hjalti

Andrew, I think that one should rephrase Claim B to something like:

B: The version that the majority of 2nd century Christians knew about contained chapter 21.

The claims that is was a "disciple of the main author" and it was made "before the general release" are in my opinion rather weak. It's possible, but why would we think so? And I don't see why it's so far-fetched that something like what David Trobisch suggests happened. Polycarp of Smyrna compiled the NT, all our manuscripts of the NT are descended from that version. If Polycarp was the editing "disciple", then that would be something like Claim A. Right?

Saying that this version is "in practice pretty much the original" is going down a slippery slope in my opinion. We could just as well claim that the story of the woman caught in adultery is also original, the version of the gospel of John containing that story won over the other version. I've heard Christians make that claim.

andrewcriddle

I think your B

B: The version that the majority of 2nd century Christians knew about contained chapter 21.

is a different claim from my B. What I'm suggesting is that although various house churches in Ephesus, (or wherever John was originally composed), may have known a version without chapter 21 this version only ever had very narrow circulation. The version with chapter 21 is the only one to have been circulated much beyond the city where it was written.

The reason why I think this, is that if two versions of John one with and one without chapter 21 were in even moderately wide circulation, then one would expect manuscript evidence or comments in early Christian writers or something like that. The total absence of any such evidence suggests that if the version without chapter 21 ever existed then it only ever had extremely limited circulation.

(You may say that if the version without chapter 21 had any circulation whatsoever, then it should be regarded as the original, but this is really a matter of definition.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

CLAIM B is MOST unlikely based on Tertullian to whom it is attributed "Against Praxeas".

This is "Against Praxeas" by Tertullian claimed to be written in the 3rd century.

"Against Praxeas" 25 So up the 3rd century Tertullian, who wrote over 30 books, did NOT ever use John 21 at all.

CLAIM A is more likely based on the writings of Tertullian and CLAIM A even extends to the 3rd century.

The ENTIRE writing history of Tertullian SHOWS no awareness of John 21.

It may be deduced The Gospel of John was probably in circulation and known without chapter 21 when Tertullian wrote up to the 3rd century.

hjalti

Well, I don't think we would expect manuscript evidence, after all we don't have any manuscripts of a known very different version of Paul's letters.

But right, one might expect some comments from the early church fathers. So maybe the original one wasn't very popular.

Well, how would you define the "original"? If it's a matter of what's the most popular or widely used, then I guess the American remake of The Office is the original one.