There is not one universally accepted answer to the question as to whether John 21 was added later or by someone other than the original writer of John. Some want to insist that John 21 was added while others resist the idea: I personally see little evidence for thinking the last chapter of John came later, but here are some resources that discuss the question. I also want to post a quote that gives reasons for not viewing John 21 as a later supplement to the Gospel.
This article examines whether P. Bodmer II supplies possible evidence for thinking John 21 was added: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/10/24/p-bodmer-ii-as-evidence/
On the other hand, Richard Bauckham thinks the last chapter of John was meant to function as an epilogue in conjunction with the Johannine Prologue (John 1:1-8): it would then bookend the overall contents of the Gospel. However, Bauckham does not think John 21 was later added to thhe Fourth Gospel.
Robert Mounce explains:
A major reason for the additional material is said to have been the desire to correct a misunderstanding about the time of Jesus’ return (“ Didn’t he say he would return before John died?” cf. 21: 20– 23). Arguments supporting the integrity of ch. 21 include: (1) the large number of Johannine idioms, (2) the absence of any break in style, and (3) the lack of any indication that the gospel ever circulated without this last section. Morris, 859, confesses “to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition.”
Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9600-9604). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
This link discusses both sides of the issue but decides in favor of taking John 21 to be original: https://bible.org/seriespage/24-exegetical-commentary-john-21#P3791_719621
Edward W. Klink III (John, ZECNT):
The majority of scholarship on the Gospel of John considers the entirety of chapter 21 to be a later addition to the Gospel. The primary basis of this assumption is the manner in which the purpose statement of 20:30–31 functions as a fitting conclusion to the Gospel (see comments before 20:24).2 The argument for this can only be based on internal evidence, however, for there is not a shred of evidence from the manuscript tradition that suggests the Gospel ever existed without chapter 21. No existing copy of the Gospel ever ends at 20:31, nor are either pericopae in chapter 21 ever found elsewhere in the Gospel. This is significant evidence and makes certain that the burden of proof is placed upon those who argue that chapter 21 is not original to the Gospel.His commentary has an extensive discussion on the issues surrounding John 21.
See also https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/sign-in-john-xxi/7BE4C46F9DC2539DB6E0B5A9B3ED9FFC
Nice article here by Craig
Keener: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gospel-of-john/37
11 comments:
https://www.academia.edu/37945363/Does_P66_Suggest_a_Vorlage_Lacking_John_21
A lot of these types of critique seem pedantic.
The critique is also hypothetical and based on zero textual evidence. But Stan Porter devoted an entire chapter to the subject in his book, John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice.
He concluded: "Despite this evidence for inclusion of John 21, the least
substantive and most potentially subjective evidence in a discussion
such as this is the interpretation of questions of unity and thematic
relations between John 1–20 and ch. 21. However, once these other, more substantive obstructions to seeing the authenticity and
integrity of the chapter are eliminated, there is no reason not to view
the positive proposals with sympathy, as plausible explanations from
a conceptual level of what exists at a textual level. As a result, I can
see no convincing reason to dispute the authenticity and even early
integrity of John 1–21 and its attestation to the words and actions of
Jesus the Christ."
Marianne M. Thompson (John, pages 431-432):
"Taken together, these features-the plausible ending of the Gospel at
20:30-31; the unanticipated narrative elements introduced in chapter 21; the focused articulation of the distinctive roles of Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, and the anticipation of their deaths-have led some interpreters to regard John 21 as an extended epilogue to the Gospel, added after it was essentially finished, either by the author of the earlier chapters or by someone else.52 Most though not all interpreters who take chapter 21 as part of the Gospel's original design concede that either vv. 24-25, or 23-25, are a postscript identifying the author of the Gospel as the beloved disciple.53 If chapter 21 was a later addition, it was added before the Gospel circulated widely; there are no extant manuscripts that simply end after chapter 20.54 For that reason, more recently interpreters have been inclined to read the Gospel as a unity.
Such an interpretive stance does not settle the source-critical question, but it does focus on the Gospel as presented to most, if not all, of its readers. It is therefore worth probing how chapter 21 continues the narrative-if not by the design of the (original) author, then in the experience of reading it-that has already appeared to come to a fitting conclusion."
See https://brill.com/display/title/36174
Early Textual Transmission of GJohn
Any thoughts on:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/angels-and-principalities/angelomorphic-christology-of-early-jewish-christianity/8C4A805C57CCA9748632477D549C7889
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/01/delineation-of-terms-in-angelomorphic.html
As the link shows, scholars distinguish between angelic, angelomorphic and angelophanic Christology. Jean Danielou wrote extensively about angelic and angelomorphic Christology: he examined early Jewish, Latin and Greek Christianity.
Church historians as a whole reject Werner's thesis about angelic Christology; they believe that writers like Justin Martyr portrayed Christ as one who appeared to be an angel. The Ebionites were rejected as heretics.
Shepherd of Hermas: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/01/cardinal-jean-danielou-on.html
The angel of great counsel is a translation of Isaiah 9:6. From the LXX I believe.
2Corinthians ch.11:13,14NIV"For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
Of course the prince of darkness would never settle for misrepresenting himself as just any angel.
I don't know if John 21 is an addition, but in my research on the prologue I've come across arguments that the prologue was, in part, a later addition, I'm not persuaded, I think it could very likely be a pre-fourth gospel kerygma, but not a later addition.
I think one should always assume that the gospel writers were capable of abstract thought, subtlety, and theological care, even if we don't see signs of literary sophistication; I find a lot of redaction arguments often have an unsaid assumption that the authors could not have been sophisticated and creative, they don't say it out loud but it's often assumed.
There might be a slight class bias here, you see this especially with the Q reconstructions, (people assuming 3 or so layers of redaction, all based on supposedly changing social situations, as though peasant intellectuals were unable to think beyond their immediate interests).
Thanks Roman. I'm usually unimpressed by these proposals because they lack textual evidence and they're highly speculative. I agree with you that scholars who set forth the idea that a Gospel or epistle had numerous layers build in assumptions that should be questioned.
Servant, in a similar vein, we have 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. But I will also say that the pre-Nicene Fathers often were trying to explain the Angel of YHWH motifs when they talked about Christ appearing as an angel.
Post a Comment