Re: Synonomy in John 21

On 7 Oct 1994 JOHNSOST@cgs.edu wrote:

> 	Whether or not the author of John 1-20 had this fine-tuned understand-
> ing of agapaO and phileO in mind seems to me to be irrelevant.  The
> redactor did make the distinction, using particular themes in 1-20 to 
> the dialogue in 21:15-17.  
> Of course, my argument assumes a general consensus regarding the end of 
> John 20 being the end of the original Gospel of John, even if redactional 
> elements are found in John 1-20 as well.  Is there anyone out there who 
> argues for John 1-21 as originally whole cloth?  
> Steve Johnson 
> CGS 

I am no Johannine scholar, but I do recall a trend in some of what I have
read away from what is admittedly still the scholarly consensus. Gail
O'Day cites Paul S. Minear, "The Original Functions of John 21," _JBL_ 102
(1983): 85-98, as a challenge to the consensus that John 21 is an
appendix.  It seems that some of the current literary critics, including
O'Day and Paul Duke, are far less committed to the consensus view,
although I am not sure that they argue against it (in print--O'Day argued
against it on literary grounds in the John seminar here at Emory last
year. As I recall, the argument was something like this: Peter and the
other disciple believed the witness of the empty tomb, but didn't know
what it meant [20:3-10]. Chapter 21 then answers that question.  Minear
understands 20:30-31 as the conclusion to chapter 20, not as the statement
of purpose for the whole book).  I don't have any recent commentaries
(like Beasley-Murray) on hand.  Does anyone know if any other scholars
have picked up Minear's argument? 

Philip Graber
Emory University