Thread by @DrPJWilliams

Remember: no Church Father ever thought that John 1:1-18 were the Prologue of John’s Gospel.

Pass it on.

Sinaiticus has ekthesis at 1:6 and 1:26, but not at 1:19.

Alexandrinus has big letters with ekthesis at 1:1, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, but not 1:19 (though that does begin the top of a column).

Vaticanus has a gap after 1:17 (as after 1:5), but not after 1:18.

The Greek of Codex Bezae, alas, does not survive for the transition from 1:18 to 1:19.

But 032 survives. Note that it provides ekthesis to 1:18 not 1:19. In other words, the new paragraph begins: 'God no one has ever seen.'

Remember the Orthodox lectionary allows the opening of the gospel to end at 1:17 with the climactic naming of the Logos as Jesus Christ.

Here are some lectionary notes:

Byzantine Rite: John 1:1–17 on Easter Sunday

Jerusalem lectionary (Armenian, Georgian): John 1:1–17 on Sunday following Easter Sunday

Syriac lectionary: John 1:1–34 on Sunday following Easter

Vatican II changes the lection from 1:1-14 to 1:1-18 (with 1:1-14 as an option).

So the two significant longer divisions are 1:1-14 in the Latin West and 1:1-17 in the East.

But the division after 1:1-5 is the oldest attested of all.

It occurs in early papyri like P66 and P75 and in all the early majuscules.

The earliest (indirect) attestation for the division after 1:17 may be the Arabic Diatessaron (ed Marmardji) which divides thus:

Sect. 1: Jn 1:1–5; Lk 1:5–80
Sect. 2: Mt 1:18–25a; Lk 2:1–39
Sect. 3: Mt 2:1b–23; Lk 2:40–3:3; Mt 3:1–3; Lk 3:4–6; Jn 1:7–17
Sect. 4: Jn 1:18–28; etc.

The #Lindisfarne Gospels begin John with their famously big letters. Biggest 257mm in my facsimile. By contrast the F of 'Fuit homo' (There was a man, 1:6) was only 41mm. But the F is actually the biggest letter in the entire gospel after the initial ones.

Mediaeval Latin manuscripts generally divide John's Gospel into two sections: 1:1-5 and the rest, but the opening letter of 1:19 gradually grows till it rivals and then supersedes the letter at 1:6. (More research needed here.)

Earliest versions in Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, and Syriac do not have paragraph break after 1:18.

Here's the Adysh Georgian manuscript with a nice big letter beginning the right hand column of 1:21. Nothing at 1:19.

Augustine thought 1:1-5 was the Capitulum Primum (first section) beginning his second sermon on John thus:

Capitulum primum praeterito die dominico tractatum esse meminimus, id est: In principio erat Verbum [...] et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.

So if 1:1-18 is the 'prologue' of John, why does William Tyndale have another 'prologue' before the Gospel begins?

Putting things together, if the author of the Gospel (I take this to be John) intended for 1:1-18 to be taken as a prologue to the whole, he failed to communicate this to any readers for over half the history of the church.

However, a large number of interpreters *begin* with this division already firmly lodged in their minds.

But if they were beginning with the manuscript evidence they would not.

The division after 1:5 is universal and is, more probably than not, from the archetype of the entire textual tradition which in turn more probably than not reflects the author's own division (though 2 probabilities of >0.5 don't make >0.5).

The modern prologue theory needs not only a sense division after 1:18 (there is one), but for that sense division to be *bigger* than any previous one (e.g. after 1:5, 1:14 or 1:17). This is contrary to the early manuscripts and interpreters.

Modern prologue theory is popular (inter alia) because it

Puts a climax on 'high Christology' in 1:18 as if it's remarkable that the Logos should be called God.

Creates a strong structural link between 1:18 & 20:28 so that 2 sections end with a declaration of Christ's divinity.

But the theory usually needs an idiot.

It holds that there's a beautiful poem (or piece of exalted prose) about Christ, which some dork messed up by putting in things about John the Baptist.

This is because the division between 1:18 and 1:19 becomes so strong in people's minds that they can't see there's a series of 5 testimonies of John the Baptist spread across chapter 1.

1:6-8 tells of his testimony without reference to words or an occasion.

1:15-18 (yes I argue the lot should be on JB's lips!) give his words, but no specific occasion.

1:19-28 give an occasion where he speaks.

1:29-34 give an occasion where he sees Jesus and speaks.

1:35ff. give an occasion where he sees Jesus, speaks and his disciples follow.

The literary pattern is progressive and tracks the handover to Jesus.

John's Gospel has an unfolding series of openings until about 2:12, just as it has more than one point at which it feels like it's ending.

I'm not denying there's some break after 1:18, but we should not make it into a bigger break than it is.

One of the bad habits we have in interpreting the text is to divide it into sections.

But the continuity across textual breaks is always bigger than the breaks themselves.

John's Gospel is a bit like Jesus's linen garment (19:24) -- best not to tear it up.

The end.