Who are the “we” who know that the testimony is true?

Explanation:

A writer might use any number of literary devices to engage with their audience. For example, modern writers in the sciences will often use we, even when they explain a new discovery that only they themselves have made, in order to engender a sense of community in their reader. Things were no different for ancient writers, and in fact we have many examples from New Testament authors who seem to employ the use of the first-personal plural as a literary device.³ For example, in the Gospel of John itself, there are at least three occasions when one could argue that the author places the plural form of the personal pronoun I on the lips of individuals (for example, 2 Corinthians 11:5, John 3:11; John 20:2).⁴ Further, the author of the Johannine epistles, which is the same author as the Gospel of John, uses the same technique on ten occasions in one chapter alone (1 John 1:1–10). Other New Testament writers do the same, including Paul (2 Corinthians 5:16). If this were not evidence enough, there are other studies on ancient Greek literature that attest that the first-person plural we often served a useful literary purpose. Alessandro Vatri explains that the first-person plural was a common literary feature in ancient writing, often used to invoke unity or division. Vatri’s analysis shows that more often than not, writers used the first-person plural generically, or to refer to themselves.⁵ This shows that authors often broke grammatical conventions to utilize we in a stylistic manner. Finally, the strongest evidence that John uses we as a literary device comes from the prologue of the Gospel. There John writes, We have seen his glory (John 1:14). So it is not surprising that now as he concludes his account, he deploys a similar literary feature.

Counterargument:

If the author of John is using we as a literary device in John 21:24, it is an awkward case. A plain reading of the text runs counter to the notion that the one who wrote it is the one who knows that his testimony is true. Even worse, the examples from John that are supposed to support the notion that he sometimes uses the first-person plural as a literary device are far from obvious. For example, in John 3:2 Nicodemus likely uses the first-person plural because he is speaking on behalf of the Pharisees. In John 3:11, Jesus could just as easily be referring to himself and the Father, or the Spirit. Finally, we know from Luke 24:10 that it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women who found the tomb empty. This explains Mary’s use of the first-person plural in John 20:2.

Response to counterargument:

Whether or not the individual characters of the Gospel of John are using the first-person plural to refer to a plurality of people is not the point. The point is that the writer puts the plural form on the lips of individuals when there are no other characters in the narrative that they might be referring to. In this sense, we is being used as a literary device. For example, if the Gospel writer had introduced the notion that Nicodemus along with the other Pharisees wanted to question Jesus, and then put the first-person plural in the mouth of Nicodemus, this would be a case of proper grammar, and not literary style as we are defining it. On the other hand, since Nicodemus is alone when he meets with Jesus, we are forced to wrestle with who Nicodemus might be referring to by we. Does he mean the other Pharisees, or the Jewish people as a whole? Further, the Johannine epistles are often thought to be written by the same author as the Gospel of John. In chapter 1 alone, the author uses we as a literary device in a number of ways, including tying authorship to apostolic authority, connecting with his readers, and identifying his opponents.⁶ Clearly this author favours we as a literary device.

Explanation:

As John concludes his Gospel, he adds a sort of self-testimony in order to seal the authority of his witness. He does this by using the first-person plural we in John 21:24, which also acts as a literary device that draws the reader into the narrative. Now John finishes his work by adding another common literary feature—the use of hyperbolic language to extol his master, Jesus Christ, one last time.^7,8 As the writer shifts from self-testimony (John 21:24) to a concluding remark (John 21:25), he moves from the first-person plural of to know to the first-person singular of to suppose. Köstenberger calls this grammatical shift a stubborn fact for anyone who tries to apply twenty-first-century grammatical conventions to the text.⁹ He argues that in ancient literature, the convention of an authorial-we is well attested, but there are no known instances of a communal-I.¹⁰

Counterargument:

John 21:25 may be hyperbolic, but when it is considered in light of John 20:30–31, one can see that John 21:25 is likely a copy of the Gospel’s original conclusion. This suggests that a redactor has pieced together the Gospel account, and he and the worshipping community where he serves offer their verdict of John’s account.¹¹ Maybe they were taught by John, or knew others who were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry, and so, being sure that John’s account is accurate, the redactor writes on behalf of his community, We know that his testimony is true (John 21:24). As a redactor, he knew the Gospel well, and he knew that ending on verse John 21:24 did not align with the overall character of John’s account. So he writes his own ending, similar to the original, as though it were penned by the hand of John himself (John 20:30–31).¹²

Response to counterargument:

This explanation makes too many assumptions that are difficult to prove. For one, if a redactor was adding a new conclusion similar to the original in order to conceal the fact that his hand was involved, why not exclude the first-person plural from John 21:24? In other words, a redactor who was motivated to cover his contribution would likely be aware that the first-person plural of John 21:24 would expose his hand. Why go to the trouble of adding a second conclusion, while an obvious indicator from the preceding verse remains? Further, it overlooks the fact that the Gospel writer often uses the first-person plural and that this is a common literary convention in the ancient world. Finally, if a redactor was the one who edited and published John's account, we must assume that John was dead. If John was dead, then it is difficult to explain the need for verse John 21:23, which goes to lengths to clarify details about the Gospel writer’s eventual death. If John was dead, there is no reason to include these details in the Gospel, because one could point to John’s grave.¹³ If John was alive and heard a rumour spreading that Jesus said he would not die, then, knowing that his Gospel will be shared, he adds the statement to quell the hearsay.

Possible weaknesses:

There are two weaknesses with this view.

1. The main weakness with the notion that the writer uses we as a literary device to draw the reader to participate in the narrative is that it expects too much of the reader. In order for the literary device to have its effect, it asks the reader to momentarily withhold conventional grammatical rules. That is because, when taken in its plainest sense, the text seems to indicate that the beloved disciple gave his testimony to the redactor who is compiling the Gospel. The redactor then garnered the attestation of multiple witnesses to verify the accuracy of the account. Together, the witnesses (we) know that the testimony of the beloved disciple is true.

2. If John uses we to offer credibility to his account, it might actually have the reverse effect, undermining his purpose. One expects an eyewitness to be credible. If John is sensitive to this, it would be more credible for him to simply seal his account with the testimony of others than to testify about himself and make it seem as though others are testifying on his behalf.

Explanation:

John highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony on several occasions (John 1:7; John 5:31–37; John 8:13–18). For instance, in John 5:31–37, after being accused of breaking the Sabbath and making himself equal to God (John 5:18), Jesus explains that if he bears witness to himself his testimony is not true. Still, something and someone has borne witness to him, including the works that God the Father has enabled him to do (John 5:36), as well as the Father himself (John 5:37). Later, when Jesus declares that he is the light of the world, the Pharisees accuse him of bearing witness to himself, which falsifies his claims (John 8:13). Jesus rebuts their accusation by explaining that even if he does bear witness to himself, his testimony is not isolated, because the Father also bears witness to him (John 8:18). Multiple attestations were important to the Pharisees, and to John, so he secures the testimony of the believing community (or the other apostles) to verify the authenticity of his account.¹⁷

Counterargument:

Although it might have been awkward, it may not be uncommon for New Testament writers to defend their own authority by speaking in the third person. For example, Paul seems to use this same technique in 2 Corinthians 11:6. There he argues that he is not inferior to the super-apostles. For most of this section, Paul uses the first-person singular to refer to himself, which follows conventional grammatical rules. Still, in 2 Corinthians 11:6 he seems to refer to himself in the first-person plural.¹⁸ Even more compelling is that John himself uses a similar technique in the prologue of his gospel. In John 1:14 John states that the Word became flesh, and we have seen his glory. Considering that ancient writers often used we as a literary device, one could make a case that John uses it thus, in John 1:14. Should anyone be surprised that now, as John concludes his Gospel, he uses a similar technique?

Response to counterargument:

It is far from clear that either Paul or John is using the first-person plural to refer to themselves in 2 Corinthians 11:6 and John 1:14, respectively. In the case of Paul, it is well known that Paul travelled in a group, and that his fellow workers were intimately involved in the ministry (Acts 21:8; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Philemon 1:24). It could just as easily be the case that when Paul states, We made this perfectly clear to you (2 Corinthians 11:6b), he is referring to his cohort. Further, when John states that we have seen his glory, it is likely that he is referring to all the apostles, which lends credibility to his claims. One of John’s purposes was to conjure belief that Jesus is the Christ (John 19:35; John 20:31). John is inviting his readers to ask the others about his credibility if they do not believe his account.

Explanation:

It was not uncommon for ancient Mediterranean legal documents to include a list of witnesses in the final paragraphs. These witnesses were used to ratify the authenticity of an agreement. Keener lists no less than eleven ancient sources who utilized such a method, including Cicero and Seneca.¹⁹ John is simply deploying a tactic which was customary in his culture to confirm that his testimony is reliable.

Counterargument:

There is a marked difference between the literary genre of a legal document and John’s Gospel, which is something like an ancient biography. While many scholars agree that the Gospel According to John could be classified as a unique literary genre, it shares common elements with Greco-Roman biographies.²⁰ As such, it has little to nothing in common with ancient legal documents. This does not mean that ancient Mediterranean legal documents have nothing to say about the cultural circumstances of the Gospel writer. Still, we should be cautious not to press literary conventions between distant genres, even if they share temporal proximity.

Response to counterargument:

Even though the literary genres of legal documents and Greco-Roman biographies are distinct, this does not undermine the ancient Mediterranean principle that witnesses sealed testimony. Even the book of Revelation was sealed with seven seals (Revelation 5:1).²¹ The point is that ancient writers were concerned to offer credibility to a document through witness testimony.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it assumes that John 21:24–25 is best understood outside the context of John 21:20–23, but this is not obviously the case. Jesus commissions the disciples in John 20:21, and in John 21:20–23 we see how those commissions play out differently for different disciples. For example, Jesus explains that Peter will glorify God through a martyr’s death, while the beloved disciple will glorify God in some other manner. In John 20:24, the beloved disciple explains the manner by which he brings glory to God, namely, by recording what he has born witness to.²²

Explanation:

The redactor knows that a rumour is spreading that Jesus said to the disciple whom he loved that he was not to die. Now that he has died,^25,26,27 the redactor sets the record straight by adding John 21:20–23 to the Gospel account. He does this because he remembers that Jesus was more precise when he spoke about the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Specifically, Jesus did not say that that disciple was not going to die, but only that if it was Jesus’ will he would not die. The redactor has concealed his hand up until now, but by including this story, he can do so no longer. The disciple whom Jesus loved has died, but his testimony is sure, and the redactor, along with the believing community, testifies to this fact.²⁸

Counterargument:

There are two problems with the notion that a redactor has revealed his hand in John 21:24. First, the writer uses the present active participle of μαρτυρέω (to witness), which indicates that the disciple continues to bear witness to these things. In ancient Greek, when the present tense is used, this indicates continued action. So by using the present tense, the writer indicates that the disciple is continuing to bear witness to these things. This implies that the disciple has not passed away.^29,30,31 Second, this explanation overlooks the use of the first-person singular of οἴομαι (to suppose) in John 21:25. If the redactor is writing on behalf of the community in John 21:24, why does he suddenly shift to the first-person singular in John 21:25?

Response to counterargument:

The witness of John lives on in the community of the believers he shepherded. Further, his recorded testimony is a lasting witness to Jesus Christ and his ministry. In this sense, John’s testimony continues to bear witness through the believers he taught and the words he wrote.³² Second, the redactor knows John well, and wanting to end the Gospel in Johannine style (John 20:20–31), he easily crafts John 21:25 as though it came from the hand of the original author himself.³³

Possible weaknesses:

The first problem with this view is that, much like the brethren who have read too much into Jesus' words (John 21:23), it reads too much into John 21:20–23. In John 21:20–23, the author recalls Jesus’ statement that if it is his will, the disciple whom he loved would not die, in order to clear up a misinterpretation of that statement. Jesus said if it is my will, that disciple will not die, but a rumour is spreading that misrepresents what Jesus said. In like manner, while our text alludes to the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved, nowhere does it indicate that he has in fact died. It is just as likely that the disciple has heard the rumours, and not wanting his eventual death to do spiritual harm to the believing community, he has decided to add this account to set the record straight.

Another issue with this view is that it overlooks literary similarities from the rest of the Gospel and chapter John 21:20–23 that suggest one author. There are several literary features that intimately connect chapter John 21:20–23 with the rest of the Gospel. For one, the writer uses the phrase truly, truly on a number of occasions (John 1:51; John 3:3; John 5:19, John 5:24; John 6:26, John 6:47; John 8:34; John 10:1; John 12:24; John 14:12; John 13:16; John 16:20, John 16:23). Second, in John 19:35 he makes a statement about bearing testimony which closely resembles the statement in John 21:24. Third, and possibly most striking, are the similarities between John 20:30–31 and John 21:25, which indicate that there are many miracles and things that Jesus did that are not written in the Gospel. One can argue that the redactor knew John so well that he wrote chapter John 21:25 to follow John’s pattern, but unless we have good reason to believe that John did not write it, which we do not, it is much more likely that the similarities are due to the fact that the same author wrote the whole book.