Talk:John 21

It would be nice if sources for this material were identified for other readers. In this way they can also be examined by others. It never hurts to get a liitle help. Kazuba 11Nov2004

NPOV

This article appears to be argumentative and heavily slanted. It reads like an essay, advancing the opinions of some scholars as though they are an established fact. It is also lean on citations; I would suggest that either additional citations be added, or that it be made clear that the bulk of the article is the opinion of the already existing citations. It's also worth noting that this article was started by CheeseDreams, a user who has subsequently been banned from editing articles relating to Christianity. Wesley 21:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible Chapter articles?

Apart from the specific concerns with this article, I'm very concerned about the precedent for writing articles about specific chapters of the Bible. It seems to set a precedent that could lead to an attempt at full coverage, with at least some such articles amounting to little more than biblical commentary, POV pushing by either Christians with a particular theology or agenda, or by non-Christians who have an axe to grind with Christianity, as seems to be the case with this article. Wesley 21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The concern is certainly valid, though I don't think "full coverage" is a danger—if "full coverage" means "biblical commentary"—there's waaaay too much work involved there! Still, since there aren't any manuscripts without John 21, perhaps this entry is unneeded. From a text-critical view, it's not in the same league as (e.g.) Mark 16 and John 7:53-8:11, whose textual status is uncertain at the best of times. I suggest taking this entry and integrating it into Gospel of John, which needs work anyway. --MHazell 13:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think full coverage is certainly possible from a practical point of view, though it may take a while. In its favor are (a) a potentially large number of interested editors; and (b) the potential of copy-pasting material from old out of copyright commentaries the way material from old encyclopedias has been. It could be an interesting project, but not really possible while still maintaining NPOV.

I think the NPOV concerns need to be addressed before this is merged with Gospel of John, as this still reads like an essay based on independent research. I don't like to be hasty, but if it can't be cited or cleaned up it may be better to submit it to Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. Wesley 19:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV concerns: agreed. I'll try to make a concerted effort to clean the article up in the next week or so. If it's unsuccessful, then so be it. --MHazell 03:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Valuable Contribution

I feel that this article is quite worthwhile and not hugely violative of NPOV. All biblical articles are going to be controversial to an extent as there are all levels of acceptance of the Bible, from none at all to literal verbal plenary inspiration and the consequent inerrancy, among Wikipedia users/editors. I really don't care who started the article as much as what it says now and I think that what it says now is worthwhile. This is not an area where we are going to get lots of totally-agreed upon, universally-recognized-as-objective "Capital 'T' Truth". I also think that there is relatively little danger of there becoming an article for every biblical chapter, both because of the volume of work required and the relative inconsequence in the vast scheme of things of many chapters (I know that this statement offends those who believe every diatrical mark to be of huge moment, but let's face it, most doctrines are based on a relatively small number of "key passages" and it would be almost impossible to take the Bible as a whole and truly base everything upon it – every group which has attempted this has eventually come to emphasize some passages at the expense of others.)

I continue to maintain that it has several POV problems:

• It uses numerous "weasel words" such as "many scholars think" without any citation;
• It states many opinions in the passive voice without even bothering to attribute them to unnamed scholars, as in "It appears that..."
• It states some opinions in the active voice as well.

It's not too bad for a Bible commentary, but Wikipedia should not be a Bible commentary. It can report on the commentary made by others, but it should not comment itself, and that's what this article does right now. Wesley 05:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wesley etal...,

I have done the following which you may evaluate. Please consider each carefull before reverting all.

1. I have made several stylistic changes to make this article read more nicely.

2. I have presented the contents of this article as opinion of one scolarly camp rather than as the unified scholarly opinion of all text critical scholars. One might note, for instance, that the editors of the Nestle-Aland 27 include the text with no brackets, suggesting its originality.

3. I have removed the following tenuous statement: "The chapter does not fit in with the carefully planned scheme of the previous 20 chapters, which are otherwise balanced in style and discourse around a central chapter." I amnot sure exactly what this means. The chapter system is a later edition. How could one chapter added onto the end throw off the balance? Please put this back if it makes sense.

4. I have moved and altered the following statement to support the central argument presented in the first paragraph of its section: "Further doubt on the last chapter is cast by differences of literary style, which is said to resemble the Gospel of Luke more closely than that of John, and theological orientation. In particular, this chapter is much more ecclesiastically oriented than the rest of the book, stressing the role of Peter as the shepherd."

5. I have added a statement referencing the stance of NA27 which is the accepted standard. With the publication of the Editio Maior of John, this citation will need to be ammended to reference that work's opinion on the subject.

I have not altered : "==The appendage's appendage==" which I believed needs to be completely removed or greatly overhauled. I recommend removed. It is based upon the presence use of third-person, non-narrative language. This argument is not documented or compelling. Such language occurs in John 1, why would it not occur in 21?

Is the Westcott quote in context? We need to check this.Christian Askeland 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

144.136.123.112 has removed [Citation Needed] on several occasions suggesting that statements which are made along the lines of "Some people believe..." are fact. I think that citations are needed here. Some people believe that the earth is flat, but this opinion is made irrelevant by the number of experts who hold the position as well as the quality of their scholarship. I think that it is important to at least reference some examples of scholarship that support these views. This is especially true given the minority status of the hypothesis under question. 144.136.123.112 is correct that these are facts, but they still need references. Feel free to disagree. I would suggest that the text be reverted back. 144.136.123.112, your changes carry more weight if we know who you are. Christian Askeland 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter

I was troubled at the argument of these scriptures, which is why I write this. Today, as I read the entirety of John, I sat on my porch, reading and being fulfilled by the blessing of Jesus' words. This discussion does not matter, all that matters is Jesus of Bethlehem, The Son of Man, King of Kings and Lord of Lords came to us people as a gift from God. Died by us people according to God's will and then was Raised again to give us people eternal life. Be thankful for this and the argument no longer matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbraced (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know all that? You don't. And that's largely the point of this discussion. TRiG 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the article

The section "Manuscript evidence" is heavily biased, citing only one scholar (from a religious university at that) and outright dismissing a dissenting scholarly opinion stating that there is no evidence for it. Here is a line that is obviously not a neutral point of view:
Both Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) and the United Bible Societies (UBS4) provide critical text for John 21. Neither provides any evidence at all for omission of John 21, since none exists. (bolding mine).

Even more absurdly, the article goes on to list a number of manuscripts that contain John 21 and outright calls them "evidence for the originality of John 21". Early Medieval and Byzantine manuscripts per definition can not be evidence for the originality of a part of a first century document! Stefan Kruithof (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Μετὰ ταῦτα

John 21 begins simply with After these things... (Greek: Μετὰ ταῦτα) and recounts another appearance of Jesus.

I don't think its significant that 21 starts with "Μετὰ ταῦτα" because John uses this phrase to introduce every new section. This is not indicative that the chapter was added later. Compare to: John 2:12, 3:22, 5:1, 6:1, 6:66, 7:1, 11:7, 19:28, 21:1 Osprey9713 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs more discussion of the actual text and its meaning

Almost the entire article is a mere debate about whether John chapter 21 is an "appendage" to the book of John (despite NO evidence that any manuscript ever ended at John 20), while there is little or NO discussion of the meanings in the text itself.

This needs to be rectified.

76.17.118.157 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Appendage

I added the name of one scholar who believes this was not originally part of the Gospel. Ehrman himself says so here (~23:40->). He not only says that he thinks so, but he says it is the common view among scholars throughout Europe and North America. He also says that the manuscripts all have it; but apparently scholarly consensus is that for whatever reason chapter 21 was not originally there. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for the later addition of chapter 21

I took the liberty of doing a GScholar search for "John 21" "New Testament" appendage and all the results I found that even comment on the "controversy" seem to say that 21 was probably added later:

• "To most critical readers, it is obvious that the text of the Fourth Gospel has undergone a number of editings or redactions prior to attaining its present canonical form. Beyond the notable additions of John 5:4 and 7:53-8:11, which are textual variants reflected in actual manuscript traditions and are clearly late, non-Johannine textual interpolations, John 21 also appears to be a late addition to the book. Chapter 21 is viewed by many scholars as an “appendix” for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the book seems to have reached its natural conclusion with John 20:30-31. Furthermore, John 21 uses words not found elsewhere in the Gospel, and seems to answer some of the unresolved questions of chapters 13-20 regarding the relationship of the Beloved Disciple to Peter. Finally, most scholars are willing to accept the possibility that the prologue (1:1-18)—in whole or in part—and perhaps John 5-7 and 15-17 also betray evidence of major editorial work."

'What Can a Postmodern Approach to the Fourth Gospel Add to Contemporary Debates About its Historical Situation?', Jeffrey L. Staley, Seattle University

IN Jesus in Johannine Tradition". Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. (Westminster/John Knox, 2001) 47-57

[1]

• "To be sure, the author of the epilogue to the Fourth Gospel attempts to make the beloved disciple the author of chapters 1-20:"

The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament

Schuyler Brown, Oxford University Press, 1993 - Page 191

[2]

• "Notable here is C. K. Barrett's hypothesis that John the apostle moved to Ephesus, where he gather a number of pupils and wrote apocalyptic works. After his death, various of his pupils composed the Apocalypse, John 1-20, 1 John, 2 and 3 John, and eventually John 21."

John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend

R. Alan Culpeper, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000/06/30 - Page 453

[3]

The first directly states that 21 appears to be a later addition. The second is not a direct statement, but seems to take as a given that the author of 21 was not the same as that of 1-20. The third also assumes that 21 was written later while discussing a separate issue. Does anyone here have any legitimate scholarly source that directly states that the scholar in question considers 21 to be original? We don't have any complete manuscripts of John for centuries, so why is the manuscript argument relevant? Please, those on the opposite side of this controversy, cite some sources, and refrain from quoting your own personal opinions and religious beliefs.

I am (not) Iron Man (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)