The function of John 21

MANY REGARD JOHN 21 as a later addition to the Gospel from a different hand; those who regard it as from the same author as the rest of the Gospel usually also regard it as an appendix, recognizing its anticlimactic nature following the conclusion of 20:30–31. Many question the historical veracity of its contents.

Many scholars regard the entirety of ch. 21 as an addition to the original Gospe1. Johannine scholarship has traditionally regarded John 21 as an addition distinct from the original Gospel, often for stylistic reasons and nearly always (even by those who believe it was added later by the same author) because the chapter is anticlimactic following the conclusion of 20:30–31.¹⁰⁸⁰³ This chapter is a literary unit,¹⁰⁸⁰⁴ and undeniably it is anticlimactic to the primary narrative of the Gospe1. Nor would 20:30–31 (or even 20:29) constitute too abrupt a conclusion for the Gospel; ancient books often had abrupt endings.¹⁰⁸⁰⁵

Yet apart from the special vocabulary needed for the matters at hand (such as fishing), the vocabulary does not differ significantly from that of analogous portions of the Gospe1.¹⁰⁸⁰⁶ Various features reveal Johannine style; for example, «the variation of synonyms (verses 15–17), the double «Amen» (verse 18), the construction »This he said, indicating ...» (verse 19; cf. 12:33)»; only in this Gospel is the lake called the «Sea of Tiberias» (21:1; 6:1).¹⁰⁸⁰⁷ Smalley rightly notes that «its general flavour is characteristically Johannine» and that John 21 ties up loose ends previously introduced in the Gospe1.¹⁰⁸⁰⁸ Westcott, who regarded the chapter as an appendix, nevertheless insisted that it stemmed from the author of the Gospel, noting its «style and the general character of the language»; he also observed that we lack any textual evidence that the Gospel ever circulated without this «appendix.»¹⁰⁸⁰⁹ The «appendix» itself notes the beloved disciplés presence (21:7), which, if taken at face value, allows for the same source as the rest of the Gospe1.

Most scholars today acknowledge the weakness of the stylistic argument against authenticity. D. Moody Smith regards the chapter as «unquestionably a later addition, whether by the original author or a later hand»;¹⁰⁸¹⁰ nevertheless he acknowledges that it does not show «a divergent style or vocabulary,» that it remains debated whether the theological perspective differs from the rest of the Gospel, and therefore that it may stem from within the community.¹⁰⁸¹¹ Margaret Davies thinks that this chapter was added after the completion of the body of the Gospel, but notes that this view is not clear on stylistic grounds; the style and most of the vocabulary and themes fit the rest of the Gospe1.¹⁰⁸¹² «Whether by the same author or another,» she concludes, John 21 «provides a fitting conclusion.»¹⁰⁸¹³

Fuller admits, «There is nothing in the style of John 21 to suggest a different hand,» but he doubts that it derives from the same author as the rest of the Gospel, because John does not prepare the reader for this section with cross-references, as he has prepared the reader for other sections.¹⁰⁸¹⁴ But the many connections between John 21 and the rest of the Gospel (see commentary below) call into question Fuller's approach. The Gospel provides few explicit announcements of narratives in the Gospel apart from ch. 20 (e.g., about a chapter on eating Jesus» flesh, John 6); but similar themes connect the material, and ch. 21 is no exception. As even Bultmann admits, no manuscript evidence, vocabulary, or stylistic evidence shows that the chapter is secondary; further, it is not clear that the thematic conclusion of 20:30–31 must close the Gospel, and one could argue that John 2 l's ecclesial focus is a necessary supplement to the conclusions of John 20.¹⁰⁸¹⁵ Some use the repetition of the colophon in 21:30–31 and 21:24–25 to suggest that this is a later appendix.¹⁰⁸¹⁶ But the inclusio could constitute a mark of original literary composition as easily as one of redaction (cf. 1:1,18; 20:28; Matt 5:3,10; Luke 15:24, 32).

The anticlimactic character of the chapter cannot count against authenticity if the style does not. Granted, John 20 may be «a complète presentation» of the resurrection appearances,¹⁰⁸¹⁷ but John 2l's focus is not confirming the resurrection but tying up the Gospel's loose ends concerning the continuing call of the church (cf. 20:21–23). Some complain that the author of ch. 21 «could manage the Johannine style reasonably well» but his interests lie «outside the main scope of the Gospel»;¹⁰⁸¹⁸ unless one thinks of the author's interest in fishing, however, this objection is debatable. The matter of call has been stressed throughout the Gospel, and images such as sheep, spiritual food, demonstrating love by obedience, and the witness of the beloved disciple hardly appear here for this first time. John 21 provides a different kind of closure than the conclusion of 20:30–31, showing that the story will continue after the Gospel's completion.¹⁰⁸¹⁹

This ending is anticlimactic, but other works could close the main body of the work yet include a substantial epilogue.¹⁰⁸²⁰ Indeed, 1 John continues seven verses after its conclusion in 1 John 5:13.¹⁰⁸²¹ Whitacre, who thinks this chapter may be «the intended conclusion and not an epilogue,» also points to other «summary conclusions» appearing «before the actual end of the material» in Johannine texts (12:36–37; Rev 22:5).¹⁰⁸²² Most significantly, the most widely read work in the Greek East was the Iliad, which would therefore provide a standard literary mode1.¹⁰⁸²³ Yet the closing book of the Iliad (book 24), recounting Priam's rescue of Hector's body, is completely anticlimactic to the action of the plot; its importance is for characterization, not for action. To reject as secondary any endings that are anticlimactic is to ignore the primary literary model of Mediterranean antiquity.¹⁰⁸²⁴

Ancient editors sometimes did add endings that spoiled a book's cohesive unity, but when we have clear examples, they are clear because they reverse the author's views.¹⁰⁸²⁵ John's epilogue does not reverse the ideas of the Gospel's body. Literary connections tie this epilogue to the rest of John,¹⁰⁸²⁶ though these do not demonstrate unity conclusively. For example, it includes a confession parallel to those of the resurrection narratives of ch. 20 (20:18, 25, 28; 21:7).¹⁰⁸²⁷ Others connect the call stories of the first chapter with the themes of John 21.¹⁰⁸²⁸ If one reads the Gospel as a whole, 20:30–21can function as a final farewell scene (in which case, 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 function as a rather obvious inclusio).¹⁰⁸²⁹ Such connections, however, could be explained either as the work of the original author or as the work of an editor steeped in his Gospe1. One could argue, against the originality of such connections, the pneumatological inclusion at 1and 20(«Holy Spirit,» elsewhere in John only at 14:26) and the larger christological inclusio at 1:1–18 and 20:28;¹⁰⁸³⁰ but this argument would appeal to a sense of perfect symmetry that is not characteristic of most of John's literary design. Many scholars understandably believe the burden of proof rests with those who challenge scholarly consensus; I am more inclined to leave the burden with those who challenge the simplest explanation,which is usually unity. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and being anticlimactic is not evidence, as we have noted), it is normally better to view a work as a unity.¹⁰⁸³¹

Regardless of questions of unity with the rest of the Gospel and of authorship, scholars also question the historical likelihood of the passagés contents, an issue more difficult to evaluate given the relative paucity of extant historical data.

Some regard this chapter as an appendix so that the writer could add a Galilean revelation to the Judean revelations in John 20.¹⁰⁸³² Some have thought these revelations incompatible; Marxsen thinks that Mark emphasized a parousia in Galilee (Mark 14:28; 16:7) and was followed by later traditions in Matt 28 and John 21, whereas Luke and John had Judean appearances.¹⁰⁸³³ But both kinds of appearances appear early in the tradition; it made little sense to invent Galilean appearances despite Mark's favoritism toward Galilee, and it is difficult to account for Lukés certitude in Acts without a Judean apostolate, despite his theological use of Jerusalem. Sanders may be right that when Lukés Jerusalem center for Luke-Acts is taken into account, the most plausible scenario is that the disciples «fled to Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem,»¹⁰⁸³⁴ where Galileans often traveled.

Many think that John 21 recycles the same tradition as behind Luke 5:1–11.¹⁰⁸³⁵ One could view John 21 as an allusion to Peter's first encounter with Jesus, but given the form of that encounter only in Luke, this proposal may expect too much knowledge of Lukan tradition from John's audience. In any case, a direct literary relationship between Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:5–8 is improbable; the only two significant words shared by both are ιχθύς and δίκτυον.¹⁰⁸³⁶ Redaction in the chapter need not, of course, deny the possibility of genuine historical tradition here;¹⁰⁸³⁷ one could even argue that the similarities point merely to consistency in the tradition rather than to two distinct events. But as throughout the Gospel, historical tradition is difficult to test in the absence of material parallel with the Synoptics.

Fish symbols were common in Diaspora Judaism and contemporary paganism,¹⁰⁸³⁸ but such symbolism is improbable here. Others also think that OT imagery stands behind the Gospel accounts of the calling of fishermen or (more commonly) at least behind Jesus» Markan summons to become «fishers of people» (Mark 1:17; Hab 1:15; Jer 16:16; cf. Ezek 47:10).¹⁰⁸³⁹ But the OT use is a judgment metaphor (Jos. Asen. 21MSS would be closer), so the image is questionable unless Jesus provocatively pictured those who should «trap» people for the kingdom¹⁰⁸⁴⁰ or intended the allusion by way of contrast.¹⁰⁸⁴¹ Derrett, who thinks Ezek 47 stands behind both the Synoptic fishing calls and John 21:5–6, appeals to the early Jewish use of fish symbolism to represent individual salvation,¹⁰⁸⁴² but John 21, at least, provides no clues that support this interpretation. Jesus more likely called them to be «fishers of men» primarily because fishing was their prior profession, as the text indicates.¹⁰⁸⁴³

That Jesus called some fishermen as disciples was probably widely known (cf. Mark 1:16–17) and is historically likely.¹⁰⁸⁴⁴ Although the primary occupation even on the Lake of Galilee was agricultural,¹⁰⁸⁴⁵ fishing remained a major industry there,¹⁰⁸⁴⁶ and fish was a primary staple in Mediterranean antiquity.¹⁰⁸⁴⁷ Fishermen were «among the more economically mobile of the village culture,»¹⁰⁸⁴⁸ even if later educated urban readers might regard their occupation as a humble one.¹⁰⁸⁴⁹ Clues in other gospels suggest that Jesus» fishermen disciples may have often had adequate income: Zebedeés family had hired servants (Mark 1:20)¹⁰⁸⁵⁰ and may have formed a fishing cooperative with Simon and Andrew (Luke 5:7).¹⁰⁸⁵¹ Such professional background had not provided much help that night, however (21:3).

D. Moody Smith's observations are of interest here. He suggests that the appearance narrative of 21:1–14 «is exactly the one that Mark's Gospel leads us to expect, even to the extent that Peter plays a leading role» (cf. Mark 16:7). Perhaps this narrative «may well be the earliest account of Jesus» appearance to his disciples that we possess.»¹⁰⁸⁵² Whether or not the narrative may be the earliest, there is no reason to doubt that John depends here on prior tradition (or, in our view, an eyewitness account).