I’m watching an episode of lectures on the Gospel of John. The lecturer said that the author added chapter 21 after finishing the document. He stated that 20:31 was the end. How can I search for sources on this in Logos Bible Software?
I would start with a commentary and see what they say at the beginning of John 21. Here is a short intro from one:
"John originally intended his Gospel to end with 20:30–31. However, on the basis of the available manuscript evidence, it is clear that the Gospel was never circulated independently of Chapter 21. Scholars have developed various theories regarding the authorship of Chapter 21, some arguing that it was written by the same person who wrote the first twenty chapters, and others maintaining that it was written by someone else. In any case it was written by someone within the Johannine circle. This chapter is best considered an epilogue to the Gospel, that is, a section added at the end to supplement the body of the text. In this way it balances with the prologue at the beginning of the Gospel."
How can I search for sources on this in Logos Bible Software?
I second the suggestion to look in commentaries, both at chapter 21 specifically and also in the commentaries introduction on composition and unity etc.
In most of your threads, you ask, "How can I search on...?" That's not always the best way to find useful material fast. You need to learn about which sort of reference works deal with what kind of questions and issues. For many of them, starting with a good commentary will be a better beginning point that a word search across your whole library that will throw out many random and useless hits.
And really, with as often as you ask about John's Gospel, I hope by now you've gotten Raymond Brown's commentary. Basically if you have a question on a topic he's written a book on, it will have the answer in it.
I have not gotten Brown yet. I plan to do that with Christmas money, maybe. I am looking at the ways in which John chapter 21 could be a Lukan interpolation. But I do not see any commentaries making that accessibly driven by research. Is there a way I can find resources that use this way of analysis?
A small sampling from BARD:
evidence
[quote]
Thematic differences: Chapter 21 seems to contradict the ending of chapter 20, with Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee rather than Jerusalem. This shift in location and focus disrupts the narrative flow and raises questions about its consistency with the rest of the gospel.
Vocabulary and style: The language used in chapter 21 differs from the rest of the Gospel, with some unique terms and phrases. This stylistic difference suggests that it may have been written by a different author or at a later date.
Manuscript evidence: Some early manuscripts lack chapter 21 entirely, while others place it in different locations within the Gospel. This lack of consistent placement and inclusion suggests that it was not part of the original text.
As to whether the themes, vocabulary, and style are more similar to Luke, I leave that research to you.
scholars
Helmut Koester: A prominent New Testament scholar known for his historical-critical approach, Koester argued that chapter 21 lacks the typical Johannine vocabulary and themes, suggesting it was added later by a different author.
C.H. Dodd: A British theologian and biblical scholar, Dodd saw chapter 21 as a supplement addressing concerns about the disciples' future and Jesus' continued presence with them. He believed it was added shortly after the original Gospel was written.
Raymond Brown: A renowned American Catholic biblical scholar, Brown highlighted the stylistic and thematic differences between chapter 21 and the rest of John, suggesting it was a later expansion aimed at clarifying the beloved disciple's identity and fate.
Burton Mack: A professor of New Testament and early Christianity, Mack viewed the Gospel of John as a compilation of various traditions, with chapter 21 representing a later tradition added to address specific community concerns.
Gerd Theissen: A German theologian and historian of early Christianity, Theissen viewed chapter 21 as a separate "epilogue" added to address unresolved issues like the fate of the beloved disciple and Peter's denial.
Rudolf Bultmann: A highly influential German New Testament scholar associated with demythologization, Bultmann saw chapter 21 as a secondary addition reflecting the early church's concerns about ministry and leadership.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: A renowned feminist biblical scholar, Fiorenza argued that chapter 21 reflects a later redaction process seeking to solidify male leadership within the church, including the reinstatement of Peter.
John P. Meier: A Catholic priest and prominent New Testament scholar, Meier acknowledges the challenges posed by John 21's placement and style, suggesting it may have been added to offer further clarification and closure to the Gospel's themes.
Barbara Reid: A British New Testament scholar specializing in Johannine literature, Reid views chapter 21 as a later appendix offering comfort and reassurance to the community about Jesus' ongoing presence and the church's mission.
Remember through BARD which is free, this information is available to you on the web.
No offense to Mr Bard. From Brown, "In this commentary we shall work on the hypothesis of authorship by a redactor, a conclusion reached for reasons other than the uncertain criterion supplied by style." Brown uses reason concerning who would write what (logically).
So, Mr Bard tracked Brown's discussion of style differences (good), but then associated them (but not 'exactly') with the conclusion of a redactor. But to be fair, Brown went all over the map, on his way to his conclusion.
No offense to Mr Bard.
Both Mr. Bard and Ms. Wiki Pedia are not reliable authorities in their own right ... but they are sufficiently reliable to provide starting points of research threads to follow. Thank you for making this point. I try to consistently point out when I am using them assuming this is equivalent to a big red sign saying "Stop before swallowing hook, line and sinker." Unfortunately, the meme in my head is not on the web.
There is a theory regarding the gospel of John that a very early copy of the text was dropped and then when the pages were picked up, they were (for our purposes) randomly assembled, so that some pages seem out of order. There are reasons to entertain this hypothesis, regardless of whether it can be proven. There is a section from the first part of the book that only seems to make sense if it precedes a section it currently follows. This idea could potentially explain the ending not being the ending, as well.
