Conclusion

21 Jesus’ Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias and the Conclusion of the Gospel

Of the many questions that ch. 21 poses, certainly the first is whether this chapter belonged to the Fourth Gospel from the beginning or was added later. The primary facts are that it is nowhere lacking in the text tradition and that, if it was added later, what existed before was only the Evangelist’s original unpublished composition. Was ch. 21 a part of this or was it added afterward, either by the Evangelist himself or by a later hand?

The occasion for this question is obvious. Following the epilogue in 20:30, 31, in which the Evangelist, in stating his purpose, clearly limits himself to the “signs” recorded in the preceding chapters, one does not expect that after a repetition of the transition formula “after these things” he will simply go on to tell us of still another resurrection appearance of Jesus. Furthermore, at the end of ch. 21 people other than the author speak (“and we know that his testimony is true,” vs. 24b) and conclude the book in a different way (vs. 25). The obvious question is whether these others added the whole of ch. 21, and this question is now generally answered in the affirmative.¹ Still, there are also many who continue to ascribe ch. 21 to the Evangelist and regard only vss. 24 (or 24b) and 25 as an addition by, say, his pupils.² The main argument favoring this view is that ch. 21 too clearly, both as to style and content, betrays the hand of the Evangelist than what we would have to attribute it to others.

But opinions are divided on the style of ch. 21. Besides typically Johannine characteristics, ch. 21 also contains a number of words and expressions that do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, that one cannot simply ascribe to the special nature of the material, and that to some scholars are proof that in ch. 21 we are dealing with an unknown redactor.³

Though, then, style can probably not settle the issue, the case is stronger if one looks at content. Both directly and indirectly, 21:1 and 14 refer back to what precedes in speaking of Peter and the beloved disciple together. Also very striking is Jesus’ threefold question to Peter in the light of 13:38 and 18:16ff. All this suggests that this final chapter is intended to bring into sharper profile the figures of Peter and the beloved disciple in the resurrection drama, especially in connection with the role they were to play in the church. Although one could say that this last point crosses the limit of what the Evangelist clearly meant to do (20:31), it also means the prolongation of a line demanded by what precedes, without which especially Peter would have been left in a questionable light (18:27; 20:10). From this perspective there is much that argues for ascribing the majority of ch. 21 to the Evangelist, as the completion of his narrative, albeit as a striking—also with a view to developments in the community (cf. vs. 23)—addition to a provisionally concluded whole.

That others as well had a hand in this completion is clear from vss. 24 and 25, where they themselves speak. The extent of their part in the conclusion is uncertain and will demand our further attention. At any rate, a clear decision between the two views we have described is difficult. If, with many contemporary interpreters, one concludes that all of ch. 21 was added by a later author, then one must also say that ch. 21 is made up of material that is closely connected with all that goes before and that completes that earlier material.

Chapter 21 is divided readily into two nearly equal parts (vss. 1-14 and 15-23), which together tell of Jesus’ third appearance to his disciples as the Risen One, this time at the Sea of Tiberias. Jesus appears in the presence of seven of his closest disciples during a miraculous catch of fish and a subsequent meal (vss. 1-14). Here already the beloved disciple and Peter come to the fore in characteristic ways. In the second part Jesus first speaks at length with Peter (vss. 15-29), and then, prompted by a question from Peter, makes a significant statement about the continuation of his work by the beloved disciple (vss. 20-22). After the narrator’s correction of a misunderstanding of this last statement, we have the “editorial” conclusion, identifying the beloved disciple as the trustworthy witness and author of the Gospel (vss. 23f.).

Hence one cannot say that ch. 21 deals exclusively with these two figures and their place in the coming community. The self-revelation of Jesus in the presence of seven disciples, especially in light of the miraculous catch of fish, has an important purpose and significance of its own. Still, against the background of this event, the beloved disciple and Peter do play a special role. Jesus’ self-revelation is focused on these two,⁴ and the entire Gospel, by referring to their futures, finds its completion.

Many contemporary interpreters believe that a variety of material of diverse origins has been brought together in ch. 21. Although discussion of this subject extends to a number of details, the main concerns are whether vss. 1-13 form an original unit and whether the two main parts of the narrative (vss. 1-13 and 14-23) originally belonged together or were joined later. We will limit ourselves to the most important views.

According to some interpreters, the author of vss. 1-13 has incorporated a resurrection appearance story into the story of a miraculous catch of fish. The two interwoven narratives can be separated and reconstructed by means of analysis of the text.⁵ The main argument for this view is that the obscurity and gaps in the narrative as we have it are traceable to the differing situations of the two narratives.

The text does pose certain difficulties, but the objections to this proposal are formidable. Aside from the fact that the attempts to separate the two stories have not led to any consensus,⁶ the following arguments can be adduced. First, the beginning of the miraculous catch story is completely conditioned also by resurrection appearance motifs (see the exegesis below), and its further development cannot be separated from its intent as a resurrection appearance narrative. Second, if one tries to separate the two stories, one has too little left of the resurrection narrative to speak of a conceivable, situated narrative, and its significance is sharply reduced. Into what sort of situation does Jesus appear in vs. 4 if the story of the disciples who have gone out to fish is taken away? Did the entire appearance consist of a meal arranged by Jesus at which no one said a word? Does not this third and final revelation of the Risen One derive its meaning solely from the authority demonstrated by him in the miracle of the catch of fish and from the renewed assignment to his disciples to continue his work on earth? It is no wonder that even proponents of this two-narratives hypothesis suggest that one reason the two narratives were joined was that the story of the great catch of fish could show more forcefully the fullness of the power of the Risen One, whose appearance was the author’s primary interest here.⁷

With regard to the original unity of the two main parts of ch. 21, the closing statement in vs. 14 describes the appearance of Jesus in vss. 1-14 as a unit in itself. This seems to be reinforced by the correspondence between “he revealed himself” in vs. 1 and “he was revealed” in vs. 14. But vs. 15 forges a clear link between vss. 1-13 and vss. 15-23, and the other disciples remain present (cf. vs. 15) in this second part of the chapter, which focuses first on Peter and then on the beloved disciple. That these two disciples are mentioned separately and emphatically in vss. 1-14 is another argument for unity. Vss. 1-13 leave the relationship between Jesus and Peter unresolved. Furthermore, and more importantly, both parts of the chapter together constitute the explanation for the addition of this chapter to the Gospel: it was added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through his disciples. Therefore, we encounter first Jesus’ demonstrative promise and assignment of a task to his disciples in general, then, in close association with this, Jesus’ assignments to Peter and the beloved disciple in their special significance for the church of the future.⁸

21:1-14

The Miraculous Catch of Fish

1 The words “after this” continue the narrative in John’s customary way (cf. 3:22; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1). With “Jesus again revealed himself” they explicitly label the following as a resurrection narrative (cf. vs. 14). This revelation took place “by the Sea of Tiberias” (cf. 6:1), that is, in Galilee, mentioned elsewhere as where Jesus told his disciples to meet him after his resurrection (cf. Mk. 14:27; 16:7; Mt. 28:7, 10; 28:16).

2, 3 The beginning of the story, however brief, clearly assumes the resurrection situation. Against the background of vs. 1, that Simon Peter and six other disciples “were together” obviously does not just refer to an undefined “once upon a time” when the disciples decided to go fishing but to the continuation of the unity they recovered after Jesus’ resurrection. The listing of some of their names undoubtedly serves to “verify” the resurrection (cf. 1 Co. 15:5f.), something lacking, as a rule, in the miracle stories.

Successively mentioned, after Simon Peter, are Thomas and Nathanael (this time, unlike 1:45f., with his place of origin, Cana of Galilee), the sons of Zebedee (also from Galilee), here mentioned in the Fourth Gospel for the first and only time as such—a notice of some importance with regard to identification of “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who appears in the narrative but is not mentioned in this list as such. The beloved disciple, identified in vs. 24 as the writer of all this, could have been one of these two brothers—namely John, in view of James’s early death. “Two other disciples” are mentioned next, and the beloved disciple could have been one of them. Why they remain anonymous is not clear. Some interpreters point out that they complete the number seven, under which number these disciples could represent the church to come.⁹ But in the roles played in relation to the church of the future both by these seven (vss. 1-14) and by Peter and the beloved disciple (vss. 15-25) the disciples lay the foundations for the church rather than represent it. And the determinative number for the disciples was not seven but twelve. The number seven is not mentioned and has no symbolic significance here.

What moves the disciples—again at the instigation of Peter—to go fishing is not reported. One can, of course, speculate.¹⁰ All one can say with any certainty is that fishing was unusual for this group as disciples of Jesus. That “they caught nothing” is not unusual. But here this notice clearly functions as a transition to what begins in vs. 4.

4 “Just as day was breaking,” so that everything was becoming visible, “Jesus was standing on the beach.” The same verb is used of Jesus’ sudden and unexplained “standing” in 20:14, 19, and 26. This time he is standing “on the beach.” With the same words as in 20:14, it is said that “the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.”¹¹

5, 6 The miracle is introduced by the manner in which Jesus, standing on the beach, makes contact with the disciples nearby (cf. vs. 8). The address “children”—some expositors translate “boys” or “lads”¹²—contains a suggestion of the paternal familiarity and attitude present in teacher-pupil relationships. Jesus’ question about their fishing expects a negative answer: “You haven’t caught any fish,¹³ have you?” Jesus knows the answer either because the disciples were still fishing at the break of day or perhaps because of his omniscience. With no sign that they recognize him, the disciples respond with a mere “no.” Jesus’ word of power follows: “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find [some].”¹⁴ When the disciples follow this instruction, they are then unable to haul the net in because there are so many fish.

It is clear at the outset (see further on vs. 11) that the fish are not just intended for a meal. In vs. 10 Jesus does tell his disciples to bring some of the freshly caught fish for a meal. But in view of the small number of those present, we must clearly not think here of a feeding miracle like that in ch. 6. The story rather symbolizes the effective authorization and promise of the Risen One to fulfill the missionary mandate that he has given to his disciples. The miracle of the catch of fish thus gives to this resurrection appearance, and to the meal that the disciples once more have with Jesus, their own specific meaning. Lk. 5:1-11 places a similar miracle story before the resurrection, which though it is different in many ways and is not to be equated with the story here,¹⁵ is also interpreted symbolically with a view to Peter’s future activity. This Johannine story has a distinct setting as a resurrection narrative and in close conjunction with two earlier resurrection narratives (20:19ff.). In that setting the meal that follows also has its specific meaning and finds its continuation, as we will see in what follows.

7 Before all that unfolds, the reactions to the astonishing catch of fish on the part of the beloved disciple and Peter are reported. Again they act in conjunction, as in 13:23ff.; 18:15f.; 20:3ff., 8ff., and in ways characteristic for each of them and for their relationship. The beloved disciple, though not mentioned as such in the list of vs. 2 but known to the readers as “that” disciple,¹⁶ first understands the meaning of what has happened and in that respect is again a step ahead of Peter. He voices it in the word of recognition that is typical in the resurrection appearances: “It is the Lord!” (cf. 20:18, 25; 21:12). Peter reacts immediately, in a way that is no less characteristic for him. He tucks in his outer garment¹⁷—the only thing he had on—and plunges into the sea, leaving behind his companions, the boat, and the sea in order to be the first to reach Jesus. That he had a special reason for this is clear and will emerge later.

The Evangelist thus again sketches the relationship between the two disciples and at the same time anticipates the second part of the narrative (vss. 15ff.). Some scholars have again sought to view the beloved disciple here as the “ideal disciple,” on whose post-Easter witness the other disciples were dependent.¹⁸ But, though in relation to Peter this disciple is here again the first, he is in this regard by no means the first and only post-Easter witness among the disciples. He is a witness in the Gospel only here in the added ch. 21. And the other disciples are not at all dependent on him for their witness (cf. vs. 12; 20:18, 25).

Peter’s role here of leader and spokesman of the disciples is no less characteristic, also in his relationship with the beloved disciple (cf. 20:6). It is remarkable here that this role is initially limited to jumping into the sea. Not a word is said about his arrival on the beach or that he is the first to meet Jesus. Peter only, rather unexpectedly, “surfaces” again in vs. 11, which is proof to some of the incoherent and composite character of the narrative.¹⁹ But the author responsible for this narrative is clearly not interested in giving a complete report but only in describing the main moments significant for his purpose. Peter only returns when he again plays a leading role, in vs. 11 and particularly in vss. 15ff., where Jesus, echoing Peter’s love of primacy (“more than these”), addresses him individually. But first the fishing story must be continued.

8-10 “The other disciples”—perhaps more intent on saving the boat and the catch than Peter was—“came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish” behind the boat (cf. vs. 6). The comment that “they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards²⁰ off” explains how all this could have taken place as told: the distance they had to drag the net behind the boat (and that Peter had to swim) was not long.

Compared with this detailed precision the extreme conciseness of what follows is striking. When the disciples had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish²¹ on it and bread, evidently intended as preparation for a meal (vs. 9). All this, arranged by Jesus himself, is not striking in a resurrection appearance story, but it is in a fishing story. The Evangelist says not a word about it, but immediately goes on to Jesus’ words to his disciples: “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” Why does Jesus, who has fish for the meal on the fire, tell the disciples to bring fish from those they have caught?²² The connections here do not seem as unclear as that question might suggest. Only as the disciples bring fish that have just been caught does the meal prepared by Jesus achieve its full significance. Jesus makes the usual meal of bread and fish, which the disciples have so often shared with him, into a resurrection meal, not only by sitting down with them as the Risen One, but also by involving them in it as those who share in his resurrection power and as those who will continue his work on earth. Therefore some of the fish that they have just caught from the abundance he showed them when the net was hauled ashore must be put on the table. Hence his earlier question in vs. 5 and hence his instructions here, as signs of the time of salvation inaugurated with his ascent. The unity of the narrative is not artificial but is present from its beginning.

11 At Jesus’ word Peter is again the first to carry out the command. He goes aboard the now unmanned boat and, however he did it, pulled the net ashore.²³ Only then is it revealed what occurred in the depth of the sea after Jesus’ said, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat”: one hundred fifty-three fish in one net, and without tearing the net!

Aside from the power and authority of the Risen One symbolized in general in this description, attempts have been made also to interpret the details allegorically. From early times on commentators have focused on the number one hundred fifty-three to find a deeper meaning in it. Attempts to that end are being made to this day—without, however, arriving at any credible result, to say nothing of one that has become generally accepted. What is at stake in this number in the text is the huge quantity, as is evident from the immediately following statement: “and though there were so many, the net was not torn.” The unqualified number means something like “no fewer than one hundred fifty-three.” Carefully counting the fish after a catch was probably never done. But the astonishing quantity of fish in that one net was so unusual that there was reason to count them and, with that, reason for this number to gain a fixed place in the tradition. Many interpreters, even today,²⁴ however critical they may be of theological interpretations from the past, nevertheless see in the details here a characteristic sign of the church. The large number is said at least to represent the all-embracing character of the community to be won by the disciples for Jesus, while the unbroken net is thought to symbolize the church’s unbreakable unity (as the fruit of Jesus’ prayer in ch. 17). However attractive this interpretation may seem at first sight, on closer scrutiny it cannot be maintained. Even in general, the great multitude of large fish hauled ashore by Peter can hardly serve as a picture of the church that then, as the result of the labor of all the apostles, is brought to Jesus by Peter as the head of the mission;²⁵ especially not if one remembers that Peter did this at Jesus’ command in order—with a view to a meal—to “bring some of the fish you have just caught.” Nor can the large number be explained in terms of the universality of the community,²⁶ since the catch consisted exclusively of “big” fish. And the unbroken net does not symbolize the discipline that the church needs in order to preserve its unity. The unbroken net refers, rather, to the element—referred to elsewhere—of “not letting any be lost,” which the disciples are to observe always in their missionary practice (cf. 6:12).²⁷ This is not to say that the perspective of the church is missing in the narrative. The whole of Jesus’ command and power symbolized in the catch of fish is undoubtedly directed toward bringing in the church,²⁸ but then certainly in the specific sense of Jesus’ apostolic mandate and promise to his disciples.

12, 13 In keeping with this is the fact that when Jesus invites his disciples to the meal, nothing further needs to be said. The entire focus is rather on the mysterious and overwhelming character of his presence and the disciples’ being together with him. After everything that has happened and in view of the size of their catch they are no longer uncertain who they are with; “None of the disciples dared ask him, ‘Who are you?’ ” Repeated here is what forces itself on them in all the resurrection appearances: the miracle of the “wholly-otherness” of his presence and of their “knowing” him, as compared to their experience of him before his death and resurrection, so that now they are kept from speaking to him. Knowing it was he, they shrink from entering into the mystery of his presence.

But Jesus “came” (vs. 13, here again indicative of his appearance) not only to show himself to them as the Living One but, on the basis of the new reality of his existence, to continue his fellowship with them as those called and sent out by him and to cause them to share in the gifts at his disposal as the living Lord. And so he invited them to sit at table with him, took the bread, and also the fish of the miracle, and gave them of it as provision from his hands for the journey that now lay before them and as heavenly equipment for the ministry on earth to which he had called them and for which he had destined them.²⁹

14 This appearance (“revelation”), as far as it concerns the disciples as a group, is concluded in vs. 14. By speaking of “the third time” the author clearly incorporates this story into the preceding narrative. That the appearance to Mary Magdalene is not counted is further proof that when the author speaks of Jesus’ “disciples” he has in mind the “apostolic” witness represented by them (see the comments on 20:21ff., 30). The word “now” suggests that Jesus’ self-revelation became all the more undeniable for having occurred this third time. “After he was raised from the dead” is an expression that in its passive form is used only here in the Fourth Gospel (cf., however, 20:9).

21:15-23

Jesus’ Farewell to Peter and to the Disciple That He Loved

15-17 The conversation of Jesus with Peter that now follows is focused especially on Peter’s continuation of Jesus’ work in the church and, in close conjunction with that, on the future of the beloved disciple.

Jesus’ thrice-repeated question, “Simon, son of John,³⁰ do you love me …?” reflects Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus and the dialogue preceding it at the Last Supper (19:16ff., 25ff.; 13:36ff.). The words of address also recall those spoken at Jesus’ first encounter with Peter (1:42): “You are Simon, son of John; you shall be called Cephas.” In this use of Peter’s original name some scholars see Jesus taking a certain distance from Peter.³¹ It seems that Jesus wants to make Peter feel that, before going further with him, he must first make a fresh beginning with him.

The repeated question presumably, in view of what follows in vs. 18, relates not only to Peter’s attitude toward Jesus but also and especially to his readiness to serve and follow Jesus. The words added the first time Jesus asks the question, “more than these,” might refer to the way in which Peter has until now taken the lead in comparison to the other disciples,³² to Peter’s earlier statement that he was willing to give Jesus his all (13:37; Mk. 14:29), and to what Peter will experience in the future (vss. 18, 19). In any case, thus formulated, this question is designed to let Peter know that loving and following Jesus can have more implications for him than he perhaps has thought and practiced in the past (cf. vs. 18a).

Peter’s affirmative answer is without hesitation and appeals to Jesus’ knowledge of him. The appeal does not have the sense of “Why ask me? You know me, don’t you?” Jesus’ knowledge is, rather, the last thing on which Peter can base an appeal before Jesus. His own actions have witnessed against him, and “more than these” seems to mock him more than justify him. All that is left to Peter is, “You know that I love you,” an appeal to Jesus’ knowledge of him as one of his own (10:14; cf. Lk. 22:32).

Some scholars think that the word “love” with which Peter replies,³³ which is different from the word used in Jesus’ first two questions,³⁴ contains something more than a mere affirmation on Peter’s part. The love of which Jesus speaks (ἀγάπη) is said to be higher and more spiritual than the more natural, emotional love (φίλη) Peter had the courage to ascribe to himself. The different words are then said to suggest the distance that is bridged in Jesus’ third question, where he uses the same word as Peter (φιλεῖν, vs. 17). Though in the course of time much has been made of this supposed difference, scholars have become increasingly convinced that it plays no role here. φιλεῖν is used where it says that Jesus asked the same question the third time. And when Jesus finally takes over the word Peter has used in his answers, Peter does not feel relieved by it. Rather, he feels sad that Jesus has now asked him the same question a third time. And it is no less significant that the Evangelist himself uses the two words interchangeably when he speaks of Jesus’ love for his disciples (15:9; 16:27; 11:3, 5) and for the beloved disciple (20:2; 13:23) and of the disciples’ love for him (8:42; 16:27).³⁵

In response to Peter’s repeated assertion of his love for Jesus, Jesus answers with “Feed my lambs” (vs. 15), “Tend my sheep” (vs. 16), and “Feed my sheep” (vs. 17). The differences (“lambs” and “sheep,” “feed” and “tend”) can, taken strictly, express the shepherd’s total care for the whole flock. But one thing is pivotal here: Jesus attests—again three times and in the presence of the other disciples as in 13:38—his full confidence in Peter as future shepherd of his church.

Shepherding is one of the most frequent and characteristic images for leadership and care of the church. It is rooted in the portrayal of God as shepherd of his people (e.g., Pss. 23; 77:20; Ezekiel 34) and of Jesus as the good shepherd (10:1ff., 26ff.; Hb. 13:20; 1 Pt. 2:25, etc.). As such it is not typically “apostolic” but rather characteristic of every task or ministry in the church (cf. Ac. 20:28; Ep. 4:11; 1 Pt. 5:1ff.). Accordingly, there is in Jesus’ repeated designation of Peter as shepherd nothing unique. Peter is not charged with the care of the entire flock as Jesus’ earthly vicar, and he is not the chief shepherd to whom all the other shepherds are subordinate.³⁶ Peter’s commissioning here is not different from that of all the disciples in 20:21-23.³⁷ This charge to Peter is so emphatic because of his earlier threefold denial and Jesus’ thrice-attested willingness to continue to entrust to him the care of his church, as well as because Peter is the “Cephas” (1:42) on whom Jesus will build his church (Mt. 16:18; cf. Jn. 6:68). But “you will be called Cephas” will apply to him not only as spokesman and as the first-mentioned of the disciples, as until now he (with ups and downs) has acted, but no less or even especially as a follower, for which Jesus had destined him, as is evident in the transition to vss. 17-19.

Peter is grieved because Jesus asks him the third time, “Simon, do you love me?” Does Jesus have a reason for asking again? Peter answers, more firmly than the previous times, with, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus does not specifically respond to this statement but merely repeats what he has said before: “Feed my sheep.”

18-19a What Jesus now adds with great prophetic power (“Truly, truly, I say to you”) in a sense explains all that precedes. Jesus has sought not so much Peter’s triple retraction of his denial, and even less to embarrass him again before the other disciples; it is rather what awaits Peter in the future that prompts Jesus to reinforce his ties with him as never before. To that end Jesus now applies to Peter the image of one who in the strength of youth can walk and stand where he pleases but in the weakness of old age must depend not only on the help of others (so that he need only “stretch out his hands”) but also on their will, even if they take him where he does not want to go. In Peter’s case this will not be occasioned by the infirmities of old age, which he will not be spared, but by the need to submit to powers that will take him “where you did not wish to go,” and that in a highly charged sense, further explained by the Evangelist: “This he said to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God,” namely as a martyr in the service of his Lord (cf. 1 Pt. 4:16).

A fair number of interpreters understand the statement of vs. 18 in a more specific sense. They believe that “stretch out your hands” refers to Peter’s crucifixion, and “another will gird you” to binding with a rope before crucifixion. An immediate objection is that “stretch out your hands” is followed by the “binding” and leading away of Peter. Others, therefore, view the stretching out of Peter’s hands as voluntary submission to handcuffing. But can “gird” be used of handcuffing? Therefore, along with many others, we prefer the view that “the kind of death by which he would die” does not refer to a specific mode of execution but more generally to Peter’s death as that of a martyr.

19b The specific meaning in this context of Jesus’ next words to Peter, “Follow me,” is not totally clear. It seems most likely with a view to vss. 15f. that this is an allusion to the conversation that took place on the eve of Jesus’ death (13:36ff.), when Peter’s following of Jesus was also discussed in a profound way. Then Jesus said: “Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterward.” Peter contradicted him: “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” All this comes back now but is viewed from the perspective of the “afterward” of 13:36 (cf. 13:7), that is, of what has happened since. Following Jesus—to which Jesus now calls Peter—has been placed on another foundation than that of Peter “girding himself” and his willingness to assume the risks entailed. He is now asked to follow Jesus on a road that Jesus has traveled first and alone and on which he, as the great Shepherd of the sheep, has given his life. Now the time has come for Peter to tend the sheep. The risks of following have not diminished. But the way Peter must go has been pioneered; as his Lord’s follower and as shepherd of his Lord’s sheep he will be not only a participant in his Lord’s death but also a witness to and participant in his Lord’s resurrection.

20, 21 It is remarkable that Jesus’ farewell to Peter does not take place apart from the involvement of the beloved disciple. A line visible throughout the Gospel is extended here that clearly tends to bring into the foreground, along with the well-known figure of Peter, this other disciple, not to compete with Peter or to detract from his authority but as one who, among the disciples of Jesus, has assumed and will assume a place no less important than that of Peter. The depiction of the situation in vs. 20a is not altogether clear³⁸ and is therefore understood by some scholars as an artificial connection created by the author to make room here for the well-known saying in vs. 22. But it is precisely in relation to the preceding dialogue that Peter’s question (“Lord, what about this man?”) gains its significance.

It is striking that the author—differently than in vs. 7—once more expressly identifies this disciple as the one who had reclined next to Jesus at “the” supper and had said: “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” (13:23f.). Evidently the intent is once more to put the spotlight on him as Jesus’ confidante, next to Peter (cf. 13:24!), and on his continuing followership of Jesus. What matters in this passage is the future of both disciples, and that in their interconnectedness.

22, 23 Jesus urges Peter not to meddle with what he has in mind for the other disciple, even if it differs from what he has predicted for Peter. Jesus’ answer suggests, in fact, that it will be different. The emphasis here is on Jesus’ authority and power—“if it is my will”—not in a vague potential sense (“supposing it was my will that he should remain …”) but rather as an indication that what Jesus has in mind³⁹ is not involved between him and Peter.

This, then, is how we must view the much-discussed vs. 23. The author tells how Jesus’ saying⁴⁰ was received in the church (“among the brothers”) as the word that the disciple would not die.⁴¹ He immediately adds, however, that Jesus did not at all speak of the disciple’s death but said: “If it is my will that he remain until I come.” To substantiate this he again cites Jesus’ words, which speak not of “not dying” but of “continuing.” Thus he suggests that, while Peter’s destiny lay in the God-glorifying significance of his death, Jesus’ purpose with the other disciple lay rather in his continuing, though not in the sense—as the Evangelist expressly states—that this disciple could not die before the coming of Jesus. Instead, by continuing, he would serve Jesus as his disciple throughout his life. Undoubtedly the full meaning of Jesus’ saying about this disciple—like the saying about Peter in vss. 18-19—would come out only later. But for that very reason it was Jesus’ prerogative to will and to know all this (“if it is my will”), not Peter’s. What applies to both disciples is the call to follow Jesus, each with his own destiny. For Peter it means that he will complete his life like the “good Shepherd” in self-offering for Jesus’ flock. For the beloved disciple this means his continuing witness⁴² until the coming of his Lord in glory (cf. vs. 24).⁴³

With this interpretation we are distancing ourselves from the widespread view that in repeating Jesus’ saying the author sought solely to stress the conditional character of Jesus’ statement and thus to invalidate the appeal of James and John to the saying. With “if it is my will” Jesus is said only to leave open the possibility that this disciple would not die. Hence, if this disciple should die, that would only prove that Jesus in his sovereign authority had not willed that he should remain alive.⁴⁴

Others, however, correctly state that, given this interpretation, the passage about the future importance of the beloved disciple, which concludes the whole Gospel, has little to say and is merely negative. It evidently makes no distinction—any more than James and John would have—between “not dying” and “remaining,” whereas the author makes a point of stressing this difference, first in his own statement and then by repeating Jesus’ saying. But it is hard to believe that Jesus would correct Peter by presenting him with a possibility that he had no intention to realize, instead of asking Peter not to interfere in that for which he in his sovereign authority had actually destined the disciple whom he loved. And vs. 24 makes it clear that the protasis of vs. 22 contains an indicative verb, not a subjunctive.⁴⁵

Finally, one can ask whether already in vs. 23 the “we” of vs. 24 are speaking, that is, those who before bringing the Gospel to a close wish to correct the misunderstanding over Jesus’ answer to Peter that has arisen among “the brothers.” If that is the case, Jesus’ last word to Peter is the original end of ch. 21. Although that is possible, there is more reason, in our estimate, to ascribe vss. 22 and 23 to the same author, namely the author of the preceding narrative. Not until vs. 24 do the “we” begin to speak.

21:24-25

Conclusion

24 Here a “we” takes the floor to place all possible stress on the permanent significance of the beloved disciple with reference to the content of the Gospel (“these things”) as the “we” received it. These people are evidently those who by adding these words are putting the finishing touch on ch. 21 and are thereby presenting the whole Gospel to its readers as the work of the beloved disciple. This “we” is understood to be the community that formed around the beloved disciple, to which he left his Gospel as his legacy.⁴⁶

But the main point of this statement is its description of the real and permanent significance of this disciple as the one “who testifies concerning these things and has written them.” Some have identified “these things” solely in relation to the immediately preceding narrative in this chapter.⁴⁷ But since “these things” is also the object of “he has written,” it can hardly be understood as anything other than a description of the whole Gospel (cf. also vs. 25), as by far the majority of interpreters assume.⁴⁸ “Who testifies to these things” refers primarily to this disciple’s permanent significance as an eyewitness (and earwitness) of the things described in the Gospel.⁴⁹ “And who has written these things” serves to reinforce the preceding “testimony”: the beloved disciple has written down his testimony and made it into Scripture (see also the comments on 20:30, 31) so that it is no longer dependent on his presence. As the continuation of vs. 23 all this therefore shows what Jesus meant with “If it is my will that he remain.…”

This statement thus points to the beloved disciple as witness and author of the entire preceding narrative. There has naturally been much discussion (with varying conclusions) of the “beloved disciple” passages and, with that, of the character and content of the entire Gospel. How all this bears on the statement in 21:24 requires a separate, summarizing discussion (see below). We can note here only that the words “testifying” and “has written” are not open to misunderstanding and relate above all to the person of the beloved disciple and that one cannot therefore weaken his “writing” by viewing it as “nonliteral”⁵⁰ or “causative” (in the sense of 19:22).⁵¹

“And we know” once more confirms the “truth” and hence the trustworthiness of “his witness.” They clearly recall 19:35. But there the author of the Gospel himself, on the basis of his own testimony, calls for faith in the church (cf. 20:31). Here the “we” of the church itself places beyond all doubt the reliability and authority of this disciple. After the apostle’s witness comes the church’s confession, a clear additional proof of how roles are divided when the “we” is speaking in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 1:14 and comments there).

25 The final (second) ending once more surveys the whole Gospel. It speaks hyperbolically of all “the things Jesus did.” This statement is again from another hand than vs. 24 (“I suppose”). It has been said that such an exaggerated way of glorifying Jesus’ deeds is not in the spirit of the Evangelist himself.⁵² Still, these words also hint at what, in his way and indeed much more soberly, the Evangelist himself has expressed in 20:30-31: that this Gospel has made no attempt at completeness and that its content must be judged accordingly.

The Beloved Disciple

The statement with which the “we” of 21:24 concludes what precedes, precisely as concluding statement, is naturally of particular interest with regard to identification of the beloved disciple. This, then, is the place for us to summarize what we have mentioned only fragmentarily so far, though all that we have noted must be taken into account to assess the true value and intent of the “we” ending. Here both that the disciple “gives witness” and that he “has written” are important. The two issues are intertwined, but we will take the first as our starting point.

The Beloved Disciple as Witness

Nowhere more clearly than in 21:24 is the beloved disciple referred to as a historical person and not a symbolic figure.⁵³ Furthermore, this disciple is not referred to primarily here as one who lived in the midst of the church but as the disciple as mentioned in this context (“This is”), along with Peter, that is, as a member of the circle of Jesus’ closest disciples and as such beloved by Jesus (cf. vs. 20). The concern of the statement is to characterize the role and importance of this disciple as that of eyewitness (and earwitness) of “these things” and to describe him, therefore, as most reliable in his witness (vs. 24c). This qualification—we can now observe—agrees completely with the role that earlier passages that speak of him have given to him. This, therefore, is further proof that all attempts to interpret his activity in a nonhistorical, symbolic sense (that of the “ideal disciple”) bring about a fundamental change in his significance and turn it in a completely different direction (see the comments on 13:23ff.; 18:15; 19:26f., 35[!]; 20:2ff.).

But it is also clear, in light of the Gospel as a whole, that 21:24 cannot be intended to characterize all of the preceding material as the personal memoirs of the beloved disciple. Not only does the Gospel contain more than a factual report of what happened but it also is based on a broader witness than that of just the beloved disciple. In his concluding recapitulation of his work in 20:30, 31, the Evangelist himself describes his work as that of recording the signs Jesus did in his disciples’ presence, thus revealing his glory as the Christ and the Son of God. The Evangelist’s aim is not to furnish, as the foundation for the church’s faith, anything other or more than this broad apostolic witness, however much he includes his own part as an eyewitness (1:14; 15:26, 27) and however much he appeals specifically to the beloved disciple’s eyewitness report (cf. 19:35).

In that sense there is undoubtedly a difference in point of view between the witness of the “we” in 21:24 and the Evangelist’s testimony concerning his writing. What comes to the fore in the “we” statement is a special bond with the beloved disciple; he is their witness par excellence. Naturally they do not write that he is the only witness, but they do, by their statement, publish the Gospel under his authority as their permanent witness.

In the Gospel itself, viewed now as a whole, this disciple remains much more in the background in the redemptive events he experiences along with the other disciples. There is good reason in the framework of the Gospel to recognize the beloved disciple in the anonymous disciple of 1:35ff. But he appears as the beloved disciple only in the passion narrative, beginning with ch. 13, and only at a few points, though they are key points. In Jesus’ lengthy farewell discourse in chs. 14-17 and in the appearance stories and the commissioning of the disciples in ch. 20, this disciple is not mentioned separately. Only in ch. 21 does he, along with Peter, come to the fore in the full light of the resurrection and receive from the Risen One his permanent role in the coming church. So it is with this earlier material in ch. 21 that the “we” in vs. 24 refer to (“This is the disciple”).

On the basis of this limited but prominent role, some scholars believe that the passages relating to the beloved disciple do not constitute an original unity with the rest of the Gospel. These scholars claim that the figure of the beloved disciple, in the sense in which the “we” of 21:24 speak of him, was only later inserted into an already existing textual unit (a “basic document”) in order to give the book greater authority. The notion of the “ideal disciple” again plays an important role in this hypothesis.⁵⁴

But as long as one takes the figure of the beloved disciple—however special it is in itself—for what it is and as he is described by the “we” of 21:24, namely as an eyewitness and not a “theological” ideal figure, then there is no reason that he should not at the same time function in the entire Gospel as “disciple among the disciples” and why his special witness should not be subsumed under the general heading of the apostolic witness in the sense spoken of in 20:30 (cf. 1:14). Nor can his late appearance on the Gospel’s stage serve as an argument against this. The Gospel is, after all, constructed so that the disciples (after the graphic narrative of their calling in 1:35-51) are referred to only in general terms and mentioned by name in only a few cases. Not until 13:1 does Jesus address them in particular and does their part in the progression of the narrative get full attention. Only after 1:41f. do Peter and the beloved disciple play special roles in the passion narrative (of which 6:68 is undoubtedly part of the background). And this argument is all the more compelling because during the passion the two disciples repeatedly act in conjunction, though each in his own way: Peter in his prominent role as spokesman for the disciples and in his continuing opposition to Jesus’ journey to the cross, the “other” disciple in his special relationship of trust to Jesus (cf. 13:23ff.; 19:26). Thus these two are the only disciples who follow Jesus after his arrest (each for his own reasons and despite Jesus’ saying in 16:32!). Thus, following Peter’s denial, in a highly characteristic way, the “other” is the only disciple left to hear Jesus’ last words, together with Jesus’ mother, and to witness the circumstances of Jesus’ death (19:26f., 33-35).

The mere fact of this conjunction of the activities of the two disciples—intended perhaps already in 1:40f. and continued and deepened in the resurrection narrative (20:2ff.; 21)—makes it extremely difficult to abstract the beloved disciple from this context and to take him as a figure later inserted into an existing narrative. The integral manner in which the passages concerning him are incorporated into the Gospel resists this construction, and one also faces the difficult question whether and to what degree the undeniably historical figure of Peter was taken up into this symbolization process. Finally, and no less important, the settings in which the beloved disciple plays a role, with Peter or not, are always ones to which only he can give testimony because of the special bond he has with Jesus: either he participates in events that remain hidden to others (13:23, 26) or he follows Jesus when the others have disappeared (18:15f.; 19:26, 35; cf. 1:39). That bond materializes in his special role as a witness and explains the limitations of that role.

Attempts to Identify the Disciple

Since, therefore, the historicity of the beloved disciple’s role in the Gospel can hardly be denied, it is natural to ask whether we can identify him among the disciples of Jesus known to us. All the data point in one direction. In 13:1-23 he is explicitly called “one of his disciples,” by whom are meant, here as so often, the narrow circle of men whom Jesus chose and with whom he formed special ties (cf. 13:18), those who are called the Twelve, with whom, according to the whole tradition, Jesus observed the Last Supper. Among these, according to 13:23, this one disciple was the one “whom Jesus loved,” an expression describing personal friendship (cf. 11:5; or also kinship? see the comments on 19:25). These criteria exclude some who have been identified as this disciple, such as Lazarus⁵⁵ or John Mark. Everything tends to confirm the ecclesiastical tradition that, in part on the basis of patristic testimonies,⁵⁶ has linked the name of John, son of Zebedee, with the Fourth Gospel. Favoring this identification, of course, is the special place that this disciple has in the other Gospels, in particular his being frequently in the company of Peter (e.g., Lk. 22:8, where John and Peter are appointed to prepare the Last Supper; see also Ac. 3:1; 4:13, 19; 8:14; Gl. 2:9). Arguments from silence, though they are always to be handled with care, are also of importance here. How else can one explain that the central figure of John is not mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel?⁵⁷ And can one imagine that in the period in which the Gospel was written a church community (known or unknown) could demand and acquire for its chief pastor such (“canonical”) authority as that of an intimate of Jesus and the equal of Peter if this person had not himself belonged to the circle of Jesus’ first disciples (the apostles)?⁵⁸

Meanwhile this—one might say rather obvious—identification of the beloved disciple with John the son of Zebedee is rejected by others on the ground of the strictly observed anonymity in which the beloved disciple appears in the Gospel. Various interpreters—even when they more or less freely concede that the beloved disciple must have stood in a very personal relationship if not to Jesus himself then certainly to people from his immediate circle—regard this anonymity as the strongest argument that this disciple cannot be identified with the apostle John or someone from the immediate circle of Jesus’ first disciples. The reasoning is that if the beloved disciple had belonged to the circle of the apostles or had at least been one of the familiar figures in primitive Christianity, he would certainly have been mentioned as such by the Johannine circle, for whom it was of the greatest importance to gain recognition in the larger church for the witness to Christ that they held in such high esteem.⁵⁹

This “strongest” argument is only compelling, however, if one assumes that the Gospel’s author was not the apostle John (or someone else from Jesus’ closest circle). If the author was in fact someone else, it is certainly hard to explain why he consistently refers to the anonymous “beloved disciple” and not explicitly to “John,” since he refers to Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and others by name. But if the beloved disciple was the author himself, as 21:24 emphatically states, and if he was a figure of the first rank in the church, as we have tried to show, then the case is very different and the argument from anonymity works the other direction. Who other than such a prominent author, the beloved disciple himself, could have better reason for not referring to the beloved disciple by name? He did not do this, of course, to keep that identity a secret (which he could never do successfully!) but to subordinate his own role in the narrative to the goal he has set for himself, which is to record what Jesus revealed of his glory in the presence of his disciples (20:30, 31). When the “we” in 21:24 refrain from revealing his name, they do so neither out of ignorance of his name nor to introduce as authoritative their unknown (to the outside world) founder and leader under the honorific title of disciple but to respect the anonymity that the author himself has observed.

It has been said that such authorial reserve is hard to reconcile with the “name of honor” that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” indirectly attributes to himself. But “name of honor” is hardly an appropriate term, and the translation “favorite disciple” is certainly wrong. Inconsistent with such a interpretation are the extremely down-to-earth and unelaborated sobriety with which the author uses this designation, his alternation of it with other more impersonal designations (as in 18:15; 19:35; cf. also 20:2), the absence of any attempt as “beloved disciple” to assert himself in competition with his fellow disciples, especially Peter, and most of all the atmosphere of restraint—sometimes called “mysterious”—that he observes with respect to his person from beginning to end, especially when the reference is directly to himself (21:21). What compels him to refer to himself with this term is to some degree pragmatic: it explains, as in 13:23 and 19:26, 27, the special confidence that Jesus has in him. But the primary reason is that the designation brings out the trustworthiness and apostolic authority of his witness. This is undoubtedly also why in 21:20, in introducing Jesus’ saying concerning his “remaining” and in the statement of the “we” in vs. 24 that refers back to it, this trustworthiness is expressly accentuated.

The Authorship of the Gospel

With this last statement we have arrived at the subject of the authorship ascribed to the beloved disciple in 21:24. Assessment of this authorship is naturally closely tied in with the first part of the statement in that verse. If one assigns to the beloved disciple not the role of eyewitness but that of a (more or less) symbolic figure, one will also have greater difficulty seeing him as the author who reliably recorded “these things” that we have before us. Accordingly, the degree to which this disciple’s role as eyewitness is not fully recognized corresponds to the degree that his authorship (in the sense of 21:24) becomes nebulous.⁶⁰ Those who deem it impossible that the Fourth Gospel was written by an intimate disciple and eyewitness of Jesus are more inclined (or compelled!) to declare the beloved disciple a fiction or an ideal figure.

Still, even if one sees the beloved disciple’s activity in the Fourth Gospel as really reflecting the eyewitness testimony spoken of in 21:24, one cannot simply conclude that he was the author of the Gospel as we have it. As stated earlier, “who has written these things” is not a disclosure, added at the last minute, of who in fact wrote the book. It is, rather, in all its brevity, a further description of the beloved disciple’s witness as recorded in writing⁶¹ and therefore the more reliable and “true” (see the closing words of the verse). If, however, one further views these words in the light of the whole Gospel, then it is clear that the authorship of the Gospel encompasses much more than mere recording of what the beloved disciple as transmitter of the tradition heard and saw. Its extensive theological interpretation dominates the book, and we must factor that component into the issue of authorship.

A “Johannine Circle”?

This last point has led some scholars who want to give due weight to the eyewitness role of the beloved disciple (whoever he was) to conclude that the Gospel as we have it was written by not just one person but as the result of an advanced “theology” of the person of Jesus that developed in a certain “school” or “circle” of which that one person was the spiritual father or leader.

A point of contact for this hypothesis could be the fact that the Fourth Gospel clearly did not come to us from the hand of the author-Evangelist himself, but is presented to us by the “we” of 21:24. That verse does occasion a range of questions: Why did not the Evangelist publish the book himself? Who are the “we”? Were they coworkers or pupils of the beloved disciple?⁶² Did they perhaps have more of a hand in the origination of the Gospel as we have it than merely its publication? That would point to the existence of the widely accepted Johannine “school” or “circle,”⁶³ from which the Gospel as we have it is said to have emerged as the end product of a theological development that is itself reflected in the Gospel. The point of departure for this hypothesis is indeed the spiritual paternity of the beloved disciple, who is said to have laid the first historical foundation, which related especially to the life of Jesus, either from his own memory or from tradition available to him. From this, under the influence of his direction, there gradually developed a deeper insight into the life of Jesus. This process, it is said, can be demonstrated from the various “levels” or “strata” of the book. The process came to an end in ch. 21, which was added by the “we.”⁶⁴ The different “phases” are said to be recognizable from certain irregularities, abrupt transitions, repetitions, and the like, for example, in the farewell discourse,⁶⁵ in which revisions by the author himself or later redactors are said to be clearly discernible. Pursuing this line of thought, some think they are able to trace in these different redactions not merely the progression of Johannine theology but also the changing circumstances of the Johannine community, to which the content of the Gospel was adapted.⁶⁶ It is clear that in this way “who has written these things” is taken in a very broad sense to refer to a collective authorship strongly conditioned by the Johannine school or the whole community.

Now it is undoubtedly true that with respect to the manner and form in which the Fourth Gospel has come down to us we face a number of questions for which there are no simple answers. It cannot be denied that the author was unable or disinclined to publish his writing himself. It is most likely that he had already died and that the “we” in 21:24, his pupils or spiritual kin, had received it as part of his legacy. It is also clear that, whether on instructions from him or not, they knew themselves authorized to publish it in this form and on his authority. One can further see in this verse an indication that earlier they had been involved in some way in the work of the beloved disciple. We simply know too little of the way in which this grandly conceived work came into being, of the possibilities at the author’s disposal, and of the assistance he may have needed from others—too little to make responsible pronouncements on these issues. The simple expression “has written,” coming in the same breath as “bearing witness,” opens a space we cannot precisely measure.

It is no less clear that the Gospel as we have it is the result of long and profound reflection on the meaning of the coming and work of Jesus of Nazareth. The Evangelist himself describes it as the fruit of the Spirit’s co-witness (14:26; cf. 15:26; 16:13). In this respect there is undoubtedly no small difference between the beloved disciple as eyewitness and the beloved disciple as author of the Gospel, in the sense that the true meaning and deep sense of what he heard and saw still had to be disclosed, to him as well as the other disciples, by the light of Scripture (cf. 20:9, 10; 2:22; 12:16; 14:25f.; 16:12). For that reason “testimony” in 21:24 (cf. 19:35), which stresses the reliability of what was written—“the factuality of his history,”⁶⁷ is not the last and most characteristic thing that can be said of the content and thrust of the Fourth Gospel. The author’s aim, both as transmitter of the tradition and as Evangelist, is above all to unfold for the community the revelatory significance—oriented to faith and ever more deeply understood by the author himself—of what Jesus said and did in the presence of the disciples.⁶⁸

But can such a development be demonstrated from supposed “levels” and “strata” that are said to be distinguishable in the Gospel but about the details of which no two scholars are in agreement? We have seen over and over how problematic all sorts of interpretations are that see the hand of a later redactor in every real or imagined irregularity in the structure of the book. It could certainly be that the author had not yet produced the final draft and that the “we” of 21:24, out of respect for him, published it in the form in which they received it, that the author followed standards different from those of his modern critics and was therefore less troubled by a transition like that from 14:31 to 15:1, and therefore that those interpreters are right who apply the rule that when differences or irregularities occur in a piece of writing they are to be consistently viewed as irregularities within the framework of that writing and not immediately attributed to secondary authors.⁶⁹

And this is all the more true when frequently far-reaching conclusions are drawn from these supposed findings with respect to the changing historical circumstances in which the readers found themselves.⁷⁰ The image of Jesus as it is described in the Fourth Gospel is then in fact that of “Jesus of Nazareth” in the Johannine community, and increasingly shows less of the features of Jesus’ historical self-revelation and more of the circumstances and the theology of that community.⁷¹ This is not to deny that in its aim, selection of the material, and form, this Gospel is also shaped by the needs of the readers of the time in which it was written, specifically by the deepening conflict between the Christian community and the Jewish synagogue over Jesus (cf. 15:18f.; 16:1f.; 20:30, 31, etc.). But this certainly occurs in such a general way that on the basis of the Gospel as we have it one cannot form any concrete image of a specific “Johannine” community, let alone of recognizable social or theological developments in such a community.

What must most of all restrain us from entering on such particularization and sectarianizing of the Fourth Gospel is the undeniable general apostolic and catholic consciousness evidenced by the Evangelist and by the corresponding presentation of the Gospel by the “we” in 21:24. It is generally apostolic in that, even as the disciple whom Jesus loved, the author refrains from saying anything that could indicate a confessional direction of his own or a particular insight—developed in his own school or circle—into the person and work of Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God. In his summary of the Gospel (20:30, 31) he appeals to the revelation of Jesus’ glory in the presence of his disciples. He anonymously includes himself among those who have beheld the glory of the incarnate Word (1:14) and who from the very beginning as Jesus’ disciples have received for their testimony the assurance of the Spirit’s joint witness (15:26, 27; 20:22f.).⁷² And it is catholic because thus the author presents himself to his readers, not as the interpreter of their particular “Johannine” faith or as the spokesman for their theology, but as a permanent witness, appointed by Jesus and placed in his service, for the whole community to come (cf. 19:27; 20:31), in the most comprehensive sense in which time after time Jesus had spoken of it (cf. 17:20; 20:29; see also 4:35-38 [“the Savior of the world,” vs. 42]).

Accordingly, it is only in that sense that the “we” in 21:24 are able to speak, not as jointly responsible with the author for the content of the Gospel, nor as included in the “we” of 1:14, but as spokespersons for the community who receives the Gospel, who accepts the writing that lies before them as the codification—valid for the entire church community—of the beloved disciple’s apostolic witness.⁷³

Negative Assumptions

A much more radical viewpoint with respect to 21:24 is adopted by those scholars who, on the basis of the entire content of the Fourth Gospel, think that it cannot have been written by an eyewitness and certainly not by the apostle John. Since the first half of the nineteenth century Johannine authorship—little challenged until then—was increasingly called into question. A range of motives, arising partly from worldview and partly from related methods of approach, have played a role in this. Thus, the high self-revelation in word and deed attributed to Jesus is said to represent a christology too advanced to be attributed to eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus. Therefore it points to a much later time, perhaps the middle of the second century. Other scholars have abandoned the idea of an eyewitness because they claim that the Fourth Gospel’s entire image of Jesus was not intended to be historical but only depicts graphically the high spiritual significance that the author attributed to the person of Jesus. In any case, the author’s profundity as a “theologian,” sometimes described as “idealistic” and then again as “Gnostic,” was said to be simply inconceivable in the case of a simple fisherman from Galilee. On top of this the terminology—not terribly Jewish—and the conceptual world were said to suggest a clearly Hellenistic and syncretistic background.

Much of this criticism, meanwhile, has made way for a much less radical approach. The discovery of early second-century papryi containing fragments of the Fourth Gospel constitutes proof of a much earlier origin than critics had assumed until then. According to the religio-historical method, which had long been applied to the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel can only be understood against the background of certain Gnostic systems. But that has been proven unsound as a result of the discovery of genuinely (Christian-)Gnostic writings at Nag Hammadi whose content is worlds apart from that of the Fourth Gospel. As for Judaism, the Qumran scrolls have shown that the Jewish intellectual world of that time had a much more varied character than was previously believed and that the Fourth Gospel is by no means alien to it.

Still, rejection of Johannine authorship, which has become a kind of tradition, has maintained itself at one point in the work of many scholars, namely the idea that underlying the Fourth Gospel there are older written sources from which the author is said to have derived his knowledge of the life of Jesus and of which his book is said to be the “Johannine” redaction. The author himself, they say, had no direct access to what is narrated and therefore no direct knowledge of it. But while some scholars view the linking of the Fourth Gospel with the beloved disciple as nothing more than an attempt to give it more authority and regard this disciple’s authorship as a mere fiction,⁷⁴ others attempt to do more justice to 21:24. According to them, the author may very well have been in contact with the highly esteemed figure of the beloved disciple and may even have been subject to that disciple’s theological influence. For that reason the disciple is named as the book’s “causative” author. But even the disciple was not an eyewitness of Jesus himself but at most someone who had contact with persons from the earliest period and received from them firsthand information about Jesus, traces of which can still be pointed out in the Gospel.⁷⁵ But for by far the biggest part the author was dependent on earlier written sources. The originality of his work is said to lie in the grand manner in which he “theologically” processed the material he took from his sources.

At several salient points of the exegesis we have already dealt with this persistent distinction between traditional material taken over from the sources and its theological reworking by the author. We stumbled time after time on the utterly hypothetical, basically circular, and not infrequently forced character of this method. That it is such is undoubtedly why it leads to the most divergent results and is viewed by many other scholars with strong reserve and not infrequently with outright skepticism.⁷⁶ Naturally, this is not to say that the author, even if he himself was one of the eyewitnesses, cannot have made use of information supplied by others whom he held to be authentic witnesses. Just that his concluding summary describes the content of his writing as “signs that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples” means that he bases his narrative on more than his own testimony. And when in more than one incident or miraculous event he mentions the names of fellow disciples who were especially or even solely involved (cf. 1:43ff.; 6:5ff.; 12:21ff.), this indicates that there he was dependent on the knowledge of others. Here, too, in 21:24 we have to do with a statement that makes the beloved disciple above all the guarantor of the reliability of “these things” but that does not intend to be a comprehensive and exclusive formula with respect to his “testimony” or to the writing of his Gospel.

The heart of our objection to the above view, therefore, lies in the dependence on the sources systematically attributed to the author and the related “history-of-religions” approach that takes no, or hardly any, account of his status as eyewitness and limits the author’s independence to his “theological” interpretation of the material furnished him beforehand. Inimical to such a position is the dominant unity of style and the carefully crafted structure and design that marks this Gospel, but it also falls utterly short the moment one takes into consideration the great diversity and freedom of presentation of all its narrative material. One can imagine—though it is hard to prove!—that for his miracle stories the Evangelist (also?) drew materials from a so-called Sign Source and that for his passion narrative he made use of an already existing older summary statement of Jesus’ suffering and death. But what are we to think of the lengthy “dialogue stories,” of the frequently lively question-and-answer “games” like those between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (ch. 4), between the man blind from birth and the Pharisees (ch. 9), between Jesus and Pilate (chs. 18, 19), to say nothing about the long disputational dialogues between Jesus and “the Jews” (chs. 5–8)?

Can we assume for all these stories—written, on the one hand, with great freedom and furnished, on the other, with numerous precise historical details⁷⁷—that there were as many written sources because the author himself had nothing to contribute, since he had no independent access to what took place? Does not all this point to a much more general and closer historical involvement of the author in what he describes? And so, for the assessment of the whole, is there not a much more trustworthy starting point in the “testimony” of this disciple—strongly attested in 21:24 and clearly demonstrated in passages that concern the role of the beloved disciple—than in the hypothesis that replaces it, a hypothesis that works with hypothetical sources as though we had them lying on the table in front of us?

Conclusion

But regardless of what can be said in justified criticism against this systematic division of the Gospel into material from “sources” and the author’s theological interpretation of that material, what is decisive is the fundamental objection that scholars have thus, in determining the unique character of the Fourth Gospel and the identity of its author, made an a priori separation in what for the author and for the Gospel he wrote was inseparable. What moves the Evangelist to write is not his theological ability to construct a grand christology from traditional material that he could not—and we certainly cannot—verify. It was, rather, the profound awareness and inspiration of having been a witness to revelation. In his writing he traces this awareness to—and articulates it as—the overwhelming personal experience of what he himself—in the great theme of the book—calls beholding the glory of God in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, and the intimately related awareness of being permitted and compelled to be the witness—sent by Jesus himself and led by the Spirit—to that glory.

It is these two elements, the personal experience and the call to be a witness, that determine not only the content of his book, but also his identity and credibility. That he is the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is nowhere stated. It is rather deliberately concealed. The secret of the authority with which he points out and confirms to the church the foundation of its faith (20:30, 31) does not lie in his personal qualities but in the events whose glory he “beheld” and later, by the Spirit, learned to understand. The secret of his authority is perpetuated in the permanent and life-giving power of that witness for all who believe (20:30; 21:24).

Therefore, his book, as it emphatically attests and graphically tells of the entry of God’s glory into our human reality, confronts us with questions to which we, from within our modern experience of reality, cannot give adequate answers any more than the first witnesses could from within their experience (cf. 11:40; 20:25). That is clear. We cannot change that by retreating from the “story”—as “of course” not original with the Evangelist himself—to the “safe haven” of his theology, as though the whole could thus retain some meaning within the boundaries of our thinking. What we are confronted with in this Gospel, as a matter of faith, is the salvific breaking down from above of the boundaries by which our thinking and acting are circumscribed (cf. 3:5). This confrontation, however, is not with a “higher reality” as such, one that would merely relativize our reality. The confrontation is with the entry into our reality of the glory (“the name,” 17:6, 26, etc.) of God and with the “signs” of the “life” for which God once created and still continues to destine the world (1:4)—just as he who was “in the bosom of the Father” revealed that name and that life to us by his words and deeds (1:18)⁷⁸ so that “by believing in that name” we may have life (20:31).

1. For an overview see, e.g., W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 1975, p. 208.

2. Ibid., p. 208, n. 47.

3. M. É. Boismard has pointed out the differences and infers an “anonymous redactor,” whom he relates to the Gospel of Luke (“Le Chapitre XXI de Saint Jean. Essai de Critique Littérairé,” Revue Biblique 54 [1947], pp. 473ff.). E. Ruckstuhl (Die litterarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums, 1951, pp. 146ff.) and R. Mahoney (Two Disciples at the Tomb: The Background and Message of John 20:1-10, 1974, pp. 17f.) come to a very different conclusion, as does Schlatter, who even writes: “The attribution of the new narrative to another author is impossible, however, since the identical linguistic conventions have been fully maintained” (Comm., p. 363). Bultmann, though denying that the Evangelist is the author of this chapter, judges: “Language and style admittedly afford no sure proof” (Comm. p. 700).

4. See also E. Ruckstuhl, “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” in Die Kirche des Anfangs (Festschrift for H. Schürmann), 1978, pp. 339-62: “In both sections these figures, along with the risen Jesus, are the main actors. The difference between their respective charisms, their relation to each other, and the relation to them of the Johannine community are the primary themes in vss. 1-14 and in 15-23(24)” (p. 340).

5. See specifically R. Pesch, Der reiche Fischfang Lk 5,1-11, Joh 21:1-14. Wundergeschichte—Berufungsgeschichte—Erscheinungsbericht, 1969, whose reconstruction is taken over with several modifications by Schnackenburg, Comm III, p. 345. But see also Bultmann, Comm., pp. 703f.

6. Schnackenburg, too, acknowledges: “The separation between tradition and what is editorial in Jn 21:2-13 is especially difficult and has not yet led to a satisfactory solution” (Comm. III, p. 345).

7. Cf. Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 347.

8. See Ruckstuhl, “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21.”

9. So, e.g., Schnackenburg, who refers to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3; cf. Resch, Der reiche Fischfang, p. 148 and (somewhat more reserved) Ruckstuhl, “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” p. 342.

10. So, e.g., Grosheide, Comm., p. 553: By saying “I am going fishing” Peter is announcing “his return to his earlier occupation. He sees no point in preaching; it does not help.” Grosheide speaks of Peter’s “discouragement, which places all the apostolic work at risk, the more so now that the other apostles think about it in the same way,” which necessitates a new appearance. Grosheide refers to Hoskyns, who views this attitude of the disciples as the fulfillment of 16:32.

11. According to the two-narratives hypothesis (see above), vs. 4a came from one story (the “fishing” story) and vs. 4b from the other. But, apart from the highly artificial character of such weaving together of two stories by the author, vs. 4a in combination with vs. 4b is clearly the language of an appearance. Besides, the sudden presence of Jesus on the beach at dawn in a narrative whose sole focus is a catch of fish is hard to explain. As a description of Jesus’ “appearance” this inexplicable element is characteristic.

12. See Brown, Comm. II, p. 1070, who refers to Bernard’s well-known commentary.

13. προσφάγιον, literally “side dish,” usually referred to as fish eaten with bread.

14. Why it had to be the right side is hard to say. The right side was considered the favorable side (Mt. 5:29f.; 25:33; cf. Mk. 16:15; Lk. 1:11).

15. See Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 355.

16. ἐκεῖνος, “the well-known one,” “the one previously named” (cf. BDF §291.3).

17. ἐπεδύτης appears only here in the New Testament and denotes a garment worn over another garment. The nakedness here is interpreted in a number of ways. Some think it means that he has been wearing only an inner garment and now for his meeting with Jesus puts on a more appropriate outer garment; others, that he has been completely unclothed and now puts on the outer garment. Still others think that all he does is to tuck up and tie in with a cincture the garment he wore over his otherwise naked body (διεζώσατο), so as to have freedom of movement in the water. In our opinion this last view deserves preference.

18. On this see at length the comments on 13:23ff. above.

19. See Bultmann, Comm., pp. 702f.; Schnackenburg, Comm., III, pp. 343f.

20. πῆχυς, “about 18 inches, or. 462 of a meter” (BAGD s.v.).

21. ὀψάριον, vss. 9, 10, 13 (as in 6:9, 11), is fish as food. ἰχθύς, vss. 6, 8, 11, is fish as a living animal (cf. BDF §111.3).

22. It is particularly this point that interpreters regard as proof that two stories have been woven together. Here, they say, we see the “seam”: On the one hand, there is the appearance story with its premise in the arranged meal and the fish and its continuation in vss. 12ff. On the other hand, there is the fishing story in vss. 2ff., for which vss. 10f. are the denouement. See, e.g., following Pesch, the highly complicated tradition-historical analyses and reconstructions in Schnackenburg, Comm. III, pp. 345ff., 356ff. Ruckstuhl, who otherwise has much more appreciation for the inner unity of this pericope, thinks that one cannot avoid Pesch’s two-narrative hypothesis (cf. his exegesis of vss. 5 and 10 in “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” pp. 347-49). Against this separation into two stories, see above,

23. ἀπέβησαν in vs. 9 and then ἀνέβη here are used of getting off the boat and then reboarding. Apparently the idea is that the net was attached to the stern of the boat (cf. vss. 6, 8), so that to get to the net one first had to board the boat. The precise course of events cannot, in view of the extremely sober description, be pictured in detail. Was Peter able to haul the net ashore all by himself? In any case counting the fish was not a job for one. The Evangelist leaves some detail to the imagination of the reader. For the explanation given here, see also Brown, Comm. II, pp. 1073f.

24. See Ruckstuhl, “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” pp. 345f.; Bultmann, Comm., p. 709; Becker, Comm., p. 642; Brown, Comm. II, p. 1097; Schnackenburg, Comm. III, pp. 357f.

25. Despite Ruckstuhl (“Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” pp. 345ff.). Others also appeal to “draw” (εἵλκυειν), which is said to echo 12:34 (cf. Brown, Comm. II, p. 1097: “the risen Jesus accomplishes his prophecy of drawing all men to himself through the apostolic ministry symbolized by the catch of fish and the hauling ashore”).

26. So Schnackenburg.

27. For this motif see the comments above on 6:12ff.

28. Grosheide apparently rejects even this: “It seems that even a moderately allegorical explanation to the effect that the large number of fish symbolizes the large number of people that will be won for Christ by the preaching of the apostles (Alford) is inappropriate” (Comm. II, p. 557). The whole story “has no symbolic significance” (p. 559, n. 1).

29. There has been considerable discussion, also in connection with ch. 6, of whether the meal in ch. 21 is sacramental, especially among Catholic interpreters, but see also O. Cullmann, Les Sacraments dans l’Évangile johannique, 1951. See also at length Brown, Comm. II, pp. 1098ff. and the works referred to there. If one rejects a sacramental understanding of John 6 (cf.

above), then such an interpretation seems even more far-fetched here. Some Catholic authors are restrained, though not totally averse to such ideas, e.g., Ruckstuhl, “Zur Aussage und Botschaft von Johannes 21,” p. 347; Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 359.

30. For this name see the comments above on 1:42.

31. “Jesus is treating him less familiarly and thus challenging his friendship” (Brown, Comm. II, p. 1102).

32. The obvious meaning is “Do you love me more than these people love me?” not “Do you love me more than you love these people.” The latter understanding has hardly any grounds in the context, and it sidetracks the train of thought. Some scholars have understood τούτων to be neuter, “more than these things,” which is said to refer to the nets and the fishing business, Peter’s old way of life. But for such a question Peter’s conduct hardly gives any ground. One can hardly accept the notion that in asking this question Jesus was reproaching Peter for having gone fishing again.

33. φιλεῖν.

34. ἀγαπᾶν.

35. An additional complication is the view that ἀγαπᾶν, of which Jesus first speaks (twice), would not have been too high a concept for Peter but, conversely, too distant and cool an expression for his intensely warm feelings for Jesus. In that case, Jesus’ question is translated, “Are you really devoted to me?” and Peter’s answer, “I tenderly love you.” Only in his third question Jesus is said to have expressed himself in warmer emotional terms. Against this view (expressed by, among others, Trench) see the lengthy evaluation of the terms in Morris, Comm., pp. 871f.; also Schnackenburg, Comm. III, pp. 362f.: “the two verbs are used … synonymously in John’s gospel.”

36. Cf. Schnackenburg: “It is unique that in Jn. 21:15-17 Peter is given the pastoral office over all Jesus’ ‘lambs’ or ‘sheep’; in this connection, he has a prominent position which is also confirmed by Mt. 16:18f.” He speaks of Peter’s ministry “as an office and in relation to Jesus as an earthly representation.” But he acknowledges that “the interpretation represented by the exegesis of the Fathers and later of Catholic theologians, that in this passage, not only all believers, but, especially, the other disciples are subordinated to Peter, is not to be read into the text” (Comm. III, pp. 365f.).

37. The same is true of Mt. 16:18f. (cf. Mt. 18:18).

38. “When Peter turned he saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following” (in some manuscripts the last word is lacking). Apparently the event occurs after the meal, when Peter takes to the road, along with Jesus, and turns to see the other disciple also detaching himself from the others and following Jesus.

39. ἐὰν θέλω, indicative (see below).

40. There is some uncertainty whether οὗτος ὁ λóγος refers back to vs. 22 or to the saying or rumor that had spread among the disciples that “that disciple will not die” (cf. Schnackenburg: “the saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die,” Comm. III, p. 367; similarly RSV and NRSV). Although οὗτος ὁ λóγος, which immediately follows vs. 22, naturally makes us think of Jesus’ own saying, it offers a different version of it, which is explicitly corrected by the author. Therefore, though the transitions are very fluid here, there is much to be said, in substance, in favor of this view.

41. This misunderstanding, according to some scholars, occasioned confusion and uncertainty, either because the beloved disciple had already died or, on account of his advanced age, his death seemed imminent. Others even speak of a crisis occasioned by the delay of Jesus’ parousia while more and more of the apostles, even the beloved disciple, died. Our passage, then, coming from the leaders of the community (the “we” of vs. 24), served to respond to this crisis. On this see at length Thyen, “Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie,” in L’Évangile de Jean, ed. M. de Jonge, 1977, pp. 259-99, here pp. 268-73; cf. Becker, Comm. II, pp. 648f. This understanding is based on presuppositions for which one can in part appeal to passages like 1 Th. 4;13ff. but which cannot be substantiated from the Fourth Gospel.

42. ὁ μαρτυρῶν, present participle, vs. 24.

43. For this “guidance of the text,” see Thyen, “Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie,” pp. 272f.

44. So many older commentaries, but among more recent ones, see also Bultmann: “Now v. 23 of course affirms that the saying of Jesus was not a prophecy but only a hypothetical statement” (Comm. p. 715); so also Schulz, Comm., and others.

45. For this latter interpretation see, e.g., Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 371; M. de Jonge, “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” in Text and Interpretation (Festschrift for M. Black, ed. E. Best and R. M. Wilson), 1979, pp. 99-114; and especially Thyen, who calls the potential view (“if it is my will”) “a barely tolerable triviality” within which “instead of closing with the expected enlightenment about the fate and significance of the disciple whom Jesus loved whose authority up until this point had been carefully built up, the Gospel would end with a correction of a banal misunderstanding” and “the purposeful and pointed differentiation of ‘remaining’ and ‘not dying’ becomes a disconnected appendix” (“Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie,” pp. 270f.).

46. See further on this “we,” below,

47. See, e.g., C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 1965, p. 15, which refers to an earlier article by Dodd.

48. See, e.g., Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 373.

49. ὁ μαρτυρῶν, present participle; cf. μεμαρτυρήκεν in 19:35, which similarly refers to his permanent significance.

50. T. Witkamp, for example, writes that it is “not necessary to take these words in a modern sense, as though the beloved disciple were the author in a literal sense” (Jezus van Nazareth in de gemeente van Johannes, 1986, p. 350), in order thus to create room for a role of the beloved disciple in the Fourth Gospel that is largely detached from the written witness of this Gospel.

51. For the right understanding of ὁ γράψας ταῦτα (“the one who has written these things”), aside from the commentaries by Barrett, Morris, and others, see also de Jonge, “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” pp. 101f.:

Opinions may differ as to whether ὁ γράψας should be interpreted as a causative (cf. XIX,22) or not; the important thing is, however, that the “we” who wrote vs. 24 regard this anonymous Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel and claim his authority for it, the authority of an eye-witness and a direct follower of Jesus.

See also de Jonge’s Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God, 1977, p. 221: “The participle γράψας ταῦτα is sometimes taken as a causative (cf. 19:2), but in the context it means certainly more. What the disciple witnesses all along stands now on paper.”

52. “Who is interested in the deeper significance of Jesus works.” So Schnackenburg, Comm. III, p. 374, who offers a highly critical assessment of the ending.

53. This is also acknowledged by Bultmann (cf. Comm., pp. 483, 716f.); for him, however, this is proof that the author of 21:24 identified a later authority in the church with the figure of the beloved disciple (whom Bultmann apparently does not understand as symbolic) in order thus to make the Gospel more authoritative (p. 716).

54. So especially Thyen, “Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie.” See also T. Lorenzen, Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, 1971, and, with more restraint (“possibly but not necessarily”), de Jonge, “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” pp. 105f.; Schnackenburg, Comm. III, pp. 380ff.

55. See the comments above on 11:3.

56. For these (variously assessed) testimonies see the various introductions to the New Testament.

57. See also the comments above on 21:2.

58. Not even Schnackenburg, in the extensive apology for his revised position, can completely avoid this question: “The question is not unimportant whether John’s gospel is an anonymous, obscure work of doubtful origin, or whether it does have a connection with that original generation of witnesses from the time of Jesus which the later church called upon for ‘its apostolic tradition’ ” (Comm. III, p. 385). But he refrains from drawing any conclusions from this observation.

59. So, e.g., Schnackenburg: “The anonymity of the beloved disciple becomes immediately understandable if he really was a relatively unknown man in primitive Christianity.…” This he regards as “the strongest argument for the apostle John not to be identified with the beloved disciple.” That identification was, admittedly, made at an early date. But “the Johannine circle did not in any way want to insinuate this falsely” (Comm. III, p. 384). See also de Jonge, “The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” p. 109, with an appeal to Thyen.

60. As in the case of the “nonliteral” and “causative” interpretations of the words “has written”; see the comments above on the verse.

61. Cf. G. Schrenk, TDNT I, p. 745, who points to “the emphatic equation of μαρτυρεῖν and γράφειν in John 21:24” as the documentation of the witness.

62. For the view that the author describes himself as (or includes himself in) the “we,” see, e.g., the lengthy discussion (which rightly rejects this view) of Brown, Comm. II, pp. 1124-25.

63. See O. Cullmann, The Johannine Circle, 1976.

64. So, in the main, Brown’s reconstruction in his Comm. I, pp. xxxiv-xxxix; see also his analysis of the Farewell Discourse (II, pp. 586ff.) and his interpretation of 21:24 (II, p. 1125).

65. See the exegesis above.

66. So, following Brown, J. Painter, who sees a reflection of the ongoing deterioration between the Johannine community and the “world” surrounding it in the various “stages” discernible in the Farewell Discourse (“The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine Christianity,” NTS 27 [1981], pp. 525-43).

67. G. Strathmann, TDNT IV, p. 498.

68. See at length above.

69. For this rule see also de Jonge’s insightful essay, “Variety and Development in Johannine Christology,” in his Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God, pp. 193-222, in which he also discusses the Johannine letters (p. 199).

70. On this see de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God, pp. 198f. He writes about the need to observe “great circumspection” in employing the Gospel as a historical source for the community situation, caution which is “all the more necessary when we deal with reconstructed sources and earlier stages of redaction. In fact no author escapes reasoning in a circle” (p. 199).

71. See at greater length

on the “two-level” theory of J. L. Martyn.

72. On the apostolic character, which is integral with eyewitness origin, see the comments above on 1:14. Bultmann writes (Comm., p. 484): “While there is no doubt that the Evangelist includes himself in the circle of those who utter the ἐθεασάμεθα of 1:14, it is equally certain that he cannot have been an eyewitness in the sense of one who gives first-hand testimony.” But in his interpretation of 1:14 Bultmann clearly indicates that though ἐθεασάμεθα not only refers to a sensory seeing but to “the sight of faith,” still every new generation is dependent on these eyewitnesses. The church, after all, is constituted not by an “idea” but by “a concrete history and its tradition,” from which it cannot free itself if it is to have faith (cf. Comm., pp. 69f.). It is therefore hard to see how the Evangelist can include himself in the circle of 1:14 without himself being a historical eyewitness.

73. Brown (appealing to an article by F. W. Grosheide, Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift 53 [1953], pp. 117f.) rightly speaks of ch. 21 as possibly representing “the threshold of the period of canon formation.” “With the passing of the apostolic generation, of which the Beloved Disciple may have been one of the last prominent members, there seems to have arisen in the Church a desire to preserve a witness that would never again be given.” Brown emphasizes that the Evangelist’s “insistence that the work reflects the testimony of an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry exemplifies the mentality behind canon formation” (Comm. II, p. 1128). Also Thyen, though very critical with respect to the testimony of an eyewitness, writes: “In the figure of the beloved disciple the criterion [used in the later canonization process] of apostolicity and eyewitness origin has been anticipated” (“Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie,” p. 292).

74. See the construction of Bultmann described earlier,

above.

75. For these possible connections between the author and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” see the suggestions of Schnackenburg (Comm. III., pp. 373, 381ff.), which is considered authoritative for this whole view.

76. See, e.g., the lengthy, critical discussion of “Theories of Multiple Sources” (specifically Bultmann’s) by Brown, Comm. I, pp. xxviii-xxxii. Thyen also speaks, though from a different perspective from ours, of the “vague hypothesis” of “written sources still open to reconstruction” such as Bultmann’s “revelatory discourse source” and the sign source and passion source of others (“Entwicklungen der johanneischen Theologie,” p. 282); elsewhere Thyen speaks against the idea of the “outright slavish use of sources by the Evangelist” (p. 267). He himself, however, does accept Grundschrift underlying the Gospel as we now have it (p. 283). See also de Jonge’s very reserved attitude toward attempts “to dissect pericopes in order to assign sentences and clauses to various sources, traditions, and redaction layers” (“The Beloved Disciple and the Date of the Gospel of John,” p. 107).

77. Cf. Westcott’s detailed and still important argument with respect to this “indirect evidence” of Johannine authorship: “a) The author was a Jew; b) a Jew of Palestine”; a wide range of arguments from silence (that what the Evangelist does not describe he does not know) are therefore irrelevant (Comm., pp. v-xviii). On the latter point see also Schnackenburg, Comm. I, p. 93.

78. See also C. A. van Peursen, De Naam die geschiedenis maakt, 1991, for his views, inter alia, of what he calls “the surrealism of the miracles” (pp. 106-16).

↑ Back to top