Cege

This is an idea new to me. Did the early commentators directly address the absence of the Zebedees and directly try to explain the omission?

Doesn't "Zebedee's sons" in John 21:2 count as including the two brothers?

Malachi151

See prior post:

Chapter 21 is an obvious later addition. Even Christian study Bibles acknowledge it.

Cege

Which Christian study Bibles acknowledge that Chapt 21 is "an obvious later addition"?

The New American Standard Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version all include Chapt 21 as original to John.

You state your opinion on Chapt 21 as if it were established fact, but it seems more like a matter of some contention among scholars rather than an absolute.

I'll repeat one of my questions: Did the early commentators directly address the absence of the Zebedees and directly try to explain the omission? Your post implies that they did.

Malachi151

Mine does at the very least, Harper Collins NRSV, and I believe that the Oxford NRSV does as well.

From my Harper Collins:

It's obvious that ch 21 was added purely for the purpose of establishing Peterine tradition. The only real point of 21 is to say that Jesus handed the reigns of power over to Peter. This may well be in line with the fact that James and John are absent from the whole of the book, but obviously whoever added 21 didn't understand the significance of this, or else they wouldn't have mentioned the Zebedees at all.

Cege

John doesn't list the names of all the original twelve disciples, or the name of Jesus' mother, but that doesn't seem like a reason to declare include Chapt 21a later addition, either.

While it seems obvious to you and to some biblical scholars (obviously not to those who contributed to the NASV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV) that Chapt 21 was added later, I don't see evidence that it's an established given.

The gospel of John is quite different from the synoptic gospels in several ways, but none of those differences establish for certain who the author was or whether the Chapt 21 should be excluded.

I will give you that the story of the woman caught in adultery John 7:53-8:11 is considered by most scholars to be a later addition to the book, and that is acknowledged in most contemporary translations as not being found in the best and earliest copies of GJohn.

Clivedurdle

Is it not accepted there were Churches in several places around the Mediterranean? Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, France, Greece, Turkey?

Are not gnostic influences accepted?

A Chinese whispers scenario, with the addition of some Persian hierarchical thinking to give it all some order and formal (but made up for political reasons) history, makes a lot more sense than the accepted view of history, which ignores the "heretical" disputes that got us to where we are now.

Disparate peoples trying to make sense of it all, getting glimmers of each others ideas, result a new religion!