376 As far as we know, writes Zahn, the Gospel has never circulated without this chapter (ii., p. 484). Tatian’s “Diatessaron” used the essential parts of it down to verse 25. Some think that the closing verses proceeded from those around the Apostle, with his sanction (Zahn, p. 493).
Scarcely any German writer now follows Hengstenberg’s defense. Even Luthardt regards it as an Epilogue, although probably from John’s own hand. So Meyer and Godet. Weiss is one of those who think that it was by another hand (see note 394a). Happily, most reject the view of Baur, Strauss and Keim, that it represents a vindication of John as a rival of Peter.
Mr. Kelly, it will be seen, defends every verse of the chapter as an integral portion of the Gospel written by John himself, reprobating the idea that it is a supplement.
377 Verse 1.― “Manifested Himself.” Cf. 2:11, 7:4.
“At the sea of Tiberias.” It was so called already in the time of Josephus. Observe John’s combination of the Lucan and Matthæan different scenes of the appearances.
378 Verse 2.― “The sons of Zebedee.” The only distinct mention in the Gospel of James and John, and, of course, not by name. Zahn regards it as indication of editorship (ii., p. 485).
379 Godet suggests that these may have been Papias’s John the Elder and Aristion, whom the ancient writer speaks of as “disciples of the Lord.” Observe that there are seven disciples in the scene (see note 46). Germans are embarrassed in accounting for the number.
379a Verse 3.―Bacon: “Unconscious of the Resurrection” (H. J., October, 1907, p. 141). How, then, explain the readiness of the words of the disciple to Peter in verse 7?
380 Verses 4 ff.―There seems to be a designed comparison with Luke 5:1-9, whilst verse 7 reminds of Matt. 14:28-31, and verses 9-12 recall 6:9-11 of this Gospel.
John’s account is different from that of the incident described in Luke 5., from the very fact that they were distinct occasions. Thus in the earlier Gospel Peter says, “Depart from me,” etc., whilst here he girds his fisher’s smock about him and strikes out for the shore to go to the Lord. On the previous occasion his confession of sinfulness was superficial; experience acquired of what he is has now the rather mop ed him to be silent about it. On that first occasion the net was being rent and the fish not secured; here all is tranquilly brought to land. See, further, in Harnack, “Luke the Physician,” English translation, p. 227, where dissent is expressed from the view taken by Wellhausen in commentary on Luke.
381 Verse 7.―This verse makes it certain that the Evangelist John was intended by “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
382 “One hundred and fifty-three.” No better explanation has ever been found for this number than Hengstenberg’s, that it was the number of nations of the world known at the time.
383 Verses 13 f―The Gnostic condemnation of animal food is here disposed of.
384 “The third time.” That is, to the Apostles as a company.
385 Verses 15-17.―Who but John could have written these verses? Cf. 13:37.
386 Verses 15 f.―Adolphe Monod: “Give me thine observances, says the God of Pharisaism; give me thy personality, says the God of Hegel; give me thy reason, says the God of Kant. It remains for the God of Jesus Christ to say, Give Me thy heart... the unmistakable feature of a genuine conversion” (from sermon on “Dieu demandant le Coeur à l’Homme,” cited by Bishop Moule in his devotional book on Jesus and the Resurrection).
The difference between ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῖν is that “φ. is so far lower than ὰ. that it indicates less of insight and more of emotion” (Moule. D. 181, aptly comparing 1 Pet. 1:8). Reference may be made to Trench, Westcott, Abbott. Augustine calls attention to “My” (not “thy”).
“Feed... tend.” The difference between βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν being one of sustenance, as compared with guidance.
387 Verses 18 f—Cf. 2 Pet. 1:14. The words here are from the same hand as 12:13 (Lightfoot, p. 194).
388 Verse 18.― “When thou wast young.” There is a prolepsis in these words. The Lord is speaking of “Peter’s life then present” (Moule, pp. 190 f.). Cf. 1 Cor. 13:12.
389 Verse 19.―Cf. 13:36.
390 Verses 20-23.―John was still alive when these verses were written (Zahn, ii. p. 488).
Drummond, from these words, vindicates the Evangelist against the Tübingen charge (note 376) of depreciation of Peter (p. 395 f.)
331 Verse 21.―Cf. Mark 10:39.
332 Verse 22.―Bengel; “Peter, the foundation; John, the crown.”
333 “Come.” At death, say Augustine, Grotius, Ewald, Olshausen, etc.; at destruction of Jerusalem, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Westcott, etc.; but De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Gloag and Zahn, at the “Second Coming.”
Instead of negativing Paul’s distinction of two classes, those who shall have fallen asleep and those who remain, these verses rather confirm it.
A question has been raised whether John the Apostle died a natural death, as generally supposed, or was, like his brother, martyred by Jews (cf. Matt. 20:23; Mark 10:38 f.), as alleged in a Fragment of Philip of Side of the fifth century. See English edition of Schürer (p. 59), and a Chronicle of George the Sinner of the ninth or tenth century. Cf. Stanton, p. 167; Burkitt, p. 252. The statement of George the Sinner, which had already been given in Harnack’s “Apostolic Fathers” (p. 87 ff.), that distinguished scholar himself discredits (“Chronology,” p. 665 f.), because of the silence of Eusebius and Irenæus. Heitmüller, one of the latest writers, joins Schmiedel and others in crediting this mythology. Drummond (p. 223) had remarked, with reference to the Syrian martyrology in Burkitt (p. 254), that it does not imply that the brothers came by their deaths at the same time and place.
394 Verses 23-25.―Harnack supposes that the Evangelist was already dead when verse 23 was added (p. 676), and (as Ewald) that the writer is expressly distinguished from the disciple that “beareth witness and wrote.” From verse 23 a curious notion has been derived by Pfleiderer (Scott follows suit), that the Evangelist gave up the chiliastic expectation (Rev. 20:4).
394a THE EPILOGUE (verse 24 (.),―Weiss and many other students of Scripture regard verses 24 and 25 as alone written after the Apostle’s death. But how could a third person, or even a company of John’s friends or followers, attest the truth of his record, whether personally acquainted with him or not? As Dr. R. G. Moulton sensibly remarks, “endorsement is of no value without names” (“The Modern Reader’s Bible,” p. 1706). Bacon’s quotation of Rom. 8:16 is not in the least to the point. Cf. 19:35 and note. The difficulty, moreover, that some raise over “we know” (verse 24) is not felt by those who compare the same form of expression in chapter 1 of the First Epistle (see also 2 Cor. 1:13). Observe that there is no emphatic pronoun (ἡμει̂ς) used, which would have given color to the “critical” argument. Again, the transition from the third person we meet with in 3 John 1 of the “elder” ―it becomes the first plural in verses 9, 12; whilst the final use of the first singular is paralleled by 1 Thess. 2:18; Heb. 13:8 f. So that there is no need whatever to take “we know” of Ephesian elders or friends (as Westcott, from comparison of 19:35), or “I suppose” of an amanuensis. Even if such were necessary, the direct association by the Apostle of others with himself would be paralleled by joint-writers of Pauline epistles. One need do no more than just record the ingenious proposal of Chrysostom and Theophylact to read, instead of οἴδαμεν, οῖδα μέν, so as to preserve the first person singular.
Weizsacker (vol. iii., p. 209 ff.) and some others regard the whole of the Gospel as written after the Apostle’s death. This, it is hoped, has been sufficiently dealt with in note la on the Introduction.
395 “Contain.” See Matt. 19:11 in the Greek. As to the Oriental hyper-holism of Scripture, reference might be made to Ryle, vol. iii.. p. 529. Amongst other passages, that writer refers to our Lord’s own language as to Capemaum, and reproduces a helpful remark of Calvin.
Tregelles upheld the verse as written by the first hand in the Sinaitic manuscript.