Jump to content

Talk:Gospel of John/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Historical part

I did some minor changes: changed "historical part" to "narrative part" and "history" to "story".

John 6

Um.... I just created a template linking the chapters of John; is there a reason why "John 6" redirects to "Gospel of John"?? A J Hay 10:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs work

Neither the "sources" (current first section) nor the "Bridging the Old Testament and New Testament" (previous first section) make a good introduction to the Gospel of John. Need more explanatory and introductory information up front. Jdavidb 20:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "sources" is prob. not best opening section. Perhaps a beginning paragraph summarizing theological content. One paragraph under "structure" already indicates four distinctive content areas: (1) relationship of Son to Father, (2) relationship Redeemer/believer and (3) promise of Holy Ghost (4) importance of love. Stuff like that is better as it goes to the particular content of the book and its position in Christian tradition. Also: it might be better to say Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost. The former is the far more common term at this point. --Dkwright 23:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The "Bridging," reidentified by our reverter, is simply John's use of sources and his conscious parallel with Genesis. The "bridging" is someone's inexperienced but good interpretation. It's a metaphor: not suitable in the name of a subsection. Surely "Handling of source material" is a quite standard and neutral title that is free of problems. It also admits of more important examples of "John"'s literary practices, which need discussing, as this is the most consciously rhetorical of the Gospels. Wetman 11:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the article currently suffers from NPOV problems in several areas. Let me say up front that my own particular POV is that of an evangelical Christian and that this POV assuredly influences my views on the Gospel of John. So I'm not claiming that I approach the text as someone without a distinct and strong POV.

That's precisely why I think the current article has NPOV problems. Here are areas that I think could use some work. (1) Critical scholarship is represented as more monolithic than it is on John. (2) As one example of this, the discussion on the date of authorship reflects critical scholarship's consensus (if there ever was one) from a time prior to the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. Prior to Qumran, the distinctive theological emphases (and language!) of John were thought to be influenced by Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. Those positing such influences needed John to have a very late date indeed. (3) The Johannine community viewpoint is cited rather uncritically. (Why not other view-points, then?) (4) This leads me to my last point: It seems to me that the article gives evidence of a strong bias concerning who is or isn't a critical scholar. Contemporary evangelical scholars have views on John that are quite different from views given in the article, which generally are attributed to critical scholarship. It seems to me that a critical scholar is one who practices a kind of scholarship that is willing to look at evidence criticially, regardless of his or her own religious presuppositions. There are, in my opinion, evangelical scholars who fit this definition in whole or in part. You wouldn't know this from reading the article. Whether I'm right or wrong on this, views on John that come from religiously motivated communities are poorly represented in the article and the article seems structured so as to influence against such views.

In any case, what suffers in the process is the text itself. This article is more of a mono-chromatic view of scholarship about John (which should only be a part of the discussion of a text) than it is a good article on the text itself. Someone who hasn't read the text would come away still knowing almost nothing about it.

Note that I've posted these thoughts here to generate discussion. I've got some strong viewpoints and welcome strong disagreements. I've not done any editing on the article, because I don't want to get into edit wars about bias, etc. So please, if someone doesn't like what I've said here, let's talk about it. Perhaps we can discuss things to the point of agreeing on some changes that might be made to strengthen the article in a way that people from different viewpoints can agree to. --Dkwright 19:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GofJ is a text. A text has sources. A text has a manuscript tradition. A historical text is initially directed to an audience and addresses contemporary concerns. Then, it has a history of interpretations which should include evangelical interpretation of course. A "beginning paragraph summarizing theological content" is not how an authentically neutral POV discussion of any text would normally open, is it? Instead, why not compare the treatment of the other gospels at Wikipedia, and see if any of them are genuinely dispassionate enough so that a similar framework could be adopted here. If evangelical interpretations should be expanded, fine; but a mainstream scholarly historical interpretation should not be subverted, should it? --Wetman 22:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I agree that a discussion of sources, manuscript tradition, and history of interp. are important to this article.
However, these are matters of considerable complexity and variety of opinion. I don't think that complexity and variety are well-represented in the current article. I happened to come at things citing an evangelical perspective, but that's just my particular starting point and that starting point isn't even the main point regarding the criticism I was bringing. (1) The critical views represented are a very narrow slice of even the mainstream (I'll concede the label for one moment) scholarship on John. (2) That slice is rather dated. (3) Now, I'm not conceding the label: I suspect that your term mainstream, might, if examined, reduce to being the set of those who study the text from the perspective of more avowedly secular, as opposed to religious, presuppositions. (4) Scholars with religious presuppositions can and do also study from a perspective of historical interpretation and method. Brown is one such scholar and is already being cited in the article. So bringing up the existence of, say, evangelical viewpoints, is not immediately an attempt to subvert historical interpretation. (5) A NPOV should seek to do this complex picture justice. That's not easy, but I think there is room for improvement here. However, I admit that I'm not sure where one might begin, because the field (Johannine studies) is so broad and deep in this case.
One idea I do have is to give the material that deals with the content of John greater emphasis (and to expand it). Quite a while ago I wrote something about "a beginning paragraph summarizing theological content". That was poorly phrased, although perhaps we can agree that the content of GoJ is in fact quite theological, regardless of what we personally think of that content. Further, I don't know that it would be right to put the focus on content first. Author and Date do make a lot of sense in first position. In this case, though, those are quite contested. Regardless of position, I think the article really could use more material on the content of John. (How about a brief outline of John? I'd be willing to try my hand on it.) Right now, someone reading the article would come away not having learned much of what John is about. Do you see what I'm getting at? First and foremost this is a text that has a literary unity (whatever its source composition). What is this text about? In my opinion, that question is an important one to answer. The current entry doesn't go about answering that so much as it does a very uneven job of wading into the scholarly fray about the text. --dkwright 00:09, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
A further thought: other models for rational discourse of Scripture might come from two books where Christianists don't intrude: compare the Wikipedia treatment of Ecclesiastes or the Book of Judith --Wetman 22:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the entries for Ecclesiastes and Judith and I did like their structure better. The subjects are, of course, far less massive that that of John. But in my opinion those entries did a better job of discussing content. I don't know how well they did at representing scholarly opinion--I have little background with these two.
I wish you were less dismissive about my particular interest in John, although I will say that the notion of a Christianist intruder gives me the amusing mental image of some sort of Christian cat-burglar who breaks in and put tracts under a person's pillow. --dkwright 00:09, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Signs and faith

Made several changes to the sources section; the conclusion that the signs in the synoptics occur as a result of faith rather than in order to generate faith in the observers is POV; my religious tradition generally disagrees and teaches that the primary purpose of the miracles was to validate the miracle worker (i.e., generate faith). Jdavidb 20:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entry should eventually discuss the "signs" as the author apparently intended and used them, with quotes for examples. All our various traditions have their own entries by now, where our various teachings concerning "signs" and miracles etc etc are discussed. Whether GofJ partly uses miracles to validate the miracle-worker and partly as the result of faith, that does belongs here. This entry is still a stub. Wetman 00:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But apropose Jdavid b's frank entry just above: it certainly is refreshing to see so honestly and bluntly stated what is often disguised in entries that concern religionism (and racial nationalism too): first that a perfectly acceptable motivation for replacing information with counterinformation is that "my religious tradition" coincides with the edited version, and that information counter to which "my religious teaching disagrees" is POV. It will never be possible to discuss John's specific agendas in writing this work, the literary persona of this "John" and the manipulation of his source-texts will it? So the entry will remain on the Sunday School level. Wetman 10:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The John Rylands Library papyrus fragment

I have removed and placed here the following misleading though official-sounding mystification. Notice the techniques of identifying an "authority" whom only a theology student could know, without a work listed in the links or references (but given a most authenticizing date) and of offering an accession number, which sounds very official but actually serves to disguise the papyrus' identity, unless you can decipher it as "Papyrus John Rylands Library, Manchester, Greek language":

However, in 1934 C.H. Roberts published a scrap of papyrus (P52 = Papyrus Ryl. Gr. 457) that contained a few verses from the Gospel of John, whose handwriting he dated to the first half of the second century.

Could so many techniques come together without a covert agenda? What is actually being supported by this sleight-of-hand? Can you see? ...At any rate, a more authentic (and later) dating, a more direct and informative identification of the fragment, and a link to a John Rylands Library website where it is illustrated, are all now incorporated in the entry now. Any issues? Wetman 11:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

P52

I've added a starter article on the Rylands parchment, entitled P52, that might serve as a better place to insert some of the arguments surrounding the dating of the extant record. I've tried to make it a fairly simple and balanced presentation of the parchment, but feel free to pick away at it! -sm

I'll add an explicit statement that fuller details are to be found at the entry for P 52. We better come up with a less cryptic title than P 52, does everyone agree? I notice that here and at the new entry there is now no reference to the fact that the fragment was bought on the antiquities market. Was it not bought on the market? Wetman 02:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's unclear where the fragment came from. It was likely the result of excavations at Benhesa. As far as coming up with a less cryptic title, I think it's probably best to use the standard parchment designation. As an alternative, the Rylands designation might be acceptable (GP457), but most people searching for info on it will likely know the P52 designation.--Michael Lee 03:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"P52" is an accession number. Like all such numbers, it is meaningful only in the context, in this case, of the John Rylands Library collection of manuscripts: Rylands Library Papyrus P52 will be more reader-friendly, and I shall move it. P52 remains as a redirect, so nothing is lost. The P does not stand for "parchment" but for papyrus, as a glance as the illustration confirms. I shall make that simple change too. It is not unclear that the papyrus was bought on the antiquities market, unless I misremember. That I'll leave for now. Wetman 05:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gospel of John is a text

Full information on the text, the manuscripts, the manuscript tradition, the contents of the text, authorship and date ordinarily remain with texts in Wikipedia. A digest of information spun off into individual entries should remain at this main one. Details that may be gleaned about an author ordinarily belong at an author's entry. Wetman 05:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Reasons why the dating is "important"

"The dating is important since John is agreed to be the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written and thus marks the end date of their composition." An honest evaluation of the date is actually what's important to me. The "importance" of an early dating doesn't keep me wakeful at night, so I can't usefully edit this. But come now, is this really the very best and most serious rationale for the "importance" of dating John that Christipedians can come up with? --Wetman 02:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Some scholars say that the Gospel of Luke was the last one, making use of John (Mark A. Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?: The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke). Some scholars say that the Gospel of John was/could be the first one (JAT Robinson, Priority of John). Seems to me like grounds for deleting this misinformation. Can I get the go ahead? --Peter Kirby 03:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bultmann on John

Bultmann’s views on John have been some of the most influential in the 20th century, and I think they deserve a more in-depth treatment than they have received at present. (In fact, for one of the most influential theologians of modernity, the entry on Bultmann is woefully short.) Third Quest historical Jesus scholarship that reasserts both the Jewishness of Jesus and the New Testament—including the Gospel of John—is also completely neglected. --MHazell 14:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely concur. I could edit the resulting text for idiom and flow, but I'm not competent to assess Bultmann. Would you take up this project? --Wetman 20:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give it a damn good go! I think that I'll try to considerably expand the Rudolf Bultmann entry to cover everything—including his work on John—rather than attempt to edit both the Bultmann and John entries at the same time. If anything needs to be imported/exported between the two entries, I'm sure it'll become clear. --MHazell 03:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This needs rethinking

I have not removed from the article the following: "The Church Fathers believed only The Gospel of John and Authentic Matthew to be written by deciples of Jesus. " This is not true of any one of the writers who may be grouped under this label. Who thought what of the authorship of John and when is relevant here. The rest, even if it were accurate, is not. I haven't the patience to struggle over this. --Wetman 08:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

suggest Title: "according to"

The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.) Portress 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel According to John is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
While they are a convention, they do clearly state that the individual Gospel books are accounts of the life of Jesus written by the person the book is named after. If you check the meaning of the word of [1] you will notice that it can be interpreted in one of several ways. The Gospels are written accounts of Jesus' life that have been recorded by other individuals, thus necessitating the need for the writers' names. However, if you check the meaning of the word Gospel, you see that it literally means "good news". It is more fitting that the books of the Gospel (and therefore these articles about them) be called "The good news according to person" as as opposed to "The good news of person". Therefore, the articles on the books of the Gospel should be renamed.
Teh dave (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to liberals, the text states..."

The latest edit! One assumes then that "liberal" means someone who reads the text. The current editing of this article makes no pretense of a balanced view. --Wetman 12:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Chapters

Are entries on individual chapters (every one) of a book encyclopedic? Maybe we need a wikicommentary:John_14 thing, i.e., some place offsite Wikipedia for commentary on books. Otherwise, why not link to wikisource? --Peter Kirby 03:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Update: I see that there's already a sizeable controversy about such things. --Peter Kirby 06:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing names of biblical books

Don't ask me why, but it is standard writing not to italicize the names of books of the Bible. --Peter Kirby 03:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

...yes—thank you Peter Kirby— so that John is rendered identical with John, and any doubt of the author of Luke is eliminated, because what is stated in Luke is what Luke states—excellent sleight-of-hand, we all agree! And not just a Little Pious Gesture after all, is it. --Wetman 03:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, I don't make up the rules. For what it matters, I don't believe that John the apostle wrote the Gospel of John. --Peter Kirby
Seeing as how you've acknowledged that Biblical books are not italicised, perhaps we should actually do this. cf. Gospel of Luke...the practice is already used in WP, so this article should follow suit. Carl.bunderson 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No entry for "Foy Wallace Jr."

"One school of thought called Realized Eschatology places the date of the Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem. Among those who led this idea was Foy Wallace Jr." Let's begin with a sensible entry for this "Foy Wallace Jr." and the school of thought called "Realized Exchatology" before we insert text like this here. --Wetman 05:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

javanaut2001

Removed javanaut2001's subjective entries added Dec 11 & 12 2005, NPOV --User Kazuba/Kazuba 15 Dec 2005


Small NPOV considerations

The wording of the Structure section, specifically the sentences: "As a Gospel writer, he essentially developed the concept of the Trinity...John makes far more direct claims of Jesus being the only Son of God..." could stand to be re-written a little to make it more NPOV. There are quite a few respected translations that don't agree with this notion. I'm not saying a lot of re-writing is needed, just a few words here and there to make the point that it's "commonly held" in most translations but not as universal as the article currently suggests, or something similar. <Oscillate 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)>

Section: The following is not based upon "scholarly" presumptions...

I don't even know where to start with this giant section. I reverted it since it appears to just be personal commentary. --Oscillate 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Redundent sections

There are two sections that over lap, Differences from the Synoptic Gospels and Other characteristics unique to John. Both are bulleted lists. I propose either merging them into one long list, or maybe making two lists, where one is notable features of John, and the other being the differences from the synoptic gospels. Would someone mind giving those lists a once over please? --Andrew c 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Some stuff"? and Bible version

If we're going to outline the contents of this or any other book of scripture, I'd think we could be a bit more specific about them than "some stuff" and "some other stuff." Unless, of course, these are recognized scholarly biblical terms.

Also, in the popular passages section, the first verse is from the King James Version, while the second verse isn't. I couldn't find a Wikipedia policy on which version of the Bible should be used, but it seems that we should use the same version for quotations in a single article.

Thoughts on these issues? JordeeBec 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The same user has inserted the exact same format into all the other gospel articles as well. It is part of an effort to delete all the individual chapter articles and replace them with articles on the bigger topics/events. I guess the reasoning behind this move is that a lot of the content is repeated over and over in each gospel, so the individual chapter articles would be redundent in places where there are double traditions (or more). That said, I agree that "some stuff" is unencyclopedic. Maybe some editors other than me could look over the other gospel articles and see if the recent additions are needed.--Andrew c 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Simplification of the opening graph

The opening paragraphs of the article really distract from the basics that need to be conveyed. It immediately introduced controversies on which there is no consensus, and indeed suggested there is consensus on dating -- which there is not.

The entire article has problems and is loaded to with dating issues that distract fro the theological content. Looking a the evolution of the article over time one can see that this has come to dominate it to the point where the content, context and characteristics, tone, etc are lost and essentially a footnote to the article as a whole. 72.75.50.198 04:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the content comes from Higher criticism which is a large portion of biblical scholarship. Remember, to be NPOV, we need to present all POVs with due weight. Perhaps you are right that there is TOO much of the scholarly view, but what you suggest to be the main point of the article (theological content) is just another POV (that should be included, but not exclusively). That said, I feel like you blanked some important information in the opening. There is nothing wrong with saying scholars agree that it was the fourth gospel to be written. There is nothing wrong with saying John differs theologically from the synoptics. And there is no reason to remove the paragraph on the traditional view. I would like to hear your specific reasoning for doing these things, however I have a strong desire to restore the blanked content.--Andrew c 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "theological content" - do you mean content covering theological issues, or content written from a non-critical POV ? Clinkophonist 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Parables?

Two parables are listed in the events covered in John, but later in the differences with the other Gospels, a difference listed is 'no parables are covered in John'. This should be reconciled in some way (not that I would know the correct statement) TheHYPO 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its due to the article titles. John doesn't treat them as parables, i.e. as short aphorisms, but as long drawn out theological essays. Clinkophonist 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


there are NO parables in John. niether the Good Shepherd nor the True Vine metaphors are small storys that illistrate a larger point. if they were parables, then why arent all the I AM statements parables?

I'm re-adding the link, as it does occur in John, but I'll change the name of it to reflect that it is not a parable. And anon user, since it means so much to you, please take up the issue on the talk page of Parable of the Good Shepherd. Carl.bunderson 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be sure to do that, Carl.

External links in article body

I've removed the following portion: "There are other theories of authorship. One of the most audacious is the claim by Ramon K. Jusino that John was written by Mary Magdalene. "Mary Magdalene, author of the Fourth Gospel?', 1998, available on-line." This doesn't seem to be notable--we should favour formally published work that has actually made an impact--and is probably linkspam. There are other external links remaining in this section that are notable, but they must be enclosed in <ref> tags with a proper citation below, or go in the "External links" section. Crculver (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Audience for the Gospel of John

Edits made to Cana assert that a "majority" (perhaps code for RC) readers find that this text was written to a Jewish audience. The original audience should at least be discussed here; there are some details that need to be explained away. The reliability or lack of it in John's topography should also be addressed.--Wetman (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Differences from the Synoptic Gospels

The current statement, "John places Jesus' clearing of the temple at the outset of his ministry, while the Synoptics place it after the Triumphal Entry, near his death," is inaccurate. That is an assumption made by the reader, not something implied by the Scriptures. Even adding the "However" clause leaves the inital statement in such form as it is considered fact. Thus, you are stating as FACT something that you are ASSUMING, not something which is EXPRESSED.

It is likely that John recorded a separate event than the other three books mention.

From http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/528

"What evidence does a person possess, which would lead him to conclude that Jesus cleansed the temple only once? There is none. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded a temple cleansing late in Jesus’ ministry, much evidence exists to indicate that John recorded an earlier clearing of the temple. It is logical to conclude that the extra details recorded in John 2 are not simply supplemental facts (even though the writers of the gospels did supplement each others’ writings fairly frequently). Rather, the different details recorded by John likely are due to the fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7, which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing."

Again, whether you accept the argument or not, you are stating as fact something that is assumed. Not only does this undermine the Word of God, but it is misleading and lacks objectivity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.132.102.163 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 August 2006.

Your changes to the article are pretty good, however the use of "some" and "others" are weasel words. When I find the time to look up references, I suggest changing "some" to "critical scholars" and "others" to "apologists", and then I'll also properly format both citations.--Andrew c 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown

It's not that it's his religion being stated, but that is part of his credentials. In addition to being a Roman Catholic priest, he was twice on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Catholic scholarship vs. someone who practices Catholicism and is a scholar. Sorry for the confusion, but maybe that bit of information isn't relevent. I was just trying to describe him in more detail, that's all.--Andrew c 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops... I think the link suffices. If people want to know more they can click through. Rtrev 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't mean to get in the way of constructive edits. To explain my edit, we generally don't mention those sorts of things with scholars (I have removed instances where articles said things like "a scholar from Yale" for the same reason: consistency). Also, he is linked. My confusion was over "of the Johannine community". I have only heard that phrase used with the theory that John had a community of followers who, after his death, complied his writing and produced his gospel (a theory I find rather sensible). So I though this alternate usage was confusing. But don't let me get in the way. Lostcaesar 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

See Book of Revelation's talk page because it is the same issue with both links. Also it is best to sign all your posts with "~~~~" (four tildes) which is converted into your signature. Such as the following --> Rtrev 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Audience and 'I am' source

Is there a reason why there is no mention of the audience for this book. I am not a biblical scholar by any means so I would barely know where to start, but that seems like it would be useful information.

Also I believe that the 'I am' sayings are generally considered to be a source that the author used because of how frequently they appear. Particularly interesting is John 8:58: "Truly, truly I tell you, before there was an Abraham, I am!". Contrast this with the name for God in Exodus 3:14 "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM" (AJKV). -Alan Trick 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

John contains parables ?

I have removed the second of these two comments as they directly contradict each other.

"The Gospel of John does not contain any parables, although metaphoric stories (such as John 15) are still found in the gospel. The Gospel of John contains one parable; "The Good Shepherd" (John 10)"

IMO the Good Shepherd passage is not a parable but more a 'metaphoric story' as the existing sentence describes. However if there is evidence that some authorities state that this is a parable then the sentence could be changed to

"The Gospel of John contains only one parable, although metaphoric stories (such as John 15) are still found."

rgds, ||:) johnmark† 09:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a parable and a metaphoric story? It sounds to me like a complex way be getting to say that John doesn't have parables when he does, and probably has more do to with someone's theory than the actual Gospel. Lostcaesar 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Raymond Brown's Into to the NT "In the narrative sequence the metaphorical discourse on the good shepherd (10:1-21), although it has a certain autonomy, is directed to the Pharisees whom Jesus accused of being blind in 9:40-41. This and the description of the vine in 15"1-17 are the closest that John comes to the parables so common in the Synoptics. In John there is a mixture of metaphors offering different ways of looking at the same reality: Jesus is the gate by which the shepherd goes to the sheep, and by which the sheep come into the fold and go out to masturel and Jesus is the model shepherd who both knows his sheep by name and is willing to lay down his life for them." p.348 and he cites a work called "The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context". Then on pages 364-5 "A comparison of the Fouth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences. Peculiarities of John include: ... long discoursed and dialogues rather than parables". And Ehrman's NT "In John, however, Jesus does not speak in parables, nor does he proclaim the imminent appearance of the kingdom. He instead focuses his words on identifying himself as the one sent from God." p. 162 --Andrew c 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds thin to me; I have seen plently of table that list John's parables, and though less than the synoptics they are given as parables nontheless. Lostcaesar 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, part of NPOV is including all relevent POV. We can simply explain the controversy if we can get some reliable citations that call these verses "parables". We could say something like, "critical scholars typically do not consider the metaphorical discourses in John technically the same thing as the "parables" in the synoptics, however some Christian theologians consider them parables." However, what would violate NPOV would be claiming one way or the other whether these things are in fact parables (and maybe they are parables under some definitions and not parables under others)--Andrew c 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it certainly seems like a finer point. I don't think it can really be said that the people who define John's didactic accounts as "parables" are all Christian theologians, or that all critical scholars make a techinical distinction between a "parable" and a "metaphoric story". My contribution here is really to suggest that the article ought to at least explain what the supposed difference between the two is, since it is not at all obvious from the words. And I think you are right to observe that we should perhaps present this as a particular method of analysis (if not point of view), one which need not be thought of as universally accepted. Lostcaesar 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
An ill digested lesson
The Governess. "And now, what is a Parable, Effie?"
Effie (who has got rather muddled). "A Parable? Oh, of course, a Parable is an Earthly story with a Heavenly meaning!"
From Punch, Vol. 103, October 29, 1892

What references claim John contains parables? If it is just Original Research, it should be deleted.75.14.212.250 05:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reference against: Catholic Encyclopedia: Parables: "There are no parables in St. John's Gospel. In the Synoptics Mark has only one peculiar to himself, the seed growing secretly (4:26); he has three which are common to Matthew and Luke: the sower, mustard seed, and wicked husbandman. Two more are found in the same Gospels, the leaven and the lost sheep. Of the rest, eighteen belong to the third and ten to the first Evangelist. Thus we reckon thirty-three in all; but some have raised the number even to sixty, by including proverbial expressions."

just to reiterate what I said before, if the article is going to claim that John has no "parables", but does have "metaphoric stories", then it ought to state what the difference between them is, for I would think to many, and at least to me, it doesn't seem at all clear.Lostcaesar 09:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Parable and Metaphor have their own pages, no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were, here.

And according to the definition of parable on that page, John has parables. Hence the definiton is needed here - must I ask again? Nowhere here has the distinction, as made by the referenced sources, been so much as mentioned. Lostcaesar 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
LC, I gave it a shot. Is the distinction clear? I don't want to bog this list down with a long explanation, but you're right that the modern reader is ill-equipped to see the distinction between parables and metaphoric tales (esp. after centuries of people treating Jesus' parables as metaphoric tales). I could expand on this (and might should do so on the Parables page). Jonathan Tweet 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably getting too technical, but I'll take a shot at it. John 10:1-6 is generally considered the closest John gets to a parable, in fact the UBS Greek NT calls it the "Parable of the Sheepfold", but that largely assumes it was once a separate saying of Jesus that John incorporated into his gospel. John 10:6 calls it a "figure of speech", see also [2]. But then, John 10:7: "Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep." That's no longer a parable (a fictitious tale), it has become a metaphor. The Scholars Version notes for v.10:8 :All who came before me: The allegorical meaning of aspects of the Good Shepherd metaphor like this (and, for example, the hired hand or the wolf in v.12) was undoubtedly apparent to this gospel's original audience but probably a matter of guesswork for later readers. They may refer either to the Jewish leaders in conflict with the Christians to whom this gospel is addressed or, just possibly, to some conflict among Christian leaders, as in 1 John." 75.15.203.141 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

differences from synoptics

Please help me figure out how to include this information on this page.

Secular Academic Analysis
Over a hundred scholars contributing to the Jesus Seminar concluded that most sayings attributed to Jesus in John are inauthentic, not having been said by Jesus, nor reflecting his ideas.[3].

Jonathan Tweet 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At Rtrev's request, I ran this by the talk page. Seeing no objections after a week, I put a new version of this section in the article. It is only fair that the secular reader be advised that secular historians often regard John's protrayal of Jesus as inauthentic. This article isn't "Christian views of the Gospel of John." It needs to serve both the faithful Christians and the godless whoremongering lackeys in Satan's doomed army (like me, apparently). Jonathan Tweet 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the new version to which I referred. I added it, but it was deleted without explanation, other than that I had not gotten anyone's buy-off. This is the second time that someone has deleted my addition to this page without explaining what was wrong with it. The first time was when I posted the above quote.

===Critical scholarship on the differences between John and the synoptics=== Critical scholars have often concluded that, unlike the synoptics, the gospel of John almost entirely inauthentic in its portrayal Jesus. This view was nearly universal among critical scholars in the 19th century (see Authorship of Johannine works). It continues today, as reflected in the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar [4].

May I add this text in place of the text quoted above?

Having heard no objections, I reposted the material that another editor had deleted. Jonathan Tweet 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections and subsections

Current outline (excerpt)

  • 8 Differences from the Synoptic Gospels
  • 8.1 Critical scholarship on the differences between John and the synoptics
  • 9 Characteristics of the Gospel of John
  • 9.1 Other characteristics unique to John

By my reading, "8. Differences" is properly a subsection of "9. Characteristics." Anyone want to move 8 under 9, or should I? Jonathan Tweet 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, I rearranged the sections as above. Jonathan Tweet 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

content summary

This article could use a content summary. The "events covered" section is sort of like that, except that it's undigested. A one-paragraph summary of the content of the gospel would address the central topic of this page: the gospel of John itself. Material that would serve well in such a summary is currently spread throughout the article. Jonathan Tweet 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Other characteristics unique to John

"Mary Magdalene visits the empty tomb twice. She believes Jesus' body has been stolen. The second time she sees two angels. They do not tell her Jesus is risen. They only ask why she is crying. Mary mistakes Jesus for the gardener. He tells Mary not to touch or cling to him. (John 20:17). That very evening, in the same chapter (John 20:28), Jesus asks Thomas to touch him and to place his fingers and hand in Jesus' still open wounds. At the sight of Jesus, Thomas gives an exclamation of faith but if he follows Jesus' direction, it is not in the text."

I just wanted to say that this part of the article is wrong since the event with Thomas did not happen that very night. When Jesus appeared to the disciples that night Thomas wasn't there... as is stated in John 20:24... I suggest you read John 20:19-29 for you to see the whole picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.244.196 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 November 2006.

Authorship edits

I believe the most recent edit, that put 7 external links in 7 different ref tags, was an edit intended to disrupt wikipedia to make a point (see WP:POINT). I believe the reason for this is because I tagged 3 things as needing a citation. This wasn't me being skeptical, or being a jerk, but me trying to keep wikipedia up to a specific standard. Any time you add ANY new information, it is ALWAYS a good idea to add a citation to a reliable source. This makes wikipedia verifiable, and can help avert any problems that may arise in the future. Please also see Template:cn. The citation needed tag is used for a specific purpose, while there are other tags (such as template:verify source) used for other purposes. I wasn't saying the new content was wrong or inaccurate, simply that it would only make wikipedia better if we had references to back up these claims. I did not mean to offend. Now, lets examine the 3 tags I placed on the article. The first tag was placed after the "Christian scholars" says x claim. Who are these Christian scholars? One simple citation could clear this up. Otherwise, it is weasely. The second tag could probably be covered in the same reference for the first tag, but I added it just to make it clear that both claims (not just the first) would benefit from a citation. The third tag is after "Critics point out". Who are these critics? Once again, probably one citation would suffice. If we are saying that "someone says x" we need to say who these someones are. That's all this is about. Finally, when the citations are added, if they are web links, could you please format them using template:cite web or Magnus' makeRef tool. Thanks.--Andrew c 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian scholars

What's all this about Christian and non-Christian scholars? Are all Christian scholars bound to take a single view? Aer the non-Christian ones Buddhists, Muslims, or what? Sounds odd. PiCo

I agree that Christian is a poor word choice. Maybe we should adopt the language used in one of the other gospel articles. Such as "traditional view" or even "a minority of scholars".-Andrew c 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to start dividing scholarly opinion - how many does it take to make a majority, does one scholar constitute a minority? Even the phrase 'traditional view" can be problematic, although less so than "Christan/non-Christian." Probably better just to cite scholars for various note-worthy points. The source noted in fn 3, for example, in the section on authorship, turns out to have been written in 1963 by a professor of New Testament at the Uni of Chicago, and I'd have no difficulty accepting that as an authority - but why not just say: "The author (of John), traditionally the "beloved disciple" John the son of Zebedee, was probably a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus who wrote his gospel around the time of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70," with a footnote identifying the source? (I'd be a bit cautious about a source dating from 1963, though - I'd prefer the most recent writings we can find). PiCo 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a problem we encounter on many NT related pages. If we simply cite scholars, we could end up with situatiosn like "E. P. Sanders argues for a Jesus who was an apocolyptic prophet like John the Baptist, while Earl Doherty argues for a completely mythical Jesus." In this case, stating what each scholar believes puts their claims on equal footing, when this is actually giving undue weight to the mythist position. Similarly, there is a consensus view of mainstream scholars (scholars who teach at secular universities and moderate to liberal religious schools, people with post-graduate degrees who publish in top journals in their field, etc) on most matters (synoptic problem solution, dating and other issues of higher criticism). However, because these historical issues effect some peoples theology, there is a minority of scholars (usually associated with the more conservative religious institutions and colleges) who argue minority positions when it comes matters of higher criticism. Their scholarship is normally in line with the traditional views of the Church (such as the apostles actually being the authors of the NT books, Matthean/Aramaic primacy, early dates for the gospels, etc). These views are notable, but among scholarship, they are a minority. So how do we go about describing this seeming dichotomy? Liberal/conservative? Critical/traditional? Majority/minority? Calling this view Christian is not appropriate because many, many mainstream scholars (like John P. Meier, N.T. Wright, Raymond E. Brown just to name three) are Christian, so I completely agree that the article needs to change.-Andrew c 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. Taking the passage I gave above (simply because it was the first I came across), how about a formulation along these lines: "Although the traditional authorship by the beloved disciple is still held by some, the majority of scholarly opinion believes that etc etc." This assumes, of course, that one opinion is held by a majority of scholars - which might be difficult to demonstrate. Otherwisew, if there must be a type-casting, I think I'd rather describe opinions than scholars - "the traditional opinion", "modern opinion," whatever fits the individual case. Regrettably I can't really do much myself as I don't know the subject (although ignorance seems to be no handicap in most wiki-biblical articles). Incidentally, if Raymond Brown really does represent the scholarly consensus, as the last para of the section on authoprship suggests, he really should be placed much higher up in the section. PiCo 10:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown wrote a fairly comprehensive introductory text to the NT, and discusses various issues involved with each book. He states what most scholars agree upon, and he states his personal opinion as well. His view that John was written in 3 stages is supported by other scholars, but isn't necessarily a majority view. When he states that most scholars argue for a date of John c. 85, plus or minus 5 or 10 years, then he is trying to represent scholarship in general. I will review the references and see if he is talking about a majority view or just his own opinion.-Andrew c 13:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You people probably already know, but of course Raymond E. Brown is most famous for his Commentary on the Gospel of John.75.0.2.20 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"According to Trinitarianism, (see also Trinitarianism— Scripture and tradition[2]), of the four gospels, John presents the highest christology, implicitly declaring Jesus to be God." How do you 'implicitely declare' something? A declaration is by definition explicit. PiCo 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources section

I tried to tighten up the first para of this section without changing the sense or deleting anything important (although I did delete some material which seemed to me to be unnecessary). Someone should check what I did in case I inadvertently made a major change.

The other 2 paras, in my opinion, should be deleted. They aer:

  • 1. Further arguments that Jesus was also known as a "Divine Man, Wonder-worker (One who is favored by the Gods), or even a Sorcerer" in the late 3rd and 4th centuries have also been given as an explanation of artistic representations of Jesus with a magic wand. Since these representations exist only in the Western part of the Roman Empire, it has been suggested that this has a relation with Arianism. Peter is the only apostle portrayed in early Christian art who also carries a wand. These wands or staffs are thought to be symbols of power. This art, since its discovery, has not been kept secret.
  • 2. The mysterious Egerton Gospel appears to represent a parallel but independent tradition to the Gospel of John. According to scholar Ronald Cameron, it was originally composed some time between the middle of the first century and early in the second century, and it was probably written shortly before the Gospel of John [16]. Robert W. Funk, et al, places the Egerton fragments in the 2nd century, perhaps as early as 125 AD, which would make it as old as the oldest fragments of John [17].

The first is unreferenced and both of them have no obvious connection with the sources of the John gospel. PiCo 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree about the second para. The Egerton gospel is definitely worth mentioning in the article given its apparent closeness to the Johannine tradition. Grover cleveland 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The section is about sources for John, and although I belieev Egerton has been suggested as a source, the real interest and relevance is the closeness, as you yourself say. I would certainly mention Egerton in the article, but I'm not sure it belongs under 'sources'. PiCo 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the para about artistic representations as it seems to me unrelated both the the article and to this section. The Egerton para is relevant to the article but the relevance needs to be made more explicit IMO. PiCo 05:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Amalgamated two sections

I took the "Structure" section and joined it with the "Content" section, as the two seem to belong together logically. No changes to either beyond some style edits. PiCo 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also joined two sections that both covered sources. Deleted a para from the "Sources" section (see above), nothing touched in the "Treatment of sources" section - but I feel that a fair amount of material in that second part is really about theology (John's view of the Logos) rather than sources, and should have its own section.PiCo 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

unbalaned tag

I added a sentence to the "unbalanced" section on John's distinctive characteristics. Is it "balanced" now? Jonathan Tweet 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence doesn't seem accurate and isn't cited. The user didn't bring their concern to talk, so I'm going to remove the tag and your sentence. The section is about critical scholarship. This isn't a debate so there isn't a need for rebuttle. (other section are for other POV. we don't have critical scholars commenting on every other section, so why should theological views matter in the critical section?)-Andrew c 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I like the section better without my addition. You caught me pandering. Jonathan Tweet 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I come off with a stern tone over the internet, when I don't mean for it. Sorry if my comment was a little harsh. A lot of your recent edits (at least the ones that I've seen from my watchlist) are quite helpful. Your intention to fix the "unbalanced" tag was obviously well off, but I personally do not see why that section is unbalanced to begin with (and the user who tagged the page didn't bring the concerns here, so we can only guess why). Anyway, carry on.-Andrew c 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, really, you came off fine. And thanks for the "helpful" remark. Jonathan Tweet 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Lead, authorship, and revert

I thought long and hard before reverting LoveMonkey's last edits to the lead. There is no reason for such a detailed discussion on authorship in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD to find out more what the lead section should look like. So my first thought was to move this information to the authorship section, however, on viewing the authorship section, all of the main points are already covered (regarding the date, regarding the Church Fathers, regarding possibly authors). I'd ask LoveMonkey to please read the authorship section and consider revising, expanding that existing section, and to keep in mind what a LEAD is used for. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Long and hard for about 15 minutes and that's if you where waiting on the page and happened to see the edit right after it was made.[5]. If so why not contact me first? Before removing the content wholesale. Also this nonsense of you thinking long and hard about deleting content that you state is already in the article. Well at the very least Hill's work should be included because it addressed Pagels work and shows how incorrect that work is. It also happens to be current. I was under the impression that the more sourced, scholarly and current the content the better. Here's just one example-[6] And here Professor Hill starts the process of showing your buddie Walter Bauer to be wrong on many of his "tenets". [7] LoveMonkey 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of text, please

I have temporarily removed the following: Others scholars (myself included) think such a group called the Alogi where really just one person Gaius of Rome and the group had no real existence but was constructed out of various criticisms of the Johannine literature which Epiphanius knew. As far as we know, neither Gaius of Rome, nor the people mentioned by Dionysius attributed the Gospel to Cerinthus, only the Book of Revelation. In any case, if there was any attribution of the Gospel to Cerinthus, it was likely not based on any earlier tradition but was made up in the early third century by those who wanted to ascribe the Book of Revelation to him. This fact shows also that the Gospel of John and Revelation were considered so strongly to have come from the same author that, to attribute one to a particular author meant one must attribute the other to the same author. Neither Irenaeus, nor Dionysius, nor Eusebius informs us of any within the orthodox tradition who denied the Gospel to the apostle.

Is this a quote from Hill? it uses the first person which should be avoided unless in a quote and has a few grammatical errors.-Andrew c 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's from an email I got from him today. Email him if you wish to varify it. I think that I am really getting too sick and tired of the underhanded and unethical things that you are doing. I think I am getting to the point of where I am beginning to agree with these various people I have consulted that you are an excellent example of why they as scholars will not touch wikipedia. You just reverted out an actual comment made by the scholar to me in written correspondence. LoveMonkey 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use the text of an unpublished e-mail as a source on wikipedia. I am honestly trying my best to work with you, but it seems like a lot of where we are butting heads is on basic policy points. An e-mail is not verifiable, and does not meet wikipedia's reliable source requirements. I really do not see why you believe anything I have done is unethical, but I urge you to keep your personal comments about me out of article talk pages. If you need to address me personally, feel free to contact me on my talk page.-Andrew c 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unethical because he sourced his own comment in his own book before you revert it. You have a problem and this is a perfect example he stated clearly from his book and the chapter named in the source and you removed it. I hadn't even had it post for 10 minutes and you removed it. The source is his book. There definitely needs to be something done. Wikipedia is very corrupt and this is an excellent example. LoveMonkey 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that last comment is hard to follow. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are upset that I removed "Chapter 1"? You had posted a citation for the first Hill sentence, which is a good start, but according to WP:CS: Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. So I edited the citation to note that the page number was missing. You removed a fact tag (a request for a page number) without supplying the requisite page number, so I restored my fact tag. Could you please supply a page number for when you reference material founds in books? If you are citing the book in the first place, it is likely that you have the book in front of you, or have access to the book, so asking for a page number is not an unreasonable request, especially when the citing sources guidelines specify that it "must be included." I please understand that this was done in good faith and in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for understanding.-Andrew c 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It can also be searched online at Amazon. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c, as you quoted the guideline above, "Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article." No specific quotation or passage is mentioned where you added the request for a page number, and elsewhere, where there is a specific page, I added it. Further, the guideline you quote above seems to apply to Harvard referencing, not to the citation style used here. And again, the text is searchable online at Amazon. You might go and look, and then add the page number you want. Tom Harrison Talk 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof for supplying a source is on those wanting to include the content. Furthermore, Amazon restricts page views. What if I don't find the content after I've already viewed 3 pages? Next does Hill make the claim that authorship can be ascribed to John the Evangelist? If so, what page does he make this claim? I don't know why this has turned into a big deal. Just add the page or pages where Hill says this. Simple enough, right? Thanks for understanding!-Andrew c 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, "Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article." No specific quotation or passage is mentioned where you added the request for a page number. Tom Harrison Talk 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please supply a page number, simply for the sake of satisfying me? To me, there is no way for a reader to easily verify that Hill holds this position. IF Hill makes the claim that John the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of John, then there must be a passage in his book where he makes this claim; ergo, there must be a specific passage we are referring to when we state in the article that Hill holds a position found in his book. SO pretty please, could you or LoveMonkey please add a page number(s) to where someone could open up Hill's book to find Hill making the claim about John's authorship. Thanks.-Andrew c 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the burden is with Andrew c. What Professor Hill was pointing out is : no where does either of the mentioned sources in the article state (Epiphanius or Dionysius) that the Gospel of John is attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus. For the record Professor Hill was also pointing out that in his chapter Gaius of Rome and the Johannine Controversy in the book already mentioned that to use alogi is incorrect since such a group (other then this one mention of them) appear to never have existed and that it was just a guise for Gaius of Rome. Andrew blanket deleted these comments without even paying attention to what was actually being said. As for specific page numbers there is no need because no were in the period that his book is covering does anyone of that time period mention that the Gospel of John was written by the alogi or Gaius or whomever. The only mention is that the book of Revelations was authored possibly by someone other then John. The wording of the article is misleading implying that because the authorship of the Book of Revelations is under question so to must be the Gospel of John. It's bad logic and OR speculation or whatever and does not belong in the article. But since I can not remove content (thanks to Andrew c's continuing revert and edit warring on my contributions) I was working with what I had to leave it and possible correct it. Now take that into perceptive and read what Andrew's edit did to the article. LoveMonkey 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS since when has an argument from silence been a valid excuse to add any speculation into an encyclopedia article? LoveMonkey 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Andrew c. The claim that Charles E. Hill argues that because early church fathers mention the text, it can be valid to ascribe authorship to John the Evangelist is a "paraphrase" of "a specific passage of a book or article", and therefore needs a page number. Without such a page number it is impossible for other editors to verify the citation. The Hill work is available in limited preview on Google Books and I tried running a few searches there with terms like "gospel" and "author" but I couldn't find any passage that made this argument. Please add a page reference, otherwise the entire claim should be removed from the article. Whoever originally added the claim must have access to the book (electronically or otherwise) so it can't be that difficult! Thanks. Grover cleveland 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is not a quote from the book but one of the points contained in an entire section or chapter or of the book then why would you request a quote or post a page number? Here is an article on this issue [8]. LoveMonkey 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And just before any other editors get in here and try to tell the admin that Andrew does not have a problem. Here is a quote from the article link I just posted. It is what I based my other sets of comments that Andrew c deleted. Regarding the evidence that John was used between AD 90 and 130, Oxford University Press has recently published a volume entitled The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, in which the author, Charles Hill, credibly contends for the probable use of uniquely Johannine gospel material in several works which date from this period. These works and writers include Ignatius in Asia Minor (c.107); Polycarp in Smyrna (c.107); Papias’ elders in Asia Minor (c.110-120); the Longer Ending of Mark (c.110-130); and Papias’ Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles in Hierapolis (c.120-132). In addition there are several other works which quote material that overlaps between John and another gospel or which might be alluding to Johannine gospel material but are vague enough to preclude a judgment of probable dependence upon John. Thus, while we cannot fault Pagels for failing to consider a book that was published after her own, she still seems to be engaging in a bit of sleight-of-hand when she tells her readers that the first generation of John’s readers “disagreed about whether John’s gospel was a true gospel or a false one”. LoveMonkey 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, if your quote is based on a web article rather than on your own reading of the book, you must cite the article not the book. Please see WP:REF: It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.. Grover cleveland 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I used both the article and the book. I think the book is more credible. LoveMonkey 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you used the book, then there must be one or more passages in the book where you found Hill making the argument and where other editors can go to verify that he makes the argument. Please supply them. Thanks. Grover cleveland 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any Further

Please clarify why we are now talking about if Charles Hill said that St John wrote the gospel of John and we are all of the sudden avoiding that Andrew c edited out comments that had to do with another subject all together? Can someone explain that please? Why it is OK to blanket edit out corrects to an article that where suggested by a scholar? Are the edits wrong can Andrew c show where the Gospel of John by the listed sources was attributed to someone else in that era? I bet he can't so why is he still doing his nonsense after he has been told to stop by an administrator? Under the guise that an email message from the scholar is not a valid source when the email was doing nothing but reaffirming what the scholars point was made in his book which was completely removed as a source from the article[9]? Why is it OK to remove sourced information including the book and the scholars name and work and information from the article? Please post why that was OK and then after that nonsense to remain obstain about providing a page number? Why now are we having to post entire sections of books or chapters in order to give a synopsis to a scholars work? LoveMonkey 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your tone is simply not appropriate. I will not respond to you when all you do is hurl accusations towards me. Please calm down, remain civil, and assume good faith.-Andrew c 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he is annoyed at what he sees as dilatory demands for a page number when the citation is not to a specific quotation or passage, but to the whole book. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
LoveMonkey is attributing specific arguments to Hill based on the book. There must be specific passages in the book where Hill makes these arguments. Even if they are the argument of "the entire book" there must be at least one passage in the book (e.g. its conclusion, introduction, etc.) where other editors can go to verify that Hill does indeed make these arguments. If LoveMonkey is attributing these arguments to Hill based on a review in another publication (such as the link to Reformed Perspectives magazine that he gives above) then per WP:REF he must cite the review, not the book. To attribute a specific argument to a book but refuse to give a more specific reference, even when challenged by others, goes against the entire purpose of the Wikipedia's core Attribution and Verifiability principles. Grover cleveland 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Regardless how dumb you think my request is, there is no excuse for incivility. Ever. You should know better. Even if I am in the wrong, that doesn't mean I should be singled out in the manner in which LoveMonkey did. That said, I just used up my 3 free pages on amazon.com trying to find a page for the claim. I didn't find the claim, but I found somethings. Please see my latest revision. -Andrew c 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting words in people's mouths. No one stated "dumb". As for the request once again I am not quoting him only giving reference to a synopsis of his work. No one is justified in removing him nor his book from this article since my synopsis includes conclusions about large sections of the book. This is not wikipedia policy. As the administrator Tom has already pointed out. And none of this justifies what Andrew c in his defiance, has already done. LoveMonkey 23:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Having at least one specific reference (e.g. a page number) to a clear statement of a particular claim seems like a good idea.
I largely edit articles on development issues, where relatively few sources have been cited - I wish people got as serious about sources there as they do here, as it would improve those articles a lot :). --Chriswaterguy talk 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's OK to reference a whole book provided that the book is clearly titled in a way that indicates that the thesis of the book is roughly equivalent to the assertion. Otherwise, one should cite the chapter(s) where the assertion is made. Citatinof specific page numbers is not always appropriate.
For example, one could imagine referencing a book whose thesis is that John Kennedy was assassinated by the Mafia. A specific page reference shouldn't be necessary there. However, if the book is a biography of JFK and the assertion is that JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, a specific page reference is probably required.
--Richard 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

questionable edits

Now Andrew c's latest edit makes an extreme of statements that are inconsistent with what Professor Hill is saying-Here is what Professor Hill stated to me.

"Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus."

But this neglects the fact that many scholars who have written on this issue believe that "Alogi" was a name made up by Epiphanius for a single individual, Gaius of Rome. Others (myself included) think such a group had no real existence but was constructed out of various criticisms of the Johannine literature which Epiphanius knew (I have a chapter on this, "Gaius of Rome and the Johannine Controversy," in my book, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church). As far as we know, neither Gaius of Rome, nor the people mentioned by Dionysius attributed the Gospel to Cerinthus, only the Book of Revelation. In any case, if there was any attribution of the Gospel to Cerinthus, it was likely not based on any earlier tradition but was made up in the early third century by those who wanted to ascribe the Book of Revelation to him. This fact shows also that the Gospel of John and Revelation were considered so strongly to have come from the same author that, to attribute one to a particular author meant one must attribute the other to the same author. Neither Irenaeus, nor Dionysius, nor Eusebius informs us of any within the orthodox tradition who denied the Gospel to the apostle.

With this now note what ended up in the article thanks to Andrew c.

LoveMonkey 06:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. Thanks to Andrew c we at long last actually have a definite page reference to Hill's book. If you think that the description of Hill's published work in the article is incorrect, then please explain in detail with reference to the actual page (473) of the book which you can find on Amazon.com. As has been pointed out above, what Hill may or may not have written in a private email to you is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia: we are only interested in published reliable sources. Grover cleveland 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, ignore for a second that a) I'm citing the book directly which you refused to do and b) a personal correspondence, even with the author, is not a reliable source to wikipedia standards, how are my changes inconsistent with the e-mail? I'd also like you to read page 473 and tell me if I got that wrong. I tried hard to be accurate and represent the source. If I made a mistake, please say what it is and we can easily fix it. My edit was entirely in good faith. So I am confused what the inconsistency is. I am further confused because I do not see my edit as conflicting with Hill's e-mail to you either. Note, I did not edit the sentence which is Hill's rebuttal to the Alogi stuff (the last sentence of that paragraph), which is still in the article, and with which the quoted e-mail is discussing. -Andrew c 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me jumping in at the end of a long discussion where I may be missing some important point, but surely if you add material without a page reference because you are summarising an entire chapter or even the entire book, does that not come under [WP:NOR]? Interestingly, that policy refers clearly to not synthesising from two works - does anyone know the official position on producing a personal synthesis from a large section of a single work? Rbreen 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless the author is a post-modernist ;) or just a poor writer, this shouldn't be an issue. Topic sentences, introductory paragraphs, and conclusions are basic elements of English writing. For example, the page that I found from Hill's book was from his final chapter, the conclusion. I do not believe paraphrasing, or even making something more concise is "original research" because taken to the extreme then we'd simply have to quote all of our sources. When it comes to scholarly, published work, I cannot think of an example where the thesis and general ideas of the entire work are not already presented somewhere (usually in an introduction or conclusion). The thing that I didn't understand is, how could the entire book be about how John the Apostle was the actual author of the Gospel of John without Hill saying so much anywhere in the book. You see where I was coming from?-Andrew c 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please anyone can go to my talkpage and see your personal attacks on how I misuse the minor edit feature for a start- when was the last time I deleted your edits sourced or note let alone several of your articles? LoveMonkey 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, the phrase "several of your articles" suggests that articles "belong" to people as in "my" article vs. "your" article. You might do well to read WP:OWN. --Richard 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

unethical distortion

Currently Andrew c edit reads in the article. "Hill says at that time the Gospel of John was never attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus - that Eusebius of Caesarea and Dionysius of Alexandria never state in any of there works that the Gospel of John was written by the Alogi or Cerinthus.[15]" This is not what Professor Hill stated (read my above and original post) as is but one of my complaints all along. Since Andrew c will, which is wrong and unethical, delete improperly edit and revert and wholesale censure any addition to article as the article history shows you grover for defending and frustrating this means you are coupable in Andrew c's behavior you are enabling. LoveMonkey 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As is apparent when one reads

Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3:

This, then, is what the Alogi allege, for I place this eponym upon them. For from now on so will they be called, and so, beloved, let us place this name upon them, that is, Alogi, for it befits the heresy to be so called which casts away the books of John. Since, therefore, they do not receive the logos which has been preached by John, they will be called Alogi. These men of another [persuasion], therefore, altogether shrinking from the preaching of truth, deny the purity of the preaching and receive neither the gospel of John nor his Apocalypse. And if they at least received the gospel, and cast away the Apocalypse only, we would say, lest they be doing this in the interests of accuracy and of not receiving an apocryphon, that it was on account that things in the Apocalypse are so deeply and darkly spoken. But, since they do not receive in principle the books preached by the holy John, may it be clear to everyone that these men are also the same as those concerning whom the holy John in the catholic epistles said: It is the last hour, and you heard that the antichrist is coming, and now behold, there are many antichrists, and the rest. For these men make excuses, ashamed to speak against the holy John on account that they see that even he is among the number of the apostles, and beloved by the Lord, who worthily revealed the mysteries to him, and he reclined upon his breast. And they try to overturn these [books] in another way, for they say that they are not of John, but of Cerinthus, and they say that they are not worthy to be in the church.

Once again Andrew c is being unethical in his edits to the subtlety of Professor Hills actual message and of course this comes from trying to make a soundbit out of a large body of work and therefore destroying the contextualized synopsis Professor Hill provided me in his email. As for Andrew c's real objective I can only guess why he has fought so hard to keep Professor Hill's work first out of the article [10] And now completely distorting and improperly wording what Professor Hill is actually saying to greatly discredit the man. LoveMonkey 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My original edit.

Professor Charles E Hill notes however in "Gaius of Rome and the Johannine Controversy," in his book, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church that the Gospel of John was never attributed to the Alogi or Cerinthus. Others scholars (myself included) think such a group called the Alogi where really just one person Gaius of Rome and the group had no real existence but was constructed out of various criticisms of the Johannine literature which Epiphanius knew. As far as we know, neither Gaius of Rome, nor the people mentioned by Dionysius attributed the Gospel to Cerinthus, only the Book of Revelation. In any case, if there was any attribution of the Gospel to Cerinthus, it was likely not based on any earlier tradition but was made up in the early third century by those who wanted to ascribe the Book of Revelation to him. This fact shows also that the Gospel of John and Revelation were considered so strongly to have come from the same author that, to attribute one to a particular author meant one must attribute the other to the same author. Neither Irenaeus, nor Dionysius, nor Eusebius informs us of any within the orthodox tradition who denied the Gospel to the apostle.

What Andrew c 3dited it into that Eusebius of Caesarea and Dionysius of Alexandria never state in any of there works that the Gospel of John was written by the Alogi or Cerinthus.[15]"

Anyone can read the actual passage of Eusebius and see that he stated a group named alogi is stated as having attributed the gospel and revelations to Cerinthus. Professor Hill is completely misrepresented by what Andrew c did to my original post. The point is there is no proof that this group called alogi ever existed outside of the passages in Eusebius and since we can't ask the works of the alogi what they really believed because there are no actual works of theirs in existence then there is no consensus to be draw from Eusebius' rumor or statement. This about the alogi, to be contextual Eusebius' remark must addressed and properly clarified. Again note the importants in subtley to Professor Hills end statement "Neither Irenaeus, nor Dionysius, nor Eusebius informs us of any within the orthodox tradition who denied the Gospel to the apostle." Eusebius is not contridicting himself he is statingvthat only ONE group the alogi directly deny that John wrote the gospelmand the group really doesn't dxist. This is a far cry from saying that the alogi did not attribute he gospel of john to Cerinthus. Since Eusebius states otherwise. LoveMonkey 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop making personal attacks on me. I am highly confused because you state that the quoted text is "my edit" but when we review the page history, you are the one who introduced the text in the article. Except for the word "and" and the "ever" being changed to "never", the text that you introduced still stands in the article. So I have to say that I really have no idea what you are talking about, and you really need to just relax, use a more friendly tone, and stop making personal attacks on me and being uncivil.-Andrew c 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Still can't admit you should not have completely removed the reference to Professor Hills work from the article in the first place. Still can't admit that you should have moved it instead, still can't admit that you should have never touch my wording. Still can't admit even now with the page number you posted in the article that it does not say nor did Professor Hill say that the alogi did not attribute the gospel of John to Cerinthus. (I even made the mistake early on to see if you were actually reading what was being said , but you missed it because you have an agenda in the way). Still can't admit you don't know anything about Hill or his work let alone enough to be distorting other people comments on it. No you would rather argue over getting page numbers for summaries. No you will instead dodge the point and try to point the issue somewhere else. Take responsibility you should not be tampering with my contributions. You should not be deleting them, editing them, you should leave them ALONE. LoveMonkey 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Your contributions may be edited by others to improve article quality, just as you may edit anyone else's contributions for the same reason. You do not "own" this article: you do not even own the parts that you contributed. You may have studied Professor Hill's work, you may even be a friend of his -- it makes no difference: on Wikipedia you must back up all your points with references (including page numbers!) that can be verified by other contributors. If you don't do this other editors can and will question what you say. Please keep this in mind in future. Thanks! Grover cleveland 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grover wikipedia is a collaborative effort not an excuse to project on people. Nor it is an excuse to distort the works of scholars under the guise of collaboration or concensus. This after blanket deleting the current work I submitted on the subject of the article. Nor is it an forum to ignore when people do that and then lay onto the opposing party ridiculous accusation of trying to own a wikipedia article which they have been edited out of contributing sourced information in the past. Please keep in mind in the future that wiki policy does not require me to post page numbers in sourcing when I am not quoting a source. Please remember this has been repeatedly pointed out by Tom the admin on here and you seem to want to be read and or heard but don't seem to want to read and listen. Andrew c has been and done repeatedly wrong things and he is the one acting as if he owns the article by him deciding what sourced information can and can not be added to the article. The history of the article page shows this regardless of how many diversionary comments anyone posts. As my comments are now a matter of record so are yours. LoveMonkey 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say, when using Harvard inline references, you need a page number for quotes and specific passages according to WP:CITE. But we aren't using Harvard style. I want to point LoveMonkey and Tom's attention to the Full Citation section: All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used.... Page numbers are essential whenever possible. I do not know why you are accusing me of wrong things. So please, stop accusing me of bad faith editing. Please, let's focus less on me and your personal issues with me. Anyway, I think the article is in a decent state now. So are there any outstanding issues in the article currently? (I can think of one, see my p. 204 post below). Can we move on past the accusations of OWN and bad faith and discuss article content?-Andrew c 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More distortion

Now Andrew c has not only decided what content, even when it's sourced, can be added to the article and then he has decided how to reword the contribution once he forced to accept it. Into something inaccurate, that can cause professional person it's attributed to loose respect in their fields, by put obvious fallacies on wikipedia and then sourcing the fallacy to them. Andrew c now has decide to totally misrepresent policy. Tell me were in the example, page numbers are given below? From the policy that Andrew is quoting?

Full citations All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. They may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates.

Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Page numbers are essential whenever possible. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, and the date you retrieved it if it is online.

For a book: in the case of two authors, this might be:

Author, A. (2005a). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4
Author, A. (2005b). More Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4 For an article: in the case of (Traynor 2005) or (The Guardian, December 17, 2005), this might be:

Traynor, I. "Judge tells Ankara to decide on fate of leading author", The Guardian, December 17, 2005.
It is crucial that complete references be provided for each distinct edition referred to (or cited) in the article, and that each such in-line citation provide enough information to distinguish between editions.

The examples used in the policy don't even include page numbers. It states Page numbers are essential whenever possible. So why one is Andrew c sourcing page 204 when it does not validate what his distortion to my original post stated. Two why is he asking for me to source (his distortion) and or a contribution that is an overview and a un-quote which makes it essentially not possible to provide a specific page? Three why is it that several posters have come on here and support Andrew c blanket deletion of the scholarly contribution. Then his purposely rewording of my contribution which then is completely incorrect (again about a source he knows nothing about and is depicting). Why is he being given free reign and Grover and other random posters are ignoring the fact that he distorted and essential discredited a scholar by attributing to them blatantly inaccurate info and a summary of their position and work? Why are people not reprimanding him for this instead of making excuses. There will come a time when wikipedia will be completely disregarded because people did not listen when the opportunity was alloted them, by the whistle blowers,to do the thing rather then have consensus or PC content. Why did no one change his distortion even after I pointed out and then I had to do it after it had been posted for days? Even then I had tried to correct this before now and my contributions where either removed or distorted by him in other articles (see History of christianity and Early Christianity). But this tactic is ethical and OK and we should just move on and get over it now that is the at least third if not fifth or sixth time? DO you really think that scholars want to have to argue like this to have peer reviewed work posted on wikipedia? That they have the time? The patient to try and defeat such under handed and unethical conduct? I mean who needs it? Wikipedia is becoming a click. Where who you know gets your info posted not valid sourcing and most definitely not the truth. Do you really think that Professor Hill is the only person I have contacted on the many articles I have written or contributed to on wikipedia? Do you editors even care? Go look at the nightmare I went through to post A. H. Armstrong's introduction to his translation on Plotinus Against the gnostics in the Plotinus' talkpage. It took a member of the Neoplatonic international society member (ZeusBrain or noos whatever) to come on tell another editor that no Plotinus knew what a gnostic was and he knew what a christian was. And no Plotinus was not an idiot. But A H Armstrong was trash by other wikipedia editors I created two complete articles on the sources I had. And yet I was not allowed to add or contribute to the article until I had the consensus of another editor who hadn't even read Plotinus let alone could post any neoplatonic sources. But this is being noted. LoveMonkey 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

p. 204

The end of the paragraph citation to Hill (the text that was recently changed) is referencing page 204. However, in the Amazon preview, that page is talking about Gaius, and how it isn't clear whether he accepted John or not, but "without doubt" Gaius did not associate John with being gnostic or docetic. Can someone with full access to the book find the proper page number? Thanks.-Andrew c 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Except for the first paragraph, I think this entire section sounds like someone's conjecture. What criteria determines if a passage is "popular?" Further, what about passages like:

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." - John 8:7

"The truth will set you free." - John 8:32

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.48.229 (talk • contribs)

I think there's a problem with quoting "popular passages" from a gospel since there are so many popular passages in any of the four canonical gospel. As you say, it's original research for any editor to say "these are the popular passages" but those are not.
We could remove the section altogether and migrate the first paragraph to another part of the article. I will await further input from other editors before proceeding.
--Richard 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I like material such as this. WP isn't just a technical resource. These quotes in particular help casual readers make a connection to the text. An everyday Christian (and probably the typical English-language WP reader) has heard "The truth will set you free." Pointing out that this line comes from John helps the reader connect the dots. We're already weighing the topic down with partisan struggles over the religious implications of the text. Can't we just make the article more accessible to the lay reader? Especially with something as innocuous as "popular passages"? Jonathan Tweet 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's original research. No, we can't just make the article more accessible to the lay reader. Original research can not be justified. Unless sources are added it should be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, since no one has objected nor replied to this, I take it as a license to carry it out. Will do so shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bible version

Can we discuss what bible version to use? My understanding is that there is no set policy on wikipedia on what version to use. I personally see it as something like American vs. Commonwealth spelling. And in the spirit of in the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names, any efforts to change the version cited should be brought about through consensus and discussion. Editing wikipedia for the sole purpose of changing bible versions should be discouraged. So what compelling reasons are there to change the version cited in this article (I know that one version is not consistently cited throughout the article)?-Andrew c 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The nab, or niv, or any of several other versions are more accessible to the reader, and more widely used. I don't know that we need to use one and only one version throughout the article. If there is an important difference between versions it should be noted and discussed. We should probably stay away from kjv, except where there is some special literary significance. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think NIV is used most consistently throughout wikipedia, partially due to the previous {{Niv}} template. However, that has been replaced with a template that allows the user to choose the version. I really don't care that much one way or the other (I like NRSV, and the SV, and agree that KJV should be avoided except in quiting notable lines). I can live with NIV, but I just say a little bit of edit warring to creep in over this topic and figured we should discuss it instead of reverting back to the SV with no reason. I'd like to hear from Scottandrewhutchins . Thanks for commenting Tom.-Andrew c 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The NIV was designed to put forward the Evangelical Fundamentalist agenda and I do not believe it should be used on a neutral site except when directly relevant. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the Synoptic Gospels

The wording of the point about parables (versus allegories, metaphors etc.) is, I find, confusing. But I see that this section has already been an area of debate, so I am reluctant to start editing it.

The idea of that overall section seems to be to present a list of points, each relatively brief. (I like that.) But this particular point is already twice as long as any other. Further, the wording of the "John 10..." part does not even seem to be a fully-formed sentence (rather a sequence of differently-structured comma-separated clauses).

I suggest reducing that point to its bare minimum to restore the "list of points, each brief" idea. Then the exception-to-parable (have I understood correctly?) aspect of John 10 can be expounded in either a subsection (like the Critical scholarship... one) or in a (separate) John 10 article.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dumb down the article? Are we assuming the concepts are too difficult for the average wikipedia reader to understand? 75.0.4.224 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, Feline. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Carl. Thanks "75.0.4.224". I have just tried to tidy it up (and also removed a sentence which was only about the synoptic gospels). So it is now shorter (in keeping with the rest of the list). I hope it is also clearer; and I hope it also hasn't "dumbed down". Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No Parousia?

The context of the discussion of the death of the beloved disciple at the end of the gospel is that he might not die before Jesus returns. Our friend Steven Harris and his book of 1985 seems to have had undue influence on the composition of this article. I would recommend removing this section, particularly as it is suggested elsewhere that John might not mention the Second Coming.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2008

It's a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. When you don't agree with a referenced opinion in a wikipedia article, the correct approach is not to delete it, but to add a referenced counter-opinion. 75.0.4.224 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much whether I agree or disagree with the opinion. Johanine scholarship is a vast and serious field and the suggestion that the gospel contains no mention of a return of Jesus is a minority one. I am not talking about deleting an opinion I disagree with but rather removing an irrelevant section in an already congested article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you're just POV pushing. Can you cite a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for your claim that the Parousia is found in the Gospel of John? 75.0.13.186 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have a good grasp of NT Greek?

I thought 'Arche' meant ruler or something similar, rather than "existed from the beginning" or "the ultimate source of all things" as is asserted in the article. Anybody done enough serious Greek to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia:Reliable sources that translates John 1:1 or Genesis 1:1 (Septuagint) as "In the ruler"? 75.15.206.216 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? I was asking a question.

Strong/Thayer's may help. See here.-Andrew c [talk] 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, consulting a lexicon I found it does not mean ruler and could be construed to mean "existed from the beginning".

Introductory paragraphs

There seems to be some contradiction between the first two introductory paragraphs. The first says: "these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is ... the Son of God..." (John 20:30-31).

The second says: "John presents the highest Christology ... declaring him to be God." (There is no citation pointing to where the Gospel declares Jesus to be God.)

A brief glance through John gives the impression that the text says repeatedly that Jesus is the Son of God, reinforced towards the end by a statement of the writer's motive "that you may come to believe that Jesus is ... the Son of God..."

I wonder whether the article's intention here is, instead, to say that despite the repeated statements in the text that Jesus is the Son of God, some scholars have concluded that the sub-text is that Jesus is actually God. If this is the case, I think it would be helpful to the lay reader to clarify the distinction between what the text says (Jesus is the Son of God) and what some scholars have concluded (Jesus is God). Alternatively, a citation from John supporting the second view, as in the first paragraph, would be helpful. Adrian Robson (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the following will help.
Among the images employed to express the identity of Jesus are two which make the bold assertion that Jesus is God. The first of these is the use of the title, logos (Word), for Jesus in 1:1–18. The search for the religious and philosophical background out of which this title was drawn has led only to the recognition of the enormous breadth of meaning the word carried in 1st-century Greek. It had associations with the creative and prophetic work of God in the OT and had become identified with both Torah and Wisdom in Jewish thought. Among Hellenists the word had a philosophical heritage which equated it, among other things, with the rational center of being itself. Very likely, the word was chosen for its wide meaning, encompassing as it did both Hellenistic and Hebraic shades of meaning. Typical of the evangelist’s love of words with multiple meanings, it engages the reader—regardless of his or her background—on the very first page of the gospel. It is clear, however, that the evangelist meant to claim that Jesus was the self-expression of God—the revealed, public side of the divine being. By claiming that Jesus is the Word of God, the author supposes that Jesus is the divine medium of communication with humanity. The Word is said both to be God and to be with (pros) God (1:1). The language suggests both identification with God and distinctive individuality—a paradoxical relationship typical of Johannine christological reflection. The existence of the Word precedes creation, and it is through the Word that creation is accomplished (1:2–3). The Word, therefore, is the “life” and “light” of humanity, i.e., the source of authentic and meaningful existence. Through the Word, God sought to restore the divine human relationship, empowering humans to become “children of God,” although such efforts were rejected (1:10–12). In Jesus the Word became incarnate and manifested the identity and nature of God (1:14). As the prologue began with the assertion that Jesus (the Word) is God, so it would appear to end. 1:18 is marred by a textual problem but may have originally spoken of Jesus as the “only God”(monogenēs theos). As the gospel began with the assertion that Jesus is God, so the gospel concludes with the confession of Thomas, “My Lord and my God”(20:28). Thus by identifying Jesus with the Word and attributing to him the title, God, the fourth evangelist boldly claims the divine identity of the central figure of the gospel. This is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is made to claim that to know and to see him is to know and see the Father (8:19; 14:9), a further articulation of 1:18. Several additional suggestions have been offered with regard to the meaning of the confession “Lord and God” in 20:28. The first is that the two titles encompass both the common name for the deity in Hellenistic and Jewish thought of the 1st century. Consequently, Thomas’s confession makes a universal claim for the divinity of Christ. The second suggestion is that in Hellenistic Judaism the title, God, represented the creative power of the deity, and the title, Lord, the eschatological power of the deity. Thus, Thomas’s confession is understood to attribute the two definitive divine powers to Christ. It should be noted that pre-existence is claimed for Jesus in 17:24 as well as 1:1. (8:58 may also imply such a view.) While such a claim is not unique to the Fourth Gospel (cf., e.g., Col 1:15–16), nowhere else is it accompanied with such a clear identification of Christ with God. This high and unequaled NT assertion regarding Jesus demonstrates the author’s concern to say that Jesus is the one in whom humans encounter the true revelation of God. That concern is manifested in the other images used of Jesus. But associated with it is the necessity to claim that Jesus is related to the One he reveals. In this case, the claim is made that he is fully identified with the God whom he reveals.
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3:923 (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992). —Wayward Talk 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This passage seems to give support to the view that John does not "declare" Jesus to be God; instead the passage quoted above suggests that it is more correct to say that scholars have deduced that John "implies" that Jesus is God - not quite the same as "declaring" this to be so. If this interpretation is correct, perhaps someone might look at re-wording the second paragraph to make it more accurate. Adrian Robson (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The cited text by Raymond Brown actually says he believes this interpretation is 'probably' true - given the fact that it's disputed, I've changed it to say that it's a possible interpretation. This point would benefit from wider references. --Rbreen (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rbreen, looks good. John is a tricky topic. Leadwind (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid my comment may not have been as clear as it might have been. I wasn't meaning to say anything about doctrinal interpretation, only about the much more trivial issue of the meaning of words. "To declare" usually means "to state". My query was only whether John "states" that Jesus is God, as distinct from his writing being interpreted as meaning that Jesus is God. I have the impression from the above that John does not "state" or "declare" this. So I'd suggest that explaining that this is an interpretation would be clearer than saying that John "possibly declared" this. If he does state it, all that's needed is a verse reference to show where it is stated. Adrian Robson (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is really sticky. It's like the last, tenuous toehold that the Trinity has in the gospels, and the Trinitarians are not going down without a fight. Can we say, "John is traditionally understood as declaring Jesus to be God incarnated, though modern scholars are more likely to interpret the text as saying that Jesus is God's divine Son incarnated." Leadwind (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds absolutely fine to me, though I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether it's an accurate summary of the contrasting views. My only concern was at a very trivial level. An encyclopedia article, while being sufficiently accurate for the knowledgeable, should also be capable of catering for those who know nothing of the subject. If the article says, "John declares that Jesus is God" some readers will interpret that literally and may want to know where it is said. Saying instead, "... is understood to declare..." or "... the text is interpreted..." makes clear the distinction between the literal sense of the text on the one hand and how it can be interpreted by scholarly study on the other. Adrian Robson (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Old Testament

Most of the sources section deals with material about the life of Jesus. But in the middle are two paragraphs about influences from the earlier, pre-Christian, Jewish tradition and Hebrew Bible. (Begins: "It is notable...motif of Genesis ..."; ends: "...into the already created world.")

The lead also states: "The Gospel appears to have been written with an evangelistic purpose, primarily for Greek-speaking Jews who were not believers", suggesting that the Old Testament background bears similar importance to contemporary biographical sources.

Shouldn't these two 'streams' have distinct treatment? A Jewish/OT background, which initially would be something like those two paragraphs; and material directly about the life of Jesus, initially the rest of the "Sources" section. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the unreferenced material at the end of the sources section and put in subheads. Here's the material I deleted, should someone want to find sources for it as restore it. Leadwind (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is notable that the Gospel's opening prologue in John 1:1–18 consciously echoes the opening motif of Genesis, "In the beginning". Beyond this, there has been much debate over the centuries on the theological background of the prologue: is it a formula of Hellenistic rhetoric, traditional Jewish wisdom, or some type of Qumran-like Dead Sea scrolls metaphysic?

By the beginning of the 21st century, the pendulum of scholarly opinion has swung back to a traditional Jewish background.[citation needed] While Genesis 1 focuses on God's creation, John 1 focuses on the Word (or Reason, Logos in the Greek) and the significance of the Word or Reason coming into the already created world.[citation needed]

One Christian tradition, held by a number of Christians today, is that the Gospel of John was not based on other written sources.[citation needed] Because they consider the author of John to be John the Apostle, they conclude that John actually experienced all the things he described.[citation needed] There are also Christian scholars, such as NT Wright and John Shelby Spong, who reject the conclusions of source criticism.[citation needed]

considered heretical in the early church?

I've got a source that says that John was opposed as heretical in the early Church. Can anyone tell how it was received, say between 100 and 150? Leadwind (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Alogi rejected it. 68.126.20.120 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Gaius or Caius, presbyter of Rome. Ref: Metzger's Canon of the New Testament. 68.126.21.52 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some online info: Catholic Encyclopedia: Montanists: "A disputation was held by Gaius against him in the presence of Pope Zephyrinus (about 202-3, it would seem). As Gaius supported the side of the Church, Eusebius calls him a Churchman (II, xxv, 6), and is delighted to find in the minutes of the discussion that Gaius rejected the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, and attributed it to Cerinthus. But Gaius was the worse of the two, for we know from the commentary on the Apocalypse by Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the twelfth century (see Theodore H. Robinson in "Expositor", VII, sixth series, June, 1906), that he rejected the Gospel and Epistles of St. John as well, and attributed them all to Cerinthus. It was against Gaius that Hippolytus wrote his "Heads against Gaius" and also his "Defense of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John" (unless these are two names for the same work). St. Epiphanius used these works for his fifty-first heresy (cf. Philastrius, "Hær." lx), and as the heresy had no name he invented that of Alogoi, meaning at once "the unreasoning" and "those who reject the Logos". We gather that Gaius was led to reject the Gospel out of opposition to Proclus, who taught (Pseudo-Tertullian, "De Præsc.", lii) that "the Holy Ghost was in the Apostles, but the Paraclete was not, and that the Paraclete published through Montanus more than Christ revealed in the Gospel, and not only more, but also better and greater things"; thus the promise of the Paraclete (John 14:16) was not to the Apostles but to the next age. St. Irenæus refers to Gaius without naming him (III, xi, 9): "Others, in order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the last days has been poured upon the human race according to the good pleasure of the Father, do not admit that form [lion] which corresponds with the Gospel of John in which the Lord promised to send the Paraclete; but they reject the Gospel and with it the prophetic Spirit. Unhappy, indeed, in that, wishing to have no false prophets [reading with Zahn pseudoprophetas esse nolunt for pseudoprophetoe esse volunt], they drive away the grace of prophecy from the Church; resembling persons who, to avoid those who come in hypocrisy, withdraw from communion even with brethren." The old notion that the Alogi were an Asiatic sect (see ALOGI) is no longer tenable; they were the Roman Gaius and his followers, if he had any. But Gaius evidently did not venture to reject the Gospel in his dispute before Zephyrinus, the account of which was known to Dionysius of Alexandria as well as to Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, III, xx, 1, 4). It is to be noted that Gaius is a witness to the sojourn of St. John in Asia, since he considers the Johannine writings to be forgeries, attributed by their author Cerinthus to St. John; hence he thinks St. John is represented by Cerinthus as the ruler of the Asiatic Churches. Another Montanist (about 200), who seems to have separated from Proclus, was Æschines, who taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as a Monarchian of the type of Noetus or Sabellius." 68.126.21.52 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_John/Archive_1&oldid=1136772354"