Editorial autonomy

For those of us who are familiar with the Passion of John, we know that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest (John 18:13). And we can safely assume that there was only ONE high priest at a time. Indeed, a search on the web, say Wikipedia, yields a list of High Priests quoted from Jewish encyclopaedia. The Appendix III of 【思高聖經】is also a list of High Priest. From there, we see that there was only one High Priest since Zadok. We also find that Annas (Ananus) was the High Priest from 6 to 15 A.D. and Caiaphas from 18 to 36 A.D. Therefore, it is puzzling that Luke gives a different picture.

In the gospel of Luke, when he told us the ministry of John the Baptist, we have
in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness (Luke 3:2). Luke reports two high priests in about 28 A.D. Then, when Peter and John were arrested after healing a lame man, they were brought in front of the rulers of Israel. We have
On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem,
with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family (Acts 4:5-6). Luke has Annas as the High Priest in 30 A.D. Did Luke make some mistakes and left them in the bible? God forbids! Then, how are we to harmonize the bible and external evidence? Some scholars suggest that Annas was the Emeritus High Priest. He had retired but still kept the title and influence. When Luke wrote his corpus, he did not make the distinction or rather, people in the first century did not make such distinction as we do today. In fact, there were also times in the Israelite history when the old king became a co-regent with his son to rule over the land. Therefore, the idea of Annas being a retired High Priest seems plausible.
Now, let us turn to John 21. This chapter reads like a postscript because John 20:30-31 seems to have close the book. However, all extant manuscripts include John 21. Therefore, this chapter deserves our attention and respect. The story today highlights one important nature of gospels: the evangelists did not write news reports. They enjoyed an editorial autonomy to put together materials to proclaim the Jesus they knew.
The gospel of John does not follow the general plot of the other 3 synoptic gospels. There is no nativity story, no temptation story after Jesus' baptism, no calling of fisher of men, no calming of the storm on the Sea of Galilee, no walking on the water after feeding 5000, no Transfiguration, no establishment of the Holy Eucharist in the Last Supper, no agony in Gethsemani etc. The list continues as long as you like. John did not bother to record them because enough had been written by the previous gospels. Yet, he put some of them in different contexts.
In the gospels, there are 2 accounts of the apostles catching a large number of fish, one in Luke and the other in John. In Luke 5, we read that Jesus got on Simon's boat to preach because there were too many people.
And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." (Luke 5:4). He caught so many that he reckoned his partners, James and John, to help. Both boats were filled and nearly sank. This is Luke's account of the call of the first 4 fishermen disciples. Luke had Simon confessed that he was a sinner first, before Jesus made him a fisher of men. Instead, Mark and Matthew told the same call of the fishermen story without this miraculous catch, nor confession of sins.
In John's story, the catch took place at the third apparition after resurrection, not at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Jesus was NOT on their boats but standing on the beach. Again, the fishermen did not recognize him after two previous appearances (John 21:4)!
He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, for the quantity of fish (John 21:6). The disciple whom Jesus loved told Peter that it was the Lord. How did he know? It must have been a previous experience, most probably the earlier miraculous catch recorded in Luke. Once again, we rely on experience of previous encounters in order to recognize the risen Jesus. This is the paradigm employed in the gospels.
After hearing this suggestion, Peter put on his clothes and jumped into the sea and ran to the shore to meet Jesus (John 21:7). This seems to be Peter's routine. We have a similar incident in Matthew 14:28-33. Jesus was walking on the water after feeding the 5000. Peter and the others were straining at the oars. When he knew that it was Jesus, he jumped into the sea to meet him. Peter was nearly drowned because he lost faith in the big waves. Of course, Jesus saved Peter and all the people on the boat confessed that Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew 14:33). In most likelihood, people on board would be dumbfounded and confused.
In John's story,
Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord (John 21:12).
I dare not say that Luke's and John's (and even Matthew's) were one and the same story. The most reasonable interpretation would be that the evangelists highlighted different themes with materials in their hands. They wanted to reinforce the faith in the believers.
but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31).

My sweet Jesus, I thank the evangelists for their efforts in handing down this precious faith to us. I humbly listen to them, reflect on their messages. May their experience awaken my self-knowledge, my need to repent and strengthen my faith in You day by day. Amen.