Conclusion. 20:30–31

MANY REGARD THE CONCLUSION of 20:30–31 as the end of the Gospel, viewing ch. 21 as a later addition; others view 20:30–31 as the summary only of the resurrection chapter.¹⁰⁷⁷⁸ Because 20:30–31 pulls together John's themes of witness, faith, and signs so fully, it is best to regard this conclusion as a conclusion to the book. We will argue that ch. 21 is a legitimate part of the Fourth Gospel; ancient writers did not need to stop writing after a conclusion even if it adequately summarized what had preceded (cf., e.g., Phil 3:1; 4:8), and writers were perfectly capable of composing their own anticlimactic epilogues without needing redactors to add such appendices for them (see comment on John 21). But 20:30–31 functions not only as the close of the resurrection narratives but as the close of the body of the Gospel itself, to be followed by its epilogue.

Ancient writers and speakers often closed with clear conclusions, often even summarizing or recapitulating their argument from the start.¹⁰⁷⁷⁹ John does not recapitulate his argument here (cf. perhaps 12:44–50), but he does sum it up. As noted, such a conclusion here need not exclude ch. 21 from the original plan of the document; sometimes such closing summations appear before the very end.¹⁰⁷⁸⁰ (E.g., after offering his concluding summation, Aeschines finishes with an illustration, reserved for the end to augment pathos.)¹⁰⁷⁸¹

As Thomas came to full christological faith (20:28) but would have been better to have done so without signs (20:29), the call to faith in 20:30–31 is a summons to full christological faith on the testimony of others backed by the Paraclete. John likely summons his audience to persevere or, in some cases of a more peripheral audience listening in, to come out of secrecy to become publicly identified with other followers of Jesus.

That John notes that he provides merely a sample of Jesus» signs (20:30; 21:25) is not surprising. (John's words here naturally provided an «open invitation» to later apocryphal writers.)¹⁰⁷⁸² Ancient writers sometimes reported that more stories were available about their protagonists than they could possibly record.¹⁰⁷⁸³ Diogenes Laertius complains of Diogenes the Cynic that it would take long to list all the other sayings attributed to him (Diogenes Laertius 6.2.69); he recounts stories about Hipparchia and adds that people tell «innumerable other ones» (literally άλλα μυρία, undoubtedly hyperbolically!) about her (Diogenes Laertius 6.7.98). Phaedrus reports that Aesop left so much material that Phaedrus could employ only a small portion, leaving much for others to write.¹⁰⁷⁸⁴ Aristotle notes that a plot derives unity from addressing a single action or theme;¹⁰⁷⁸⁵ thus Homer did not include everything that happened to Odysseus (focusing instead on his travels) or the entirety of the Trojan War.¹⁰⁷⁸⁶ Diodorus Siculus claims that stories about the feats of Heracles were by his time so many and so incredible that a writer must either omit the greatest ones, thus diminishing the god's honor, or recount all of them, so making the narrative «difficult to believe» (άπιστουμένην, Diodorus Siculus 4.8.2). Writing essays on Alexander and Caesar, Plutarch warns that their deeds were too many for him to offer more than a sampling (Alex. 1.1), «For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives» (Alex. 1.2; LCL 7:225). He thus promises to focus on the deeds that are σημεία, signs, revealing their inner character (Alex. 1.3). Although John uses σημεία in a different sense, the choice of the same term remains interesting. John or (in other views) the redactor employs more hyperbolic rhetoric to underline this point in 21(for other ancient parallels, see comment there).

Similar statements appeared in more rhetorical essays and speeches as well as narratives, revealing how widespread this rhetorical convention was. Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus emphasizes that he could offer numerous examples but stops with those he has used lest his treatise become too long; those he has offered, he says, are adequate to demonstrate his claims.¹⁰⁷⁸⁷ Cicero likewise charges that a person or group was so evil that time permitted him only to sample their crimes (hence insinuating further guilt).¹⁰⁷⁸⁸ Other rhetoricians employed the same technique: Lysias, for example, complains that his only problem in prosecuting Eratosthenes is to know when to stop reciting his crimes.¹⁰⁷⁸⁹ He warns that even if they executed Ergocles many times, they would not have avenged all the wrongs he had done.¹⁰⁷⁹⁰ Aeschines also declares that recounting all his opponent's crimes from one year would consume his entire court day.¹⁰⁷⁹¹

Rhetoricians also employed such language for praise: for example, one doubts that anyone could recount all the great deeds of those who died for Athens in battle.¹⁰⁷⁹² A rhetorical biographer would not recount further civil honors of Rufus of Perinthus because such honors cannot compare with Rufus's «skill and learning.»¹⁰⁷⁹³ Most rhetoricians provided the examples they did include as models for imitation (see introduction, pp. 14–16, 19, 46). Jewish writers could speak of God's deeds and expect them to elicit a response.¹⁰⁷⁹⁴

John could have written other signs but provides a basic sample for a specific purpose, namely to elicit adequate faith (20:31). In this Gospel, signs are inadequate to guarantee solid faith (cf. 2:23; 4:48; 6:2, 30), but they can provoke one to begin on that journey (e.g., 2:11; 6:26; 7:31; 9:16; 12:37). John had «written» these things (20:31), and as in 19:22, he uses the perfect tense, signifying the continuing impact of what he has written.¹⁰⁷⁹⁵ In John's (and often early Christian) style, however, «written» in the perfect most often refers to Scripture (2:17; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25).¹⁰⁷⁹⁶ Because he is inspired by the Paraclete (see pp. 115–22, 979–81), the author of the Fourth Gospel may quietly suggest that his work belongs in the same category with the Scriptures of old.¹⁰⁷⁹⁷

Surely this conclusion (20:30–31) emphasizes the purpose of the Gospel, which should imply something about the sort of audience the Gospel originally addressed.¹⁰⁷⁹⁸ Because John says, «that you may believe,» many think that the purpose of the Gospel is evangelistic.¹⁰⁷⁹⁹ The issue is difficult to settle textually: the aorist subjunctive has the broader geographical support and makes more sense in a summons to initial faith; the present subjunctive depends on the earliest manuscripts and makes more sense in a summons to persevere.¹⁰⁸⁰⁰ But the matter can hardly be settled purely by appeal to the divided textual witness; if this is a conclusion, it should end where the rest of the Gospel's evidence points. Thus many scholars would concur with Luke Timothy Johnson: «The present tense seems the more likely reading, and the whole tenor of the Gospel suggests less a document for proselytism than one of propaganda for the converted.»¹⁰⁸⁰¹

Undoubtedly John would like to invite faith from his opponents; certainly he wants the closet believers among them to go public with their faith (12:42–43; 19:38–40). But by what means would John get the Gospel into the hands of unbelievers except through the preaching of believers? From the perspective of marketing strategies, the intrinsic probabilities favor a primary audience of believers.

But the Gospel itself suggests the same. Throughout the Gospel, many people become initial believers, but their initial faith proves insufficient without perseverance (2:23–25; 8:30, 59). John's goal is not simply initial faith but persevering faith, discipleship (8:30–32; 15:4–7).¹⁰⁸⁰² John's purpose is to address believers at a lesser stage of discipleship and to invite them to persevere as true disciples.

The immediate context of Thomas provides the climax immediately preceding the conclusion and offers a paradigm for the sort of faith John seeks to elicit. Thomas had been a disciple; he was prepared to die for Jesus (11:16) and to follow where he led (14:5); but his faith was insufficient (20:29). Only when Thomas embraced the full testimony of the resurrection and offered the climactic christological confession that Jesus was Lord and God (20:28) had he become a developed model of faith for John's audience. John is calling his audience to a full confession of resurrection faith: Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore his claims cannot be compromised, for synagogue or for Caesar. John will settle for no faith less secure than this. Further, while Thomas's faith by sight is accepted, the faith without sight expected of John's audience is greater (20:29; cf. 2Cor 5:6–7; 1Pet 1:8). It is grounded in the beloved disciplés testimony sampled in the Gospel (20:30–31), confirmed to hearers by the Paraclete (15:26–16:15).