who wrote John 21 and John 1-20?

I think that John 21 was not written by the same person that wrote John 1-20.

I find the following reasons:

1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged conclusion, that points back to the σημεῖα (signs), that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore, unless the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 as the conclusion of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or not).

2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote ταῦτα. It is reasonable to think that ταῦτα refers to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them as follows:

3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness is true" (οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν). The verb is in first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be easily distinguished from the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third person: "he".

3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the author of John 1-20, he would be a person who testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says: "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified" (Ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής).

3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the brothers. These verses make sense if they were written after the death of the beloved disciple: the author seems worried that some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong. Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these verses.

3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John 20,30-31 make it plausible the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was added subesequently. The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think that the author of John 21 didn't think he could change what was already written. This doens't happen in John 1-20, whenever the
test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is inserted within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take the same liberty.

3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are never named in John 1-20. Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John 21 was written.

3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is ὀψάριον, while ἰχθύς is never used. Chapter 21 uses ἰχθύς. It is unlikely that the author of John 21 is the same as the author of John 1-20.

I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that give me certainty. I recognise that the following reasons do not provide full evidence. If considered separately, they make it more likely that the author is different. All together, they make a strong case against identity of author.

Luca 1,1 allude a Giovanni?

Luca 1,1 dice che “molti hanno ordinato un racconto (διήγησιν) degli avvenimenti successi tra di noi”. Alla fine del 2006, sulla mailing list del gruppo di discussione sulla letteratura giovannea, Kym Smith ha ipotizzato che i “molti” possano essere un gruppo di vescovi e che il racconto sia il Vangelo secondo Giovanni. Si spiegherebbe così che Giovanni parli più volte in prima persona plurale: “noi”.

Ho allora espresso il mio scetticismo sulla possibilità che un gruppo di persone possa scrivere un libro:

As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. We know of texts that developed orally with the contribution of many authors, but we don't know of texts that were written by several hands at once. When an author wrote, he was alone or he enjoyed the help of a secretary, but no more than that. The author could dictate the text, and the secretary could be granted freedom to add something, as Tertius does in Romans. In this case, Tertius says that he is adding a line of his own. Or Paul sometimes says that he is personally penning a sentence, when he is no longer dictating. The author could also ask his secretary to shape his ideas into a written text. In this case, the literary author is the secretary, who writes in his own words. Cooperation could go no further than that. The bottom line is that no more that one hand could hold the calamus at the same time.

Kym Smith ha risposto:

It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and worked cooperatively on a gospel like happens every day with all manner of books, reports, etc.

Al che ho replicato:

[In Acts 15] we have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dictation, to reflect the agreement of the Council, that is quoted as a document in the book of the Acts, that is not written by a council.

I don't deny that people can work cooperatively. They can do this in various ways. But in the antiquity this was done orally. Written texts are written by individuals, that can take full advantage of the work of the group.

Today we have wikis, that allow cooperative writing. In the antiquity writing was a very slow process, that lead to a single manuscript. The manuscript then had to be copied, and this is slow, too. Modifications could be done, but other people woulnd't know about them until the modified text was copied and distributed. There was no multiple access to the same text.

Printed texts were a revolution. Digital text are a revolution. We should be careful not to bring our habits back to the time when a book was written and copied by hand.

Al che Kym Smith ha sollevato la questione del prologo di Luca:

An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.

Il 2 dicembre 2006 ho cercato di confutare tale interpretazioni di Luca 1,1, con un messaggio dal titolo 4G Redactors. Proponevo allora i seguenti argomenti (in lingua inglese).

I would contend that:

1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative
2) even if he did, this cannot be the same narrative as the Gospel of John
1-20.

1) διήγησις is certainly a narrative. And this narrative has been arranged
according to a τάξις, that is, an order that can be recognized.

My point is that a narrative can be arranged in a written form, but also in
an oral form. On its part, a written narrative can be arranged according to
an order that a reader can recognize, or it can be written in such a way
that the reader doesn't perceive a τάξις.

I will refer to a famous fragment by Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his
Ecclesiastical History:

Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου, οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ, ὅς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων.

Here we have Peter that arranges his teachings according to need, and Mark
that listens to Peter and writes down what he heard from him. Mark writes
οὐ ... τάξει. He does not impress into his narrative an order that is
perceived by Papias.

I am not asking that you agree that Mark reflects the preaching of Peter,
nor that Mark's narrative has no τάξις at all. Rather, my point is that the
Greek τάσσω, when used to speak of a narrative, does not mean "write
down" a narrative, but rather "impress an order" to a narrative. This can be
done orally or in a written form.

The same fragment by Papias shows that Peter 's teaching included accounts
of Jesus' words, but also of his actions (πραχθέντα). An account of actions
is a narrative. Here we have oral narratives by Peter, that are the source
for Mark's written narrative.

Again, I am not asking that such accounts by Peter were available to Mark.
Rather, I am suggesting that our text allows for narrations to be organized
and told even before anything was written.

In other words, we should distinguish between "composition" of a narrative,
that can be either oral or written, and "redaction", which is written.

In my opinion, there is no prove that Luke's ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν refers to
written composition. It may as well refer to oral composition. The Greek
allows for that.

Luke 1:3 says that he is going to write (γράψαι) a narrative, not that
"many" wrote narratives. If you contend that "many" wrote, you should prove
that, and ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν is no proof.

You seem to agree with that, when you write in the excerpt of your book: "On
every other occasion in the gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of γράφω if someone was writing". It appears that Luke uses the verb γράφω when he refers to a written account.

2) Even if Luke 1:1 referred to written accounts (and I disagree with that),
those accounts could not be the fourth Gospel as we know it. John 21:23 says
that the beloved disciple is the one "who bears witness and wrote these
things (ὁ γράψας ταῦτα)". Even if we knew nothing else about the beloved
disciple, this text says that he is one person and that he wrote: the third
singular is used. He could be one of the "many" that Luke 1:1 speaks about, but
he couldn't be all of them.

Of course, you can deny that the picture of John 21 is accurate. But, if
so, why should Luke 1:1 be more accurate? Why should the picture of Luke 1:1
provide a better understanding of John that the picture provided by John 21?
I would rather use John 21 to form a picture of John 1-20, and use Luke
1:1-4 to form a picture of Luke 1-24. At least, we are sure that John 21
speaks of the Gospel of John, while it is yet to be proved that Luke 1:1
speaks of the Fourth Gospel.