Saturday, May 18, 2019

The Authenticity and Antiquity of John 21


The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:6) and the Doctrine and Covenants (section 7) assumes the historicity and authenticity of John 21:20-24. Some (not all) scholars of the Gospel of John believe that ch. 21 was added later to the Gospel, and this has lead some critics of the Book of Mormon to use this as evidence against LDS Scriptures. However, as Stephen Smalley wrote about John 21:

[T]there is no textual evidence to show that John’s Gospel ever existed without John 21; and despite some admittedly untypical features in the chapter, this section of John is markedly Johannine in many respects. Notice, for example, the distinctive use of ‘Tiberias’ in verse 1; the occurrence of verse 2 of the characteristic names Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin and Nathanael of Cana; the appearance of the beloved disciple at verse 7 and 20ff.; and the double αμην in verse 18 introducing a saying of Jesus.

It is clear, then, that we cannot write off chapter 21 as a mere postscript to John’s Gospel, and one which has no real connection with it. Even if John 21 appears to stand further away from the Gospels than John 1, which (as we have seen) is closely related to it, there is no real reason to regard John’s epilogue in chapter 1 as non-Johannine or unconnected with the Fourth Gospel. Its general flavour is characteristically Johannine . . . the Johannine epilogue came to birth (using, as it does, Galilee rather than Jerusalem traditions), and whenever it became part of the work as we now have it . . .John21 is very much involved in the composition and final arrangement of the Fourth Gospel. (Stephen Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter [London: The Paternoster Press, 1978], 96)

On the old Mormon Dialogue forums (no longer available online, but I saved the discussion for future reference), one LDS commentator, D. Charles Pyle, offered the following in favour of the authenticity of ch. 21 of the Gospel of John:

1. Every manuscript I have seen that contains at least portions of chapter 20 also have attached to them at least portions of chapter 21. We do not see the kinds of omissions that can be seen in John 7:53-8:11 in the earliest manuscript tradition. I do believe that the pericope of the adulteress likely was not original to the gospel. Chapter 21, however, is attested in the oldest manuscript of the gospel of John, and in versions of the same or close age, which are translations of texts that predate our oldest Greek texts in some instances.

2. Two of the most liberal translators I know of, Moffett and Schonfield, both attest the content of chapter 21 to the same author of chapter 20. Moffett does so in his lack of brackets that he uses to mark interpolations, and there is no shuffling of text as is his practice for other portions of John and other books. Schonfield flatly states in the notes where he separates authors and chapter 21 is in the same partition of the same author where chapter 20 is located. Schonfield is not afraid to claim two authors for John and the section containing chapters 20-21 are both in the style of one author. I agree with that assessment.

3. John uses the word meta with tauta to start new units of thought and narrative a lot. Matthew and authentic Mark do not appear to use it at all. Luke uses it very infrequently, only two times starting a new unit of thought. John uses it to begin a new unit of thought and narrative frequently and it would appear to be part of the normal style of the gospel of John. It appears in chapter 21 as well, used the same way it is in other portions of John. It appears no less than seven times in that sense in John (nine times if we count all occurrences).

4. The latter part of chapter 20 forms a chiastic structure with chapter 21, the structure of which is broken if non-authenticity of chapter 21 is assumed.

CODEA. (20:30f). "Conclusion"/Inclusion: Many signs.
  B. 21:1-14. The Beloved Disciple and Peter: the Beloved Disciple recognizes Jesus
    C. 21:15-19a: Peter and Jesus: "Do you love me?"
  B.’ 21:19b-24: The Beloved Disciple and Peter: the Beloved Disciple (as the author) witnesses to Jesus
A.’ (21:25) Conclusion: the overwhelming number of signs of Jesus.

Similar chiasms can be seen throughout the gospel of John.

5. The style of John 21 is said by some scholars to have differences from the rest of the gospel but in reality there are those chapters in the same gospel that seem to follow the same kind of style, apparently ignored by the same scholars.

6. The style of having a prologue, with an apparent ending followed by another ending in an epilogue appears not only in the gospel of John but in 1 John as well, marking this as a possible marker of Johannine style and intent.

Prologue: 1 John 1:1-4
"Conclusion"/Inclusion: 1 John 5:13
Epilogue: 1 John 5:14-21

I am inclined to believe that this structure is integral to both 1 John and the Gospel, as I am to believe that John 21 is authored by the author of chapter 20 for various reasons, not all of which I share here.

The appearance of traditions from John 21 in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants is not problematic at all.