor, Felix, of being a plague, a creator of dissension, and a ringleader of the sect called the Nazarenes.

[9] France, 95.

[10] In this case he is showing a broader prophetic pattern.

[11] Turner, 25.

[12] Adapted from Osborne, 38.

The Lukan Prologue: The How and Why of Luke’s Gospel

The questions related to the how and why of the Synoptic Gospels have been debated for millennia. The how helps us understand the relationship between the Gospels. Does Luke depend upon Mark? What about material unique to Luke, known as L? What about Q? Is Luke an independent work? Does the Lukan Prologue (1:1-4) help us understand those relationships?

Then there is the why. Why did Luke think it necessary to write what we now call a Gospel? The question is important as “why” is the essence of hermeneutics. I have stressed to students for over two decades that the goal of biblical interpretation is authorial intent. Understanding Luke’s overall purpose helps the interpreter get to authorial intent in any given passage within the Gospel. Does the Lukan Prologue help us understand his purpose and thus interpret the Gospel’s various passages?

Luke’s Prologue is widely held as among the best Greek literature of the first century.[1] By introducing his work, he is employing a well-known literary convention.[2] There is debate whether the prologue introduces both Luke and Acts. It likely serves as an introduction of the Gospel only as Acts has its own brief prologue that continues the story (1:1-2).[3] Also, the idea of traditions handed down (v. 2) probably refers more to the Gospel tradition than the Acts narrative.

In Greek, the prologue is one sentence. While that is a bit unwieldly, the structure is simple. First, there is a dependent clause (vv. 1-2) informing Theophilus of Luke’s predecessors and the prior transmission of Jesus traditions. An independent clause follows in which Luke presents his method (v. 3), followed by a purpose statement (v. 4).

While the prologue’s structure is clear, almost every word found in the four verses is debated. What follows is a verse-by-verse treatment, using my own translation of the Greek text. A summary of what one learns from the Prologue is then provided.

Verse 1

Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account) of the things which have been fulfilled among us.

“Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account)” – The first issue is the word ‘many.’ One would love to know how many had attempted to produce a narrative about Jesus. How many ‘lives of Christ’ were there? Here is where scholars often attempt to insert their favorite solution to the Synoptic Problem.[4] The fact is Luke is clear there were others. He is unclear, however, on the number.

A second important word in verse 1 is translated ‘tried.’ Scholars debate what Luke thought of those other ‘lives.’ Luke uses the word in Acts 9:29 and 19:13 in the sense of unsuccessful attempts. The context here, however, leans toward simply reporting a fact that Theophilus would know – there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there. A censure seems out of place here. Besides, Luke portrays witnesses as positive in Acts (1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 22:20; 26:16).

“Write (produce) a narrative” – Are the other accounts written or oral? My translation leans toward written narratives.[5] While written accounts seem most likely, one still cannot rule out completely oral traditions.

“Of the things which have been fulfilled among us” – What are ‘the things?’ OT prophecies? Luke may not have specific OT prophecies in mind here but stating that Jesus’ life fulfilled the OT and its promise of a Messiah.

“Have been fulfilled” – Grammar matters. The perfect tense is used here to show that not only did these events happen in the recent past, but they have an effect in the present (‘they have been and still are fulfilled’). One can look no further than Luke’s second volume to see how the events fulfilled affected the early church.

“Among us” – Many scholars limit ‘us’ to first generation believers. Bock broadens it to second and third generation Christians: “Past and present believers, united by these events, share in their significance. The historical ground that produced this impact is the topic of Luke’s two volumes.”[6] Luke did not witness these events, but the consequences of the events were still very much in effect as Luke writes (and today as well!).

In verse 1, Luke writes that many have compiled a written narrative about Jesus’ life. There is no way to know how many. Did they include the other Synoptics? Maybe, but that cannot be ascertained from Luke’s statement. Thus, one wonders if the Prologue can help us at all with Synoptic relationships.

Verse 2

Just as the those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us

“Handed down” – translates a verb that is a technical term for the passing down of tradition.

“To us” – this pronoun is obviously a group that was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. The pronoun would seem to include Luke.

“Eyewitnesses and servants of the word” – Grammatically, Luke is telling us about one group. There is just one definite article used in the phrase, coupling the two nouns. This is a reference to the apostolic witness. They, the Apostles, were eyewitnesses and servants (proclaimers) of the Word.[7]

“From the beginning” – To what does the phrase refer? In Acts 1:21-22, we read about the Apostles replacing Judas. What was the requirement for that office? Peter is clear that the replacement must have been with them, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John until the Day He was taken up from us.” So, the phrase means from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, starting with the forerunner. For Luke that would include the birth of the forerunner as the first chapter makes clear.

In v. 2, Luke identifies those who have handed down the Jesus tradition. He calls them eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The Twelve stand as the primary stewards of that tradition.  

V. 3

It seemed good to me also having carefully investigated from the beginning everything from the beginning to write for you an orderly account, excellent Theophilus

The main clause begins at verse 3. Luke tells Theophilus about the method he used in writing the Gospel.

Luke joins others who have written ‘lives of Jesus.’ First Luke says he investigated the other accounts and eyewitness testimony. BDAG defines the verb used by Luke as ‘follow a thing,’ ‘trace or investigate a thing.’ Robertson agrees, noting the perfect active participle means to follow a thing in mind, to trace carefully.[8] Luke is claiming fullness of knowledge before he began to write. Robertson states, “Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had mentally followed along by the side of these events.”[9]

“From the beginning” – Does this word mean ‘from the beginning’ or ‘a long time.’ Luke uses it in both ways in Acts 26:5. There it means ‘a long time.’ It is difficult here to determine Luke’s use here. If he means ‘a long time,’ he is discussing how long it took to research or is discussing its scope? Translations are mixed on the interpretation. The NASB, for example, translates the word as ‘from the beginning,’ while the ESV states Luke had followed all things, ‘for some time past.’ While it is difficult to decide, I lean toward Luke’s concern as scope rather than length of time. He appears to be more concerned about the content of his Gospel than how long it took him to research it.

“Carefully” – Luke investigated his sources carefully and thoroughly.[10]

“To write for you an orderly account” – As with most of the Prologue, this phrase is debated. The adverb is used five times in the NT, all by Luke. It means “in order, one after another, of sequence in time, space, or logic” (BDAG). The idea is Luke is writing in an orderly sequence.

The question is, what kind of orderly sequence? Luke begins with the Infancy Narrative and ends with the Passion Narrative. That suggests chronological. However, in the Central Section (9:51 to 19:27), it is obvious that he is more thematic.[11] Luke is telling Theophilus that his ‘life of Jesus’ is an orderly account. It is organized and tells the story of His life and ministry.

In v. 3, Luke writes that he investigated Jesus’ life carefully from start to finish and produced an organized account, telling the story of Jesus.

V. 4

In order that you may know the truth about the things (words) which were you taught.

Verse 4 is Luke’s purpose statement.

“Truth” – The word in Greek appears at the end of the sentence. The emphatic position points to its importance. Does the word speak of correctness, reliability, or assurance? Why not blend ideas. Luke is writing correct, reliable history that is meant to provide Theophilus assurance about the Jesus tradition he had been taught. He can be sure of the apostolic witness.

In v. 4, Luke states that his purpose is to bring Theophilus assurance that what he had heard and learned about Jesus’ life and ministry from the traditions handed down were true. From the Prologue, it is clear that Luke is interested in accuracy. After all, what good are the traditions Theophilus has been taught if they are untrue? How does Luke accomplish his purpose if he bears false witness? Plus, anything untrue in his life of Jesus could be easily pointed out by those still alive who witnessed the events.[12]

Does Luke help us understand Gospel relationships? Not really. He writes that there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there, but he does not reveal how many, and although I have argued above the accounts were probably written, there could have still been some oral tradition circulating of which Luke was aware. We all would like to know if Luke used the other Gospels, if there was something like Q,[13] and what other specific sources he used for his unique material. Luke was not concerned enough about sources to identify them.

Luke was concerned about truth. By writing his own life of Christ, based upon careful research, Luke was taking the mantle as a steward of those traditions. He was concerned about relating them accurately and in an orderly fashion to both edify and encourage Theophilus and the readers who would come after him. Modern interpreters should keep Luke’s overall purpose in mind as they work through the Gospel. His ‘life of Christ’ is meant to strengthen and encourage the believer. The traditions handed down are true! Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise and of His salvation – a salvation that was then and is now available to all who call upon Him (Romans 10:13).

[1] Robert Stein, Luke, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 62.

[2] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/detail.action?docID=4860168.

[3] Most scholars see Luke’s work as one, not two books. For a discussion of how the prologues of Luke and Acts relate to each other, see Gary Habermas, Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

[4] See Stein’s article, “Luke 1:1-4 and Traditionsgeschichte,” JETS 26, no. 4 (1983): 422 as an example.

[5] BDAG suggests a written account.

[6] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 57.

[7] Luke’s designation could include the 70 and perhaps even Paul. Luke reports that The Twelve were chosen from among His disciples (Luke 6:12-13). When Paul met Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Lord tells him he would be both a minister and a witness (Acts 26:16). Regardless, I think Stein is correct when he writes that for Luke, the Twelve stand at the forefront of this group (“Traditionsgeschichte,” 425). He would have them in mind primarily in v. 2.

[8] A.T. Robertson, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board, 1930), 6.

[9] Robertson, “Luke,” 6. See above where the writer concludes Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ life.

[10] According to Robertson, the word means going into minute detail (“Luke,” 6).

[11] Also called Luke’s Travel Narrative, the section shows Jesus heading toward Jerusalem and the cross. Morris writes that is inarguable that Luke has Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem in mind in this section as it is mentioned several times (9:51, 53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28). A problem, however, arises when one tries to trace its course (Leon Morris, Luke, rev. ed, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 194). He quotes Kümmel who sees the section as “The Lord, who goes to suffer according to God’s will, equips his disciples for the mission of preaching after his death” (195).

[12] The writer holds that Luke was written in the 60s while Paul was under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28). The point is that there were many eyewitnesses still alive when Luke wrote his Gospel who could point out any inaccuracies.

[13] Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 2)

In a previous post, I dealt primarily with two titles found in Mark to describe Jesus – Christ and Son of God. They are introduced to us in the first verse of the Gospel and are of paramount importance if one wants to understand Mark’s Christology. In this post, the last two are discussed – Son of Man and Teacher.

It is well known that Son of Man is Jesus’s favorite self-description. He calls Himself Son of Man fourteen times in Mark. The title has two emphases. First is authority. The Son of Man has authority to both forgive sins and heal (2:10); He is Lord of the Sabbath (2:28), and He is coming back again in glory with the authority to judge (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). This emphasis is tied to Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom.[1]

Second, and surprisingly given the Daniel 7 prophecy, the Son of Man will be rejected, suffer, die and rise again (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34). Whatever else Son of Man might mean, the title is tied to His mission as both a servant and vicarious sufferer (10:45). The Son of Man sayings in this category show that suffering is the pathway to glory and dominion.

There are four uses of the title in the Passion Narrative. Two of them are mentioned above (13:26; 14:62) — a woe is pronounced on the one who betrays the Son of Man (14:21), and at Gethsemane, after a third time catching Peter, James, and John asleep while He prayed, Jesus proclaimed, “Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough! The hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into he hands of sinners” (14:41). These two uses emphasize suffering as well by means of betrayal. That betrayal is not arbitrary, but it is the will of God and the means by which that will is accomplished.[2]

Son of Man encapsulates what Mark wants his readers to know about Jesus.

Marshall emphasizes that the title is the vehicle through which Jesus teaches about His mission and fate. He is a figure of authority who is rejected, betrayed, suffers, and dies, but He is resurrected from the dead. In the future He comes again, bringing salvation and judgement.[3] By using Son of Man, Jesus is indicating He is a unique human being with unique authority and a unique mission – both on earth and in heaven.

While Son of Man is Jesus’s favorite self-designation, Teacher is the favorite address of others for Him; thus authoritative teacher is an important theme in Mark, as well as the other Gospels. He is called Teacher by His disciples (4:38; 9:38; 10:35; 13:1; 14:14), the crowd following Him or one person from that crowd (5:35; 9:17; 10:17, 20), and by religious leaders (12:14, 19, 32). Jesus is addressed as Rabbi in 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45.

The verb is also prominent. Jesus teaching is found in 1:21- 22; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:35; 14:49. His teaching was with authority unlike the scribes (1:22). Often, He taught using parables (4:1-2). We can assume the subject of His teaching was the Kingdom of God, since that was the topic of His proclamation (1:15). From 8:31 forward, Jesus taught His disciples about His impending Passion and resurrection (8:31).

No matter where He was, Mark tells us that Jesus’s habit was to teach those following Him (2:13; 6:1, 6, 34; 10:1; 12:35). He continued teaching until His arrest in Jerusalem (14:49).

The title is associated with Jesus’s authority to cast out demons (1:21-28; 9:17-29) still storms (4:35-41); and feeding the 5,000 (6:33-44). I think Stein is on target; “Teacher” carries with it the kind of authority usually associated with the title ‘Lord.’”[4]

Mark uses the verb (to teach) and the noun (teacher) more than the other Gospels. Thus, he wants his readers to see teaching as essential to Jesus’s messianic mission and one uniquely appropriate to Him.[5] His teaching is not like those who came before Him – it was infused with divine authority.[6]

[1] Daniel’s prophecy of a Son of Man is reinforced by 1, 4 Enoch. In Second Temple Judaism there was a strong tradition that centered upon a judge-deliverer – called among other things the Son of Man. The title was probably well known in Jesus’s time.

[2] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 112.

[3] “Son of Man,” s.v. DJG, by I. Howard Marshall.

[4] Robert Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 243. On the other hand, R. Riesner argues that the title does not express an exalted status but describes the outward form of His ministry (“Teacher,” s.v. DJG, rev. ed.). Brooks agrees with Riesner, “ . . .it is doubtful that “Teacher” should be treated as a Christological title in the same way that ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of Man are,” while admitting that Mark portrays Jesus as an authoritative teacher (James Brooks, Mark, NAC [Nashville: B&H, 1991], 87.

[5] R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 102.

[6] “Various Jewish groups expected the messiah would teach in the fullness of God’s wisdom” (“Teacher,” s.v. DJG, rev. ed., by R. Riesner). It is no wonder that Jesus’s teaching brought great excitement and wonder.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 1)

While there are undoubtedly several themes in Mark’s Gospel worth pursuing, its primary one is Christological in nature. That is seen in the very first verse – “The beginning of the gospel of (about)[1] Jesus Christ, the Son of God (ESV).”

Mark’s Gospel is good news about Jesus Christ. “Christ” is not used often as a title for Jesus. Its only use by a disciple is Peter’s confession in 8:29. Each time the title is used (8:21; 9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32) it is obviously referring to Jesus as Messiah. It is synonymous with “Son of David” (10:47, 48; 12:35, 37). There is some debate whether this is a title or simply His name. This is the only time in the Gospel that it is paired with “Jesus.” Since every other use of “Christ” is a title, I lean toward that here as well, especially given that a prophecy from Isaiah comes directly afterward. The time of messianic fulfillment has come in the ministry of John the Baptist (1:2-3).

Jesus is identified by Mark as “the Son of God.” There is a text debate about the phrase. The original א Ɵ 28 l2211 pc sams Or omit “the son of God,” while virtually all other witnesses have the words. The omission in the two uncial MSS is probably due to scribal error, considering the sequence of six identical endings.[2]

What about the title? Stein argues it is the most important in Mark.[3] The title is used when God proclaims at Jesus’s baptism. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (1:11).[4] In 3:11, the unclean spirits cast out by Jesus fell down before Him and proclaimed Him as the Son of God. When he saw Jesus, the demoniac of the Gadarenes and worshiped Him, crying out, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God (5:7)? One sees the title again at the Mount of Transfiguration as God again calls Jesus His beloved Son and commands the disciples to “hear Him” (9:7).

The title is seen again in the Passion Narrative. In the Parable of the Vineyard (12:1-12), a father sends several servants into his vineyard to get some of its fruit from the vinedressers. They are treated shamefully and one is killed. “Therefore, still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them” (v. 6). The vinedressers kill him (8). While the title is not directly stated, Jesus is obviously speaking of Himself – the beloved Son of God — and predicting His own death.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His return, not even He – the Son (v. 32). After His arrest, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (v. 61). Jesus replies, “I am” (v. 62); He then connected this title with Son of Man in proclaiming that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of God and coming “with the clouds of heaven.”[5]

The most ironic use of the title comes from the lips of the centurion after Jesus’s death: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (15:34).[6] I see this statement by the centurion as foreshadowing the gentile mission and acts and as the second book end to the Gospel – the other 1:1. Though ironic, the Roman soldier’s proclamation is an important literary device in Mark.

One other allusion to the title needs mention. In Mark 1, Jesus meets a man in the synagogue at Capernaum on the Sabbath with an unclean spirit – “And he cried out, saying, ‘Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth?[7] Do You come to destroy us? I know who You are – the Holy One of God!’” The title uttered by the demons is akin to Son of God. The supernatural insight of the demons shows Jesus’s special relationship to the Father. This is the only place the title is used in Mark.

There are titles in Mark used more often (Son of Man/Teacher[8]), but Son of God is used in the Gospel’s first verse. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is with this title that the Father describes the Son (baptism and transfiguration). The demonic world obviously considers Him the Son of God. The centurion proclaims Him as such at the cross. Perhaps, I have been influenced too much by the fact that Son of Man is used more often in Mark. I am not quite there, but I am leaning toward Stein’s position that this is the most important title in the book for Jesus, especially given the bookends of the Gospel’s thesis statement in 1:1 and the centurion’s proclamation in 15:34. According to Mark, Jesus has a relationship with the Father no one else has – as His beloved Son.

[1] Parentheses mine showing the genitive as objective.

[2] R.T France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 49.

[3] Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 22.

[4] Scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.

[5] Many scholars see Jesus’s reply to the high priest as seeing two events: His exaltation after the resurrection and the Parousia.

[6] The title lacks the definite article in the Greek text, thus, the translation could be ‘a son of God.’ However, in 1:1 there is no definite article, and in the context of Mark’s Gospel, it seems clear that “son of God’ is meant here. Of course, the centurion would likely not understand the full impact of that reality. However, Stein is correct when he writes, “The death of Jesus reveals to the gentile world that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is ironic that the Jewish leadership and onlookers mock Jesus, but a hated Roman solider makes the greatest human confession in the entire Gospel . . . What God bore witness to at Jesus’s baptism and transfiguration, what demons have confessed time and time again, and what Jesus has acknowledged to the Jewish leadership is now confessed by a Roman centurion, who represents a large host of gentiles who would become followers of Jesus” (pp. 719, 721)

[7] I like the NET translation, which is a bit less wordy and captures the idiom – “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!”

[8] See next post.