John's Double Ending

The Gospel of John has two endings:

quote:

---

John 20:30–31; 21:24–25 (NRSV):

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
...

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

---

What I find interesting is that these two endings are so similar; they both follow a simple form of 'Jesus did more stuff, we don't want to write it down, hopefully what we did write will convince you, have a nice day', though they do it in slightly different orders.

So, what might explain this? Were the stories that made up the two separate endings part of the same tradition, and so ended similarly? Were they from two separate traditions that just happened to follow that same form? Or, did the redactors adding chapter 21 just tack on that little bit so as to make the new ending look like the old one?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : Icon; and apostrophe glitch

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Thread copied here from the John's Double Ending thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

So, what might explain this? Were the stories that made up the two separate endings part of the same tradition, and so ended similarly? Were they from two separate traditions that just happened to follow that same form? Or, did the redactors adding chapter 21 just tack on that little bit so as to make the new ending look like the old one?

---

From the book, "When Women Were Priests":

A later copyist added another ending to the Book of John, chapter 21. in this chapter Peter was made the key witness of the resurrection when Jesus appeared to Peter and the disciples while they were on a fishing expedition in Galilee and commissioned Peter to be the shepherd of the flock. New Testament scholars have long puzzled about the reasons for this Gospel's two endings, chapter 20 highlighting the role of Mary Magadalene as witness to the resurrection and chapter 21 highlighting Peter.

One theory, according to this book, is that the Johannine community wanted to blend with the Petrine community. In John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene is presented as a model for discipleship, not Peter. By emphasizing Peter's leadership they would be more acceptable to the Petrine orthodoxy.

Another view I've hear of is that John 21 is the "missing ending" of Mark (although it is far from certain that there WAS a lost ending to Mark). The content is roughly what we might expect - agreeing with Matthew rather than Luke, however the styles of John and Mark are far enough apart that I would have thought that if it were true it would be widely accepted by now.

The clear disagreement between Matthew and Luke may be another reason for the double ending. Perhaps John acquired two endings, one agreeing with each and later redactors or copyists brought them together, finding themselves unable to reject either (just as the additions to Mark were preserved).

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Given that "double ending gospel of John" produced this thread at second from top in Google, could someone tell me how they conclude a "double ending" to John?

I mean, how does one conclude something appearing mid-stream an ending (other than simply saying so)?

Uh......, you could read what was quoted? The first above sure sounds like a wrapping-up.

Uh......, you could read what was quoted? The first above sure sounds like a wrapping-up.

To you.

Any advances on "it sounds like to me"?

quote:

---

I mean, how does one conclude something appearing mid-stream an ending (other than simply saying so)?

---

Different writing style. Unfortunately, I can't find the site I ran across the first time that gave a more detailed analysis, but here is some info from Edgar Goodspeed:

Chapter 21 forms an epilogue later added to the completed gospel, probably when it was combined with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to form the great quartet of gospels which soon became the Scripture of the churches and later the nucleus of the New Testament. Verse 24 shows that the writer of the Epilogue, who must have been one of the editors of the Fourfold Gospel collection, is not identical with the author of the gospel. In the gospel the beloved disciple is an ideal figure—such a follower of Jesus as would have seen him in his true greatness and in his larger relationships. But in the Epilogue the author, who has evidently passed away, is identified with this beloved disciple: "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down, and we know that his testimony is true." The new conclusion that now ends the book, verse 25, is even more appropriate as the Finis of the Fourfold Gospel: "There are many other things that Jesus did, so many in fact that if they were all written out, I do not suppose that the world itself would hold the books that would have to be written." It said, in effect, to those previously attached to one gospel or another: "Do not be surprised to find in this collection words and acts of Jesus that you never heard of before. He did more than even these four narratives contain, and if all he did were recorded, the books would fill the world." The Epilogue is added to meet objections to the new gospel, to bring it more into harmony with its companion gospels, to commend it to their adherents, and to, enforce its message by a strong indorsement.

quote:

---

The clear disagreement between Matthew and Luke may be another reason for the double ending. Perhaps John acquired two endings, one agreeing with each and later redactors or copyists brought them together, finding themselves unable to reject either (just as the additions to Mark were preserved).

---

Since there were various "sects" of Christianity in the early days and each had their own books they considered authoritative, I can understand the need to harmonize. That was the SOP of the orthodox. If they wanted them in the orthodox flock, they needed to have something familiar.

I guess the main thing I was hoping to investigate was why the endings are so similar.

The additional endings of Mark, for example, bear no resemblance to the first ending. The additional ending of John, however, wraps up in the same way as the first ending. Now I do believe that there is no evidence that this gospel ever existed without this second ending (unlike Mark), that is, no texts have been found that end at chapter 20. On this, I'd say, it's almost certain that chapter 21 was the responsibility of the original redactors—responsible for the rest of the gospel having the form it presently has.

At the same time, chapter 21 is clearly an addition; chapter 20 has a wrap-up phrase common even today, and so must have been the end to an original piece used by the redactors—additionally, such out of place passages aren't rare in John, since the redactors, unlike the authors of the other three gospels, used something of a 'scissors-and-glue' approach for compiling their gospel.

Now, the part that intrigues me is the similarity of the two endings. When chapter 21 was pasted to the end of John, what evidence do we have that might tell us whether the similar part (21:24–25) was originally part of that pasted piece or a part added by the redactors who pasted it onto chapter 20 in order to make the new ending look like the old one (20:30–31)?

Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr