623:"To most critical readers, it is obvious that the text of the Fourth Gospel has undergone a number of editings or redactions prior to attaining its present canonical form. Beyond the notable additions of John 5:4 and 7:53-8:11, which are textual variants reflected in actual manuscript traditions and are clearly late, non-Johannine textual interpolations, John 21 also appears to be a late addition to the book. Chapter 21 is viewed by many scholars as an “appendix” for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the book seems to have reached its natural conclusion with John 20:30-31. Furthermore, John 21 uses words not found elsewhere in the Gospel, and seems to answer some of the unresolved questions of chapters 13-20 regarding the relationship of the Beloved Disciple to Peter. Finally, most scholars are willing to accept the possibility that the prologue (1:1-18)—in whole or in part—and perhaps John 5-7 and 15-17 also betray evidence of major editorial work."
375:(XXG) users/editors. I really don't care who started the article as much as what it says now and I think that what it says now is worthwhile. This is not an area where we are going to get lots of totally-agreed upon, universally-recognized-as-objective "Capital 'T' Truth". I also think that there is relatively little danger of there becoming an article for every biblical chapter, both because of the volume of work required and the relative inconsequence in the vast scheme of things of many chapters (I know that this statement offends those who believe every diatrical mark to be of huge moment, but let's face it, most doctrines are based on a relatively small number of "key passages" and it would be almost impossible to take the Bible as a whole and truly base everything upon it – every group which has attempted this has eventually come to emphasize some passages at the expense of others.)
671:
444:
the position as well as the quality of their scholarship. I think that it is important to at least reference some examples of scholarship that support these views. This is especially true given the minority status of the hypothesis under question. 144.136.123.112 is correct that these are facts, but they still need references. Feel free to disagree. I would suggest that the text be reverted back. 144.136.123.112, your changes carry more weight if we know who you are.
654:
189:
74:
53:
84:
22:
677:
legitimate scholarly source that directly states that the scholar in question considers 21 to be original? We don't have any complete manuscripts of John for centuries, so why is the manuscript argument relevant? Please, those on the opposite side of this controversy, cite some sources, and refrain from quoting your own personal opinions and religious beliefs.
179:
158:
443:
144.136.123.112 has removed on several occasions suggesting that statements which are made along the lines of "Some people believe..." are fact. I think that citations are needed here. Some people believe that the earth is flat, but this opinion is made irrelevant by the number of experts who hold
430:
I have not altered : "==The appendage's appendage==" which I believed needs to be completely removed or greatly overhauled. I recommend removed. It is based upon the presence use of third-person, non-narrative language. This argument is not documented or compelling. Such language occurs in John 1,
414:
3. I have removed the following tenuous statement: "The chapter does not fit in with the carefully planned scheme of the previous 20 chapters, which are otherwise balanced in style and discourse around a central chapter." I amnot sure exactly what this means. The chapter system is a later edition.
458:
I was troubled at the argument of these scriptures, which is why I write this. Today, as I read the entirety of John, I sat on my porch, reading and being fulfilled by the blessing of Jesus' words. This discussion does not matter, all that matters is Jesus of
Bethlehem, The Son of Man, King of Kings
324:
I think full coverage is certainly possible from a practical point of view, though it may take a while. In its favor are (a) a potentially large number of interested editors; and (b) the potential of copy-pasting material from old out of copyright commentaries the way material from old encyclopedias
274:
This article appears to be argumentative and heavily slanted. It reads like an essay, advancing the opinions of some scholars as though they are an established fact. It is also lean on citations; I would suggest that either additional citations be added, or that it be made clear that the bulk of the
676:
The first directly states that 21 appears to be a later addition. The second is not a direct statement, but seems to take as a given that the author of 21 was not the same as that of 1-20. The third also assumes that 21 was written later while discussing a separate issue. Does anyone here have any
374:
I feel that this article is quite worthwhile and not hugely violative of NPOV. All biblical articles are going to be controversial to an extent as there are all levels of acceptance of the Bible, from none at all to literal verbal plenary inspiration and the consequent inerrancy, among
Knowledge
287:
Apart from the specific concerns with this article, I'm very concerned about the precedent for writing articles about specific chapters of the Bible. It seems to set a precedent that could lead to an attempt at full coverage, with at least some such articles amounting to little more than biblical
516:
Even more absurdly, the article goes on to list a number of manuscripts that contain John 21 and outright calls them "evidence for the originality of John 21". Early
Medieval and Byzantine manuscripts per definition can not be evidence for the originality of a part of a first century document!
410:
2. I have presented the contents of this article as opinion of one scolarly camp rather than as the unified scholarly opinion of all text critical scholars. One might note, for instance, that the editors of the Nestle-Aland 27 include the text with no brackets, suggesting its originality.
660:"Notable here is C. K. Barrett's hypothesis that John the apostle moved to Ephesus, where he gather a number of pupils and wrote apocalyptic works. After his death, various of his pupils composed the Apocalypse, John 1-20, 1 John, 2 and 3 John, and eventually John 21."
504:
The section "Manuscript evidence" is heavily biased, citing only one scholar (from a religious university at that) and outright dismissing a dissenting scholarly opinion stating that there is no evidence for it. Here is a line that is obviously not a neutral point of
561:
Almost the entire article is a mere debate about whether John chapter 21 is an "appendage" to the book of John (despite NO evidence that any manuscript ever ended at John 20), while there is little or NO discussion of the meanings in the text itself.
541:
I don't think its significant that 21 starts with "Μετὰ ταῦτα" because John uses this phrase to introduce every new section. This is not indicative that the chapter was added later. Compare to: John 2:12, 3:22, 5:1, 6:1, 6:66, 7:1, 11:7, 19:28, 21:1
595:
thinks so, but he says it is the common view among scholars throughout Europe and North
America. He also says that the manuscripts all have it; but apparently scholarly consensus is that for whatever reason chapter 21 was not originally there.
418:
4. I have moved and altered the following statement to support the central argument presented in the first paragraph of its section: "Further doubt on the last chapter is cast by differences of literary style, which is said to resemble the
426:
5. I have added a statement referencing the stance of NA27 which is the accepted standard. With the publication of the Editio Maior of John, this citation will need to be ammended to reference that work's opinion on the subject.
393:
It's not too bad for a Bible commentary, but
Knowledge (XXG) should not be a Bible commentary. It can report on the commentary made by others, but it should not comment itself, and that's what this article does right now.
296:
The concern is certainly valid, though I don't think "full coverage" is a danger—if "full coverage" means "biblical commentary"—there's waaaay too much work involved there! Still, since there aren't any manuscripts
275:
article is the opinion of the already existing citations. It's also worth noting that this article was started by CheeseDreams, a user who has subsequently been banned from editing articles relating to
Christianity.
459:
and Lord of Lords came to us people as a gift from God. Died by us people according to God's will and then was Raised again to give us people eternal life. Be thankful for this and the argument no longer matters.
423:
more closely than that of John, and theological orientation. In particular, this chapter is much more ecclesiastically oriented than the rest of the book, stressing the role of Peter as the shepherd."
698:
The intro states that the chapter contains a discussion on the future of John. This is misleading - it contains a discussion on the future of the
Beloved Disciple, whose identity is disputed.
288:
commentary, POV pushing by either
Christians with a particular theology or agenda, or by non-Christians who have an axe to grind with Christianity, as seems to be the case with this article.
508:
Both Novum
Testamentum Graece (NA27) and the United Bible Societies (UBS4) provide critical text for John 21. Neither provides any evidence at all for omission of John 21,
262:
It would be nice if sources for this material were identified for other readers. In this way they can also be examined by others. It never hurts to get a liitle help.
140:
338:, as this still reads like an essay based on independent research. I don't like to be hasty, but if it can't be cited or cleaned up it may be better to submit it to
726:
130:
731:
628:'What Can a Postmodern Approach to the Fourth Gospel Add to Contemporary Debates About its Historical Situation?', Jeffrey L. Staley, Seattle University
106:
245:
357:
NPOV concerns: agreed. I'll try to make a concerted effort to clean the article up in the next week or so. If it's unsuccessful, then so be it. --
741:
721:
235:
97:
58:
746:
568:
211:
699:
386:
It states many opinions in the passive voice without even bothering to attribute them to unnamed scholars, as in "It appears that..."
643:"To be sure, the author of the epilogue to the Fourth Gospel attempts to make the beloved disciple the author of chapters 1-20:"
736:
637:
339:
33:
474:
202:
163:
684:
619:
and all the results I found that even comment on the "controversy" seem to say that 21 was probably added later:
522:
586:
I added the name of one scholar who believes this was not originally part of the Gospel. Ehrman himself says so
633:
Jesus in
Johannine Tradition". Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. (Westminster/John Knox, 2001) 47-57
680:
537:
John 21 begins simply with After these things... (Greek: Μετὰ ταῦτα) and recounts another appearance of Jesus.
309:, whose textual status is uncertain at the best of times. I suggest taking this entry and integrating it into
39:
572:
601:
445:
435:
462:
703:
301:
John 21, perhaps this entry is unneeded. From a text-critical view, it's not in the same league as (e.g.)
415:
How could one chapter added onto the end throw off the balance? Please put this back if it makes sense.
470:
210:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
404:
I have done the following which you may evaluate. Please consider each carefull before reverting all.
547:
518:
21:
466:
325:
has been. It could be an interesting project, but not really possible while still maintaining NPOV.
89:
597:
306:
263:
543:
420:
335:
310:
487:
How do you know all that? You don't. And that's largely the point of this discussion.
715:
383:
It uses numerous "weasel words" such as "many scholars think" without any citation;
358:
314:
194:
102:
407:
1. I have made several stylistic changes to make this article read more nicely.
668:
R. Alan Culpeper, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000/06/30 - Page 453
395:
343:
289:
276:
587:
184:
79:
73:
52:
648:
The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament
488:
83:
334:
I think the NPOV concerns need to be addressed before this is merged with
302:
207:
707:
688:
605:
576:
551:
526:
491:
478:
448:
438:
178:
157:
15:
434:
Is the Westcott quote in context? We need to check this.
379:
I continue to maintain that it has several POV problems:
651:
Schuyler Brown, Oxford University Press, 1993 - Page 191
557:
Needs more discussion of the actual text and its meaning
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
389:
It states some opinions in the active voice as well.
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
615:I took the liberty of doing a GScholar search for
664:John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend
611:Evidence for the later addition of chapter 21
8:
152:
47:
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity
154:
49:
19:
7:
727:Mid-importance Christianity articles
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
617:"John 21" "New Testament" appendage
38:It is of interest to the following
340:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for Deletion
14:
732:WikiProject Christianity articles
220:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible
118:Template:WikiProject Christianity
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
240:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
479:16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
449:08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
439:14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
431:why would it not occur in 21?
1:
742:Mid-importance Bible articles
722:C-Class Christianity articles
708:13:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
527:19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
313:, which needs work anyway. --
214:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
565:This needs to be rectified.
492:16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
606:16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
763:
747:WikiProject Bible articles
577:22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
246:project's importance scale
223:Template:WikiProject Bible
141:project's importance scale
591:). He not only says that
398:05:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
239:
172:
134:
67:
46:
552:21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
361:03:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
346:19:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
317:13:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
292:21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
279:21:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Christianity
689:10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
370:A Valuable Contribution
283:Bible Chapter articles?
737:C-Class Bible articles
28:This article is rated
121:Christianity articles
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
681:I am (not) Iron Man
500:Bias in the article
90:Christianity portal
510:since none exists.
454:It does not matter
446:Christian Askeland
436:Christian Askeland
34:content assessment
481:
465:comment added by
260:
259:
256:
255:
252:
251:
203:WikiProject Bible
151:
150:
147:
146:
754:
694:Beloved Disciple
460:
401:Wesley etal...,
228:
227:
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
762:
761:
757:
756:
755:
753:
752:
751:
712:
711:
696:
613:
584:
559:
534:
519:Stefan Kruithof
513:(bolding mine).
502:
456:
372:
285:
272:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
760:
758:
750:
749:
744:
739:
734:
729:
724:
714:
713:
695:
692:
674:
673:
669:
662:
661:
657:
656:
652:
649:
645:
644:
640:
639:
635:
629:
625:
624:
612:
609:
583:
580:
558:
555:
533:
530:
515:
514:
506:
501:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
455:
452:
421:Gospel of Luke
391:
390:
387:
384:
378:
371:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
350:
349:
348:
347:
336:Gospel of John
329:
328:
327:
326:
319:
318:
311:Gospel of John
307:John 7:53-8:11
284:
281:
271:
268:
258:
257:
254:
253:
250:
249:
242:Mid-importance
238:
232:
231:
229:
226:Bible articles
212:the discussion
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Mid‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
759:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
733:
730:
728:
725:
723:
720:
719:
717:
710:
709:
705:
701:
693:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
672:
670:
667:
666:
665:
659:
658:
655:
653:
650:
647:
646:
642:
641:
638:
636:
634:
630:
627:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
610:
608:
607:
603:
599:
598:elvenscout742
594:
590:(~23:40-: -->
589:
581:
579:
578:
574:
570:
569:76.17.118.157
566:
563:
556:
554:
553:
549:
545:
539:
538:
531:
529:
528:
524:
520:
512:
511:
499:
493:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
453:
451:
450:
447:
441:
440:
437:
432:
428:
424:
422:
416:
412:
408:
405:
402:
399:
397:
388:
385:
382:
381:
380:
376:
369:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
323:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
291:
282:
280:
278:
269:
267:
265:
247:
243:
237:
234:
233:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
700:193.60.93.97
697:
679:
675:
663:
632:
616:
614:
592:
585:
567:
564:
560:
540:
536:
535:
509:
507:
503:
457:
442:
433:
429:
425:
417:
413:
409:
406:
403:
400:
392:
377:
373:
298:
286:
273:
261:
241:
201:
195:Bible portal
136:
112:Christianity
103:Christianity
96:
59:Christianity
40:WikiProjects
461:—Preceding
716:Categories
544:Osprey9713
532:Μετὰ ταῦτα
266:11Nov2004
582:Appendage
475:contribs
467:Unbraced
463:unsigned
359:MHazell
315:MHazell
303:Mark 16
299:without
244:on the
139:on the
30:C-class
396:Wesley
344:Wesley
290:Wesley
277:Wesley
264:Kazuba
36:scale.
505:view:
217:Bible
208:Bible
164:Bible
704:talk
685:talk
602:talk
588:here
573:talk
548:talk
523:talk
489:TRiG
471:talk
305:and
270:NPOV
631:IN
236:Mid
131:Mid
718::
706:)
687:)
604:)
593:he
575:)
550:)
525:)
477:)
473:•
342:.
702:(
683:(
600:(
571:(
546:(
521:(
469:(
248:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
