The Synoptic Problem explained

[Nazaroo]

Again, we can get a clearer sense of the actual overlap and differences in each evangelist's use of Mark by noting the Markan sections line by line:

 

[Nazaroo]

Next we fill in the unique sections for each evangelist to get the picture on how these other materials are incorporated into each new gospel:

 

[Nazaroo]

Finally, we add in the sections that have been rearranged or dislocated from their original position in Mark:

Notice the power and clarity in arranging the three gospels this way. It is immediately apparent, how each evangelist used Mark, and how they differed in their final result.

We should stress how utterly implausible it would be for Mark to have used Matthew and Luke.

For Mark could not have achieved this remarkable harmony in the order of all the events he records, by simply copying alternating between Luke and Matthew, unless he knew them both inside-out, as to their chronological order.

But why would Mark preserve ONLY events that were chronologically in the same relative order between Matthew and Luke, while deleting all stories and events that were out of order?

We would have to assume that Mark rejected any and all sections that appeared out of order between Matthew and Luke. But this would be a ridiculous procedure. Why omit important details and teachings simply because Luke and Matthew (or just one of them) recorded those events out of order?

Nor could we explain how or why ALL those events which by circumstance happened to be in the same order between Matthew and Luke were thought by Mark to be important. There is no explanation.

The only sensible conclusion is to admit that Luke and Matthew independantly used Mark as a basis, preserving the order in Mark's account, while richly suppliimenting this gospel with new materials in their own way, yet at the same time using the same basic (and simple) plan.

Thus one of the last two, Matthew or Luke must have known of the procedure that the other one used. (It is not necessary for both to have been aware of the other's method.)

 

[Nazaroo]

We have previously warned the reader that Luke and Matthew diverge in quite an extreme manner among themselves regarding the order of their content, even though they reproduce 90% or more of the same materials.

Yet even this seeming chaos has a hidden deep pattern quite unexpected, which reveals the incredible plan of both evangelists.

But first we have to map out these interesting alterations in the order of events between Luke and Matthew, in order to understand their purpose.

We will start the next installment shortly, Lord willing!

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Many may wonder what the basic evidence is for viewing Matthew as writing last.

Largely this evaluation of Matthew comes from internal evidence from Matthew itself, provided by the evangelist.








While not compelling, some obvious clues can be found in such statements by Matthew as:

'...and this saying is comonly reported among the Jews [Judaeans] unto this day.' (Matt. 28:15b)​

This statement seems to indicate that Matthew's gospel was written after a significant amount of time had passed between the events recorded, and date of its release.







The statement appears to have about the same function and impact as Luke's opening statement:

'...Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.' (Luke 1:1fwd)​

Here Luke also seems to imply a significant passage of time between his own writing and the actual events in his gospel. It seems reasonable to hold that both Luke and Matthew are near-contemporary, and one was written shortly after the other.

Other explanations could be offered for such narrative notes, for instance a later "revision" or final edition of Matthew. And this does not negate the possibility of an early Hebrew "Matthew" of some form, as indicated by some early traditions.

Yet whatever the contents of any early "Hebrew Matthew", the one we have to deal with is the one we actually have, namely our Greek Matthew.

Those evaluating the Gospels as we now have them must eventually deal in detail with the special contents of Matthew, which can at least help to establish a relative date and order of dependance between the Synoptics (Mark, Luke, and Matthew).

To assist in this evaluation of Matthew, there are a few pages on the internet that discuss these details.

For example, here are 4 pages on Matthew from Paul on Paul:

Matthew's Tendencies (1) - Jewishness .. Anti-Pharisaism
Matthew's Tendencies (2) - End-of-Time Expectation, Miracles
Matthew's Tendencies (3) -Christology, Idealization of the Apostles
Matthew's Tendencies (4) - Anecdotal Material, conclusions

We'll see if we can find more shortly.

Here is a few more links:

Isaiah's Christ in Matthew - (.pdf) a sample chapter of Beaton's book
Present State of Synoptic Problem - W.R. Farmer




------------------------------------------
EDIT:!!!!

We have now turned this third segment into an easy-to-read webpage, which you can load and save here:

Part III: Luke / Mark / Matthew <-- Click Here!

Enjoy!
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

In order to help people understand how these charts are created, and examine the details, we have begun to put our sectional Gospel Outlines online.

From these lists and charts, the reader can understand how the Synoptic charts were made, and also follow in detail the sections that have been copied or rearranged by various Evangelists.

This also allows independant researchers to make their own charts, or check the methodology and critique it.

The Sectional Outline for Mark is online here:

Mark: Sectional Outline & Discussion <-- Click Here!

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Anticipating that this thread might run rather long, we have added an easy-to-navigate Table of Contents and Linked Index in the very first post:

Linked Table of Contents <-- Click Here!

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

We have now put up an html page with a detailed chart for Luke section by section, including cross-numbering for Mark, with a short discussion of Luke's content:

Luke: Sectional Outline <-- Click Here!

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[daveleau]

What do you think about Matthew being said early on by a contemporary of John (Papias) that Matthew was written first and originally in Hebrew? It would make sense, as Matthew's audience seems to be the Jews. I believe scholars tint their research too much by ignoring this historical evidence, and partake of Eusebius' bias against Papias because of his disagreement with Papias' millenialism. Eusebius was overtly biased, and it seems many scholars seem to take him at his word that Papias was wrong despite the bias.

I agree that Luke used sources, as his intent was to present the truth to refute the incorrect writings circulating at the time. He was a physician, and would likely have relied on lots of study before writing. The historical writing that Mark recorded Peter's sermons in Rome before Peter's death at the request of the Romans to preserve what was said could easily have been supplemented by Peter's use of Matthew, which would answer the issue of similarity between these two.

I do not think Matthean or Markan priority have air-tight support, but believe these are likely the answer. I think the Independent Theory is possible, but that the historical writings seem to support a priority and a reliance of other writers. I find it difficult that an apostle (Matthew) would copy from someone who was not an apostle (Mark), even if Mark was simply recording Peter's (a chief apostle) sermon for the Romans. But, that would put Matthew's writing too late, it seems, and contradicts the historical record that remains.

Most of what I have read on this topic does not successfully defeat other theories, but ignores key arguments in their writings. It is an interesting topic, nonetheless.

In Him,
Dave

 

[Nazaroo]

What do you think about Matthew being said early on by a contemporary of John (Papias) that Matthew was written first and originally in Hebrew? It would make sense, as Matthew's audience seems to be the Jews. I believe scholars tint their research too much by ignoring this historical evidence, and partake of Eusebius' bias against Papias because of his disagreement with Papias' millenialism. Eusebius was overtly biased, and it seems many scholars seem to take him at his word that Papias was wrong despite the bias.

I agree that Luke used sources, as his intent was to present the truth to refute the incorrect writings circulating at the time. He was a physician, and would likely have relied on lots of study before writing. The historical writing that Mark recorded Peter's sermons in Rome before Peter's death at the request of the Romans to preserve what was said could easily have been supplemented by Peter's use of Matthew, which would answer the issue of similarity between these two.

I do not think Matthean or Markan priority have air-tight support, but believe these are likely the answer. I think the Independent Theory is possible, but that the historical writings seem to support a priority and a reliance of other writers. I find it difficult that an apostle (Matthew) would copy from someone who was not an apostle (Mark), even if Mark was simply recording Peter's (a chief apostle) sermon for the Romans. But, that would put Matthew's writing too late, it seems, and contradicts the historical record that remains.

Most of what I have read on this topic does not successfully defeat other theories, but ignores key arguments in their writings. It is an interesting topic, nonetheless.

In Him,
Dave

We agree with your sentiment that no proposed theory of priority or dependance is 'air-tight'.

However, the evidence for Matthew's priority is only "external", that is, a handful of rather ambiguous statements by some early writers.

One obvious alternate possibility is that Papias and others are talking about a different book entirely than our Greek Matthew. There appears to have been a collection of "sayings" of Our Lord, which would not be an actual gospel, and some references, such as a vague "gospel of the Hebrews" may simply refer to early collected teachings of Jesus written in Aramaic or Hebrew.

It would be hard not to imagine some written records of Jesus' teaching, both by His followers, and his enemies too. But these early writings would not include the story of His death and resurrection, which would have to wait the time of Acts.

For myself, I find the argument for priority of Matthew weak in terms of external evidence, and overwhelmed by strong internal evidence to the contrary.

But other issues, like the fact that the gospel writers were NOT independant, but members of Christian communities under the cooperation and guidance of the Holy Spirit and with access to many eyewitnesses, these overshadow any attempts to claim real "independance" of our evangelists, as though they were individual novel writers.

Each was serving a community of readers who also had access to other eyewitnesses, and all were under the guidance and authority of apostles and early leaders.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Next we may benefit by considering how Luke and Matthew are related to one another.


How Luke and Matthew used Mark

The best way to proceed is first to consider how each editor (Luke and Matthew) used Mark.


Luke plainly seems to have used Mark as a base. But if Matthew also reproduces 90% of Mark, and if Luke also reproduces material also found in Matthew, then isn't it possible that Luke has simply used Matthew (or vise versa)?

The answer is no, not really. On the one hand, Luke reproduces almost all of Mark in some form or other, and also (with the five exceptions noted) follows closely Mark's order of events, even against Matthew, who does even less rearranging of Mark than Luke.

The two great editors, Luke and Matthew, each handle Mark quite independantly, as to what they omit, and what they rearrange.

Each of them however (Luke and Matthew), is much more closely and directly related to Mark than to each other's 'version' of Mark's material.

As we saw previously, Luke's treatment of Mark is actually quite simple: He inserts his other material in three large blocks, breaking Mark up into three chunks. Then Luke also inserts a few small stories here and there, and rearranges the order of a few incidents.

Matthew's treatment of Mark is also nearly as simple. He breaks Mark up in a few more places, in order to insert more (but smaller) blocks of material (usually groups of parables).

The result of their independant activity is rather predictable. The parts of Mark that they share for the most part remain in Mark's order.

When Matthew or Luke depart from Mark's order, they do it alone.

This is remarkable and important. It shows that at least one of them did not know of the other, and did not copy directly from him. And it shows that the other was equally unconcerned with the chronological changes introduced by his predecessor.

Finally, we cannot reconstruct Mark by simply comparing Luke and Matthew. We can however, use Mark to demonstrate quite clearly what each editor (Luke/Matthew) has done.

Secondly, (also quite predictably), the parts of Mark preserved by BOTH Luke and Matthew are much more broken up and isolated as a result of independant editing and rearrangment by the two.

We can see this secondary fragmentation by inverting our previous chart, and putting Mark on the OUTSIDE, with Matthew and Luke in the middle (next to each other).

With this arrangement we can first note the parts of Mark that both Matthew and Luke share and reproduce without dislocation. We see more 'holes' created in Mark, where each of our editors has independantly omitted or relocated material (look at the black horizontal lines and grey blocks between Matthew and Luke - these represent the Markan material):

 

[Nazaroo]

Im posting the charts separately, because of their width:

 

[Nazaroo]

With Matthew in the middle, the dislocations that
Matthew is responsible for are quite obvious:

In each case, Matthew combines the piece with new material he wishes to work in and legitimize, providing a context and background:

One alternate interpretation offered by those who prefer to hold to the priority of Matthew is as follows:

Mark himself edited Matthew (or the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew), and is responsible for the appearance of dislocations in Greek Matthew. In this scenario, Luke then copied the Greek Mark, also copying the dislocations Mark made.

The other internal evidence does not seem to support this however: For one thing, what Matthew does is explicable, in that he wants to insert supplimental material, and so moves some things out of the way and inserts four parables, along with other material. He does not throw the Markan sections away however, but reinserts them elsewhere, as bridges and as a way of protecting and legitimizing new material he is adding.

The alternative, that Mark did the moving (and a massive amount of deleting!) seems preposterous. We can give no intelligent account of his motives for deleting huge blocks of important teaching of Jesus (in any early version of Matthew) and other stories, only to save a few relatively mediocre incidents and reinsert them elsewhere.

 

[Nazaroo]

For similar reasons, Luke's rearrangements are equally plain, although more extensive than Matthew's when it comes to Mark:

The basic point is, when it comes to relocating material, neither editor has copied the other. This is not to say that neither was aware of the other (one was clearly aware of the other's work, as will become apparent when we examine the NON-Markan material). It is even possible that BOTH were aware of the other's work, if they shared notes or had meetings before beginning.

There appears to be NO place where Luke and Matthew agree with each other chronologically against Mark! This is highly significant.

(We can discount the trivial case of the Nativity material agreeing chronologically, since Mark shows no knowledge or interest in it. This is not a true case of 'disagreement' of Matt/Luke against Mark.)




But if Matthew for instance followed Luke's general scheme to produce a 'super-gospel' or a supplimentary gospel, then it was only on the general planning level, and not in the specific details.

This does not necessarily imply that Mark's chronology is the most accurate, or even that Luke and Matthew viewed it as only needing a few minor changes. Nor can it reflect any opinion between Luke and Matthew of each other's chronological improvements.

On the one hand, the most likely situation is that one gospel writer wrote first, preventing him from consulting the other, or having knowledge of any chronological changes. It is then only the behaviour of ONE of the two editors that needs explaining.

Secondly, both authors seem to have had more than mere chronology in mind when rearranging and editing Mark. They both felt a freedom if not a need to 'improve' Marks' grammar and diction, and even his story-telling performance. In many cases, we see both Luke and Matthew independantly, but similarly editing Mark's stories, removing the superfluous, the confusing, the clumsy, or the irrelevant, while often expanding the explanatory and 'teaching' matter, for clarity.

Both Luke and Matthew provide supplementary material, such as the Nativity sections, not with the intent to supplant or substitute, but rather to augment the gospel and preserve important traditional material.

Similarly, while Matthew manages to retell some 606 verses of Mark out of about 661 (dropping only 10%) he also manages to swell these up to a new total of about 660 verses (Matthew totals about 1,068 verses, with 400 of them non-Markan material). That is, Matthew has added over 60 verses of extra 'explanatory' material to Mark, even though he often drastically cuts down Mark's wordy accounts!

Yet the vastly different methods of insertion and arrangements of NON-Markan material between Matthew and Luke require a separate treatment all their own.

Mark's divine inspiration seems not to have extended superstitiously to the very chronological order or the mode of expression of Mark's account, at least in the eyes of the other two evangelists. Instead, both editors felt free to 'improve' as well as suppliment Mark for the service of their new and different audiences.

That is, different groups of believers and different generations seem to have required a different form of 'gospel' than the one Mark left us, or at least the needs of the church and posterity demanded that other material not covered by Mark be preserved and presented in a new format and order.

It should be remembered that Luke also provided a powerful and important history of the early church for us in his second book, the Book of Acts, while Matthew seems to have successfully subsumed and syncretized various strains of teaching found among the letters the early Apostles left behind.

 

[Nazaroo]

For completeness here's the full chart with dislocations by Matthew and Luke:

We'll look in detail at Luke's relation to John, and the NON-Markan parts of Luke and Matthew next.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Obviously Luke used Mark and at least one other source, in composing his new more comprehensive gospel.

He may have relied upon a lost document (such as the proposed 'Sayings Source', the alleged "Q") or simply compiled or combined eyewitness testimony he received orally from others (or even both).




Matthew and Luke


When we turn to Matthew, we find again a very similar document: an attempt to write an expanded, more comprehensive gospel, dependant also upon Mark and at least one other source.

In fact, a large amount of the material in Matthew has direct parallels in Luke, even down to the actual wording. Even the so-called "Special Matthew" material (sections found only in Matthew) have remarkable parallels to and can be aligned with remaining sections of Luke!

This suggests a strong and close relationship between the two gospels, and that one had obvious knowledge of the other.

The main differences between Luke and Matthew regarding the NON-Markan sections are not so much in the content but in the ARRANGEMENT of this content, although there are also significant substitutions as well. Most of the material in Luke is reproduced in Matthew, in a slightly different form and context.

One gospel writer has extensively rearranged the content of the other. Put another way: Matthew not only reproduces 90% of Mark, but he also appears to reproduce 80-90% of Luke as well!

From a modern perspective, the correspondence between Matthew and Luke is probably the greatest and most extensive case of 'plagarism' in ancient times! Of course modern values and standards cannot be imposed upon these ancient writers.

From their perspective (and ours!), the Holy Scriptures, the word of the Lord, could not be 'copyrighted', but was a message to all men, and therefore also the rightful property of all men.

These writers did nothing wrong in making use of prior work, and certainly had the mandate from their respective communities to proceed.




Matthew, Luke and Other Sources


Yet unlike the case regarding Mark, in which it is rather simply demonstrated "who copied who", the question of the interdependance of Luke and Matthew is more complicated and controversial.

Of course neither evangelist provided detailed footnotes or cited sources, but produced new cloth by extensive combining and rearranging of their sources. Only Luke acknowledges even in a general way his use of prior materials (Luke 1:1-4).

So it is up to us, the 'schoolmasters', to determine both "who copied who", and also what other sources they have drawn from.

In fact, both Luke and Matthew have appeared to draw from several obvious sources:

The Gospel of John, (& possibly John's letters),
The Letter of James (Jacob),
Paul's Letters,
The Didache.

Knowing that both Luke and Matthew have used these other sources, as well as examining the unique material each provides, will allow us to determine the chronological order in which the gospels were written, and also who must have 'copied' (made use of) who.

 

[Nazaroo]

In the modern era we often take for granted the progressive revelation that is Christianity. We are handed a complete Bible or an entire New Testament ready-made, along with a 2000 year history of doctrinal debate.

The earliest Christians however were no so fortunate in this area. There was no printed New Testament for them to use.

Of course many of them would have been eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus. Others would have the benefit of teachers such as Paul, and it is likely that from the beginning literate followers would have carefully collected Jesus' sayings.

Still others, converted scribes and priests such as Nicodemus would have made accounts of political and religious events and provided them to the Christian community. Even illiterate followers like the man born blind would have been able to give testimony of his experiences that would be recorded by others.

Still, the literature of the NT was a progressive revelation, spanning nearly 70 years from the early 30's to the end of the 1st century A.D.

These documents were written and accumulated gradually over time, as the early Christians faced and dealt with various practical issues and doctrinal questions.

We are not subscribing to any 'theory of evolution of religion'.

But the Christian revelation was nonetheless a progressive one that unfolded over a significant period of time, as teachers confronting various situations under guidance of the Holy Spirit were given insight and revelation.

In fact, if we were to rearrange the New Testament in true chronological order, it would appear very different than its usual topical arrangement of today.

The chronological order would be something like:

Paul's letters, and Jacob's letter,

The Didache, various sermons,
possibly Revelation,

The Gospels:
Mark,
John,
Luke, Matthew,
Acts.

Later Writings:
Clement, Hermas, etc.

This chronological arrangement however, does give us some insight into the sources various writers had available and used in composing their works.

It also helps to provide a sensible and rational history of the background and purposes of each evangelist.

 

[Nazaroo]

Having said that the Gospels were probably not the first documents actually written by Christians, we don't want to suggest that they are somehow 'secondary' or less important than other documents, such as Paul's letters.




All Documents Presuppose Earlier Traditions


Although the earliest surviving written documents are probably things like the letters of Paul and James, Peter, and John, these documents presuppose other careful records of the earthly ministry of Jesus and His teaching.

In many cases, the early letters (written in the 40s), like other documents, appear themselves to quote very early Christian documents now lost, such as catechisms, prayers, prophecies, and translations of Old Testament material made expressly for Christian use.

Furthermore, these letters presuppose the Gospel story, even though they don't document all the specific details. This was not really their purpose, and it is likely that early Christians maintained alongside these letters other documents such as those described by Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4), which recorded the gospel story and the teachings of Jesus in various forms and formats.


Paul seems to refer to early catechisms and baptism rituals and traditions (e.g. 1st Cor. 11:23-25, Rom. 1:2-6), and James appears to quote early Christian prophecies (e.g., James 5:1-6). Thus in some sense ALL early Christian documents are 'secondary', being partly based upon earlier teaching and traditions (written or oral).



Composite Documents are not Secondary Documents


But in another sense, none of the documents is really 'secondary' at all. Each is an original authentic document issued by a charismatic Apostle or council of Apostles, or respected and beloved Christian writer, and is rightfully believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written under the guidance of same.


Naturally Composed and Produced

This guidance by the Holy Spirit didn't mean that the Apostles could forgo meetings and discussions, or that they could not use previous work by their predecessors and fellow-workers in the gospel. It seems obvious that the Apostles lived and worked like ordinary (Godly) men, preaching, reasoning, and sharing their insights.

So it is natural that we should find ALL the written documents, not just the gospels, would carry on previous work, and include earlier material, which they knew to be reliable and produced by Godly fellow-workers.




Gospels Remain Primary Documents for Christianity

The Gospels maintain their primacy for this very reason: That they continue the unbroken teaching and tradition reaching straight back to Jesus' earthly ministry, even before the crucifixion.

We (Christians in the modern era) have a lot more realistic and knowledgeable view of the Gospels today, partly because we have had such a long time to live with them, and gather those insights.


Eyewitness Testimony Intact

Though we acknowledge that Gospel writers also relied upon other eyewitnesses, one another, and the living Christian communities in which they lived, we still have confidence in their integrity and accuracy regarding many historical facts and details.

In fact, the Gospels by their very nature remain 'eyewitness accounts', or rather collections of eyewitness accounts.

Their interdependances and their dependance upon other living eyewitnesses in their own time, along with their obvious approval by the early Christian community at large, are one of the strongest arguments in favour of their accuracy and integrity.


Important Conclusions

We state all this, so that when we examine some of the details regarding this interdependance, our fellow Christians can be assured that the 'eyewitness testimony' aspect of the Gospels is not undermined, but in fact enhanced by our new more detailed and realistic knowledge of their formation.


We have added an Introductory Page to our Section on the Synoptics on our John 8:1-11 Website here:

Introduction to the Synoptic Problem < -- Click Here.

.





...to be continued...

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

We have made the last few posts and charts here into a new fourth part webpage on the Synoptic Problem and John 8:1-11.

You can download it for easy viewing here:

Synoptic Problem Part IV <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Sectional Outline

PROLOGUE (1.1-1:51)

1. Introductory Proem (1:1-13)
2. Interpretive Thesis (1:13-18)
3. Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)
4. Day 1 of Jesus' Ministry: Calling of Disciples Andrew, John (1:35-42)
5. Day 2: Calling of Philip and Nathanael (1:42-47)
6. Testimony of Nathanael: Son of God and King of Israel (1:48-49)
7. Foreshadowing from Jesus (1:50-51)

I. FIRST MIRACLES: CANA, [SAMARIA],
GALILEE, JERUSALEM (2:1-5:47)

1. 1st Sign - at Cana on Third Day: Marriage (2:1-11)
2. Cleansing of the Temple at Jerusalem (2:12-25)
3. 1st Discourse with Nicodemus: Born of Spirit (3:1-21)
4. Testimony of John the Baptist (2nd time) in Judea (3:22-36)
5. Ministry in Samaria (4:1-42)
&#8195;&#8195; 2nd Discourse: Samaritan Woman - Living Water (4:1-30)
&#8195;&#8195; Disciples ask about Food, Jesus expounds Harvest (4:31-39)
&#8195;&#8195; Ministry in Samaria completed (4:40-42)
6. 2nd Sign in Galilee: Healing the Nobleman's Son (4:43-54)
7. 3rd Sign in Jerusalem: Healing Cripple by Pool of Bethesda (5:1-47)
&#8195;&#8195; Jesus Heals Cripple on Sabbath (5:1-9)
&#8195;&#8195; Judeans interrogate Healed Cripple (5:10-13)
&#8195;&#8195; Judeans seek to kill Jesus and confront Him (5:14-18)
&#8195;&#8195; 3rd Discourse: Jesus on Son of God - His Authority (5:19-47)


II. SECOND GROUP OF MIRACLES:
GALILEE AND JERUSALEM (6:1-8:1)

1. 4th Sign in Galilee: Feeding of the 5000 (6:1-14)
2. 5th Sign in Capernaum: Walking on the Water (6:15-21)
3. 4th Discourse: Jesus is the true Bread from Heaven (6:22-58)
4. People Divided: Many murmur and turn away (6:59-66)
5. Testimony of Peter: Jesus has words of Eternal Life (6:67-71)
6. 5th Discourse on Feast of Tabernacles: the Water of Life (7:1-39)
7. People Divided by Disputes: Jesus withdraws (7:40-8:1)
The Pericope De Adultera (8:2-11) "At Dawn He Came..."


III. THIRD GROUP OF MIRACLES:
JERUSALEM AND BETHANY (8:12-12:11)

1. 6th Discourse: The Light of the World (8:12-59)
2. 6th Sign in Jerusalem: Blind Man Healed (9:1-34)
&#8195;&#8195; Blind Man Healed (9:1-12)
&#8195;&#8195; Blind Man interrogated, cast out (9:13-34)
&#8195;&#8195; Testimony:Jesus is the Son of God (9:35-38)
3. 7th Discourse: The Door into the Kingdom (9:39-10:21)
&#8195;&#8195; Parable of the Door of the Sheepfold (9:39-10:6)
&#8195;&#8195; Parable Explained: Jesus is the Door to the Kingdom (10:7-18)
&#8195;&#8195; People Divided: Judeans argue among themselves (10:19-21)
4. Dispute: Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem: the Christ? (10:22-42)
&#8195;&#8195; Jesus is Only the Messiah for His Believing Sheep (10:22-30)
&#8195;&#8195; Judeans attempt to stone Jesus, Jesus argues (10:31-39)
&#8195;&#8195; Jesus escapes and returns to the Jordan (10:40-42)
5. 7th Sign in Bethany: Lazarus Raised from Death (11:1-57)
&#8195;&#8195; Lazarus falls sick, dies (11:1-16)
&#8195;&#8195; Jesus arrives and talks to sisters (11:17-37)
&#8195;&#8195; Jesus prays and raises Lazarus (11:38-46)
6. The Council: High Priest 'prophecies' Jesus' death (11:47-54)
&#8195;&#8195; Chief priests and Pharisees plot to kill Jesus (11:55-57)
7. Annointing at Bethany by Mary, sister of Lazarus (12:1-8)
&#8195;&#8195; Chief priests plot to murder Lazarus too (12:9-11)

IV. THE HOUR OF JESUS :
"8th Sign" and Discourse (12:1-50)

1. The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19)
2. The Greeks (the Diaspora) Seek Jesus! (12:12-22)
3. The Hour Has Come: The Dying Seed of Wheat (12:23-29)
4. The Judgement of This World has Come (12:30-33)
5. Walk in the Light (12:34-36)
6. They do not believe in Him (12:37-43)
7. Jesus' Last Call: He represents the Father (12:44-50)

V. JESUS LAST TIME WITH DISCIPLES (13:1-17:26)

1. Footwashing Ceremony & Judas' Treachery (13:1-20)
2. Judas' Iscariot's Departure (13:21-30) "And it was Night..."
3. The Great Commandment (13:31-35)
4. Exchange with Peter: On Departure (13:36-14:4)
5. Exchange with Thomas: Corrections (14:5-7)
6. Exchange with Philip: Promise of Spirit of Truth (14:8-21)
7. Exchange with (loyal) Judah: Keeping the Word (14:22-31)

8. "I AM the True Vine": abiding and producing (15:1-8)
9. The Great Commandment II: More detail (15:9-17)
10. The World's Hatred Against Jesus explained (15:18-25)
11. Persecution Fortold: Hate prophecied (15:26-16:6)
12. The Holy Spirit: More on action of Holy Spirit (16:7-15)
13. The End of Parables: Plain talk for the future (16:16-33)
14. Jesus' Final Prayer: for His disciples (17:1-26)


VI. BETRAYAL ARREST CRUCIFIXION (18:1-19:42)

1. Betrayal and Arrest (18:1-14)
2. Peter's First Denial (18:15-18)
3. Caiaphas interrogates Jesus (18:19-24)
4. Peter denies twice more (18:25-27)
5. Pilate Questions Jesus (18:28-37)
6. Pilate offers Barabbas (18:38-40)
7. Jesus Mocked and Beaten (19:1-7)
8. Pilate Questions Again (19:8-12)
9. Pilate Orders Crucifixion (19:13-16)
10. Jesus is Crucified (19:17-24)
11. Jesus arranges care for His mother (19:25-27)
12. Jesus dies (19:28-30)
13. Jesus body examined by Romans (19:31-37)
14. Jesus is Buried by Nicodemus and Joseph (19:38-42)


VII. RESURRECTION APPEARANCES (20:1-31)

1. Jesus' Body Missing (20:1-10)
2. Jesus Appears to Mary (20:11-19)
3. Jesus Appears to disciples (20:19-23)
4. Jesus Appears to Thomas (20:24-29)
5. First Summary Ending (20:30-31)
&#8195;&#8195; EPILOGUE (21:1-25)
6. Jesus Appears Again (21:1-14)
7. Jesus prophecies Peter's Future (21:15-24)
Final Summary (21:25)

Note also that these hidden structures vouchsafe and protect other key passages that have been erroneously called into doubt as 'additions' to the gospel, such as the famous 'epilogue' of chapter 21.
Particularly stunning is the parallel sets of Double-Sevens (14) parts to Jesus' speech at the Last Supper, and 14 sections to the Passion account. These are clearly meant to resonate with one another. One only need put the two groups of 14 passages in two columns side by side to see their amazing correspondence.
Again, it seems John has carefully planned his Gospel from one end to the other with tamper-proof safeguards to prevent the ignorant from mutilating or otherwise altering his original work.
​