Within the Gospel of John lies a enormous sum of texts that offer an component of contention or abnormalities. With some of the issues that are presented by these contentions. the inquiry can be posed if the Gospel of John was authored by one or by a few different people. Looking at the Bibles and the arrangement of these things. it would look that one wrote one thing and one wrote another and they all came together subsequently. These texts or Bibles pose a job to many readers of this Gospel because they do non match either chronologically or locally and at times it appears that the narrative seems to flux in a mode that is non consistent.
The aporia for this peculiar assignment is the contention of John 21. Does the same writer as chapters 1-20 writer this peculiar chapter. and if so. where did the contention root? By sing commentaries by D. A. Carson. W. Hall Harris III and Leon Morris. we can convey grounds that this chapter along with chapters 1-20 were so authored by the same individual. yet the clip when it was written was at a much later day of the month which would give manner to the contention.
Commentary 1~ D. A. Carson
Carson offers and attack to the affair at manus in this mode. He states that the chapter in inquiry was so written by the same writer that wrote chapters 1 through 20. along with the fact that it was written with the remainder of the Gospel of John. This peculiar chapter offered a balance if you will within the book of John by offering accounts of things that may hold been left unreciprocated during the old chapters. Carson gives four points to be considered when discoursing the writing of this peculiar chapter. He foremost item he mentions is the observation by Bultmann who noticed there were a great sum of words in this peculiar chapter that are have a dramatic resemblance to the verbalism in the Gospel of John. Carson reviews the words from the old chapters in John and notices that they words in chapters 1-20 like the words in chapter 21 offer a unusual use form.
The following point that Carson high spots is the fact that there are bookmans who have shown concern that they feel as if chapter 20 of this Gospel was the decision. and chapter 21 must hold been added subsequently. because everything that needed to be said was concluded in the last poetries of chapter 20.
The 3rd points that Carson sheds visible radiation on is that he sees this peculiar chapter as the proverbial frost on the bar in the sense that it adds to the chapters that it adds to the Gospel itself by binding up any thing that was presently left undone.
The last point that Carson speaks on to assist authenticate the writing of this Gospel is by saying “there is non textual grounds that the book was of all time published without John 21. ” With the information that was presented by Carson. he concludes that it does non count if the chapter 21 was added at a ulterior day of the month. it was still penned by the same writer as in the old chapters.
Commentary 2 ~ W. Hall Harris III
Harris III. though his sentiment is one of a conservative nature. his positions are similar to that of Carson. Harris states that if chapter 21 was added at a ulterior clip to this peculiar Gospel by another writer. it would had to hold been added early plenty because “no current Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter. and there is no serious grounds in the manuscripts tradition for ulterior add-ons. ” One thing about Harris is that he does non concentrate on similarities nor differences within the manner of Hagiographas in this peculiar chapter. because he feels that it does non keep virtue either manner in turn outing or confuting writing of this peculiar Gospel. Harris quoted another writer to state. “these lingual and stylistic considerations. when weighed against the undoubted resemblances between the first 20 chapters and chapter 21. it offers no sufficient information that would take one to believe that chapter 21 was written by any other writer. ”
Harris contends that most bookmans. do non do the determination for or against the individuality of the writing based on the stylistic or lingual grounds. but instead. that statement is made on the footing of the content or logical statement flow. Harris uses the cognition of other bookmans sing chapter 21 of the Gospel of John. He highlights another bookman when sing the thought if chapter 21 was merely an supplement to the Gospel of John or is it an point of necessity. He quotes S. Smalley to state this. “Smalley demonstrates that chapter 21 is non every bit much of an supplement as some believe. and that it does in fact provide a necessary decision to the Fourth Gospel. which does non simply stop with the confession by Thomas. but offer a insistent accent that the adherents will go on the informant of Jesus even after He has ascended to His Father. in add-on to transporting out the mission and the authorization that He gave to travel out to the universe. ”
Commentary 3 ~ Leon Morris
Morris. like all the others. besides offers and sentiment in respects to the writing of John 21. Morris contends that if there were non any contention within the earlier chapters. bookmans would believe one writer wrote the full Gospel of John or that another writer penned chapter 2. It is interesting to observe that there is no existent decision either manner when it comes to this peculiar Gospel. that either it was written by the writer of the full book or person different wrote this 1. Morris and Carson agree that if any add-ons to the Gospel history would had to hold been added really early due to the fact that none of the traditional Hagiographas have been located without the 21st chapter included.
All three commentaries were most insightful when it came to this peculiar subject. that it was discovered that Harris and Carson were more in deepness with their position than Morris. One thing that is good to observe that all three do reason that chapter 21 is of import to the relationship of the full Gospel of John. and alternatively of it being an supplement. it appears to be a decision. even though the statement can be made that chapter 20 appears to be the decision. The commentaries offered more grounds for the writing of chapter 21 being the same writer as the old chapters as opposed to it being a different writer wholly. Though the writers of the commentaries seem to hold sing the writing of chapter 21. it is besides interesting to see that there will still be a degree of contention environing this peculiar transition. inquiring if the inquiry is truly. Why would the writer write another chapter when the book already appeared to be complete?
All of these observers have assorted similarities in their attack to this subject. but it was Carson and Morris that pointed out that the Gospel of John has ne’er been seen without the 21st chapter included. Carson and Harris both contend that chapter 21 is non an supplement to the Gospel of John but stands to congratulate the full Gospel.
While there are many grounds to inquire if chapter 21 is a portion of the original book of John. there has non been any conclusive grounds that this chapter is non. When seeking the grounds. there is more grounds that stands to turn out the genuineness of the writing of this chapter as the same writer of the old chapters. Linguisticss within the old chapters shows similarities in the linguistics of chapter 21. and every bit antecedently stated by the observers. in order for another writer to hold penned chapter 21. they would hold had to compose it early on due to the fact that there is no grounds of chapter 21 non being included in any determination in the Gospel of John.
Though many feel as if the decision of John should hold ended at chapter 20. chapter 21 has proven to be an intricate portion of the Gospel. John brings to a decision all of the Gospel of John by Jesus demoing Himself to His adherents and by reconstructing Peter. and point that had non clearly been indicated before this clip. Chapter 21 was an terminal to an book that exemplified the love of Jesus and the confidant relationship that He desires to hold with us. John ended this peculiar Gospel reaffirming the work of Jesus Christ beyond His Resurrection. non needfully through Him. but through those who were called of Him.
Gary M. Burge. Interpreting the Gospel of John. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1992 ) . Carson. The Gospel Harmonizing To John. 665
W. Hall Harris III. Commentary on the Gospel of John. ( Biblical Studies Press. 2006 ) Leon Morris. The Gospel Harmonizing to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament ( Grand Rapids. Myocardial infarction: William B. Eerdmans. 1995 )