Is Gospel of John's first and last chapters later additions?

[mathewjoseph]

I found somewhere that the first and last chapters of Gospel of John are later additions. Is it true? In the first chapter it is given that the word has become flesh. From it I understand that God has become jesus. In the last chapter it is given that the disciple who followed jesus is writing this book. Also we can see that Jesus asks 3 times to Peter to take care of the sheeps.
If these are later additions when it happened? Aren’t these original part of the scripture. Who added these later and for what purpose?

 

[triumphguy]

Since they are “in” the Canon of Scripture they are accepted as the divinely inspired Word of God. So questions of authorship are merely academic.

 

[fnr]

I found somewhere that the first and last chapters of Gospel of John are later additions. Is it true? In the first chapter it is given that the word has become flesh. From it I understand that God has become jesus. In the last chapter it is given that the disciple who followed jesus is writing this book. Also we can see that Jesus asks 3 times to Peter to take care of the sheeps.
If these are later additions when it happened? Aren’t these original part of the scripture. Who added these later and for what purpose?

I’ve heard that about Mark, since the document was originally thought to be kept on a scroll. In the ancient world, it was apparently common for the very beginning and end of a document to be lost, since the point where the “paper” (papyrus or other material) attached to the wooden end-holders underwent more stress and strain than other parts of the document. As such, Mark 16’s original text is thought by many scholars to have ended at verse 8.

Here is the New American Bible’s endnotes on Mark 8:

• [16:1–8] The purpose of this narrative is to show that the tomb is empty and that Jesus has been raised (Mk 16:6) and is going before you to Galilee (Mk 16:7) in fulfillment of Mk 14:28. The women find the tomb empty, and an angel stationed there announces to them what has happened. They are told to proclaim the news to Peter and the disciples in order to prepare them for a reunion with him. Mark’s composition of the gospel ends at Mk 16:8 with the women telling no one, because they were afraid. This abrupt termination causes some to believe that the original ending of this gospel may have been lost. See the following note.

• [16:9–20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20.

The Freer Logion: Found after v 14 in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century. It reads: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But….’”

• [16:20] The Shorter Ending: Found after Mk 16:8 before the Longer Ending in four seventh-to-ninth-century Greek manuscripts as well as in one Old Latin version, where it appears alone without the Longer Ending.

Here’s what the NAB says about John 21:

[21:1–23] There are many non-Johannine peculiarities in this chapter, some suggesting Lucan Greek style; yet this passage is closer to John than Jn 7:53–8:11. There are many Johannine features as well. Its closest parallels in the synoptic gospels are found in Lk 5:1–11 and Mt 14:28–31. Perhaps the tradition was ultimately derived from John but preserved by some disciple other than the writer of the rest of the gospel. The appearances narrated seem to be independent of those in Jn 20. Even if a later addition, the chapter was added before publication of the gospel, for it appears in all manuscripts.

So it does appear as though there are some oddities about John 21. The NAB has no such discussion for the beginning of John, nor for Mark.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Mat,

As said above, the Gospel of John as handed down is all inspired.

There is no discussion on the first chapter. Chapter 21 is considered a later addition, either by John himself or one of his disciples.

Verbum

 

[fnr]

Since they are “in” the Canon of Scripture they are accepted as the divinely inspired Word of God. So questions of authorship are merely academic.

Actually, I’d suggest otherwise. To truly understand the faith handed down to us from the Apostles, it’s important that we understand how that transmission took place. Otherwise, we are closing our eyes to the history of the early Church. Keep in mind that Jesus Christ’s crucifixion took place around 33 AD (30-36 AD for a good range). The earliest books of the Bible (i.e., Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans, Philemon) were written between 50 and 60 AD. The first gospel, Mark, dates to sometime after 60 AD, it’s believed.

What all this means is that Christianity was an oral tradition for about two decades before anyone wrote down its teachings. Jesus himself taught by preaching (not by any writing of which we’re aware), and his disciples did as well. We have descriptions of what took place in the early Church in the letters of Paul (e.g., Galatians 1-2; 1 Corinthians 11) and Acts. In that the Apostles were still alive and preaching, they themselves were the repository of truth. It’s only as time went on and the disciples themselves died (many to martyrdom) that we see the emergence of written Christianity.

Original authorship is actually a pretty critical issue in other parts of the Bible. Before modern times, copying manuscripts onto new pages was the only way that they were preserved for posterity. And the scribes who did the copying may not have always been totally neutral in doing so. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is generally thought to be an “interpolation” inserted by scribes copying Paul’s epistle. In that that “interpolation” is one of the key scriptural verses employed in the argument that women cannot be ordained, it’s very important that we understood that the editorial process in constructing the canon resulted in messages that may not have been intended by the original authors.

• [14:33b–36] Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34–35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.

The issue of pseudoepigrapha (authorship attributed to one author by someone other than that author) is also important in understanding what particular Biblical figures were saying. Due to differences in composition and context, it’s generally held by Bible scholars that Paul is not the author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, but that the work was attributed to him by people following his teachings at a later date. As such, when we are performing exegesis of what Paul taught, it’s important that we understand what was genuinely his writings. This is not to say that those other books are to be discounted, but that they reflect development of the Christian tradition after Paul’s original writings.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not disagreeing with Biblical scholarship at all.

I’m saying that since the Church says that the (Catholic) Bible as we have it today is canonical then any questions or theories about authorship etc do not detract from the Truth that our scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God.

 

[mathewjoseph]

I’m not disagreeing with Biblical scholarship at all.

I’m saying that since the Church says that the (Catholic) Bible as we have it today is canonical then any questions or theories about authorship etc do not detract from the Truth that our scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God.

But if those chapters are later additions, then how they become divine words?
If those chapters were not in the original scripture, I think it will have great impacts on the christian concepts.

 

[triumphguy]

If they are accepted by the Church then they are divine.

The Church came first.

Then the Church defined which scriptures were definitive and which were not.

If the Bible came first and the Church was born out of the Bible then questions like this would be fundamentally important, and we would have to be biblical literalists, and if someone scientifically proved that John was written by two or three different authors then our whole faith would be shaken. As it is the Church defined what was Canonical and our faith is not shaken by academic study.

The whole of the Gospel of John is Canonical.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The great majority of John was written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The pericope of the woman caught in adultery does seem to be a later addition–some scholars seem to think in Lucan in origin, others still think it still of John’s authorship. The last part, the encounter of Jesus on the shore and Peter’s three-fold declaration of love and Jesus three fold “feed my sheep” seems to be a post 70 insertion by the apostle to address the issue of apostolic authority after the death of Peter.

Per my footnote on my exegesis of John 6:

“The internal evidence of John as well as the testimony of the Early Church Fathers supports this dating. The claim of “Late Composition” of the Gospels and Epistles (along with other largely unsupported theories, such as “Q”, “Markan priority”, “community composition, and “psuedographic authorship”) is more of an inherited habit of modern (after 1800) New Testament scholarship than a matter of evidence-based findings. The bias to “de-mythologize” the New Testament (e.g., remove supernatural events and claims) was born from the irreligious motives of the Enlightenment-era’s Deist “scholars”, called “scientific”, and passed on as secular orthodoxy. These largely unexamined guiding assumptions penetrated mainstream Protestant seminaries in the later 19th century (provoking in reaction the Fundamentalist movement) and after the “anti-modernism oath” was revoked by the Vatican in the 1950s, it entered into Catholic theology schools as well. Many very orthodox Catholic scholars cite Late Composition dates because that is what they were taught from their professors (many of them either secular or liberal Protestants) and because supporting a more traditional dating and authorship is seen as “uncritical”. However, “uncritical” seems to be the very attitude of modernist scholars towards the theories of “Late Composition” and the rest of their inherited traditions.”

 

[COPLAND_3]

I put very little stock in the so-called modern scholarship when it comes to exegetical and higher critism. I see so much of it being a subtle attack on Biblical authenticity and reliablity. I see many of the so-called scholars having high IQ’s but bad philosophy and theology. I’ll stick with those like Aquinas who have high IQ’s and great philosophy and theology!

 

[triumphguy]

Well the Pope is a biblical scholar…

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well the Pope is a biblical scholar…

Just in case I get understood as being against modern scholarship in general, that’s not the case. Only against much of the nontraditional stuff like Scripture being forgeries and so on.

 

[steve53]

Well, my IQ they say is 90 or so, but that ain’t nothin and i am jest as good as yu are.

 

[sirach2v4]

But if those chapters are later additions, then how they become divine words?
If those chapters were not in the original scripture, I think it will have great impacts on the christian concepts.

“redaction” or editing of scriptures is what is normal. The canonical form of books often shows what appears to be additions. But, they were accepted in a certain form, and that is that.

The Catholic Church adheres to the idea of sacred tradition being an equal part of divine revelation. So the tradition that defines such a text as the gospel of John is inspired and the hallmark of the authenticity of that scripture.

 

[patrick457]

Right, I’ve only heard this about Mark 16:9-20…which scholars in the past century have stated is a later addition because it doesn’t appear in the oldest existing manuscripts, and it is different in style to the rest of the gospel.

That one is more blatant. In John’s case, if these are indeed editorial additions they must have been made pretty early - perhaps before the gospel was published - since our earliest surviving copies of the gospel (like Papyrus 66 or Papyrus 75) do have the prologue and/or the final pericope.

 

[patrick457]

To explain: there is a theory that John’s gospel is really composed of different editorial layers. Which is why some people choose not to speak of a single author of John: everyone involved in the production of the gospel is an author. Now, according to this idea, at the core of the present gospel stands the work composed by the original author (who maybe was the Beloved Disciple - John? - himself), which is sometimes dubbed the ‘Signs gospel’. For reasons that we do not know (we could only speculate: perhaps the author died leaving the work still unfinished/unpolished, or perhaps the original gospel was deemed ‘incomplete’ or inadequate), other people later edited and refined this work, resulting in the gospel we know today.