{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02667814113597246, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014629948364888123, 'mean_word_length': 4.933673469387755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpreting the Double Conclusion of the Gospel of John from the Perspective of Ancient Greco-Roman Literature

This study examines how the double conclusion of the Gospel of John can be viewed from the perspective of ancient Greco-Roman literature. I have found four Greco-Roman works that include double conclusions (Josephus’ Antiquities, Cornelius Nepos’ Atticus, Isocrates’ Panathenaicus, and Isocrates’ Nicocles). I have also found that the double conclusion of these four was written by the same author. These four works indicate that the double conclusion was not a rare phenomenon in ancient Greco-Roman literature at the time when the Gospel of John was written. That the double conclusion was written by the same author in these four works also enhances the possibility that the double conclusion of John’s Gospel was also written by the same author. Based on the observations thus far, I propose that the double conclusion of John’s Gospel was written by the same person and that John 21 including the second conclusion (21:24-25) was written after a considerable amount of time after John 1-20 including the first conclusion (20:30-31) was written.