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.