John 21 and the synoptics

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPG

Guest
Hello,
I am looking for a solution or a theory in order to harmonize the last chapter of the Gospel of John with the others.
Also, has it really been added later, like in Mark 16, or was it an scribe who wrote all along with John?

Thank you!
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello,
I am looking for a solution or a theory in order to harmonize the last chapter of the Gospel of John with the others.
Also, has it really been added later, like in Mark 16, or was it an scribe who wrote all along with John?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
You will probably find no such “solution”. Why? Perhaps the 21st verse of the very chapter you reference hold an answer.

The Church has long accepted the variance in the point of view between the 4th Gospel and the Synoptics, and even the differences between the Synoptics themselves.

Just as the Old Testament cannot be viewed as a complete history of the scientific or geopolitical world, neither are the Gospels a complete history of Christ’s public ministry or biography.

What is undeniable is that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God; the revelation of His salvation plan.

While trying to get to the bottom of the differences from an academic perspective’ never forget to embrace the message while worrying about the precise continuity.

Peace and all Good!
 
Neofight said:
You will probably find no such “solution”. Why? Perhaps the 21st verse of the very chapter you reference hold an answer.

The Church has long accepted the variance in the point of view between the 4th Gospel and the Synoptics, and even the differences between the Synoptics themselves.

Just as the Old Testament cannot be viewed as a complete history of the scientific or geopolitical world, neither are the Gospels a complete history of Christ’s public ministry or biography.

What is undeniable is that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God; the revelation of His salvation plan.

While trying to get to the bottom of the differences from an academic perspective’ never forget to embrace the message while worrying about the precise continuity.

Peace and all Good!
Click to expand...
To clarify, i am wondering why in John’s view are the disciples fishing after the resurrection. Indeniably a symbol for the Church, but also didn’t they fear the jews like in the synoptics?
 
MarcoPG said:
To clarify, i am wondering why in John’s view are the disciples fishing after the resurrection. Indeniably a symbol for the Church, but also didn’t they fear the jews like in the synoptics?
Click to expand...
They probably were fearful, but I don’t think that was the point of John’s focus.

The synoptics are examples of Low Christology, while John’s gospel is High Christology, as such, the synoptics emphasized the human nature of Jesus (the teacher, preacher, etc.), and John the divine nature of Christ (Son of God, the Word incarnate, etc.)

Hence, your observation of the significance of fishing was spot on.

In addition to the metaphor of fishing and evangelization, pay particular attention to the number of fish caught (153, or a large number, is symbolic for the universality of the Church…one of the Church Fathers contented that 153 was the number of identified species of fish at that time)…, The charcoal fire and Jesus asking three times of Peter’s love for him (recall it was a at a charcoal fire where Peter denied Christ for the third time).

And the last section is quite amazing also…John is often referred to as the “beloved disciple”…but this is not to say John is more important or more beloved than others…the underlying meaning is that John is just symbolic of who the beloved disciple really is…US!

Hence, John 21:22, “What if I want him to remain until I come?” Obviously in retrospect Christ wasn’t saying John would live until the second coming (he’s be 2000 years old now!), but that WE (mankind) will remain on earth until the second coming.

You can take my thoughts with a grain of salt, because I am not a schooled theologian, I’m just a lover of Christ and scripture, do a lot of reading, and am not afraid to reach my own conclusions providing they are not in disagreement with Church doctrine or any dogmata.

Peace and all Good!
 
But the episode of the boat is in Luke 5 too, that’s why I couldn’t see why this fishing episode is not another version of Luke’s.

Low Christology is something complex to explain, because Jesus is worshipped anyway, and then we have to refute the deification of a man.
 
MarcoPG said:
But the episode of the boat is in Luke 5 too, that’s why I couldn’t see why this fishing episode is not another version of Luke’s.

Low Christology is something complex to explain, because Jesus is worshipped anyway, and then we have to refute the deification of a man.
Click to expand...
Luke 5 is not the same incident.

Luke 5 is early in the ministry, as Jesus calls his first disciples, where as John 21 is post resurrection.

Note that even the timelines between the synoptics and the 4th Gospel appear different, but probably aren’t.

John mentions 3 Passover celebrations, and only the last one is mentioned in the synoptics, but clearly the public ministry spanned approximately 3 years and not a single year. (this time difference is probably clearest when comparing the stories of Jesus’s rage with the money changers at the Temple…chronologically they fall at very different times between the synoptics and John’s Gospel…the point is, the message is what all writers were attempting to highlight, and not the historical event itself.

Hope this helps.
 
Here is an excerpt from my book concerning the harmonization

**McEvilly **St. John would seem to have concluded his Gospel at verse 31 of preceding chapter. Hence, the authenticity of this chapter has been called in question by some, who doubted whether St. John was its author, or whether it may not have emanated from the pen of some other inspired writer. But, as it has been quoted from by the Fathers, and is found in all the codices of St. John’s Gospel, it is generally believed as certain and undoubted that St. John was its author, that the entire chapter was from his pen, and that no other inspired writer had a hand in any portion of it. Some say, it was added by him by way of appendix, for special reasons, as he would seem to have closed his Gospel at verse 31, of preceding chapter. But its inspiration, whoever its author may be, no Catholic can question after the Decree of the Council of Trent, “De Canonicis Scripturis.”

St. Augustine But it is to be considered, how the Lord could be seen bodily in Galilee. For that it was not the day of the Resurrection is manifest; for He was seen that day in Jerusalem in the beginning of the night, as Luke and John evidently agree. Nor was it in the eight following days, after which John says that the Lord appeared to His disciples, and when Thomas first saw Him, who had not seen Him on the day of the Resurrection.
For if within these eight days the eleven had seen Him on a mountain in Galilee, Thomas, who was one of the eleven, could not have seen Him first after the eight days. Unless it be said, that the eleven there spoken of were eleven out of the general body of the disciples, and not the eleven Apostles. But there is another difficulty. John having related that the Lord was seen not in the mountain, but at the sea of Tiberias, by seven who were fishing, adds, “This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after he was risen from the dead. [John 21:14]
So that if we understand the Lord to have been seen within those eight days by eleven of the disciples, this manifestation at the sea of Tiberias will be the fourth, and not the third, appearance. Indeed, to understand John’s account at all it must be observed, that he computes not each appearance, but each day on which Jesus appeared, though He may have appeared more than once on the same day; as He did three times on the day of His Resurrection. We are then obliged to understand that this appearance to the eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee took place last of all.
In the four Evangelists we find in all ten distinct appearances of Our Lord after His Resurrection.
  1. At the sepulcher to the women.
  2. To the same women on their way back from the sepulcher.
  3. To Peter.
  4. To two disciples as they went into the country.
  5. To many together in Jerusalem;
  6. when Thomas was not with them.
  7. At the sea of Tiberias.
  8. At the mountain in Galilee, according to Matthew.
  9. To the eleven as they sat at meat, because they should not again eat with Him upon earth, related by Mark. [Mark 16:14]
  10. On the day of His Ascension, no longer on the earth, but raised aloft in a cloud, as related by both Mark and Luke.
    But all is not written, as John confesses, for He had much conversation with them during forty days before His ascension, “being seen of them, and speaking unto them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” [Acts 1:3]
 
Luke 5 is definatley a different occasion. From my book here are the synopsis of those occasions from all four Gospels

The Second Call of Four Disciples Out of the Boat, and They Follow Him.
Matt 4:18-22 Mark 1:16-20 Luke 5:1-11 John 1:35-51

I can give the explanations if you want them.
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello,
I am looking for a solution or a theory in order to harmonize the last chapter of the Gospel of John with the others.
Also, has it really been added later, like in Mark 16, or was it an scribe who wrote all along with John?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Well, John 21 is present in all manuscripts that we know of, so in that sense it is not a later addition. Now it is thought by some scholars that John’s gospel as we know it actually underwent several edits, revisions and a bit of polishing - perhaps by John’s disciples - before it was finally published. In their view it’s perhaps likely that this part of the gospel was added by the editor(s) who tweaked the gospel before it went into circulation (they point to the ‘epilogue’ in 20:30-31 and the supposed different style of Greek in this chapter compared to the rest of John as the telltale signs), but at the same time there are also scholars who would argue that chapter 21 is integral to the gospel.

Here’s an interesting idea. The gospel of Mark is very infamous for having a cliffhanger ending. The undisputed part of the gospel (i.e. the one everyone agrees was written by the original author) ends in 16:8: “and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.” In the original Greek even, the sentence ends with the word for “because” - which is a pretty odd way to end a work. Now many modern scholars will say that Mark actually intended this open ending and give different interpretations as to why he wrote this way (for example, they see it as being consistent with the gospel’s running themes of dramatic irony and the portrayal of the disciples as thick-headed idiots).

But on the other hand, one might argue that despite Mark’s making repeated references to Jesus promising to meet His disciples on the Galilee after His resurrection he decides not to write about that actual event is pretty odd. Not to mention that the cliffhanger ending is too grim - were the (male) disciples condemned to perpetual ignorance by the women’s silence? (No wonder early Christians appended their own endings to the gospel to give it proper closure!) Now if we suppose that Mark did write a now-lost epilogue involving a reunion in the Galilee, it probably would have looked very much like the version in Matthew (where Jesus meets His disciples on a certain mountain in the Galilee), or the version in John 21, something which might also be attested in the 3rd century apocryphal Gospel of Peter:

Now it was the last day of Unleavened Bread, and many were going out, returning to their homes, because the feast had ended; but we, the twelve disciples of the Lord wept and grieved, and each one, grieving on account of what had happened, went to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our fishnets and went away to the sea, and there with us was Levi of Alphaeus, whom the Lord… (The text breaks off at this point)

Which leads some people to wonder: what if John 21 and the Gospel of Peter’s account of a resurrection appearance on the Sea of Galilee might preserve a memory to whatever ending Mark may have written?
 
Neofight said:
Luke 5 is not the same incident.

Luke 5 is early in the ministry, as Jesus calls his first disciples, where as John 21 is post resurrection.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s also the possibility that both stories (John 21 and Luke 5) come from the same core tradition - the disciples receiving a huge catch of fish with Jesus’ help, but the different authors handled the same tradition differently. Note the similarities between the structure of both accounts:
  • The setting is on the Lake of Gennesaret/the Sea of Galilee
  • Peter, James and John are involved; both stories center around Peter and Jesus
  • Both stories begin with an unsuccessful night of fishing
  • Jesus tells them where to cast their nets - they have a huge catch as a result
  • Both stories end with Peter and the disciples following Jesus
The catch (no pun intended) is that while Matthew, Mark, and John 21 imply and/or show a resurrection appearance of Jesus in the Galilee, Luke, if you’ll look closely, has the risen Jesus appearing to His disciples only in the Jerusalem area - in fact, He orders them not to leave Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit descends. In fact, you might notice that Luke doesn’t have Jesus’ promise to meet His disciples in the Galilee found in Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels (Matthew 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mark 14:28; 16:7).

One might speculate (this is just speculation, of course) that Luke wanted to include the tradition about Peter and the miraculous catch but because in his work, the disciples never go to the Galilee, he couldn’t put it at the end of his gospel as a post-resurrection appearance, so he placed it in the next logical context - Jesus’ beginning to call His disciples - and recast the tradition accordingly. In a way, it’s a good fit - the tradition centers around Peter and his discipleship anyway, and in any case, it’s a more dramatic story than the briefer version you find in Matthew or Mark.

On the other hand, one could argue that the differences in detail between Luke 5 and John 21 are distinctive enough that they could not have been referring to the same event. (For example, in Luke 5 Jesus rides on a boat because of the crowds - there are no crowds in John 21.)
 
Note that even the timelines between the synoptics and the 4th Gospel appear different, but probably aren’t.
Click to expand...
John mentions 3 Passover celebrations, and only the last one is mentioned in the synoptics, but clearly the public ministry spanned approximately 3 years and not a single year. (this time difference is probably clearest when comparing the stories of Jesus’s rage with the money changers at the Temple…chronologically they fall at very different times between the synoptics and John’s Gospel…the point is, the message is what all writers were attempting to highlight, and not the historical event itself.
Click to expand...
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Someone once pointed out how it is easier to fit the Synoptics into John’s chronology than vice versa. If you read the Synoptics carefully, you will notice that they read more like a strung-together collection of different episodes from Jesus’ career. Each author might try to give them a semblance of continuity by the use of linking phrases or sentences (“At that time…”), but after you see how the different evangelists order different episodes (pericopes) differently, you’ll find they’re really artificial. I think John is really the only gospel that has a more-or-less consistent, linear chronology.

A little digression. In a way, John is actually the victim of its own theology: for a long time, scholars who are seeking to reconstruct the historical Jesus routinely ignored John because they are put off by its high Christology - which they assumed was a later product. In a way, the synoptics with their lower Christology became the sources of choice by default. It was actually only recently that John underwent some rehabilitation - they found that underneath the long discourses and the developed theology, John might actually preserve a memory of Jesus’ career that is just as historical as, or perhaps even more historical than, the version found in the synoptics.

I’m going to use the Temple incident. Even today, many scholars would take the synoptic chronology for granted: they’d assume that the Temple incident did happen during Holy Week, and that it was John who moved it earlier in Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons. They think that the synoptic version of events explains why the authorities would view Jesus as a threat and would want Him to be crucified.

But it’s isn’t really as easy it sounds: hey, maybe it is possible that it was John who preserved the more historically accurate tradition, while it was Matthew, Mark and Luke who artificially moved the event later in Jesus’ career, since there is only one Passover (corresponding to John’s third, final Passover) in their gospels. Maybe the cleansing wasn’t really the ‘last straw’ that the Synoptics make it out to be: it could have been the event that brought Jesus a degree of public attention, but not (yet) something that would cost Him His life. It might have taken a few more trips to Jerusalem before the authorities decided that Jesus was public nuisance.

P.S. A literal reading of John would actually suggest that Jesus’ ministry spanned more than two years: beginning around the first passover and ending at the third. We get the idea of Jesus’ ministry lasting for three (more specifically, three and a half) years not from the gospels, but from a Christological reading of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top