What Is A Gospel?

Genre determines the rules of the game.[1] I am not sure how many times I have made that statement to university/seminary students. The genre of any Bible passage is important to determine as one approaches exegesis. Interpretive rules differ depending upon genre. For example, you do not deal with a Psalm (Hebrew poetry) and a Pauline letter (epistle) the same way. Get genre wrong or disregard it, and you will get off on many eisegetical tangents. This is why the authors of some of the most used hermeneutical textbooks spend a great deal of time on genre.[2]

It is easy to determine that a Psalm is poetry, and a letter is epistolary, but what about the Gospels? That has been a harder question to answer. Until the 1970s there was practically a consensus that the Gospels were a unique literary genre in the Greco-Roman world. Apparent analogies with other early Christian writings were irrelevant.[3]

The position of early 20th century form critics such as Bultmann and Schmidt was that the Gospels were not really about Jesus. Instead, they were collections of Jesus traditions from the early Christian communities. That minimized the role of the Evangelists as authors. The Gospels were written not to give us a life of Jesus as much as to proclaim the significance of Jesus.

In the 1970s scholars began to take another look at how to the Gospels related to Greco-Roman literature. Burridge particularly has shown that they compare well to Greco-Roman biographies. Like such works, the Gospels are continuous prose narratives of the length of a single scroll, comprising stories, anecdotes, sayings and speeches within a relatively short space to depict their understanding of the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, their focus on Jesus’ public ministry from his baptism to death, and on his words and deeds, his teaching and his ministry, is not very different from the content of other ancient biographies.[4]

Most scholars today hold that the Gospels best reflect Greco-Roman biographies. The writers were men of their times, so it should not be surprising that the Evangelists reflected features of popular literature. While admitting this, we can also see there is something different about the Gospels. On this point the redaction critics were right – the Gospel writers have theological emphases. After all, their subject is “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). That makes the Gospels something different than an ordinary biography. John is clear on this point. His purpose in writing – “. . . so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name” (20:31).

They do share qualities of Greco-Roman biographies or to a lesser extent other popular genre of the time, but Blomberg’s label of “theological biography” is most appropriate for these writings as all four show us who Jesus is – God in the flesh – and what He came to do, Died and raised again for our eternal redemption.

Genre matters as it determines the rules of interpretation. Ask the right questions of a text, and you will likely get the right answers. Genre helps us ask the right questions. The Gospels are theological biographies. Thus, the interpreter approaches a Gospel passage Christologically. Genre demands you ask this question of any Gospel passage, “What does it tell us about Jesus?” It either tells us about who He is, what He came to do, or both. Our response must then be as that of Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road: “What shall I do, Lord?”[5]

[1] Borrowed, of course, from Dr. Robert Stein.

[2] Examples include Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word and Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth – both in their 4th editions.

[3] L.W. Hurtado, DJG, s.v. “Gospels (Genre).”

[4] See R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge University Press, 1992; rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

[5] Acts 22:10.

John 4 (Chrysostom’s Text)

4:1  Ως οὖν ἔγνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤκουσαν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ὅτι Ἰησοῦς πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει ἢ Ἰωάννης·
4:2  καίτοιγε αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς (1) οὐκ ἐβάπτιζεν, ἀλλ᾿ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ·
4:3 . . .(2)
4:4  Ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας.
4:5  . . .(3) εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας λεγομένην Συχάρ, πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου οὗ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ Ἰωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ·
4:6  ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ. ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας . . .(4) οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ· ὥρα ἦν ὡσεὶ ἕκτη.
4:7  ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· δός μοι πιεῖν.
4:8  οἱ . . . μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπεληλύθεισαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσι.
4:9  . . . πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος . . .(5) οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις.
4:10 . . . εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, δός μοι πιεῖν, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτόν, καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν.
4:11 . . . Κύριε, οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις, καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶ βαθύ· πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν;
4:12 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιε καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;
4:13 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· πᾶς ὁ πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου διψήσει πάλιν·
4:14 ὃς δ᾿ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ, γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
4:15 . . . Κύριε, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα μὴ διψῶ μηδὲ ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν.
4:16 . . . ὕπαγε φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου καὶ ἐλθὲ . . .
4:17 οὐκ ἔχω ἄνδρα. λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι ἄνδρα οὐκ ἔχω·
4:18 πέντε γὰρ ἄνδρας ἔσχες, καὶ νῦν ὃν ἔχεις οὐκ ἔστι σου ἀνήρ· τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας.
4:19 λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή· Κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ.
4:20 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς (6) λέγετε ὅτι ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος ὅπου δεῖ προσκυνεῖν.
4:21 λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· γύναι, πίστευσόν μοι ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα ὅτε οὔτε ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ οὔτε ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις προσκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί.
4:22 ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν· ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν.
4:23 ἀλλ᾿ ἔρχεται ὥρα, καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, ὅτε οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ προσκυνήσουσι τῷ πατρὶ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ· καὶ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν.
4:24 πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν.
4:25 . . . οἶδα ὅτι Μεσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα.
4:26 λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ λαλῶν σοι.
4:27 καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει· οὐδεὶς μέντοι εἶπε, τί ζητεῖς ἢ τί λαλεῖς μετ᾿ αὐτῆς;
4:28 Ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
4:29 δεῦτε ἴδετε ἄνθρωπον ὃς εἶπέ μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα· μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός;
4:30 . . .(7) 
4:31 Ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταξὺ ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγοντες· ῥαββί, φάγε.
4:32 . . . ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν, ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε.
4:33 ἔλεγον οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους·(8) μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν;
4:34 . . . ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω (ποιῶ) (9) τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.
4:35 οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι  ἔτι τετράμηνον ἐστι καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται; ἰδοὺ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας, ὅτι λευκαί εἰσι πρὸς θερισμὸν . . .
4:36 καὶ ὁ θερίζων μισθὸν λαμβάνει καὶ συνάγει καρπὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἵνα καὶ ὁ σπείρων ὁμοῦ χαίρῃ καὶ ὁ θερίζων.
4:37 ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθὴς,(10) ὅτι ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων.
4:38 ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς θερίζειν ὃ οὐχ ὑμεῖς κεκοπιάκατε· ἄλλοι κεκοπιάκασι, καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν κόπον αὐτῶν εἰσεληλύθατε.
4:39 Ἐκ . . .(11) τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς γυναικός, μαρτυρούσης ὅτι εἶπέ μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα.
4:40 ὡς οὖν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται, ἠρώτων αὐτὸν μεῖναι παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ δύο ἡμέρας.
4:41 καὶ πολλῷ πλείους ἐπίστευσαν αὐτὸν εἰς  διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ,
4:42 τῇ τε γυναικὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι οὐκέτι διὰ τὴν σὴν λαλιὰν πιστεύομεν· αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκηκόαμεν, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου ὁ Χριστός.
4:43 Μετὰ δὲ τὰς δύο ἡμέρας ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
4:44 αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ . . .(12) ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.
4:45 ὅτε . . . ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι, πάντα ἑωρακότες ὃσα ἐποίησεν ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ· καὶ . . . γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν.
4:46 Ἦλθεν οὖν πάλιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ὅπου ἐποίησε τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον. ἦν δὲ τις βασιλικός, οὗ ὁ υἱὸς ἠσθένει ἐν Καπερναούμ·
4:47 οὗτος ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἥκει ἀπό τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἀπῆλθε πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἠρώτα ἵνα . . .(13) καὶ ἰάσηται αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν· ἔμελλε γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκειν.
4:48 . . . ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε.
4:49 . . . κατάβηθι πρὶν ἤ ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου.
4:50 . . . πορεύου· ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ ἐπίστευσεν . . . τῷ λόγῳ . . . καὶ ἐπορεύετο.
4:51 ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ καταβαίνοντος οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ . . .  λέγοντες ὅτι ὁ παῖς σου ζῇ.
4:52 ἐπυνθάνετο παρ᾿ αὐτῶν τὴν ὥραν ἐν ᾗ κομψότερον ἔσχε· καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ ὅτι χθὲς ὥραν ἑβδόμην ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ὁ πυρετός.
4:53 ἔγνω οὖν ὁ πατὴρ ὅτι ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐν ᾗ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ὁ . . .(14) σου ζῇ· καὶ ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη.
4:54 Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.

  1.Text decision comes from one adaptation of this part of the verse. Reading is found in K (017).
  2. Chrys alludes to this verse only once in Homily 31. While it is likely his text was αφηκε την ιουδαιαν και απηλθεν εις την γαλιλαιαν as found in many Byz mss., it is impossible to reconstruct it accurately. 
  3. Chrys reads ηλθεν but that may very well be a slight adaptation of ερχεται ουν.
  4. Chrys reads εκαθητο in two adaptations. He does not use εκαθεζετο in any reference to the verse.
  5. Chrys reads αιτεις παρ εμου πιειν in two adaptations.
  6. Chrys reads πως υμεις in two adaptations. 
  7. Chrys does not refer to this verse.
  8. Most mss read οι μαθηται προς αλληλους. The reading is found in 1241.
  9. Mss evidence is split between the readings. Chrys cites the verse twice, using each once. It is worth noting that in one adaptation, Chrys uses ποιησω (Patton, 41).
  10, Most mss read αληθινος. Chrys’ reading agrees with mss such as 565. Chrys references the verse just once (Patton, 42).
  11. Chrys reads γαρ in the one reference to the verse (Patton, 42).
  12. Chyrs reads χριστος in his only reference to the verse (Patton, 43).
  13. Chrys reads ελθη (Patton, 44)
  14. Chrys reads παις in an adaptation (Patton, 45).


Did Jesus Say That?

Every preacher has done a series on “The Seven Sayings of Jesus on the Cross.” I have – more than once. It is a powerful series during the Easter season. The sayings are:

  • Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34)
  • Truly I say to you, today you’ll be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)
  • Woman, behold your son; son, behold your mother” (John 19:26-27)
  • My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me? (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34)
  • I thirst (John 19:28)
  • It is finished (John 19:30)
  • Father into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

These are powerful words indeed, however, one of the sayings is debated: “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). These words compel preachers to say, “If Jesus can forgive His enemies as He was placed on the cross, how can we deny forgiveness to anyone?” True, IF Jesus said this. If He didn’t, then there is a problem. In this brief article, I’ll look at the evidence both externally and internally followed by some observations.

The UBS4 Greek text has Jesus’ words in double brackets, showing the editors believe the text is a later addition to Luke – but the verse is important and ancient. There are key mss that omit the words – from the Alexandrian and Western traditions (p75 B D* W Θ 579 are key witnesses). Including the words are witnesses such as א* A C L f1 13 33 Byz among many others. Church Fathers including Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Chrysostom believe the words are authentic.

Metzger’s Textual Commentary calls the mss tradition that omits the words of Jesus impressive and early.[1] The fact that p75 (third century) omits the words is a bit harder to overcome, but the important mss א* and B are split. I’m not sure external evidence settles the issue. The papyrus evidence might even lean one toward omission.

Let us turn to internal evidence. First, there is a similar prayer in Acts (written by Luke). As Stephen dies, he cries out, “Lord, do not charge them with their sin” (Acts 7:60).[2] Second, a Lukan theme is forgiveness of one’s enemies (6:27-36). Third, there is no parallel in the other Gospels. Fourth, there is no good reason for a copyist to add the remark. Fifth, each major subunit in Luke’s crucifixion narrative contains a saying. If the prayer is omitted, then a saying is lacking from this subunit.[3]

The key question here is why scribes would have omitted the prayer of Jesus if it were authentic? A scribe might have omitted it if he considered the remarks too forgiving of the Jews, or if he regarded the prayer as unanswered in light of A.D. 70 (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple).[4]

Internal evidence, I suggest, tilts the issue toward originality. Jesus spoke these words, and the prayer is preserved by Luke.

I always reject the argument that a passage like this might not be from a biblical writer, but it is probably historical. This is a prayer Jesus would pray, given what we know about Him, however, if the words are not from the Gospel writer, then they are inauthentic and should not be included in our Bibles and certainly not preached by pastors. Inspiration demands that. Only words written by Luke (in this case), led by the Spirit, are inspired and thus ‘profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

What about this powerful prayer of Jesus on that first Good Friday? While the external evidence is divided, the internal evidence helps us lean toward the originality of this prayer of Jesus. Thus, pastors can call a congregation to look inside themselves and proclaim, “If Jesus can forgive His enemies as they nailed Him to the cross, surely we can forgive ours!”

[1]Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: American Bible Society, 1998), 154.

[2] Some have argued that scribes could have included the words here because of Acts 7:60, but that seems unlikely. One would think Stephen patterned himself after Jesus rather than the other way around.

[3] I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 868. The sayings are 23:28-31, 43, 46

[4] Darrell Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1868.

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.