Talk:Gospel of John/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

undue weight: historical reliability

Look at this section. It summarizes the mainstream views of top scholars in one or two terse paragraphs. Then it spends two to three times as much space lavishing attention on minority views backed up by second-string scholars. Why is there so much undue weight on what John might get right? I mean, I know the answer to that question, so I guess I'm saying, let's fix it. Leadwind (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whom you place in your categories of "top" and "mainstream". I don't think there is much dispute that the major studies of John in the last 50 years have been those of CK Barrett, Raymond Brown, and Barnabas Lindars. Brown work is by far the most comprehensive - with the caveat that at various stages in his careet he has held widely differing opions on many key points at issue. Barrett was very thorough in his treatment of the text, but his opinion that John made direct use of the Synoptics is wholly superceded in current scholarship. Lindars study is not nearly as full, but is probably more influential through the influence of his students - such as IH Marshall and Morna Hooker. Of the three, Brown tends to accord John an equal status with the Synoptics; Lindars tends rather to prefer the Synoptics but regards John as independent; Barrett regards the Synoptics as primary. John Robison't views are certainly eccentric and partial in their treatment of the evidence, but no mainstream scholar of John dismisses them out of hand. Vermes and Sanders are both important scholars on the synoptic tradition, but neither has published much - if at all - on John. TomHennell (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly my research is primarily on historical Jesus rather than historical criticism proper, but the superiority of the synoptics is well attested among the experts. Even the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits that there is general agreement that the author rewrote the traditions he received and that it is the author, not Jesus, who is largely responsible for the shape and wording of the gospel. I know that Christians have been trying for nearly 2000 years to make John fit with the synoptics, but once Bible scholarship was no longer under control of the Church (1800s), scholars recognized that John has little historical value compared to the synoptics. Leadwind (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would refer you to Raymond Brown's study of "The Death of the Messiah" (1994); and especially the detailed discussion of the various points at issue, at pages 75-93. Broadly Brown's view in that work, (as also that of Dodd, Lindars, Bultmann etc) is that John's Passion Narrative is independent of those in the Synoptics; such that any parallels are indicative of distinct use of common preGospel traditions (whether these preGospel traditions are historical is of course another matter). Matthew on the other hand is dependent on Mark (and on other sources) as is Luke. But this implies to Brown that - at least in their Passion narratives - no pre-judgement should be made as to the relative historical value of John and the Synoptics. Futhermore, even when John and the Synoptics disagree, this does not mean that the account in John is less likely to be historical (see note 91 on page 76). I am sure you are correct in saying that the overwhelming majority of scholars of John (including Brown) would agree that John's account tends to rework his source material far more radically than do the Synoptics. But, on the other hand, most scholars would agree with Brown that John shows a knowledge of Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular, that is much fuller, more accurate, and coherent with other historical sources than that found in any of the Synoptics. Which suggests that, were John have been attempting to write a full 'history' of Jesus (as perhaps Luke may in part have been) then his account would be the one we ought to prefer; as his underlying information (whether from his own knowledge or from the sources he used) appears more reliable. But that isn't what John claims to be about (on which see 21: 25). Perhaps we shouldn't really be evaluating Gospels as history at all, or certainly not as though history was their primary function and intention. TomHennell (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the vast majority of scholars think John reworks the source material more radically. This argument would be dubious in any case if it is written, as it claims, by an eyewitness (who would use little or no source material). I also don't know what 'rework' would mean. Many cite differences in chronology to argue for a reworking, although the ancient Greco-Roman biographical method placed no importance in chronology, so this argument is moot. Also, you are right in saying that we shouldn't view the gospels as history narratives, but 'gospel' narratives which are in part biography and in part history.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the Jesus Seminar's conclusions are illegitimate. They make a few critical assumptions that causes their methodology to be dubious by any historical-critical standard. Putting the burden of proof on those who hold the gospels to be accurate, rather on those who hold it to be inaccurate, is a standard used by no other scholars in this or other areas of historical scholarship. That alone should disqualify all of their conclusions, and would in any secular scholarly area. Second, its assumption that John is ahistorical makes their methodology dubious. While its true that scholars are more critical of John's historical reliability, a good number view it to be equally historical with the synoptics, while many of the others assume it is simply less historical and not ahistorical. Finally, the Jesus Seminar's conclusions overall reflect the view of unknown scholars. Only about 15 of their (75 or so I think) scholars are well known. Most of the rest are unknown, some even simply teach at community colleges, while the rest don't even have biblical training. Their weighing system ensures that their conclusions reflect this. I agree with the post above on removing the comments that reference the Jesus Seminar directly.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Its hypothetical on my part (and ad hominem), but I strongly suspect that the presumption of unreliability applied by the Jesus Seminar to John's Gospel; came to be adopted becuase otherwise John is too 'good' on their other criteria. As is well known, John's knowsledge of Palestinian geography and Palestinian Jewish practices is much better than that of the synoptics. But in addition, on those passages that are closely parallel (basically the Passion and the Sea of Galillee) John presents an account in which supernatural phenomena are entirely absent - no stilling of the storm, no earthquaque at the crucifixion, no rending of the veil of the temple. If we take Mark to provide a basic narrative outline of Jesus ministry, then the events that John adds are clearly comprehensible and in keeping with the circumstances of the time and with what we find in Mark. Matthew and Luke add Nativity accounts that are replete with angels, historical inconsistencies, and supernatural phenomena. Indeed -with the exception of the spurious angel at the Pool of Bethezda, John does without angels altogether. If the Jesus seminar were to allow John a level playing field, on their terms he would 'win' most times. And thast would never do. TomHennell (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree on most of your points, although I think the reasons some think of John as being less historical are broader. I think much of this is a hold over from the extreme skepticism that characterized biblical scholarship in the 19th century. Many thought that John was written in the mid 2nd century (so far removed from the events that there would be legitimate doubts about its historical value) although this was entirely conjectural and was discredited when the fragment of John from about 115 was discovered in Egypt. Second, it had language (like contrasting light and darkness) that people in the 19th century assumed must be gnostic or at least Greek and so its development must have been far removed from the events it described. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls showed that this type of supposedly gnostic writing was common in Jewish circles two centuries before Jesus, and so this view was discredited.

Old habits die hard it seems, and so despite the fact that the main tenets of doubt were discredited, the view persisted but found new rationals to justify itself. Then, as now, people have had issues in accepting that an eyewitness could have lived into the 90s, when John was written. The last chapter of John alludes to issues people had even in his own day, as it addresses a rumor that he wouldn't die. People in antiquity did live abnormally long lifespans from time to time so this really shouldn't be much of an issue. People, even today, still think John has a Christology/theology too well developed to have been written in the 60s or 70s. How they figure that the 60s were too early and the 90s were not I don't know. This view persists, even though it is very clear that Paul had the same Christology, and he wrote in the early 50s. Also, in my opinion, it is easier for atheists/skeptics to accept some historical value in the synoptics since none claim outright to have been written by eyewitnesses. John does claim to have been written by an eyewitness, and so either his accounts are accurate and the faith of the atheists/skeptics is challenged, or the author is a liar and the entire book is dubious.

It is for these reasons that many scholars view John as being at least as historical as the synoptics. But then, as I said above, many scholars who doubt John's historical value are atheists or skeptics who doubt the historical value of the synoptics.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I sure can't blame a Christian for hating the Jesus Seminar, but that's pretty far afield from the topic of this section. The "historicity" section gives more view to the minority opinion (John is historical) than to the majority opinion (John offers almost no historical information not found in the synoptics). Instead, each view should be given space commensurate to its currency in contemporary scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging by your statement below, I can see you have a fairly skewed view of what 'majority opinion' is. The numbers of citations in the article for the claim that it is viewed as less historical (or ahistorical) are quite limited, so it can hardly represent the 'mainstream' view as it currently is. RomanHistorian (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason that there are fewer citations for the majority view than for the minority view is simple: for the majority view, we can let a handful of top scholars carry the weight, while minority-view editors like to back up their claims by swamping an article with citations from second-string writers and sectarian apologists. Quality of citations is more important than quantity. If you could find one top-notch scholar or mainstream reference work that agrees with you, that would go farther than any number of citations from miscellaneous sources. Instead of seeking citations to support your own POV, how about instead you go seek out the best non-apologist sources and just see what they say? Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is longer than most articles and must be significantly cut. Indeed, the entire article is growing out of hand. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship needs to be redone. I would do it although I assume if I attempt to do so my edits will find themselves reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro is to long and I was working on it before the page was locked down. My proposal is for something like:

The Gospel According to John (Greek: κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, kata Iōannēn euangelion, or τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, to euangelion kata Iōannēn), commonly referred to as the Gospel of John or simply John, is an account of the three-year public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It details the three-year public ministry from the witness and affirmation of Jesus by John the Baptist to his death, burial, Resurrection, and some post-Resurrection appearances. In the standard order of the canonical gospels, it appears fourth, after the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The issue of authorship is contested, with many scholars maintaining it as an anonymous work by an unknown author, while some maintain it is the work the Apostle John (see the discussion below). The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together.In chapter 21 the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved' is mentioned as the author, who is identified by Early Church tradition with John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles.

Of the four canonical gospels, John presents the highest Christology. It describes Jesus as the incarnation of the divine Logos, through which all things were made, and declares him to be God. Only in the Gospel of John does Jesus talk at length about himself and his divine role, including a substantial amount of material Jesus shared with the disciples only. Here Jesus' public ministry consists largely of miracles not found in the synoptics, including raising Lazarus from the dead. Contrary to the synoptics, Jesus' miracles in John are signs meant to engender faith. In John, Jesus is the object of veneration. Certain elements of the synoptics such as parables and exorcisms are not found in John. John presents a realized eschatology in which salvation is already present for the believer, and the verses that refer to the future coming of Christ were plausibly added later. The gospel includes gnostic elements and teaches that salvation can only be achieved through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus.

This brake will give every one a chance to discuss the issues that belong in the intro. Hardyplants (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that advocates of the minority view are out to undermine the majority view. I've seen this behavior on countless pages. When minority-view editors can't get their viewpoint accepted as the majority view or as equivalent to the majority view, then they like to say "there's a controversy" an leave it at that. You see the same thing with people who don't accept evolution or the historical existence of Jesus. It's not proper WP practice to leave out the majority view, but it happens a lot when minority-view edtors won't accept WP standards. In particular, the new lead fails to get across some basic information that scholars generally agree on: John didn't write this book, and historians largely disregard it as unreliable. It hurts people's feelings to read that, I know, but that's what the current consensus is, and we ought to tell the reader what the current scholarly consensus is. Leadwind (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be something that is happening at several other biblical articles right now. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro is too long

I wanted to note that the intro is too long and needs to be shortened, probably by about a third.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right. It can be hard to summarize a contentious topics because both sides try to get their material in, but we should do it anyway. Leadwind (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro isn't suppose to go into disputed issues, that is what the body is for.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First, please cite a WP policy that says a lead shouldn't go into disputed issues. I hear that all the time, but only from editors who don't like the majority view on a topic. Second, there's no real dispute about John's author or the gospel's historical value: there's a strong consensus among non-apologists that John didn't write it, and all the important things that Jesus says in this gospel are false. If there's no real dispute, then for sure we should include the majority view in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You presumably define an "apologist" as someone who believes that the facts agree with the historical legitimacy of these biblical issues. Thus, the only scholars who have legitimate views (non-apologists) are scholars who believe that the gospels are historically dubious.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to cite WP policy to back up your self-serving view that disputed details shouldn't go in the lead. Minority-view editors like to say things like that because they want the majority view to be undermined. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for your evidence that Ehrman represents the "consensus" view. Presumably TomHennell is tooRomanHistorian (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RH asked for my input. It is true that Ehrman as a "consensus" view should not be unsourced (and the POV of Ehrman as consensus should be deleted if so), and it is also true that both literalist and skeptical views should be alluded to in the lead. I will probably have other comments. JJB 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems some editors just accept Ehrman as representing the 'consensus' view and hold it to be so obvious that it needs no evidence. This is especially so with regards to questions like the reliability of John, as Ehrman is a textual critic and as such these questions are not part of his core specialty. If you question him here you are criticized for having a POV because apparently, as an evangelist for atheism, Ehrman is totally neutral and impartial.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

John as less historical than the synoptics

It looks like a common defense for the Jesus Seminar is the belief that John is considered less historical than the synoptics. Some scholars think this, others don't. Besides, many of the people who hold John to be ahistorical (like atheist Bart Erhman) hold the synoptics to be mostly ahistorical as well. There isn't actually as much agreement on this issue as is suggested above. In the areas where John has been subjected to external scrutiny, such as the existence of the bath at Bethesda or the geography of the region, he has been shown to be right. On the other hand, claims made by John that can be disproven have yet to be. There are other points that also vouch for John's historical validity. For example: internal evidence (criterion of embarrassment, excessive detail, testimony of women, ect), similarity to the synoptics and Paul's writings, certainty that it was written relatively soon (possibly within the lifetime of an eyewitness of Jesus) after the events it records, universal agreement by the 2nd century church of its authenticity (it was the framework around which the Diatessaron was written around 170 AD, suggesting it was viewed as being the most historical gospel) and others. If subjected to ordinary scholarly standards, John would show itself to be very reliable historically. This is why a good number of scholars do hold it to be historically as good as the synoptics. Of course many scholars are atheists or skeptics who hold that the miracles it records ipso facto prove it to be ahistorical.

The article should reflect the view that John is considered equally historical with the synoptics by many scholars. It should show the variety of opinion, and not assume ipso facto that it is less historical.

The last paragraph of the intro is a good example of this.

• "Prominent contemporary scholars regard the Gospel of John as more theological and less historical than the synoptics, and they dispute that the Apostle John was the author."

A good number of "prominent scholars" would disagree with that. It is misleading to say "prominent contemporary scholars regard..." which implies that this is close to consensus.

• John's picture of Jesus is very different from the accounts in the synoptics.

Is it?

• However, this anecdotal material also appears to have been extensively reworked, especially in order to dramatise the narrative.The discourses in John are considered by mainstream scholars to originate in homilies and sermons, that are predominantly the evangelist's own composition but which expound on a saying or action of Jesus from the tradition

How so? This sounds like unprovable speculation. The body doesn't really go into this. Again, the opinion of some scholars (oddly enough usually skeptics) is taken to be the near consensus view.

• There is no consensus in current scholarship as to how far the material in John may derive from a historical 'Disciple whom Jesus loved'

In other words, there is consensus that it doesn't accurately portary the historical Jesus, even though there isn't.

• it is broadly agreed that the authorship of the Gospel should be credited to the person who composed the finished text, rather than to the source of material in the text

In other words, even if John was behind most of it, one wouldn't consider it his work. Sounds like something straight out of the Jesus Seminar.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Most of those statements (i.e. other thqn the first) are sourced to Lindars or Brown; whose work I take as 'mainstream' in so far as there is one. The last point (that the author is the one who finished it) is particularly important, and key to most modern studies. Everything points to the current state of John's gospel as being the outcome of a great deal of reworking and rewriting - much more so certainly than Mark of Luke. It is a sound princple of method to take the text in its 'finished' form; rather than (which is exactly the intention of the Jesus Seminar) constructing a version of what the 'base text' looked like; as the lattter procedure inevitably ends up simply conforming to the critical scholars' prior hypotheses TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a problem, not just here but on other articles. The opinion of one or two scholars is taken to be the "mainstream" view. Also, why is it that "everything points to the current state of John's gospel as being the outcome of a great deal of reworking"? I can't think of any evidence to support claims of reworking, outside of possible reworkings in the last chapter. I think it is odd that one would assume John, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness, to have been subject to more reworking that Luke, which claims to be a compilation of earlier sources.

As I said above, much of this doubt comes from "liberal scholars" who are often atheists/agnostics (like Bart Ehrman) or skeptics who aren't too far off. John claims to have been written by an eyewitness, who testifies to miracles and the resurrection. The last chapter says (presumably about John by his disciples) "we know his testimony is true". Thus, either it was written by an eyewitness and the faith of the atheists/skeptics is challenged, or the author is a liar and the gospel is dubious. It is often easier to fit the facts to the belief than the other way around. As I noted above, if John was subjected to historical-critical standards used to judge any other ancient work, it would show itself to be one of the most historically reliable works from antiquity. Atheist/skeptic scholars have had to invent new reasons, which are totally out of line in comparison with historical criticism in other fields, in order to doubt John. Their methods are dubious, and as such are not shared by a great deal of biblical scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source who says that John is to be taken as seriously as the synoptics as a historical source. The top historians of Jesus (Theissen, Vermes, Crossan, and Sanders) all discount most of John. If you can't find a reliable source that says that there's no mainstream preference for the synoptics, you have no case. Leadwind (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, in their book "Introduction to the New Testament" (one of the best selling biblical commentaries on amazon.com) both hold that the apostle John wrote the gospel and that it is at least as historical as the synoptics. I could easily find many more examples. What is impressive is that normal scholarly standards would show John to be quite solid historically, and yet a good number of people still manage to discount it, or to imagine a 'reworking' or that it is something close to a forgery, despite a total lack of evidence for either of these claims.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Carson certainly counts as a serious critical scholar; albeit one who tends to default towards a a more evangelical viewpoint. But then he also - very consciously - sees himself as carrying the flame for the Lindars tradition; which is very far from being evangelical. Brown also supports the view that the narrative elements in John are of equal value to those of the Synoptics. Morna Hooker has stated "It is by no means certain that , when John differs from the other Gospels over some detail, their version is to be preferred to his as more accurate (Studying the New Testament p 185).

Attempting to summarise the views of a range of scholars; I think it is clear that there is much more reservation about the historicity of the discourse material in John, than there is for the narrative material. Brown's study of the "Death of the Messiah" demonstrates how often John's account of the Passion is to be preferred to that of Mark. Perhaps more interesting though is the judgement of Vermes (who is quoted above as largely discounting the historicity of John). Vermes most recent book "Jesus: Nativity, Passion, Resurrection" examines the Passion narratives in the four Gospels. He notes that Matthew and Mark are in key respects the same; so there are basically two Synoptic accounts (Mark and Luke), and one non-Synoptic account (John). Vermes concludes that the Luke account - where it differs from Mark - is without historic basis. Hence he says (page 171) that "the events in the last day of the life of Jesus have been transmitted in two fundamentally different traditions". In Vermes detailed evaluation of these two traditons, there are a number of places where he regards the Mark version as better (as in designation of the funtionaries who arrested Jesus, and his last words on the cross). But on the major key points he consistently prefers John's account where it differs from Mark (that the Last Supper and Crucifixion took place on the eve of Passover, not Passover itself; that Jesus was not convicted in a Jewish trial, but informally investigated by Annas the former high priest; that Jesus was condemned for sedition against Rome, not blasphemy; that Jesus was mocked and mistreated by the Roman soldiery, not by the Jewish authorities; that there were no supernatural phenomena associated with Jesus's death: darkness, rending of the veil of the temple). Vermes is aware that this might appear to contradict his well known dismissal of the historical value of John; but explains it thus: "The main problem one has to face if John's version is preferred comes from the late date of the Fourth Gospel (c100-110); as a rule the Synoptics represent the more primitive version of the Jesus story. Nverthelss, the generally greater historical reliability of Mark does not necessarily exclude th possibility of John occasionally inheriting a more authentic tradition". Hence Vermes does not - in the Passion narrative, take the view that Jophn may be dismissed as unhistorical.

The discourses are a different matter. It is partly that here the additional teaching material in Matthew and Luke is consistent in broad terms with the (relatively sketchy) teaching material in Mark. It is also the case that there are common teaching elements in the Matthew and Luke material (Q). Hence the Synoptic accounts of Jesus teaching appear to imply several steams of transmission of material that nevertheless has strong elements of underlying similarity (albeit with other elements of peculiar difference). In John we find the occasional phrase in the mouth of Jesus that corresponds closely with a saying in the Synoptics, but generally John's discourses are very different. So in terms of independent traditions, John is in a minority. Moreover, and awkwardly for those who wish to present John's discourse as being reported words of Jesus, it is very difficult in the Gospel of John to tell which statements are intended to be the teachings of Jesus, and which are teachings about Jesus of the Evangelist (as for example in the first chapter of the Gospel). Lindars has developed in detail the view of a number of scholars that the discourse are derived from sermons which expand on Jesus texts from the tradition. Hence Matthew 18:3 corresponds to John 3:3; which is then expanded into a homily in verses 5-21. TomHennell (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Top scholars agree that there are elements of John's narration that provide information superior to or lacking from the synoptics. I guess there are about half a dozen such details, the synoptics' improbably date for the crucifixion being the major one. On this point, I wonder if the Christian-POV editors are OK with that. To say that John is right about the date of the crucifixion is to say that the synoptics are wrong. Is that really what y'all are happy to say? That the synoptics are wrong? In any event, the main issue is this: John gives a unique view of Jesus' teachings. The main value of John to a Christian isn't the gospel's more-likely date for Jesus' cricifixion. The main value is the stuff that the gospel claims Jesus said about himself. Historians regard all this stuff ("I am the way," etc.) as inauthentic and in fact contrary to the historical Jesus. Can we at least agree that no serious critical scholar thinks that Jesus said what John has him say? That would be a start. Leadwind (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts there a bit Leadwind. I have been casting around for major critical scholars who regard John as of equal historical status with the Synoptics; and so far my list includes not only DA Carson and Morna Hooker, but also Christopher Rowland and IH Marshall. (that all these were pupils of Barnabas Lindars is, I suspect, no coincidence). F.F. Bruce has also been named by other editors, and the case of Raymond Brown is well known. That is quite a list (and from a wide range of tradtions) and, at least in terms of mainstream reputation, at least the equal to the skeptics. Mostly, as you say this is due to the developing consensus that John is right on the details of the Last Supper, trial and Crucifixion (though Morna Hooker also supports John's early dating of the cleansing of the temple, and Christopher Rowland (and Graham Stanton) are amongst those who regard the longer ministry in John as more credible. Christopher Rowland, for one, also regards the discourse material in John as having equivalent status to that in the Synoptics (not that he is saying that John is historical, just that he is no more unhistorical than Matthew or Luke).

Of course few critical scholars think that John records the verbatim words of Jesus (even apart from the fact that John is written in Greek not Aramaic); but then no crtical scholar believes that Julius Caesar spoke the words he puts in his own mouth in his Gallic Wars. But a great many scholars would maintain that the discourses of Jesus in John convey genuine teachings recorded in the apostolic age. Can we claim any more for the Syncoptics? I would personally like to think so, but I am aware of plenty of scholars - Gerald Downing for example - who would say that the teachings in the Synoptics are every bit as much a church construct. If we are looking for the core of the Historical Jesus, we must acknowledge that our earliest witnesses (Mark and Paul) are united in maintaining that what Jesus did was far more significant than what he may have said. I note, for example that EP Sanders presentation of the Historical Jesus dedicates more than two thirds of its discussion to the narrative of Jesus minstry, and less than a third to his teachings. That seems about the right proportion to me.

One point that I have noticed, is that no scholar (outside of its members) defends the views of the Jesus Seminar as having any status or authority. The chief view (expressed by most forcibly by Tom Wright) is that the Jesus Seminar is the last gasp of the old 'second quest' for the historical Jesus, and hence has been superseded by the findings of the 'third quest' (in which category Wright includes JD Crossan, writing in his own name). That may be a bit unfair; but clearly such scholars as Sanders or Vermes could not hold the scholarly views they do, without dismissing the Jesus Seminar in its entirety. TomHennell (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Leadwind seems to be suggesting different rules for what he believes to be the "mainstream" view. The mainstream view is what the mainstream view is, not what a few editors on Wikipedia think it is. The view that John's historical validity is comparable with the synoptics is the view of a great many scholars, and can't just be ignored or relegated to fringe status. It is a bit ironic anyway, since the people who most believe John to have little historical value (like Ehrman) also believe the synoptics have little historical value. I also strongly dispute the idea that some scholars (like Ehrman) have no POV and speak from the standpoint of knowledgeable and impartial experts, while the scholars who disagree with him have a POV and cannot be trusted in any case. A good number of well-regarded scholars hold John to be equally historical with the synoptics. I suggest we arrive at some kind of consensus on this issue before people begin making edits again.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Leadwind, I am not aware that he is promoting Ehrman as a 'mainstream' scholar on John. What he does say is; Historians regard all this stuff ("I am the way," etc.) as inauthentic and in fact contrary to the historical Jesus. Can we at least agree that no serious critical scholar thinks that Jesus said what John has him say?, I think Leadwind deserves an answer. As it happens, Christopher Rowland discusses just this issue (in 'Christian Origins' p 127). Rowland points to the three verses, Matthew 11 25-26 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. There is a parallel to the same pericope at Luke 10 21-22, but otherwise this sort of language is unique in the Synoptics, but extremely common in John (see 1: 18; and, John being John, half a dozen other places). Early 20th century biblical critics tended to regard both passages as spurious, and assume that if we only had early enough manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, they would be absent. But now we do have such manuscripts (P45 in Luke) and the passages are undubitably ancient. So if there was a 'Q', it must have contained these verses, which are exactly of the form Leadwind finds it impossible that the historical Jesus would have said. The various evaluations of the passages are not really germane to this article; but Leadwind's point is clearly contraindicated. There is indeed a major critical scholar (Rowland) who regards the language of the discourses in John as fully compatible with an undoubted passage in 'Q', and securely located in the earliest traditions of what the historical Jesus actually said. TomHennell (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Rowland? For real? He died in 1967. I'd be happy to say something like, "As late as the 1960s, credible scholars accepted Jesus' statements in John as reliable." Honestly, if you have to go back in time 40+ years to find someone who agrees with you, shouldn't that tell you something? Can you find any contemporary historian of Jesus who grants John equal reliability to the synoptics? Every major voice in contemporary Jesus research disagrees (Sanders, Vermes, Theissn, Crossan, etc.). Where is your nonsectarian biography of Jesus that includes Jesus' statement from John? Leadwind (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A book written 40 or 50 years ago isn't worth anything but a book written 15 years ago is? Do opinions change that drastically in such a short time span?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Without reviewing the details, this too should be easy on its surface. List the "equally historical" POV and its proponents and the "less historical" POV and its proponents, and list any tertiary evidence of what is regarded as mainstream. Leadwind is tending to recentism as if knowing what the Gospel has meant to all its readers is not as important as knowing what it means to Crossan and Vermes. JJB 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. The issue right now is that some editors are saying that one view (their view) is the "neutral" view while others push a POV. Their view is the consensus because "everyone just knows it is" the consensus so evidence is not needed apparently. This simply isn't the case, and as this talk page indicates, this is a highly controversial issue. It may not be controversial with Jesus Seminar fans like Leadwind but for most it is very contested.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a sourced edit reverted because of an unsupported claim it was fringe

I added a sourced comment into the intro that other scholars hold John to be equally historical and theological, and it was reverted for a reason that had no support. How is this proper?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of your contributions here, it appears that you are editing from the fundamentalist Christian point of view. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia works diligently to maintain a neutral point of view, and those editors with strongly biased points of view are encouraged not to force these views into our articles. In answer to your question - when the predominate and demonstrable point of view is that John is not historically reliable, then claims to the contrary would be considered "extraordinary" - and would thus require extraordinary references. Failure to provide or discuss such references are sufficient grounds for removal. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am far from a fundamentalist. Many of these articles give excessive weight to one side. I just modified the intro and added a good number of sources. I suppose these are all fringe?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are non-mainstream and you seem to be trying to pass them off as mainstream, which is undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in your edit war, but your wholesale reverts are destructively broad. So now that you have involved me - I ask you to present some refs that demonstrate what the so called "mainstream" view is. Hardyplants (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in RomanHistorian's edit war, either, but like you, I have been pulled in. It's really not up to me to demonstrate that his sources are mainstream. They're his sources, so it's his job. I wish him the best of luck. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

you say "not up to me to demonstrate that his sources are mainstream" no but if your going to make blank reverts on the claim of "mainstream" you have show that you represent the "mainstream" view and not just make the claim. We do not know if you know anything at all about the topic in general or gnosticism in particular- so there is no bases to trust your judgment on what is mainstream and what is not. Hardyplants (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, I very much appreciate it. Given that I added 14 citations (including one from "The most important work to appear in this field in a generation") and Dylan said they were all fringe, he obviously is simply going to revert everything that deviates from his view as to what constitutes "mainstream". Several of the sources I cited included quotes to show how the "mainstream" view isn't what Dylan says it is. There are now many more sources cited arguing for a more nuanced view than Dylan's "mainstream" view. I can easily find many more good sources saying the same thing, but obviously at some point it becomes redundant, and if these sources aren't going to convince someone, then adding more sources wont either.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for the article to include the main competing views - assuming there really are scholarly debates about these views. However, these views need not share equal space or top billing. In this case, it's clear that some scholars do not entirely discount John's historical accuracy at least in part. For example, it's much more likely that Jesus was killed the day before Passover rather than during Passover, and there are some suggestions in the synoptic gospels that Jesus' ministry must have extended beyond one year. Properly sourced from the most respected scholars, we should include these views. All that said, however, the article still needs to clearly reflect the current state of scholarship which is that John is least reliable. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Rkl, "the article still needs to clearly reflect the current state of scholarship which is that John is least reliable." Exactly. Leadwind (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that past scholarship and those dependent on it still sees John as the least valuable for Jesus research, but that view is slowly changing. The Gospel of John has been, more or less ignored, but some scholars are finely giving the book some critical research.[1]Hardyplants (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You touch on a very good point. Scholarship is always changing. To assume that the view today is right is to assume that scholars and theologians for 1800 years were either stupid, mythologically-minded, dishonest, incompetent, or otherwise untrustworthy. We don't have much more evidence than they did on this issue, and much of the new evidence we do have actually supports the traditional view (such as the fragment that vouches for its date, or the Dead Sea Scrolls which show the work is not a gnostic work, or the archeological validation of the bath at Bethesda). One of my sources makes this point: the different views today compared to 50 or 100 years ago are due to the different theological views of scholars, not because of new evidence or better methods of analysis. When we talk about these issues we need a little humility. Scholars today don't 'know' this or that, they simply view this or that as the right answer. Scholarship will continue to change, and this article should report the views today as what they are: today's views. It shouldn't simply report the views today as the 'right' ones or as being somehow more legitimate or more likely to be right as the views of scholars for 1800 years. The objections raised today were well known to the church in the 1st century, and to scholars in later centuries. We flatter ourselves when we assume it was only us who were smart enough to discover these things. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship is cumulative. The reason we make progress is that we learn from the past instead of either forgetting it or blindly accepting it. We have new evidence, new methods, and the combined efforts of academics throughout the world. If the consensus changes as a result of this scholarship, we dare not ignore it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we have no new evidence (other than a few pieces that confirm the traditional account) this is not a progressive culmination leading to a more accurate view. It is simply a view changing with the temperaments of scholars. Human beings are biased and fallible, and in an area of scholarship that sees almost no new evidence or methods, that will be the only determinant of change.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RH, you've got a lot of citations there, but one citation from a top scholar is better than ten by unknowns. You also leave the years off a lot of these citations, and I bet that plenty of them are old enough to be out of date. If you want to contradict current mainstream sources, you need extraordinary sources yourself, and a large number of mediocre sources does not amount to an extraordinary source. The most serious attempt to establish apostolic authorship came from Robinson. Maybe we could say, "The general skepticism about John and its author has been challenged by scholars such as J. Robinson." As long as we portray the minority view as the minority view, we're good. Leadwind (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, one source was from "The most important work to appear in this field in a generation". Another, F. F. Bruce (his book was updated in 1981 and again in 2003) is another widely read and well-known source. Yale scholar Benjamin Wisner Bacon has also been widely read. Same with W. H. Brownlee [2] and I. Howard Marshall. Many of the others are well known as well. Other sources are quoted mentioning the views of scholarship at large. Cambridge scholar Leon Morris who, from his Wikipedia article, appears to be well published, says "The view that John’s history is substandard “is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic"".

It seems to me that at least a couple of those citations come from "top scholars". I added the years where I was aware of them. I don't think any come earlier than the mid 20th century. Several, including that by Leon Morris (which is the one mentioning the direction of modern scholarship) comes from just over a decade ago. There are plenty more sources I could find for this view, including those by many "prominent, mainstream, modern scholars". I will do so if necessary, but at some point it becomes redundant.

I find it ironic that I have used a good number of sources, many very recent and by well known scholars, which show that many hold John to be equally historical and by the apostle, and yet the other view (most have more-or-less dismissed it on both accounts) still deserves the permanent status as 'mainstream' no matter what the sources say.

I disagree that the view that John is the author is "minority" because I disagree with the view that there are only two sides. There is a wide gulf in between (including the view that John didn't write it but dictated it, or that John's testimony is behind it to varying degrees). To say the majority view is "John didn't write it" would be to mislead and be grossly over-simplistic.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My readings on the topic, the author of the Gospel is still not know and I have seen three or more views that are commonly argued, this holds true across the spectrum, The Apostle John as the author is minority view but deserves a place in the article with the arguments used to support it. Hardyplants (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The most serious attempt to bring apostolic authorship into the debate was Robinson's, and he failed. Practically no serious scholars advocate for John as the author of the gospel. It would be a disservice to our readers not to tell them the consensus of contemporary, non-apologetic scholarship: John didn't write it. Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is a view disputed held by a good number of mainstream scholars, not just Robinson. I agree that if you discount all of the scholars who hold that John wrote the gospel, then none hold he did. Your logic does work under the right conditions.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a mainstream reference to Robinson's view holding sway to any significant degree. I bet you can't. I can find a mainstream reference to Robinson's view not holding sway. Let's humbly set aside our individual differences and stick with what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then find one.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

I was about to edit this article and found it to be padlocked. We must stop our POV pushing and work together to produce balanced accurate articles. This sort of thing really hurts Wikipedia. I can't tell you how much I hate bitter infighting and users who are skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out. New users have badly bruised as it is not easy to tell Sockpuppet from good faith user, friend from foe, or to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. Please show a little goodwill and let us try to work together. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the article is protected, if you have an uncontroversial change or one that is supported by consensus, consider using {{editprotected}}. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the bad behavior that upset me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, yes, it looks as though there's a new editor among us who is determined to undermine our reporting of contemporary scholarship. It's too bad, but it's nothing we haven't seen before on this page and others. Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have redefined what "contemporary scholarship" is (scholars who agree with your view). As Tom mentions above, you are wrong on your assertions.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that someone is trying to redefine "contemporary scholarship" to the advantage of their own POV. Here's the trick. When I first came to this page, I thought that John was historically reliable like the synoptics were. That was my presupposition, my original POV. Only by doing actual research did I come to my current conclusion, that historians roundly reject John. So I'm not pushing my own opinion (John is OK), I'm pushing the opinion that I found in the writing of every major voice in contemporary historical Jesus scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Leadwind. As it happens my personal trajectory on this point is the opposite of yours; I started taking broadly the view of Sanders; that John is to be treated as less reliable than the Synoptics in recording the events of Jesus ministry and the substance of his teaching; but reading more widely demonstrated that the contrary view was a great deal more widely held in current scholarship than I had thought. Morna Hooker was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Christopher Rowland is Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture; Barnabas Lindars and F.F. Bruce were both Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. Whatever my (and your) personal opinions, it cannot be denied that the holders of these teaching offices at any one time represent the then-current critical mainstream of biblical scholarship in English. There are plenty of eminent voices taking the opposite view, which must also be stated in the article; but the egual historicity (and non-historicity) of John and the Synoptics is in no way a fringe opinion. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that Wikipedia editors often reference scholarly opinions as to the state of debate 'This is a view no serious historian disputes' when such statements are POV themselves. TomHennell (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I followed a similar path. I rejected outright the historical value of John (I was an agnostic for a long time but that is a different story) but came to a similar conclusion through a similar path. Plus I have never been under the impression that there are "serious" scholars (who just so happen to be atheists/agnostics) like Ehrman who are impartial and "unserious" ones (who just so happen to be Christians) who are incapable of seeing past whatever they want to believe. I keep making this point: a good number of scholars view John as equally reliable as the synoptic, and containing few or no claims that should legitimately be doubted. I keep having this view rejected by editors who claim they know what the "consensus" view is and often cite one or two scholars (usually atheists like Ehrman) as evidence. Then all cited scholars who disagree are dismissed as having a POV, which Ehrman apparently doesn't have despite the fact that he behaves like an evangelist for atheism. I am told that "everyone knows" Ehrman represents the consensus view, despite no sources actually saying this, and regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. There isn't much I can do when other editors dismiss long lists of prominent modern scholars because they disagree with a couple of atheists or Jesus Seminar members.

It is personally amazing to me that some people here (and elsewhere) can claim to be without a POV and to be impartial, while apparently few others (or at least any who disagree with them) have this gift.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that Morna Hooker, Christopher Rowland, Barnabas Lindars are all preachers or priests. And FF Bruce an apologist?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second CE's question. We can find Christians who think that John is unreliable (Crossan, Borg, Ehrman's academic Christian friends). Can anyone find non-Christians who think Jesus really said "I am the Way" and "You Jews are Satan's children"? Christians are divided on whether to credit John, but secular scholars seem to be in agreement. Is there any contemporary historian of Jesus who incorporates Jesus teaching from John into the worldview of the historical Jesus? Leadwind (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On your first point Leadwind, there has been in the recent past a non-Christians scholarly tradition that privileges statements such as "Jews are Satan's children", and very nasty it was too. This was among the major themes of National Socialist biblical study - which attempted to gut the Gospels to demonstrate a non-Christian Jesus; who was an Aryan supremacist; but whose message was corrupted in the Synoptic Gospels by the 'Rabbi Paul' - polluting it with such themes as loving your enemies. I venture to speculate that they took this trope from Nietzsche. On your second point (and as noted in other threads), Christopher Rowland is an outstanding figure in the most recent historical scholarship on Jesus and the origin of Christianity - who incorportes Jesus's teachings equally both from the Synoptics and from John.

But as I point out below, this is besides the point. The Wikipedia principle of avoiding POV is a restriction on editors, not on content. In assessing content we should not privilege scholarship that we evaluae as 'non-POV' over those we evaluate as POV. It is not the job of Wikipedia to evaluate at all. The key in assessment of schoarly content is to privilege the 'mainstream' over the 'fringe'. It may well be, on any one subject, that mainstream scholarship is mistaken while the the views of a fringe may be better. If so, then in time the finge will become the mainstream and vice versa - and when it does, Wikipia (if it is still around) will reflect this. It used once to be a mainstream view that the Synoptics were historical and John was theological. Now the mainstream view (i.e. the one that is found taught in recognised academic institutions and publishjed in peer-reviewed journals) is that all four Gospels are both historical and theolgical; and the former opinon (though still held by some) is now a fringe view. For Wikipedi we describe the conclusions of current scholarship, we do not sit in judgement on it, or pick and choose other than on the basis of public academic standing. TomHennell (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking of big guns, Ludemann-Heretics,1996,p302 says that the theological points of John are treated and the historical question is no longer considered.[3]. What do we make of this? At the bottom of p301, he also says that the critical consensus is that GoJ was written by someone other than John. Why do we need to let the apologists dominate the article? Apologists are WP:QS.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, "For Wikipedi we describe the conclusions of current scholarship, we do not sit in judgement on it, or pick and choose other than on the basis of public academic standing." I'm glad we agree. The best sources say that John is not nearly as historically valuable as a source for Jesus' life and teaching as the synoptics. So this page should say that. I'm still waiting for a single, prominent historian who says that John and the synoptics are of equal historical value. You suggested Rowland, which is not quite right since he died 40 years ago. So once again, please, who is the most prominent mainstream scholar who agrees with you? As for me, I just cite what the best mainstream scholars say (Theissen, Harris, Crossan, Sanders, Vermes, Ehrman, etc.). Leadwind (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, if D A Carson and Morna Hooker are sources to be respected equal to Sanders, etc., prove it. Find, for example, a university-level, nonsectarian textbook that refers to them as important voices in contemporary scholarship. I've never heard of either of them. Sanders, Vermes, and Crossan turn up all the time in the contemporary literature. Leadwind (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

restore mainstream scholarship to central role

A Christian-POV editor showed up on this page several weeks ago and did what minority-view editors like to do: undermined the majority view of mainstream scholarship. For example, the lead used to tell the reader what mainstream scholars of the historical Jesus have found: that John isn't anywhere near as reliable as the synoptics. Christian editors think John is equally reliable, but it's a simple fact reported by all our mainstream sources that contemporary academia has passed its judgment on John and found it wanting. Distressed by modern scholarship and unfamiliar with it, someone has removed this information from the lead.

It's WP policy to report the academic consensus, and Christian-POV editors have undone this work. The debate on the talk page is winding down. Can we now get back to fixing the page so that it's in line with WP standards and academic scholarship again? Leadwind (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to participate in this but I wanted to make a point as the "Christian-POV editor" referenced above (I presume) is me: Everyone (Wikipedia editors and scholars) has a POV. No one is neutral or "impartial". I don't need to remind anyone that Wikipedia rules say this explicitly. I think the lead before was too long so if anything is brought back to the lead, it should only be the most important parts. The rest should be discussed in the authorship section. As another editor mentioned above, a good number of modern scholars disagree that John is less historically reliable. Those are scholars, not theologians, and their views are not less valid because they are personally religious. Your logic seems to be this: scholars who are personally Christian are biased and scholars who are not personally Christian (i.e. agnostic) are impartial and objective. This is not a valid presumption, neither on Wikipedia nor in general. I don't know what the percentage of scholars is who view John as less historically valid, although I will assume it is a majority. The "majority" view is not a "consensus" view. How could it be "consensus" when so many scholars (as mentioned above) doubt it?

I also have some issues with the authorship section. It says “Furthermore, Jesus was recorded as foretelling that John would suffer martyrdom along with his brother, James.[Mk. 10:39] [Ac. 12:2] [8][26] “ Those referenced biblical passages say nothing about John dying. The passage from Mark mentions baptism and the passage from Acts references only the martyrdom of "James, the brother of John". This part of the article claims the bible suggests John was martyred. Since the biblical versus it cites for this don't make any such claim, this sentence should be removed. “In addition, 5th and 9th century writers referred to an alleged passage by Papias indicating that James and John had been killed by the Jews, and their deaths are recorded in several early martyrologies; this evidence for John's martyrdom, however, is inconclusive.[26]" If this article is so critical about the reliability of John, why is it citing 5th and 9th century unknown writers as evidence for a point? I assume that the “martyrologies” referenced as evidence for John’s early death are apocrypha which were often fake history or outright fabrications. On top of that, the quote at the end says outright that the evidence is “inconclusive”. So it makes dubious claims to support a conclusion it says is inconclusive. As I see it, the view that John died early is a minority one (probably small minority) among scholars, and even if it isn’t, the elaboration in the article is dubious and should be replaced with a note that some scholars believe John may have died young. A more mainstream view among scholars is that it was unlikely that a man in the 1st century would live the 90 years John would have had to have lived to have written his gospel. I think the article should elaborate on the scholarly view on this issue, not claims made by dubious or non-existent sources regarding a view held by few scholars. There are no widely accepted specific claims of John’s early death outside of this general doubt.

I also see that the views of skeptics/agnostics Vermes and Ehrman are elaborated on, and seem be more skeptical than most and to have a view outside the “majority” view that John is less historically reliable. Ehrman is quoted as saying it is outright unreliable, although the rest of the sources in the article simply say it isn't completely reliable. Why include these views but not balance them out with a modern scholar who holds a more traditional view? And again, after the section on Ehrman’s views, that claim is again made that the bible suggests that John may have been martyred young and uses biblical passages that don’t make the claim (check those biblical versus yourself if you don’t believe me).

I think we should give other editors some time to comment before we make changes on this, as the block was only removed a day ago.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind; there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in various threads on this discussion page; but I think one point emerges clearly; that the article cannot state or imply (whether in the lead or elsewhere) that "contemporary academia has passed its judgment on John and found it wanting". Contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship does not hold a consistent view on the relative merits as history of the Synoptics and John. If we were to make a headcount of specialists in the Synoptics, I am sure we would find a majority regarding John of lesser historical value; but some major critical scholars on the Synoptics (e.g. Morna Hooker) apparently take the contrary view. If we were to make a headcount of specialists in John, I am sure we would find a majority regarding John of equal historical value; but some major critical scholars on John (e.g. CK Barrett) take the contrary view. This appears independent of the author's confessional standpoint - Christian, Jew, non-believer; and also of whether the author is otherwise inclined to a conservative or radical approach to critical biblical enquiry. Wikipedia should not record as established critical consensus, a statement that is disputed by several leading authorities on the subject of the article. TomHennell (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a great deal of variation within just about any view point. Ehrman may think John is mostly unreliable, but he doesn't hold a much more positive view of the synoptics. Some Christian scholars think John is less reliable than the synopitcs, but that neither have many historical defects. D. A. Carson has noted that a good number of scholars view John as equally historical with the synoptics though written by his disciples and not John himself. A good number of scholars think of John as possibly being equally (maybe even more) historical and equally theological with the synoptics. One view I have heard is that John takes an inductive approach (states the conclusion at the beginning, that Jesus is the Son of God, and uses the gospel to elaborate on that), while the synoptics take a deductive approach (describe the ministry and lead to a conclusion at the end of Jesus being the Son of God) and this inductive/deductive approach is what makes the gospels seem so different even though they may not be.

There is a great deal of variation amongst scholars, and even if 55% of "scholars" think John is less historical than the synoptics, this tells us nothing as there is a great deal of variation within that 55% (as well as the other 45%). Also, as I noted above, many who view John as less historical than the synoptics would think of it as being much more historically reliable than other scholars like Ehrman. Beyond that, you get into other issues, like whether to include in the category of "scholars" people who wrote, say, 50 years ago, and why they should or should not be included in the category. Also, you get into the question of who is a "prominent" scholar and who is just a 'regular' scholar, what the evidence is for either classification, and what weight to assign the views of different scholars. The issue is simply too complex to say what the "majority" think and maybe make some space for the "minority" view as these distinctions are illusorily. This is even more so the case as many sources have been cited to say that there is no consensus or majority view and a great deal of variation.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I need a clear definition of what "mainstream scholarship" means, and references that clearly make the claim that this view is recognized as such. I think what you are referring to is a liberal Protestant view point, which is in contention with Conservative, Catholic and secular views. 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Hardyplants (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that some editors are defining "mainstream" as what they believe to be "mainstream". This is only possible by dismissing large numbers of scholars as "not mainstream" and going with the few that hold this so-called "mainstream" view because 'everyone just knows' it is the mainstream view, thus the claim needs no evidence. This is of course not the way Wikipedia works. An example of a view that is truly a near-consensus view would be the two-source hypothesis. Some legitimate scholars disagree but few do, and agreement is close to universal throughout the scholarly community (liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, ect). The reliability of John is certainly not an issue with similar agreement.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Every important voice in current historical Jesus research basically rejects John: Sanders, Vermes, Theissen, Crossan, etc. Ehrman isn't recognized as an expert on historical Jesus, per se, but his work summarizes the state of academia in general more than it represents his particular views. Name one prominent expert on historical Jesus who uses Jesus' teachings in John as part of the picture of who Jesus was and what he taught. It's fine for an advocate of John to say that it's historically reliable, but the proof would be a contemporary historical Jesus expert who really thought that Jesus said "I am the way," etc. Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since each one of the people you list has a different view, simply put, John would mess up the picture of Jesus they are each trying to portray. They do not make any strong claim why John is not used, as this source mentions. [4] Hardyplants (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom just listed several such scholars. The views of the scholars you mentioned, in particular Vermes and Theissen, are reflected on the article already.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, the glaring absentee from your list is Christopher Rowland; whose "Christian Origins" is probably the most important contribution to the subject of the last 20 years; and which you will find on pretty well any seminary or theological college first year reading list - alongside Vermes "Jesus the Jew" and Sanders "Jesus and Judasim". In effect these three form the major strands of the 'third quest' for the historical Jesus; in that all three regard Jesus as unintelligible except in the context of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. As such, all three totally reject the criterion of "dissimilarity", which was the guiding principle of the 'second quest'; and which limps on in the Jesus Seminar. Vermes of course emphasises Jesus as a Gallilean sage and wonder worker in the tradition of Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the circle-drawer; Sanders by contrast rather tends to see Jesus as much closer to the Pharisees; Rowland regards Jesus as an eschatological prophet in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic - and hence having many common features with the Qumran Essenes, as well as with later Rabbinic traditions. To an extent, the differing evaluations of the Gospel of John amongst the three of then reflect their respective theories as to which strands of tradition are to be considerd as being most strongly represented in 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Since John is the most Rabbinic of the Gospels, it is not surprising that Rowland of the three is most likely to consider it as a usable historical source; and to present the discourse material as taking the form it does (so unlike the synoptics) specifically because it is one side of a dialogue with apocalyptic rabbinic ideas. But you should read the book.

That summary, however, is probably misleading in imputing too great a degree of opposition in the three sets of views. "Christian Origins" emerged folloiwing a Cambridge seminar series led jointly by Rowland, Sanders and John O'Neill; Sanders is in fact its dedicatee, and his help is prominently thanked in the acknowledgements. Rowland and Vermes are colleagues and near neighbours in Oxford, and I believe close friends. I suspect that the world of New Testament scholarship is more varied (and much smaller) than your charactisation appears to allow. TomHennell (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Add David Flusser to that list of appreciators of John. A Georgian (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Leadwind, he has a point. If this article weere not about the Gospel of John, but about the Historical Jesus; then it is fair to say that the predominant tradition of academic study has tended to discount the events and teachings transmitted in John (although that is much less true now than it was 50 years ago). The argument used to be made that modern scholarship could disect the Gospels and otehr early evidence, applying critical methods to strip away the accumulation of early church traditions and the presuppositions of the evangelists themselves, and so extract a core of historical facts relating to the life and words of Jesus of Nazareth. But, as Vermes, Rowland and Sanders would all agree, this old approach was primarily faith-driven; in Sanders terms, it was importing into discussion about the historical Jesus, the categories and presuppositions of 19th century liberal Protestantism. Vermes, Rowland and Sanders are each trying to explore the New Testament accounts from the perspective of 1st century Palestine within the Roman Empire. But in these terms, the histsorical 'Jesus event' is as much or more about the aftermath of Jesus life and ministry, as it is about the man from Galillee; quite simply, that is what our earliest non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny) are interested in, and it is the almost exclusive focus of our earliest surviving Christian source (Paul's letters). So it is illegitimate - from the perspective of the most recent scholarship, to conflate the statement, "The Synoptics provide more reliable evidence as to the life and teachings of Jesus" with the statement "The Synoptics have greater historical value" even if the first statement were justified - which many recent scholars dispute. TomHennell (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

...which many recent scholars dispute. Aren't all the disputing scholars lightweight evangelical apologists?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Tom just listed several disputing scholars who aren't lightweights.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean......they are heavyweight evangelical apologists?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the scholars mentioned as defending the equal historical value of John is lightweight - nor indeed are Sanders, Vermes or Barrett; who take the contrary view. Don Carson (who defends John) would probably be considered and evangelical; as too would Tom Wright (whose views on John are, I believe, close to those of Ed Sanders). Otherwise, Raymond Brown is Catholic; Ed Sanders, Morna Hooker and CK Barrett are Methodist; Graham Stanton was Presbyterian; Tom Wright and Christopher Rowland are Anglican, Geza Vermes is Jewish, although raised as a Catholic and now tending most strongly to associate with Anglican academics. Most of these figures have held one of the major chairs in biblical exegesis at a British university; Morna Hooker and Graham Stanton having both been Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge - and you cannot get much more of a heavyweight than that. TomHennell (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And Flusser was a practicing Orthodox Jew who headed the New Testament department at the Hebrew Universtiy in Jerusalem A Georgian (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Except for Flusser, all the ones arguing for John's authorship seem to be priests/preachers/apologists.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are defining "apologist" as anyone who doesn't dismiss John as fiction, or at least come close.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's at all accurate. It seems to me that we are defining it in terms of commitments, not conclusions. Anyone who is committed to defending a certain view of the faith, typically a fairly literalist one, is acting as an apologist. In contrast, a genuine scholar simply follows the evidence, without fear that it will lead them away from their faith. In my view, a faith that fears evidence is not much of a faith at all. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree Dylan; which is why Hooker, Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland and Wright are undertaking critical scholarship; while the Jesus Seminar (which presupposes the non-historicity of John as an article of faith) is not. Others appear to rule out as scholars any ordained Christian minister or member of a religious community (a criterion which would exclude Erasmus and Hort, both former holders of the Lady Margaret's chair in Divinity. However the point at issue is what is to count as 'mainstream'. Some editors have taken the view that the 'mainstream' consists only of those scholars whose conclusions on John correspond with the views that predominated in discussion of the historical Jesus in the 1970s. But genuine scholarship doesn't lie easy in any particular box - and many more recent studies have come to opposite conclusions, both in John and the Synoptics. I tend to regard the mainstream as neccessarily including (but not restricted to) the scholars elected to the major academic chairs in critical exegesis, and the editors of the most important peer-reviewed journals in the field (in this case, 'New Testament Studies', and the 'Journal of Theological Studies'). By that standard, there are many 'mainsteam' scholars on both sides of the debate - although the absolute rejection any independant historical value in John is now so rarely advanced as to be effectively 'fringe'. TomHennell (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't suggest you agree with me and then misrepresent my point. I would never claim that the Jesus Seminar somehow falls short of critical scholarship. You seem to be rejecting it simply because it takes a secular, historical approach, instead of a theological one. Theology starts with faith: that Jesus as we believe in Him not only existed as a historical personage but exists as the Son of God, a person in the Trinity. Scholarship starts with the evidence and sticks with it; it never takes that leap of faith, so it cannot speak of the Godhead. These are non-overlapping magisteria.

My faith would not be shaken by the knowledge that some of the words attributed to Jesus are not His own, or even if all the might of secular history was unable to confirm His existence. Physics can't prove God, either, but it can't disprove Him, and that leaves room for faith. But there is no room for faith in proper scholarship. Faith is personal and transcendent. It is not to be cheapened by mixing with the secular world, which is necessarily public and shared. When someone tries to be both a theological apologist and a secular historian, there is an inherent conflict that may well lead to one aspect biasing the other.

As such, anyone who has apologetic obligations but represents themselves as a scholar of history is suspect. We cannot simply ignore such sources, but we must determine their reliability by looking at how they are viewed by genuine scholars who are not encumbered with commitments to defending their faith. If they are not seen as respectable and unbiased, we must exclude them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise if I misunderstood your point - I had thought you were being critical of scholars who constrict the permissable scope of scholarship withing theological or ideological presuppostions. As I understand the Jesus Semianr, all participants are required to subscribe to their "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom". Of the scholars I named - Hooker, Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland, Wright - probably only Barrett would thereby qualify for membership of the Seminar. That implies to me that the "Seven Pillars" cannot be treateed as assured conclusions of scholarship; but are rather statements of faith; and their particular adoption invalidates any claim that the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar can represent a current scholarly consensus. Where we do appear to differ is in your category of 'secular historian' 'Secularism' is a theology like any other - an no worse for that, many of the best biblical historians have been secularists. Other biblical historians have been 'theist' in their theology. I take you as proposing that the historical method sits better with a secular theology, than it does with a theist one. But in fact - as Vermes never tires of pointing out - a scholarly historical understanding of Jesus is likely to present problems for both secularists and theists; hence a theist may have difficulties accepting that, on the basis of historical evidence, the nativity accounts appear to have no substantial basis; while a secularist may have difficulties accepting that, on the basis of historical evidence, Jesus performed miracles.

A specific example may illustrate my point. FF Bruce, as a evangelical Protestant, believed that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul - because that is explicitly stated in the text, and inspired scripture does not lie. But in his scholarly studies of Paul's theology, Bruce sets aside the Pastorals - and other questionably Pauline material such as Colossians - and draws his conclusions solely from the undisputed letters. So long as you recognise and explicltly acknowledge your theological standpoint, there is no reason why your historical studies should be discounted or devalued. In my view, it is possible, indeed possibly desirable, to be both a theological apologist and a critical historian: so long as you are open in acknowledging the limitations of both methods - and are clear at any one time of which one you are applying.

But my views - and yours - are beside the point. For the purpose of Wikipedia, a scholarly atuhority is one who is acknowledged as such by their peers, as Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland and Wright are; while me, you (I presume) and the Jesus Seminar (when acting in their collective capacity) are not. TomHennell (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The pillars are simply a statement of consensus, not an ideological straitjacket, and their content is largely non-controversial. They represent a scholarly commitment to secularism, but secularism is no more a theology than "non-religious" is a religion (or "bald" is a hair color). Secularism is defined in terms of the absence of theological commitment (though not necessarily belief). Even atheism is closer to the status of religion than secularism. In any case, if secular history cannot in principle confirm the miraculous, this is a small price to pay for avoiding sectarian squabbling.

Keep in mind that, as a Catholic, I do not accept sola scriptura, so I do not expect the Bible to be perfectly true when (mis-)interpreted literally. As a result, there is little conflict between secular history and my religious beliefs. Perhaps this is less the case for you, as indicated by your odd belief in "secular theology". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluser simply discerned an authentic tradition independent of those available to the synoptics. A Georgian (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FF Bruce is definitely an apologist. His writing is so devoid of objectivity that it does not even look scholarly to me. The rest of the disputing scholars-almost all appear to be priests/preachers. I am opposing the conversion of WP into an apologetics website.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Most critical Biblical scholars are Christian or Jewish believers. Many (perhaps most) Biblical scholars are also apologists, Sanders for example, presents his scholarly conculsions in 'Jesus and Judaism'; and then represented them in apologetic form in "The Historical figure of Jesus". Graham Stanton does the same in "The Gospels and Jesus" and "Gospel Truth". This can I suppose be confusing - Wright deals with the problem by presenting his scholarly works as N.T Wright, and his apologetics as "Tom Wright". Bruce's books on the theology of Paul especially "The Apostle of Free Spirit" remain standard critical studies on the subject.

F.F. Bruce - along with his friend and contemporary C.F.D. Moule - combined an evangelical religious faith with rigorous critical biblical scholarship; demonstrating that there is no inherhent incompatibility in these intellectual standpoints. This certainly both made them unpopular with those for whom rejection of evangelical Christianity is an article of faith; but as Dylan points out above, prescribing the conclusions your studies are allowed to reach is a mark of polemics, not scholarship. TomHennell (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By that measure, your rejection of the Jesus Seminar is based on polemics, not scholarship. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting into motives is always a tricky business. How can you know that a scholar who happens to be Christian set out to prove his views regardless of the evidence? How do you distinguish such a scholar from a Christian scholar who doesn't let his views get in his way? Because the scholar says so? They all say make that argument in one way or the other. Thus the difficulty of judging motives. How do you distinguish them from someone like Ehrman, who rejects Jesus as anything more than a man because of a philosophical viewpoint (for Ehrman, since evil exists there can be no God, thus Jesus must have just been a man no matter what the evidence), even though this view heavily colors everything he does? Its not possible to do, which is why Tom's method of accepting scholars is more objective and would result in an article that reflects modern scholarship, not just the small section of modern scholarship that happens to be highly skeptical. As I said earlier, you are defining "serious" scholarship as those who reject John and probably Christianity in general. No one is 'impartial' and no one undertakes scholarship from an impartial or objective standpoint. Everyone has biases and a 'faith' one way or the other that is going to color their scholarship. Bart Ehrman is more evangelistic than most well known scholars, only he is he a evangelist and apologist for unbelief. Your rejection of most scholars who happen to be Christian and embrace of the Jesus Seminar and atheists/agnostics (most 'impartial' scholars, per your definition) like Ehrman would inevitably result in a view heavily skewed against John (and Christianity in particular). There is no sound basis for this, as your reasons (some people are impartial and others are inherently biased) don't actually describe how people think and act.

Jesus and his message are not supposed to be true because they are based off of some persuasive existential or abstract philosophical argument. They are viewed by people as true because of events that happened in space and time, and recorded in the New Testament. As such, their historicity a critical issue, and so this question is a critical issue. This also means that a scholar's personal view as to whether Jesus was just a mere man or the Son of God is going to shape their scholarship, and few scholars are going to 'investigate' the evidence that reject their faith/nonfaith because of persuasive evidence (this gets into the whole area of cognitive science which is another issue entirely). If the truth of Jesus and his message was that simple, the evidence would be enough that either everyone would accept his divinity like they accept quantum physics, or everyone would reject it like they reject the Loc Ness monster.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does have a way of determining bias for it's purposes. Bias=mainstream/minority.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very much agreed. We need to stop bending over backwards to make room for fringe beliefs driven solely by sectarian commitments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hennel, above, may be on to something. We could say that scholars of the historical Jesus reject John, but that Bible scholars still consider John an important historical source for insight into apostolic Christianity. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

new changes

I reworked the section on current scholarship for various reasons.

• It was one sentence about the views J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris at the end of the first paragraph. However there is later a whole paragraph describing their views in detail while citing the same sources. So the above sentence was redundent and deleted.

• It cites Anderson pg 77 on the views of liberal scholars but the page says nothing about it. It does however mention authorship being absorbed into the reconstruction of the Gospel's development so it was linked to the proper sentance. The views of conservative and liberal scholars are discussed above so these sentences were deleted. I also deleted the sentence about the date since it's discussed below.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it was again reverted without addressing my statements and with no regard for the new sources I put. Not to be mean but is anybody listening? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making major edits, including the removal of large chunks of cited material. You are anonymous, and are engaging in edit warring. You have reverted what, 6 times now? I also believe you have violated 3RR. If you want to edit, stop edit warring against the consensus, get an ID, and make smaller edits because most of what you are deleting and adding is debatable at best.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, we treat anonymous editors as equals. There is absolutely no need for this editor to "get an ID" if he or she does not wish to. So please do not use this contributor's anonymity to denigrate his or her edits. Consider the edits on their merits and on their merits alone. Rklawton (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making major edits, including the removal of large chunks of cited material.

The cited material is still there, I just deleted repeats. Read the post again. You have no privilage to simply revert my edits while ignoring my summaries just because you have an ID and I don't. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP. I have reviewed your edits and find them to be very helpful. As pointed out by Rklawton above, your having/not having an ID does not make a difference for the credibility of your edits. Secondly, most of us who do have an ID are also anonymous, it doesn't matter. There is no need to feel obliged to get an ID and you should still expect to be treated equal as an editor.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes on scholarship

I made some changes on Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship. I added sources on the point about John being illiterate to show that this isn't the view of all scholars. Second, I changed the third paragraph, which said before that scholars had concluded that John has little or no valid history in it. From the comments above, I don't think even many who have argued against John in comparison to the synoptics would go that far, so I just added a sentence mentioning that scholars typically see at least some historical value in the gospel.

Also, the second paragraph is dubious. I don't know what one would mean about John being anti-Jewish, although this might be a poor reading of a reference to possible Gnostic terminology in John (which has since been refuted because of the dead sea scrolls). The sentences on John not being the author, and on him being "unschooled and ordinary" are already referenced elsewhere so I don't think they should remain here. There are also charged terms like "falsified", "hostile against Judaism", and "killed by the Jews" which are unnecessarily provocative. In addition, it uses sources from the 5th and 9th centuries to doubt John's authorship. There is something ironic about using evidence found in sources from the early church to doubt other claims made by the early church.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this was rebutted here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If a gospel is anti-Jewish because it blames them for Jesus' crucifixion, then all the gospels are anti-Jewish to some extent.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian if you make smaller changes and additions, then we can deal with them more constructivley, thus hopefully avoiding these wholesale reverts that never discuss the material. Hardyplants (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Will someone take a look at Dylan Flahetry's most recent revert? There are real problems with Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship and I can't do much more. It doesn't even agree with what was in the intro before I made any changes. It says John is mostly ahistorical although the intro didn't go that far at any point.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman, yes, all the gospels are anti-Jewish to some extent. It starts with Mark, where Jesus intentionally obscures his own message to prevent the Jews from repenting and being saved. Matthew has some real choice anti-Jewish commentary, and so does John. All this reflects the Christians being rejected by the Jews and the evangelists' hostility toward mainstream Judaism.

And, yes, there is something ironic about using early church evidence to question the early church's claim that John wrote the gospel. It shows that the early churchmen had trouble keeping their story straight. How ironic.

Another problem you missed is that Robinson, Bruce, and Morris get treated incorrectly. As for Robinson, no mention is made of his failure to sway scholarship in his direction. Bruce is an apologist, not a contemporary critical scholar. I'd like to have a section on what apologists say, but it doesn't belong in the section about what mainstream scholars say. Morris is a lightweight, not in the same league as the mainstream scholars who disagree with him, or even with Robinson. His name doesn't add anything to the content here. I know that minority-view editors like to portray their minority-view scholars as the equivalent of the majority-view scholars, but that's not good WP practice. Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Tom's response above. I also have a major issue with you redefining the rules and asserting that scholars who disagree with your view are "lightweights". Bruce is a Christian apologist just as much as Ehrman is an atheist/agnostic apologist. Neither are impartial and it is dubious to suggest either are. As Tom says above, a good number of well regarded scholars hold to a view much like Robinson's, Bruce's, and Morris'RomanHistorian (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman represents the consensus view of academia and of mainline seminaries. That's the view that WP respects most. WP prefers the testimony of a Ehrman to Bruce because Ehrman is in line with the academic consensus and Bruce is not. Minority-view editors like to say it's all relative and that mainstream scholars are no different from sectarian apologists, but it's WP policy to prefer the academic view over the sectarian. Ehrman > Bruce. Leadwind (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for your claim?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To understand this, one need only look at the publishers of their works. How many of their works are published by academic presses, and again, how many are published by apologistic presses. This should be a fair indicator?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation, there is no incompatibility between the critcal and apologetic scholarship; both are recognised academic approaches, many leading authorties write in both forms, and many publihsers (Penguin, SCM, IVP, Eerdmans, Fortress) produce both sorts of work. Hence, Ed Sanders' "Jesus and Juadaism" is a work of critical scholarship and is published by Fortress Press; while his "The Historical figure of Jesus" is a work of apologetic scholarship and is published by Penguin. Of their nature, however, apolgetic works tend to be shorter, more accessible, and cheaper; and it is often the case that such works are more likely to contain their author's views set out in pithy phrases. Conseqeuntly we often seem to find - as indeed is the case in respect of Sanders in this article - that Wikipedia editors refer in preference to an author's apologetic works. I see nothing wrong with this, Sanders sholarly opinions are the same in both books; but do you see it as a problem? TomHennell (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do see a problem when apologetics intrudes into academics. There's a difference. And, I was talking about the academic and the apologetic. Not about conservative/critical.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to examine your terms. 'Academic' = in the intellectual traditon of the 'Academy of Athens'. 'Apologetic' = in the intellectual tradition of 'The Apology of Socrates'. Both go back to Plato, and much scholarship is both. Apologetic is to do with the justification of an intellectual standpoint entirely through rational arguments, assuming a notional audience that is informed and receptive but as yet unpersuaded. Academic is to do with the presentation of ideas within an open formum of scholary debate. So all apologetic is potentially academic, but not everything that is academic is apologetic. It has been, since Augustine of Hippo characteristic of many Christian writers to employ the apologetic approach; but it is also widely applied by non-Christian (and anti-Christian) writers - such as Richard Dawkins. But employing the apologetic method does not make Dawkins less of an academic, rather the contrary. TomHennell (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with argument from etymology is that things change; they are no longer true to their original meaning. As I've explained elsewhere, an apologist is like a lawyer; they have a duty to support one side to the best of their ability, no matter what the truth is about guilt. That's why, as much as I appreciate apologetic efforts, they cannot be considered scholarly. Scholars are like the judge: neutral and beholden to none. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your analogy Dylan, but your association of scholarship with a judge is misleading. Scholarship is a process, not a person; hence to pursue your image, 'scholarship' equates to the judicial process - within which advocates (on both sides), the judge and the jury all equally play an essential part. The assumption is made (in English law) that, over time, an adversarial judicial process delives justice; just so the process of scholarship, in the course of which both critical and apologetic arguments are essential, will lead to a broad consensus whose dissemination should increase general understanding. But here a caveat is vital; Wikipedia is not itself scholarship, and contributors to Wikipedia ought never claim scholarly judgement for themselves. Wikipedia describes the state and range of current scholarly debate; it has no business evaluating which minority views might - in the course of the scholarly process - eventually achieve consensus support. TomHennell (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

TH, '"The Historical figure of Jesus" is a work of apologetic scholarship.' Not so. Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In "The Historical figure of Jesus" , Sanders is arguing cogently and concisely for a particular scholarly standpoint - which he summarises in the final paragraph as ".. we have a good idea of the main lines of (Jesus's) ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. Perhaps most important, we know how much he inspired his followers, who sometimes themselves did not understand him, but were so loyal to him that they changed history". In all of the book, his argument contests the views of a previous generation of scholars of the Historical Jesus - Kasemann, Bornkamm, Perrin. Their contrary view is however, in the whole work, mentioned only in two paragraphs on page 176 (where he namechecks Perrin). Otherwise, the entirety of Sanders discussion, and almost all the footnotes, relate solely to primary sources, to Sanders own work, and to that of scholars taking a similar view (such as Geza Vermes, and Albert Schweitzer). This is characteristic of a work of apologetics, and none the worse for that. In apologetics you present the rational arguments for your standpoint as well as you can; you do not devote time or space to opposite views. As Sanders points out in the preface, if you want to explore the balance of scholarly arguments behind his conclusions, you can always follow his references to his earlier, critical, works, where Kasemann, Bornkamm and Perrin all receive due acknowledgement. As is to be expected, Sanders makes no mention - here or in any of his critical works so far as I know - to the latterday survival of the contrary view represented in the Jesus Seminar; but that I think, is because he considers that entire enterprise to be unfounded, outdated, and wrongheaded. TomHennell (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanders is no apologist. Conservative, maybe, apologist, no. Anyway, he has a good academic standing. And I doubt if we could find any good RS saying he or his work is apologistic. So, it is unjustified to try to gain legitimacy for Bruce by citing Sanders. They are in altogether different leagues. Sanders towers over Bruce.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)