Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, April 24, 2014 Read John 21:1-14 Yesterday we talked about the ending of John’s gospel. I’m convinced that at some stage that was the end of the gospel. At some point John intended it to be the end. But why is chapter 21 attached? How did that happen? This is a good place to talk about a theory regarding John’s gospel that makes a lot of sense to me. The person who originated this theory was a Roman Catholic scholar named Raymond Brown. I think he is still the foremost interpreter of John’s gospel – though others have added some wonderful insights. As he pondered the gospel of John with all its peculiarities and “rough edges” and the gospel’s claim to have come for the hand of an eye-witness who is known as the beloved disciple, Brown proposed the hypothesis that there was in fact a follower of Jesus whose identity we cannot determine who was at the core of a community of believers. This eye-witness had experienced being with Jesus and had witnessed his death and resurrection. As he lived within this community he was a voice proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. He had done that mostly through sermons and theological arguments. But this original eye-witness had never fully written down what had happened. He was a proclaimer far more than a “historian.” This would explain the long stories and the theological reflection that is so much a part of John’s gospel. It explains why so many stories morph from being the “words of Jesus” to being “words about Jesus.” This original eye-witness was far more intent on interpreting the meaning of Jesus that just telling his story. As time passed eventually this eye-witness died as all of us do. At this point Brown hypothesizes that a follower of this eye-witness takes it upon himself to collect the sermons and theological reflection of the eye-witness to preserve them. Next, Brown hypothesizes another follower who attempts to put narrative and order to these words and an early version of the gospel of John is created. But the community of John is also aware of other stories about Jesus that they have not received through the eye-witness who stands at the core of their community. Some of these stories are like those being told in John’s community and others are slightly different. Finally, Brown proposes that around the year 90 AD a final editor produces the gospel of John as we know it today. There are two important characteristics of this final editor. First he does not want to lose or contradict what he has received from those who came ahead of him in his community. He could have edited out all the “rough edges” but he has chosen to let most of them stand because they came from a past that he valued and even from an eye-witness who still was held in high regard. You don’t just edit out what predecessors have written. Second, this editor is very conscious of the trials and struggles of his own community. For instance he is aware of a painful and threatening split that has happened between Jewish followers of Jesus and non-believing Jews. The non-believing Jews have put Christians out of the synagogue. These and other circumstances in his present community color his writing of the story. To put it more simply, Brown’s hypothesis is that the gospel of John is the product of a series of writers who shaped it over time to what we have today. In that way, John differs from all the other gospels which likely were created by one individual. All of this does not taken anything away from John’s gospel. And the only version of John’s gospel that we have to deal with is the final one. But this theory does help explain some of the difficult part of the gospel as we have it. So when we come to chapter 21 we are likely dealing with a later version of John’s gospel. Someone added chapter 21 to a version of John’s gospel that originally ended with chapter 20. Why would someone want to add to the story? Likely it is because there were three important stories that had come to be well known to the community. If Brown’s hypothesis hold true that a final editor was intent on not editing out the past, then it was natural for him to let the ending at chapter 20 stand and then add to the story. He did much the same thing at chapter 14 which provides an ending to the meal scene only to have more added. He could have edited that ending out too but chose not to. The first story we encounter is a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. We need to remember that Mark and Matthew had spoken of Jesus telling his disciples that they would see him in Galilee. The final editor of John’s gospel likely was well aware of that story too and that it was circulating within the communities of Mark and Matthew. So he chose to add it on to what was already the end of the gospel. As we begin to read the story we need to notice that this is a story that Luke also told his readers (Luke 5:1-11). The disciples have been out in a boat fishing all night and caught nothing. Jesus appears on the scene and tells them to lower their nets once again and this time they catch a great abundance of fish. That’s the core of the story. Luke chooses to use this story much earlier in his gospel as the story through which Jesus called his first disciples and specifically Peter. For his part John tells this story as a resurrection appearance of Jesus in Galilee and as the story continues into the next story in John’s gospel, the point of the story is the rehabilitation Peter who had denied Jesus. The story also has a way of exalting the “beloved disciple” in a way that had been done earlier in John’s gospel. When Peter and the beloved disciple come to the tomb John tells us the beloved disciple believed while Peter did not. And here the beloved disciple recognizes that the figure on shore of the sea is the Lord before Peter does. We are going to talk about the rehabilitation of Peter tomorrow. Of course we want to ask, “When did this story really happen?” The truth is we cannot answer that question and it is really not very important. But, if we must speculate, I would guess that John’s version of the story as a resurrection appearance more likely reflects historical accuracy. So why did Luke use it in such a different way? We need to remember the importance of Jerusalem in Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts. Jerusalem is the center. All of the resurrection appearances in Luke’s gospel happen near Jerusalem. So Luke could not uphold his theological reasons for centering Jesus in Jerusalem and tell this fishing story as it is told by John. But it is such a good story. And it works so well for Luke to tell of the call of Peter. So he moves it forward in the story. And, as we will see tomorrow, this really is a call story – Peter is called again to follow Jesus.