Simon Peter and the Cheshire Cat: Was Peter in the "Original" Gospel of John?

Cheshire Cat fading to smile

... All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

`Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; `but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!'

The Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland has the remarkable ability to appear and disappear at will. At one moment he is conversing pleasantly, imparting information Alice already knows, and the next vanishing from sight. Simon Peter performs this very trick before our eyes in the Gospel of John.

You may have noticed that in my commentary concerning the first version of the Gospel of John that Peter is conspicuously missing. This is not by chance nor an oversight due to my choice of elements to present my case. One of the primary observations of the fourth gospel is that it came in two forms, the first heretical as I outlined in my prior post on the subject (The Gospel of John: Context of Authorship), and later in Catholic form, not to different from the version we have today. The first form did not conform at all to the synoptic gospel structure, accounts or characters, except at points to refute them, especially Matthew. But the second form went to great lengths to harmonize key elements with the synoptic gospels. Peter came with this revised second form.

Part One: Two Versions of John

If you take at all seriously the concept of layers in the Gospel of John, one of the questions that has to arise, is was Peter even in the first version of the Gospel?

The question is not coming from left field but a natural development upon the lines of study we can trace back to at least Joseph Turmel when he first put forth his paper in Le quatrième évangile (1925) under the pseudonym Henri Delafosse, "The First Redaction of the Fourth Gospel," where he argued, by outline of content, that the first author of John was heretical and only later, in a second redaction, was a Catholic layer added to create the Gospel we know today. Rudolf Bultmann applied form criticism to the Gospel, and in Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941) described what he called the "Signs Gospel" as a source which John alone depended. This was part of a larger hypothesis where the Gospel of John was composed in multiple layers over a period of time. At least one of these suggested layers is well known to us already as the Doubting Thomas layer. A series of verses in which Thomas is part of that attempt not only to counter teachings of a Docetic of Christ derived from this gospel, but also to show the resurrection was carnal.

The context of a Peter layer in the gospel must be understood in the context a disciple based layer of Thomas. Not all the Thomas layer involves Thomas immediately, for example the piercing of Jesus body with a lance. The same we shall see is true of the Peter later.

Joseph Turmel in his discussion of the first redaction of John never once mentions Peter. Although his methodology is probably best described as eclectic, he none the less found no value in the Peter material for his discussion of this first version of the gospel. Peter was strangely uninvolved with the grand themes of the Gospel. He is not part of any of the Signs, such as the Cana Wedding, Raising up the Officials Son, nor in the Multiplying of Loaves [1] and the Raising of Lazarus. Further Peter is not mentioned when Jesus walks on the Sea, unlike Matthew, but similar to Mark. It seems that in Bultmann’s Signs Gospel Peter appears to be absent as well. [2] I will leave a final remark on this introduction to the origins of this subject, saying that the Signs Gospel is in fact part of the first edition Turmel identified and the creation of the Johaninne.

There have been attempts since Bultmann to reproduce the Sign’s Gospel. Andrew Bernhard for example quotes the selections of Robert Fortna from his book The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor, as publicly produced on Peter Kirby’s site. [3] In this reproduction Peter appears in three stories, and tangentially is named as Andrew’s brother when not present. But the reproduction is flawed. This expanded Signs Gospel beyond Bultmann’s stem in my view from assumptions of Synoptic parallels, which leads to including the post resurrection Fish Catching miracle, something Bultmann did not do.


A final note, in my estimation the Signs Gospel such as it is - there being wide variane of opinion as to what it includes - constitutes nothing more than a set of passages scholars set aside from within the original creation of the first author. In this respect Turmell is much closer to the truth when he speaks of an original Gospel with very “Marcionite” (I would say Gnostic given the subtle yet pronounced  differences from Marcionite doctrine) original and a Catholic redaction (Bultmann call the second author “ecclesiastical”).[4] I see the “Signs” and the narrator as the first version, including the Proem. The Catholic layer I see as one and the same as the Peter layer. Introduction to the subject complete we turn to Peter:

Part Two: Turmel vs Bultmann
There are two primary reasons why I began to suspect Peter was not in the original Gospel. The first is the narrative character of the fourth gospel, in that it ignores the Synoptic stories almost entirely. Yet Peter appears only in material which directly harmonizes John and the Synoptic gospels. Second the theology of John includes heavy broadside salvos heaved against Matthew’s gospel, but none of the Peter material is involved in this barrage; in fact the Peter material often agree with Matthew and seems unaware of the incompatibility of the two gospels.

The antinomian character of the first edition of John is readily evident. Jesus speaks not of the scriptures being fulfilled, but his word (τὸν λόγον μου 5:24, 8:31, 8:37, 8:43, 8:51-52,14:23-24, 15:7, 15:20), and this word even applies as a “sign” to his type of death (12:33, 18:32). The Jewish scriptures are repeatedly downplayed, as when Jesus refers to “your law” (8:17 for Deuteronomy 19:15, 10:34 for Psalms 82:6, “their law” 15:25 for Psalms 69:4 also possibly 35:19) or shown to be wrong, as it is juxtaposed as given by Moses against the grace of Christ (1:19) and contradictory (7:19, 23 for Leviticus 12:3, Genesis 21:4, circumcision has a 1 in 7 chance of falling on the Sabbath), or flat wrong in being used to interpret the Christ (12:34 referencing Psalms 110:4, Isaiah 9:7, Ezekiel 37:25, Daniel 7:14; see 7:41-42 for an example). Jesus is saying in effect he is separate from the law. The Jews themselves in this Gospel refer to it similarly as “our law” and not applying to Jesus (7:51-52). Pilate also makes reference to it as peculiar to the Jews, which they concur (18:31-32). And the Jews also refer to it concerning a law they have that says Jesus must die for blaspheming God (19:7 referencing Leviticus 24:16) something they wanted to do earlier by stoning (10:33-36). In John the Law encompasses all the old Testament, including the prophets, with references to passages in Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in addition the from the Pentateuch. There is a clear separation of the OT from Jesus and a juxtaposing of his Christ and the one claimed to be predicted from the OT.

So then the passage which instead promote the Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, must come from a different writer than the one who put together the original story including the true “Signs Gospel.” For example verses 12:13-16, concerning Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, tells us that he enters on a donkey with the crowd laying down palms saying ‘Hosanna’ in order to fulfill what “had been written about him” in Psalms 118.25-26 and Zechariah 9:9. However, as we noted above the passages supposedly that Christ fulfills do not apply to John’s Jesus. This passage, and likely a verse or two on each side, came from a later Catholic editor, drawing from the Synoptic accounts, especially from Matthew’s account, as only that book has the mention of the daughter of Zion. Of course if you have been with me on my examination of John, you would know John was written in opposition to Matthew, never to agree with it. The mention of a sign in this passage could be vestigial from the earlier version and even so is in reference to Lazarus being raised, not Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

The other oft identified Signs Gospel passage which is not, is the Cleansing of the Temple scene (2:14-23). Again we are told the disciples remembered (2:22), just as they did for the entry into Jerusalem (12:16) the scriptures about Jesus, “and they believed the scripture.” This again contradicts the juxtaposition elsewhere in John of Jesus against the law, which as we have shown in John is the entire Old Testament. This entire passage, like that of the entry into Jerusalem takes a perspective entirely at odds with original author’s presentation, but very much in harmony with the Synoptic gospels.

Curiously both passages, although far apart in John’s gospel are almost adjacent in the three synoptic gospels. They are shorter accounts, with more vivid details, such as the whip of cords Jesus makes, and the palms branches instead of garments laid down for Jesus by the crowd. Added details are a common response of writers in a squeal, giving the audience something new, either from common assumption or from the writer’s compulsion to “more accurately” set the scene. These enhancements at time betray their origins. The palm branches are inspired by Psalms 118:27, where the scene is a festival of branches, where in the prior verse the crowds cheer the one coming in the name of the lord.

Further evidence of their being later enhancements is that many steps are skipped, such as the procurement of the colt, as they are assumed to be known already to the audience, clearly from the synoptic tradition. This is very unlike John elsewhere where the stories describe their own origins, they don’t jump in skipping plot development like we see with these two passages.

The Sign’s Gospel then is not as it seems. It cannot be an original form as it includes later enhancements from a very different theological perspective that the earlier elements. A division more along the lines suggested by Trumel survives inspection better than Bultmann’s Signs Gospel.

Part Three: Different Disciples

Peter appears in several of the stories in John, but he imparts no information we didn't already know from the Synoptic Gospels. [5] This is very strange when you consider that nearly every story in the gospel turns the synoptic parallel stories on their heads. [6] Peter uniquely is identical character in John as he is in the synoptic gospels, but only for the purpose of telling one key story. The entire purpose of Peter's appearance in John is to incorporate his denial of Jesus. But as we shall see this story was not part of the original version of John, and it was shoehorned in somewhat awkwardly.

As background to understand the fragility of Peter in the gospel of John, it is necessary to first survey the various disciples, often unique to John, to get a survey of the landscape. As we shall see more than a few of them are closely tied to suspect later layers of the gospel.

Judas Iscariot, Simon Peter (Cephas), Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Lazarus, the blind man from birth, Joseph of Arimathea, and possibly Nicodemus, are identified as disciples featured in the gospel of John. Only Philip and Judas overlap with the twelve from the synoptic gospels. These new names are in addition to the almost certainly later additions Thomas and the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciples mentioned are for the most part episodic.

Thomas is at the center of an anti-Docetic layer in verses 20:24-29, which are meant to confirm that Jesus had physical form upon resurrection. So Jesus makes a second house call. But curiously Thomas never receives the Holy Spirit (20:22); a blunder for the redactor. His other appearances are making two rhetorical statements in verses 11:16 and 14:5, both of which intrude superficially upon Jesus' dialogue, and finally he is listed in the roll call of verse 21:2; just "I was there" mentions.

Two more disciples I did not mention above, James and John, are not even named but just referred to as "the sons of Zebedee", and only mentioned in the roll call of verse 21:2, and play no part in the events, their names simply tacked on as if  to say they were present. Their presence in the roll call however betrays the source of the second ending as coming from the calling of the fishermen from the synoptic gospels (Mark and Matthew) where they are so named.

We now turn our attention to one of the "minor" disciples Andrew. Andrew appears in only five  verses. As with Matthew's gospel he is identified as the brother of Simon Peter. In verse 6:8 he is dropped in to give a name to the disciple who tell Jesus a young man has five barley loaves and two fish, when in all likelihood Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου was not in the original, it was just another of the many unnamed disciples appearing in John, the name is simply to say he was present. Verse 12:22 is even more pointless, a game of telephone, some Greeks tell Philip they want to see Jesus, so Philip tells Andrew, then they go to Jesus. Actually the verse is quite secondary, even to the larger addition meant to conform to the synoptic account which runs 12:13-22 of Jesus entry into Jerusalem on a young ass, a story also missing in Marcion (Epiphanius P42.11.6.53). It is part of the King of Israel theology, which we will see below about Nathaniel, intruding on the gospel. This brings us back to Andrew's introduction in verse 1:40-41 as one who heard John the Baptist speak, and as the brother of Simon Peter who then goes to Simon and says '"We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ)'. The use of an Aramaic word is a strong indication of later concerns to show the Apostles were Jewish and spoke Hebrew (or Aramaic). But he plays no role, except playing go between again. He is also mention in verse 1:44 as he and Simon being from Bethsaida like Philip.

Judas' role is secure as "the betrayer", with John putting a different twist on his role, as being chosen for this necessary task by Jesus, and allowing him to be possessed. Of course there are some signs of tampering by the later catholic redactor, but the character was already integral to the gospel.

Part Four: Judas the Most Trusted Disciple
Judas is treated very differently from the synoptic tradition by the original author of John. He is neither condemned nor protrayed as a betrayer. Rather Jesus chooses him for a special mission of delivering him up necessary to complete the purpose for his coming into the world. But this version has been obscured by a later writer, one we shall see who also added Peter.

In the synoptic gospels Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss, as personal as it can get. But in John it is Jesus who chooses Judas and says so straight up:

13:17 “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”
13:18 "I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen;"
13.21 "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will deliver me up."
13:26  "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it."
So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas.
13.27 Then after the morsel, Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly."

But in John Judas was chosen by Jesus to be the one to hand him over (13:18, 13:26) and what’s more Jesus says that one who does this is blessed (13:17). In fact Jesus is the one who sent him (13:16, 13:27). This stands in stark contrast to the synoptic version where Jesus says:

“but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!
 (Matthew 26:24, Mark 14:21, Marcion/Luke 22:22)

Matthew and Mark also tack on “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." Judas in not blessed but condemned in the synoptic accounts, including the Marcionite. There is no choosing by Jesus, no feeding a morsel, no instructions. Judas goes on his own and for money.

In the last supper setting of the Synoptic accounts, Jesus merely announces it is one of the twelve who is eating with him at the table, one who dips his bread in the dish with him, which they all do.

Judas’ different mission parallels Jesus’ different attitude toward his fate. In the Synoptics he is presented as resigned to a fate he doesn’t want. Luke/Marcion 22:22 “For the Son of man goes as it has been determined”, Matthew 26:24/Mark 14:21 “For the Son of man goes as it is written of him,” alluding to a prophecy fulfillment of the Old Testament (Marcion/Luke lack that element). His reluctance is further demonstrated when he asks that the cup be removed, and resigns to it (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) - it should be noted Marcion lacks that passage with the words of the prayer, including the request to remove the cup (Luke 22:42-44).

John’s Jesus however has no reluctance whatsoever, mocking it seems the synoptic account, saying, "Now is my soul troubled? And what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.” (12:27) John’s Jesus has no reluctance. He wants to destroy the Demiurge, as he follows up this statement of his plan to be delivered up stating, “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself,"(12:30-31) which Is to be accomplished by his death (12:32). This is the same concept behind the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:8 where the rulers of the world would not have crucified Jesus had they known the consequences. This is the Gnostic Jesus that John presents us. But more importantly it is similar in some respects to a Cainite presentation of Judas (I will speculate later, concerning a possible relationship between Judas and the beloved disciple).

And from the above we can spot the redactors additions and adjustments to the entire crucifixion sequence, beginning with Judas. Again we will see the editors purpose was to harmonize the Judas story with that of the synoptic version. The character of Peter we will see is used repeatedly in this task which consists mostly of vilifying Judas.

The original Gospel concludes the bread of life by stating, The fourth gospel is makes reference to the apostles in the synoptic gospels, who after hearing the bread of life murmur (γογγύζουσιν) like Jews (6:41, 6:43) saying, “this is an intolerable (σκληρός) doctrine (λόγος); who can consider (ἀκούειν) this?” (6:60) The word σκληρός it should be noted, is used in the same context in Jude 14-17 concerning “grumblers” (γογγυσταί) of the same gnostic views as John expresses here. We can see then this falling out of the disciples, represented in the synoptics by the twelve apostles, is over the very word or doctrine being taught by Jesus in John’s gospel. So it is that Jesus then rhetorically ask, “This is offensive (σκανδαλίζει) you?” (6:61) And so the scene closes with the narrator informing us that “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66). The apostles of the synoptic gospels have thus left Jesus camp, and no longer follow.

The Catholic editor countered by ignoring this falling away, and in the immediate following verse pretends they have not yet left, by clumsily having Jesus extend the conversation after the narrator has wrapped the scene, when he says “Jesus said to the twelve.” (6:67) The problem is the twelve appear out of nowhere, there is no appointing of apostles in John, no mention of this twelve out side this passage (6:67-71). This entire passage, designed to show the twelve stuck around -- I suppose we are to think unimportant disciples only walked away -- and importantly Peter. But the editor is caught, using a pastiche from Mark 1:24/Luke 4:34 using the words of the unclean spirit “we know that you are the holy one of God (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ).” (6:69) This concept is missing entirely from John except here. Jesus then says "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (6:70) Jesus never appoints the twelve apostles in John. This verse is looking outside to the synoptic gospels for this information.  But worse, another plot incongruity is introduced, with Judas being already being the devil before the devil had entered his heart, (13:2) which itself happens before Satan, that is the devil enters him at all with the morsel (13:27) in the story line. It’s as if the level of possession follows a reverse timeline. The Catholic editor got ahead of himself. But the purpose is clear, to paint Judas as a bad seed from the beginning. (6:70)

For completeness, two verses were added to the bread of life story by the Catholic redactor. In one Jesus says tacks on the comment "but there are some of you who do not believe" to which the narrator adds, 'Jesus knew from the start who did not believe and who would betray him' (6:64). This verse sets the stage for the inserted passage (6:67-71) of the post exit discussion with the twelve, and also associates Judas with unbelief, the opposite of the disciple carrying out a mission Jesus trusted him alone to do. The question to the twelve about whether they would believe if they saw Jesus ascend (6:62) is from left field, having nothing to do with the bread of life, rather drawn from the Parousa of the Son of Man concept of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 20:34, Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27). Elsewhere, it is the angels of God ascending and descending to Christ (1:51), not Christ himself, or generally self referential saying that in the nature of the universe that only those things which descend may ascend (3:13), and something he tells Mary at the tomb --if part of the original-- he has not yet done (20:17). Neither of these have anything to do with the bread of life. [7]

Judas makes one more appearance, this time at Lazarus’ house, it seems simply to prove he is of bad character and evil motive it seems. The story itself (12:2-8) serves no purpose in the narrative except to rehabilitate Mary and to denigrate Judas. We get warning something is afoot when we are told “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair” (11:2) even before this event takes place. The ointment story is again an abbreviated version of the synoptic stories, with some changes. Instead of Simon the Leper (Matthew and Mark) or a Pharisee, the setting is Lazarus’ house, and Nary assumes the role of the unnamed woman (12:2). No doubt the point was chosen because Jesus happened to be in Bethany (12:1 ). There is only cursory attempt at setting, just telling us Martha served and Lazarus sat at the table (12:2). Then borrowing from Luke 7:37-28 Mary pour expensive ointment on Jesus’ feet and uses her hair to wipe them. (12:3) This sets the stage to reveal Judas’ motives

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said,
"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?"
This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief,
and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. (12:4-6)

The Catholic author uses this insertion to show that Judas is a thief, that he held the money box (a detail unique to John that speaks to organizational concerns of the writer’s era), and wanted it for himself. He is thus a bad seed. The passages is finished off by Jesus restating Matthew 26:11-12 (Mark 14:7-8), saying that Mary is preparing him for burial, and not to worry about the money because there will always be poor, but you only have Jesus with you for a limited time.

The entire passage 12:2-8 is an off topic digression, as the story proceeds directly from 12:1 to 12:9-11, as you can see when we leave it out:

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. When a large crowd of Jews learned that he was there, and the came, not for of Jesus’s sake only, but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief preists resolved to put Lazarus to death also, because on his account many of the Jews were falling away and believing in Jesus.

The ointment story is quite secondary to this clean story sequence, where an action of Jesus leads to an immediate and clear plot movement. The story is independent of the plot line. (So much for being part of the Signs Gospel).

The Catholic author takes one final swipe at Simon, when Jesus is about to wash the disciples’ feet (another foot washing scene), when we are told that during this supper, “the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him.” (13:2) This information however has nothing whatsoever to do with the foot washing scene. It’s sole purpose is to remind us that Judas was already a bad seed before he ate the morsel. This is reinforced in another element the catholic editor added, of Peter requesting that not just his feet but his hands and his head be washed (13:6-9), to which Jesus replies,

"He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you." (13:10)
That last bit is thrown in to reinforce that Judas is unclean before his mission as the narrator makes sure we know by stating, ‘For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."’ (13:11)

When the foot washing parable is complete the Catholic redactor adds one final parting shot at Judas saying, “I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'” (13:18) The remark again is to show that Judas acts not according to Jesus’ will but from malice. That this is from the Catholic redactor is vouchsafed by it’s prophecy fulfillment drawn from Psalms 41:9.

The entire Peter segment was inserted to bring the synoptic themes the proto-orthodox church already insisted upon, of Peter’s denial and of Judas’ betrayal. However the original story was focused on the foot washing, as this is the lowliest of jobs, which Jesus was saying highest serves the lowest, and as we can see with these bits removed presents a much cleaner story :

Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each others feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them." (13:1, 3-5, 12-17)

The surprise here is that Peter’s conversation is superfluous as well. The request to wash his head and his hands has no relationship to the lowliest duty of washing the feet. It is instead a way of saying that Judas’ hands are not clean, nor his mind (the head). The other purpose served is to put Peter to prominence among the apostles and show that his falling away later is the result of his not understanding at the time.

The meal where Judas is selected I already covered, has also been altered by the Catholic editor. The disciple whom Jesus loved and Peter’s use of him as intermediary is redundant, but meant again to show both of them being present. Peter for his falling away, and the unnamed disciple because he is supposedly the source for the revised gospel the Catholic editor produced, (21:24) so needs to be present at this critical point. Thus he wrote after “one of his disciples sitting at the table”:

who was lying close to his bosom, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, (13:23b-25a)
ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς· νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει. ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ

What is fascinating is the redundancy of Peter.

The Catholic editor also tacked on the narrators commentary that none of the disciples at the table knew why Jesus said this to Judas and then again mentioning the money box and given money to the poor, (13:28-29) to impress us again with the idea that Judas betrayed for money. But it is an unnecessary digression from the selecting of Judas for the mission of delivering up Jesus. It should be noted that it is unusual in John to give us any insight into the thoughts of the disciples, these verses are a departure from that norm.

Finally, Judas reappears, to ask Jesus a pertinent question, “How will you manifest yourself to us, and not the world?” (14:22). This shows that he did not vanish or fall away, although the Catholic redactor added parenthetically “not Iscariot” (οὐχ ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης). But who else can it be, there is only one Judas in this gospel? This verse brings into doubt the word “Satan entered him” (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὃ Σατανᾶς), (13:27) as Judas is anything but possessed here. Satan here parallels Luke 22:3, however the Marcionite text seems to be missing Satan entering him, which would make this a very late addition. It also makes me wonder if Judas was the disciple asking who it was that would deliver up Jesus (13:23, 25) rather than an unnamed one.

Almost certainly John’s Gospel understood Judas to be at his crucifixion, perhaps again replaced by the unnamed disciple (19:26-27 in some form), and possibly at the tomb, replaced by Peter and the other disciple (20:3ff). But this is difficult to determine as these sections are heavily redacted. And almost certainly he would have been at the resurrection meeting (20-19-23). Judas never fell away, none of the disciple John wrote of fell away. But they are not the same apostles as those found in the synoptic gospels.

Part Four: The Vanishing Peter
Peter has already started to vanish when we recognize the secondary nature of his presence in the foot washing and the morsel eating passages. So it is time to look at his every appearance to see where he actually belongs in the first revision of this gospel.

One of the salient features of the fourth gospel is that who is called a disciple is very different than the synoptic gospels. Joseph of Arimethea (19:38), the formerly blind man (9:27-28), Lazarus appears to be as well. Likely Nathanael, despite only appearing in calling of the first disciples (1:45-50), as the name is unique to this gospel, and would not likely have come from a redactor harmonizing with the synoptic gospels. It is uncertain if Nicodemus was one (IMO not, 19:39 being suspect, and he never leaves the Jewish camp). Judas is the only secure name from the twelve from the synoptic lists, and perhaps Philip. But mostly the disciples are unnamed, one which may or may not be part of the original is not named, the beloved disciple. And no calling of twelve to be apostles.

Peter name first occurs, not as a character introduction, but identified as Andrew’s brother (1:40). His introduction comes the next verse where he is Simon, then addressed by Jesus as“Simon son of John. You shall be called Cephas.” (1:41-42) Parenthetically we are told that Cephas means Peter. Cephas never occurs again in this Gospel, it just proceeds with Peter or Simon Peter or Andrew and Peter.  The singularity for Cephas makes it suspicious. There is a mapping of Cephas and Peter going on, which also appears in Galatians 2:7-8, which are pat of the second revision of that leter. There doens’t seem to be any other reason for Cephas to be mentioned. Andrew tells Peter “we have found the messiah”, (1:41) another unique Aramaic word, which is translated by the narrator “which means Christ” (1:41). One other unusual element, Simon and Andrew are apparently disciples of John the baptist which is unique to this gospel. But beyond these oddities it is difficult to say the introduction of Peter (and his brother Andrew) as the first disciple(s) is not part of the original. A form argument could be made the 1:40(b)-42 was added, and the disciple of John who follow Jesus was unnamed, but I think it is too weak on its own to stand. So we will move on and come back to it if necessary.

A disciple is named, “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother” (6:8) for color only, at the feeding of the multitude. If any name were given most likely it would have been Judas -- speculative, I admit-- which clearly the Catholic redactor would have had motive to replace the named character.

The other Judas interactions with Peter we already covered as secondary. When Peter asks Jesus where they will go when he leaves them (6:67-71), as this question allows the author to show both Peter’s not yet firm belief, and to vilify Judas ready to fall away. And again in the previously mentioned foot washing (13:2, 6-11) where Peter asks a question about washing the hands (symbolic enough) and head so that Judas may be vilified again as unclean from the start. The Disciple whom Jesus loved replaced an unnamed disciple in asking Jesus who would carry out the mission of delivering up of Jesus, and this brought in Peter as well (13:23b-24a). Again were name present, the only logical one to ask the question would have been Judas, and the Catholic editor would have had reason to replace Judas, and also add the commentary making clear the readers know Judas is motivated by money (13:28-29).

Essentially all of Peter’s appearances to this point are associated with the denigration of Judas’ character, and all of them are secondary. What remains all centers on Peter’s triple denial and his redemption by triple affirmation.


Part Five: Peter's Denial and Redemption

Peter’s saga, which played no part in the original Gospel, but is key to the Catholic editor and author of the Canonical John, centers around his triple denial of Christ. The church needed to conform John’s gospel to the synoptic story line, especially when it came to promoting Peter as the premier disciple and de facto source of apostolic authority. The original author of the first revision of John did not include Peter, or any of the apostles because they held no importance to his sect’s claim of authority, and it was not part of his Christ’s mission. The secondary nature of the material will become clear.

It starts with the prediction of Peter’s Denial (13:36-38)

Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward (ὕστερον)." Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times.

Peter Betrays Jesus and Repents, 17^th-century Ethiopian Mss

When Jesus says to Peter, you cannot follow me know, but later you shall follow, it seems that he is referring to the legend of Peter’s martyrdom, especially the comments about laying down his life (ψυχή). Jesus questions whether Peter will, and instead tells him he will thrice deny him. This all fits well, and adds onto the legend of the synoptic gospels which lack the martyrdom on a cross prediction for Peter, which is at the heart of the Catholic tradition of Peter being the cornerstone of the Church.

However the entire passage is a digression in the middle of a longer discourse from Jesus the begins after Judas eats the morsel. Unlike the other questions from Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8) and Judas (14:22) [8] which follow, Peter’s questions and Jesus’ answer are not concerning doctrine, but rather Peter’s destiny. They do not add to Jesus discourse or flow into the next question as the others do. Another more technical indicator is the hapax legomenon “follow later” ὕστερον which outside of Matthew occurs only in Mark 16:14 from the dubious extended ending. This vocabulary brings into play legends from era long after the biblical setting. The legend is not part of the Jesus story John is telling, rather the later church founding legend (compare 1 Timothy 4:1 for a Pastoral era example).

Another element of the story occurs in the arrest scene, where Peter draws his sword and strikes the high priest’s slave Malchus’ ear off (18:10-11). The verses are drawn from the synoptic accounts, but instead of an unnamed follower it is specifically Peter who strikes off the right ear. The right ear is from Luke 22:50, but was not part of the earlier Marcionite gospel. So this element must have arrived in the fourth gospel at a date sometime after the Marcionite gospel was revised and transformed into Luke. As with the synoptic accounts, the passage is a later addition, except in Matthew, a digression from the arrest story. But we find motive for it’s inclusion and for the naming of both Peter as the one striking and also the victim Malchus, as this will play out later in the drama of denial scene.

After Jesus arrest with arrive at the scene of the interrogation of Jesus at the High Priests house, where that Peter’s Triple Denial of Jesus (18:15-17, 25-27) occurs. These Peter elements, much like the synoptic gospels, stand as an independent story interspersed with the trial of Jesus at the high priest’s house. In general it follows the same formula as the synoptic accounts, but there are some peculiarities that need to be examined.

First, there has been some doctoring of the high priest story, at least as far as names go. Annas and Caiaphas. These names are probably drawn from Josephus Antiquities 18.2.2 and 18.4.3 when the names “repeat.” Only Caiahas is mentioned in Matthew (26:3, 26:57) matching both the plotting to kill Jesus (11:49) and upon his arrest being brought specifically to his house (18:13-14, 24, 28). As for Annus (‘Ananus’ in Josephus), we see his name appear in Luke as the high priests(3:2), but thier relationship of Annas as father in-law of Caiaphas (18:13) is missing. But the concept of being co-equal in power isn’t as John has Annas question Jesus, then send shim to his (figurehead?) son in-law. That relationship is definitely a speculation from the name associations in Antiquities.

So we need to go back to the first appearance of Caiaphus when give counsel to the pharisees and chief priests, immediately after the Lazarus episode when the Jews with Mary reported what Jesus had done. (11:45-46) The purpose of the passage in the original was let the reader know the Pharisees and chief priests gathered in counsel on how to to put Jesus to death (11:47, 53). We see this same meeting of the Pharisees and chief priests in the synoptic gospels (Luke 21:1-2, Mark 14:1-2, Matthew 26:3-5), which for are nearly identical to two verses in John I cite (11:47, 53). There is no ascribed motive in the synoptic passages for wanting to put Jesus to Jesus. And in John such a need to ascribe motive seems dubious, as John’s theme come across clearly (5:18, 7:19, 7:25, 8:37, 8:40) because he proclaims himself the Christ and equal with God, and the Jews are controlled by the Creator, their father, who is “the devil” and was a murderer from the beginning” (8:44), whom Jesus backhandedly calls a “thief” who “comes only to steal and kill and destroy.” (10:10) There is no need for further motive.

And what of the motive? The Catholic editor gives the Jews earthly practical reasons rather than the cosmic ones of the original author, with the Pharisees and chief priests saying, “If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” (11:48) A clear reference to the Jewish War which destroyed Jerusalem (“this place” meaning either or both the temple and the city itself), and the Bar Kokhba revolt which led to the province of Judea being both decimated and dissolved into the Greek Speaking Syrian province (Syria-Palestine) and with it the end of the authority of the Jewish legal code (“our nation/tribe”). I have argued that the original author saw the Jews in his gospels as stand-ins for leaders of the “Judaizing” Christians, who accepted the Old Testament (Law and Prophets) and proclaimed Jesus was the seed of David (7:42). This position represents a shift from the Jews as stand-ins to the actual Jews and the concept of earthly retribution.

Caiaphas’ reply in fact comports to those earthly Jewish concerns when he says, “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." (11:50) We are informed that because he was the high priest this prophecy was not of his own accord, so must have come from the Jewish God, (11:51) the same God which the Catholic author of the second version of John accepted as the source of prophecy and father of Jesus. The narrator’s voice completes his explanation of Caiaphas’ prophesy saying of the one man’s death, “and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.“ (11:52) The concept expressed is the Catholic idea we encounter in Matthew that lost sheep, the twelve tribes of Israel will be gathered (Matthew 10:6, 15:24, 19:28 // Luke 22:30 -- not in Marcion), and is simply not part of the first author’s gospel.

Caiaphus is a non acting character in the trial (18:13-14, 24, 28) just name dropping, with a reference back to his prophecy. As the prophecy (11:48-52) segment an insertion, there is no reason for his name to have been dropped in the first version’s trial. He is a phantom. Annus (Ananus in Josephus) is another name drop associated with Caiaphus (18:13, 24). I would suggest that the original version of the story simply read “they led him to the house of the high priest” (compare Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53, Luke 22:54) rather than the setup in 18:13 we now see, as it is the unnamed “high priest” who questions Jesus (18:19). This suggests that the transfer from Annus to Caiaphus is also an insertion (18:24) , and the transfer from Caiaphus’ house to the praetorium was from the high priest’s house. (Speculatively speaking ) I go further to suggest the mention of Caiaphus in Matthew 26:3, 57, which are merely name dropping without narrative importance were actually scribal additions inspired by John’s text, so even later than the second version of John.

So the set-up for Peter’s appearance in the courtyard of the high priest (18:15) is suspicious. A mysterious unnamed disciple is brought along who gets Peter that much access, but this one can go in as he is known, while Peter remains outside. (18:16) This does suggest that Joseph of Arimathea is that unnamed disciple (19:38 with Mark 14:53 or Luke 23:50 in view), but that is harmonizing. But harmonizing is what we have with Peter’s denial, as first a maid at the door challenges him and he denies he is a disciple of Jesus (18:17), then the servants and officers milling about ask him and he denies (18:18, 25), and finally a servant who was a kin of Malchus whose ear Peter cut off asks him directly if he wasn’t one of those at the arrest scene, and he denies again as the cock crows. (18:26-27) The problem with the last one is that it refers to the ear slicing incident (18:10-11) which we have already concluded was an addition by the second author, not part of the original. We also have enhancements to the courtyard scene, which explain Peter’s access, answering questions about how he gained access to a high official’s house in the first place --a later apologetic concern-- and also details adding on to the ear story that read like a sequel. It seems apparent the second author added the entire Caiaphus and Peter sequence (18:14-18, 24-27) and slightly altered the text around it to include Annus and Caiaphus (18:13, 28).

Peter appears again at the Tomb (20:2-10). It should first be noted the the synoptic version the women come to the tomb with spices, something that was transferred to Nicodemus (19:39) in the fourth gospel. They arrive at the tomb find the rock moved, the tomb open and no body to be seen. The they have a conversation with an angel or two. This sequence is more or less followed With Mary arriving at the tomb and seeing the stone removed (20:1), then sees two angels sitting where Jesus’s body should have lain (20:12) and carries on a conversation with one of them (20:13-17), then reporting what she saw to the disciples (20:18). There are all sorts of problems with the dialogue Mary has with the angel who morphs into Jesus, with the second angel forgotten, but that is another story. The point is Peter’s interaction seems to be a digression from the story line, similar to the interpolation in Luke 24:12.

First it is happy coincidence that Peter and the beloved disciple are just standing nearby for her to beckon them, saying “the Lord” has been taken away; “the Lord” being an epitaph closely associated with the Mary (11:12, 12:18), prophecy fulfillment (12:12, 12:38) and the two post resurrection appearances (20:20, 24, 21:7, 12) -- but not the one for Thomas. We get a lot of emphasis on the detail of the tomb and the linen wrappings, (20:5-8) and a final note about how the scripture must be fulfilled by him rising (20:9). Then a strange line of everybody going to their homes (20:10) to end the digression as cleanly as possible. Of course this is a bit absurd as presumably peter and the beloved disciple are Galileans and we are in Jerusalem. Then a transition to explain why Mary is still there, again weeping (20:11), so that the conversation with the angels can begin. The role here for Peter is to show that after his shameful denial he has come to believe.

The first appearance of Jesus, behind the closed doors (20:19-23), is to simply his disciples, and with the familiar theme of them lying low in fear of the Jews (I.e., “Jewish Christians”, who hold a different doctrine and who persecute and excommunicate them; per 9:22, 12:42, 16:2 ἀποσυνάγωγος). There are some problems with the wording (20:22-23) as that seems to relate to apostolic succession, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion. The point is Peter is not named as a disciple present. The original version of the gospels simply jumps to the closing (20:30-31).

But the final appearance of Peter is after this, in the second ending of the twenty-first chapter. Essentially it is a retelling of the miraculous catch (Luke 5:1-11) which itself is an expansion on the calling of the first disciples (Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20). There is an obligatory roll call (21:2) where Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two “others”, presumably Andrew and the beloved disciple, are listed. Quite probably all of these names are added. It should be noted that the actual named disciples in the first version, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus and Philip are not mentioned. But these are just name dropping from among the twelve, who are the concern of the writer. This verse may actually be later, from the Thomas layer as the sons of Zebedee play no role in this gospel, either first or second version.

There is little doubt among scholars that chapter 21, which they refer to as the second ending is from a second hand. But it is my view, that except for a few small elements, this chapter is actually part of the primary Catholic redaction, in which I suggest Peter was the main focus. Setting aside the Thomas elements (21:2 “Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zeb'edee”, 21:7, 21:14, 21:20-24), we can see this was meant to follow on the first appearance of Jesus (20:18-23). That it was appended after the ending (20:30-31) gives away it’s secondary nature.

Peter’s Triple Redemption (21:15-19) after breakfast is the real purpose of the second ending. Peter is shown as the primary disciple, and have been redeemed, and asked to lead the flock by Jesus himself. The setting, including eating of the fish, which acts as a parallel to the post Emmaus elements in Luke 24:39-43 in an anti-Docetic resurrection polemic, much like the Thomas layer in John. All of this serves later church theology which based the church on the foundation of Peter. And this is most damning of all, for there is no role for Peter in the first author’s story, as he is not the rock on which the church is built (Matthew 16:18).

Conclusions

John Tenniel illustration

John in it's initial form -and final form for that matter- was very different from the synoptic gospels. There is no doubt the author had before him one of the synoptic gospels, and in my view two, most probably the Marcionite from which he drew Lazarus for example, and also Matthew which he was refuting. There are later elements which are taken from Mark and Luke, which is useful in identifying some of the additions to the original version. Unfortunately we do not have an identified heretic or sect which kept the early form in circulation, unlike the Marcionite gospel from which Luke was derived and which extensive polemic works were written, so to help us identify much of it's content. So for John we have to rely on internal contradictions to identify the seams and additions, which when removed give us a fair picture of the original.

Peter, in the gospel of John, shares much it seems with the Cheshire Cat from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. When Alice asks which way she should go, the cat asks her which way you want to go, and Alice says she doesn'y know he replies, "Then ... it doesn't matter." And so it is with Peter. Nothing he did matters to the first version of the gospel. He does not participate in any of it's themes or messages. Turmell didn't recognize this, but simply didn't find anything Peter said or did relevant to his presentation of the first Gospel. Peter had in fact vanished.

Of course Peter is not alone in vanishing, as Andrew his brother, who was nothing more than a phantom anyway, also disappears, and Thomas, and the beloved disciple, and Caiaphas the high priest for that matter. In fact the entire twelve apostles, save Philip vanish. New disciples, such as Lazarus, the blind man, and Joseph step up in their place. The original author clearly did not subscribe to Apostolic succession.

The biggest and true surprise I did not see coming, is when Peter's material is removed, with goes most of the denigration of Judas. He was never possessed and never deserted Jesus, "delivering him up" as required by Jesus. It seems several spots after his supposed betrayal he remained, covered over by an unnamed disciple, even the beloved disciple. The Cainite presentation was something I didn't see coming. [9]


Appendix: The Uncertain Disciples (Philip)

In the name of completeness I will turn my attention to the ambiguous disciple s

Philip is the one Apostle from the synoptic twelve, besides Judas, whom I am uncertain whether he present in the original gospel. While it is clear that verse 12:20-22 are not original, and there has been some doctoring of 1:35-51 (1:40-42 specifically appears added - I will take this up below), his role in the feeding of the five thousand, and his interrogative at the start of Jesus' farewell address at verses 14:8-9 are necessary. Yet he is missing from the role call in 21:2. This suggests he was not part of the redactors' story line, meaning he must have been part of the original.

Nicodemus is one of unique disciples only found in John. And as we have examined the characters associated with the second author, we see that they are all found in parallel stories in the synoptic accounts -- the beloved disciple aside, whom we have not yet evaluated. Nicodemus does not fit into that synoptic harmony model, so logically his character must have come from the first version of John.

Nicodemus' dialogue with Jesus is the important born anew passage, [10]  and it is completely consistent with the presentation of the first author and his Gnostic separation of flesh and spirit. Nicodemus is said to be a man of the Pharisees and a leader (ἄρχων) of the Jews (3:1); that is to say he is acting as a stand-in for some deacon of the proto-Orthodox or "Jewish" Christians with a leadership role, perhaps even a sect leader (hence ἄρχων). But he is one who acknowledges the signs of John's Jesus, and so asks him about his authority, to which Jesus responds with his you must be "born anew" to see the Kingdom of God (3:2-3). Nicodemus, follows up asking how this can be done, thinking only in terms of the carnal or psychic viewed from the gnostic view,since a man cannot reenter the womb (3:4). Jesus responds with birth by baptism (water) and spirit (3:5-8). When Nicomdemus asks again how (3:9), Jesus rightly asks how he cannot know these things (ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις) and yet call himself a teacher (διδάσκαλος) of Israel (3:10); which is to say, how can he be a Christian teacher -- the term διδάσκαλος is closely associated with the Apostles in the NT-- and not know these things of the spiritual Christ the first author's Jesus represents. After Jesus finishes his speech (3:12-15), we leave the scene not knowing if Nicodemus has been won over..

But Nicodemus does show up again when a commotion among the people (ὄχλου) --which in the fourth gospel is stand in for the common congregation[11] -- about whether this Jesus is the Christ or not, some arguing whether Christ could come from Galilee, causing a schism (σχίσμα) with one faction saying yes because of his signs, and the other saying no because the scriptures say he must be from the seed of David and come from Bethlehem, which John's Jesus does not. (7:40-43). This schism conforms to the schism the author of the first revision of John is concerned with, that of Matthew's and the canonical Romans "seed of David" Jesus and the "Gnostic" Jesus who has nothing to do with the Jewish scripture.

At this point the chief priests and Pharisees asked their officers why Jesus was not seized and brought to them, and not being happy at the response that "no man has ever spoken the way he has" and accuse the officers of being led astray (πλανάω), (7:44-47) which is to say drawn away from the Jewish Christian camp to John's Jesus (compare 7:12). The continue saying "No one of the leaders (ἀρχόντων) or Pharisees believed him" (7:48), and they curse the crowd saying they don't know the Law (7:49), conforming again to John's Jesus being separated from Moses. At which point Nicodemus, who is both a leader from the Pharisees, speaks up defending Jesus, "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" (7:50-51). In effect Nicodemus is aligning with John's Jesus. To which the Pharisees and chief priests rhetorically ask, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee" (7:52). They thus reject the Jesus who does not come from Bethlehem, and who is not Jesus.

But to the point, these Jewish leaders tell us Nicodemus is from Galilee. And this is curious, because supposedly Jesus runs into Nicodemus in Jerusalem (2:23) after leaving Capernaum for the Passover to be in Jerusalem (2:12-13) where the overturning of the tables occurs. But this cleansing of the temple scene (2:14-22) was not in the first version of John as I noted above. And curiously Jesus after the first encounter with Nicodemus (3:1-16), again goes to Judea, where he should already be. This sequence makes no sense. The first Passover scene was not in the first version, Jesus was still in Galilee when he met Nicodemus, who himself is from Galilee and still residing there. The three year mission is at least one year less in the first version. And the puzzle of Nicodemus being from Galilee is solved.

Nicodemus is securely from the first version. So it would not be surprising that he was at the tomb preparing the body with myrrh and aloes (19:39).

Footnotes:

[1] Verse 6:8 says “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter” (Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου), but this is likely just a later expansion of “said to him, one of his disciples” (λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ) which was deemed to generic by the Catholic redactor yet was clearly sufficient for the passage without a name, a common enough occurance in John.

[2] According to Bultmann the signs source principally contained the seven miracles from chapters 1–12 of the Gospel of John: the wine miracle, the healing of the son of the king's official, the bread miracle, the walking on water, the healing of the lame man, the healing of the man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus.
[3] You can see this assumption of Synoptic parallel of Robert Fortna's reproduction here:  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/signs.html  
[4]  Before studying the Peter material I thought there were five layers. But now I think only four. I still stand on two layers of the original, with a narration and dialogue which is more or less similar concept as Bultman’s Signs, which was fused with a narrative layer. These first two layers constitute the first published version in my estimation, the (wrongly attributed) Marcionite version according Turmell. The third layer is the Catholic layer or Petrine layer, and it includes much of chapter 21, and also the beloved disciple material. This beloved disciple material I thought before was prior to Peter, but I have come to realize the two are necessarily intertwined. And lastly a Thomas layer. This last layer is pretty much recognized by most scholars regardless of viewpoint.
[5] The Fisherman story, which is post resurrection in John, will be examined separately later. Chapter 21 is anyway considered a second ending, a later addition
[6] Some examples: Jesus appears much like in the Philippians 2:6-11 hymn, transforming from God form to human form, instead of being born as in Matthew; John the Baptist denies he is Elijah, even though Matthew's gospel has Jesus say explicitly that he is, while others (Mark, Luke and also Marcion) agree with the Malachi prophecy role; in John Jesus rejects Mary; also Jesus states that he would never ask that the cup be taken away. Beyond these examples we see different disciple names (well I will demonstrate that in this paper), and no calling of the twelve. There are many other examples.
[7] I skipped over the drinking the blood of Christ (6:63-65), as this has long been recognized as a later element added as support for the wine sacrament. This is probably from even after the Catholic redactor completed the second version of John, possibly aligns with the Thomas layer.
[8]  The words “not the Iscariot” οὐχ ὁ ἰσκαριώτης was added as an epitaph to Judas by the redactor
[9] See Iraneaus Adversus Haereses 1.30ff, also the Gospel of Judas can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/judastxt.pdf. A Good Wiki article for background on the gospel is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas. This gospel is derivative from John and further developed.
[10]  I do not include verse 3:11 as it  switches from Jesus speaking in the singular "I" to plural "we", and similar to 4:22, where we see a clear Catholic theme of Jewish (i.e., OT) priority "for salvation is from the Jews" (see Romans 1:16, 2:9,10, 3:1-2 "the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God", 3:29, 9:24 ... all these are not found in Marcion, even 1:16 read - τε πρῶτον, removing the Jewish priority theology). This verse must be part of the revision, as testimony is not logically part of the response from Jesus. There is also a parallel with verse 3:22 where John says Jesus' testimony is not received. The reasons for it's addition by the second author are not immediately clear.
[11]   ὄχλος 'crowd' usage should be considered in contrast to the term λαός 'people' which stands specifically for the Jewish people when Caiaphus speaks in the fourth gospel (11:50, 18:14), and likely the other mention of those coming into the temple (8:2). This is also the case of Pauline letters, where every instance appears to be from the Catholic layer (Romans 9:25, 9:26, 10:21, 11:1, 11:2, 15:10, 15:11, 1 Corinthians 10:7, 14:21, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Titus 2:14), as well as the Catholic letters (16 instances)., definitely all 14 instances in Matthew. Only in Luke and Acts is it sometime used more generically, and even there most uses are mean to be Jewish people. ὄχλου seems more fitting to match the general Christian congregation, either directly or via stand ins in the gospels.
--------------------------
Footnotes not yet placed, dealing with Judas

[11] According to Elaine Pagels, for instance, Judas is portrayed as having a mission to hand Jesus over to the soldiers. She says that Bible translators have mistranslated the Greek παραδίδωμι for "handing over" to "betrayal". In verses not involving Judas such as...
[13] I consider the phrase εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ "but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled" as a later addition. John is not concerned with scripture and Judas does not fall away.  The phrase the son of perdition was taken from 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The author of this passage assumes the reader knows the scripture referenced in Matthew 27:12 and possibly also Acts 1:18-20. These elements are from outside John's narrative, and have been added to harmonize with the synoptic accounts.











Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew," Bob Gundry, Oct. 6, 2014