Talk:John 3:16/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to begin this review tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

First off, this cannot be promoted to GA without all the red in the references being fixed. I will proceed as if it's all done!

Second, I will do a prose review first and then will come back and do a random check of the references to be sure they say what they are supposed to. Don't worry if I find some mistakes, they seem to show up in every article no matter how careful we all try to be. I may ask a friend to help check these as well.

Next to last, don't be put off by my nit-picking. Overall, it's an excellent article, but this is what GA does.

Now last! Please use the template Done to mark when each of my comments have been addressed. (It makes it easier for me to keep track.) If you have objections or disagreements with anything I have said, you are free to voice them, and I promise to listen with an open mind. Come armed with good sources, and I will probably go with what you find. This is my field of study - religion - but things are always changing, and there is always stuff I don't know. I will do my best to be fair and reasonable. For all grammar rules and punctuation, I use The Brief English Handbook, second edition. I want you to succeed, and I am committed to making WP the best encyclopedia possible. Work with me, and we will insure that both those things will happen. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

In the lead, it is a WP standard that controversial statements need references. The rest doesn't need references so long. as they are in the body, but this It is deemed one of the most popular verses from the Bible and as a summary of Christianity's central doctrines will probably be seen as controversial by some readers. I note that the concept is referenced in the body, so that shouldn't be difficult.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the lead beefed up a little more. Maybe an additional summary statement of each section? Just to be sure a reader who only reads the lead (which happens a lot) still gets what's most important.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it enough now? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; the addition of one sentence of commentary is not exactly what I asked for. The lead is a summary of the content of the body of the article. Let me see what I can do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim Let's come back to this after we have finished with the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical context

By including an explanation of who Jesus is begins with the conversation between Nicodemus[2] and Jesus, a Jewish itinerant preacher.[ it seems odd for there not to be one of Nicodemus as well. I know he's linked, but readers often don't follow those, therefore, for symmetry in the prose, I would just add "a Pharisee" after Nicodemus' name.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of four times in which Nicodemus is mentioned in John:... Add a sentence either here or at the end of this paragraph that says Nicodemus is not mentioned in the synoptics. You will need a source for that but I know it's correct. It should be easy to find.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Second Temple Judaism. I remove "the";

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was known for clarity, change pronoun to noun: "it" for "Phariseeism";

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a rabbinical Jewish law is incorrect. Rabbinical law was post 600- 700 AD, and it is not "a" law, it is the collection of laws derived from the Torah.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

highly opposing attitudes should read "... and for its highly oppositional attitudes of (or toward)..."

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night[13] – the only time a Pharisee is presented positively in the presence of Jesus. this is an incorrect use of a dash which is like a comma and therefore creates a sentence fragment. This is a perfect time to use a semi-colon however. Try this: "Nicodemus came to Jesus at night;[13] it is the only time a Pharisee is presented positively in the presence of Jesus anywhere in the four gospels."

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what Jesus did at the cleansing of the Temple, by expelling merchants and money changers,[16] Nicodemus said he knew Jesus was "a teacher who came from God" This is incorrect. The first two verses say only "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.” They make no mention of the cleansing of the Temple. It was after that that Jesus was arrested.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They then discussed about the need to be born again before being able to see the Kingdom of God,[19] and where the spirit goes after the death of the body no comma after God

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus then spoke about the salvation and damnation that people shall reap; and those who do not believe in him will face,[21] and criticised Nicodemus for his lack in the understanding of theology. this is an incorrect use of a semi-colon. Remove it and don't use "and", use that instead. End the sentence after face. Start a new sentence with "He criticized...

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you stop there, but the remainder of the text is just as relevant to context imo. A summary that includes that most scholars see the rest of the chapter as the words of Jesus would also be appropriate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is more appropriate in the "Analysis" section. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim I would still like to see this if you agree: I note that you stop there, but the remainder of the text is just as relevant to context imo. A summary that includes that most scholars see the rest of the chapter as the words of Jesus would also be appropriate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

This will seem like an an odd section to most readers imo but also cool. I like it. I have not checked any of them for accuracy. I will later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the section actually. It has been there for years. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim I have now checked these and added some content relevant to analysis. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

This needs more explaining. First, I would explain how you can reference King James as having the same verse three ways.

Should it be removed? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No but it needs explaining. Where did you get the different versions and why are there different versions? What concerns me is that they all say King James, and while I know there are different versions and translations of the English Bible, and there is the original King James and newer versions of it as well, we cannot assume our readers will know that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, I will just remove it. It does not seem important to me at all. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would add what methods are used for analyzing this verse: textual criticism? Some of this looks like literary criticism - "parallels with surrounding verses" - but one or at most two sentences with some real critical analysis would be good. Take a look at this for example: [[Gundry, Robert H., and Russell W. Howell. “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Ὅυτως... Ὥστε in John 3:16.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 41, no. 1, 1999, pp. 24–39, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561476. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.]]

Can you give me the free access? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email. See whether or not you can access the article. If not, we will try something else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this seems to not actually be analysis so much as it is simple exegesis; that should also be said.

Well, I don't actually know how analysis should look like. Will be it better if I change the sub-title to "Exegesis" instead? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content there now is exegesis - interpretation - and should be titled accordingly, but there should also be a section on its critical analysis. Let me see what else I can find that might help. I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me adding some analysis! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So real life is interfering right now, but I should be back later tonight. This won't take long, I'm sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim I have now added content under analysis. Feel free to adjust, add, remove at your will, but I hope you can see the difference between analysis and exegesis. I hope you will add some to this discussion as well. It's a very important shift. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not problem, it's really good. Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim Sorry for the delay, I should be back tomorrow night.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exegesis

Are your quotes exact? They have to be exact, and I do mean exact, from every word to every comma. Otherwise, paraphrasing is best. They should all be checked.

Some lengthy quotes are removed and paraphrased. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John 3:16 is in which God's motives on sending Jesus,[24] which in Christianity are to give people believing in the latter an eternal life, appears in the Gospel for a first time;[25] eternal life is also a dominant theme in the entire Gospel. This needs to be divided and reworded. As it is, it makes no sense at all.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theologian Larry Hurtado saw the verse to reflect Jesus's importance in Christianity "sees" the verse "as reflecting" Jesus' without the extra s

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the ... the remove one 'the'

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, Anglican bishop N. T. Wright confuted: don't use confuted here. It's too strong a term for this, and it's unecessary and confusing to the majority of our readers. Just say NTW argues against that view saying...

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The verse's purpose is assumed to strengthen the faith of Christians, not to be an evangelistic tool. The verse's purpose is assumed to be that of strengthening faith in those already Christian and not evangelizing non-Christians.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... instead, the emphasisation of the verse is, for Christians, to keep believing. the emphasis of the verse is toward continuing belief in (or for if you prefer) Christians.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John 3:16 has parallels with surrounding verses[34] – up to 3:21, I found this statement odd, so I checked your sources and can find no explanation of what it means in the references you cite. Can you direct me to where I might find an explanation of what this means?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This results in a controversial speculation[38] that John 3:16 is a personal commentary of an evangelist, traditionally John the Evangelist. There is speculation that John 3:16 is the personal commentary of an evangelist, traditionally "thought to be" John the Evangelist, but it is controversial.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theologian David Pawson said it is unusual for Jesus to say such in a third-person perspective, or repeat and expand change "say such in" to "speak from and "a perspective" to "the third person perspective", no comma, or "to" repeat "or" expand...

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move this whole sentence to the section that discusses it below. Jesus never referred to himself as "only begotten Son"[41] but as "Son of Man";[42] "only begotten son" is what the evangelist call Jesus in John 1.[43] Jesus never referred to himself as "the" "only begotten Son"[41] but as the "Son of Man". end of sentence "only begotten son" is what the evangelist call Jesus in John 1 Only begotten son (No quotes needed) ... calls...

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim this one is not done. Your reference doesn't say what you say it does. That's a problem. Find me one that does or remove the sentence. John 3:16 has parallels with surrounding verses[34] – up to 3:21,Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RL again! I'll be back later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Can you finish the review before 1 May 2022, Wikipedia's time, at least the review was done on 30 April 2022, 23:59? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim No, no way. Even if I complete it in a week, which almost no one actually does, I would have till May 2nd, and I may require more time because there are syntax problems in nearly every sentence. I haven't even begun a source review. The one source I looked at didn't say what you used it for. The red in the bibliography is still there, and I haven't done a copy-vio test yet. So no. If that's a problem, and you need a result by then, I will have to fail it. You can always ask for a second opinion and wait for someone else to respond. I'll leave if you want me to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Don't worry, I am not forcing you. I will just be less responsive due to my personal life on 1 May and thereafter, so I want to finish this review as soon as possible. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim I understand personal life interfering and that there is nothing anyone can do about that. If you are unable to finish, I can wait till you are, or we can take a pause. I can note that on the GA page. Also Nicholas, above you put "done" at the bottom of the whole list of things I asked for, and I just went and did most of them myself, so they weren't all done. If you disagree with something I say, tell me and why and we can discuss it. Otherwise I expect the changes I ask for to be made. Without that, we are both wasting our time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry! I am not a native English speaker so I probably miss some of your points. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I do recognize that you are a non-native English speaker, and while I am always impressed with anyone who tackles and learns English, Wikipedia has a policy that articles must meet Wp standards regardless. I am required to be sure all grammar and punctuation are correct. But I also want you to succeed, so that's why I did some of it myself. I want you to succeed here, but I have another problem. I have been through the whole article more than once, and aside from the small paragraph that I added, there is no critical analysis anywhere. This is written entirely from a believer's perspective. On Wikipedia that is considered a biased point of view and is grounds for failing the article. Please go to this page and study it. [1] I'm afraid I have concluded more work needs to be done here before this article can be considered for GA. Spend some time on Google scholar looking up study of this verse from other perspectives. I don't want to outright fail you, so I will put it on hold while you do some additional work if you agree. I'm so sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the only problem is I am not able to find any atheistic, agnostic, anti-theistic, or non-Christian sources that cover or discuss John 3:16 extensively. I am aware that all of the analysis only come from Christians, but I personally do not find it a problem because the article's contents mostly around its analysis and commentary, not like some controversial topics like the resurrection of Jesus, which of course needs a really, extremely neutral—avoiding to make it evangelistic—point of view. In contrast, the John 3:16 article is about a single verse of the Bible which, I believe, does not contain controversial issues. Can you give me an example for such source? If there is one, where should it be placed most appropriately? Do I need one or two or three or more? Should it be in the "Commentary" section? I personally do not get why Christian sources only are not enough; none of them, in my personal opinion, is controversial once again, and there is nothing biased to do so. Is the problem in "Commentary"? If yes, I will hide or remove it because the section personally is like the "Critical reception" section in film articles. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I have removed the Commentary section and included some of its imporant points into the Exegesis. This section, I admit, looks too evangelistic rather than encyclopedic. I am still working now, but I will really appreciate you if you can give me some suggestions. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Michael Halim It isn't necessary to go looking for atheist sources. WP editors don't look for atheist or religious sources, they look for academic, peer-reviewed sources. Those published by Universities can usually be counted on for quality neutral pov work. There is and has been controversy surrounding this verse. There is controversy over the authorship and date of the book of John. The fragment of it in the Dead Sea scrolls has only heightened that. None of that is mentioned here. Christian sources are not enough because they have a point of view that is not necessarily the majority view of scholars. WP always looks for and writes the majority view. Did you read WP guidelines about NPOV? It's very important that you know and follow the guidelines here. [[2]]

Download [3] if you don't already have it. I just typed in John 3:16 and got this O'rourke, John J. "EIΣ and EN in John." The Bible Translator 25.1 (1974): 139-142.; this Fee, Gordon D. "The text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: a critique of the use of patristic citations in New Testament textual criticism." Journal of Biblical Literature 90.2 (1971): 163-173.; Brown, Rick, Leith Gray, and Andrea Gray. "A brief analysis of filial and paternal terms in the Bible." International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28 (2011): 121-125. which has a good discussion of son and father; this one is about the version that first left out "only begotten" Moody, Dale. "God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3: 16 in the Revised Standard Version." The Bible Translator 10.4 (1959): 145-147.. This one talks about major doctrines in the Bible, and since Christology is part of this verse - the part that's been removed - it should b e discussed: Lockyer, Herbert. All the Doctrines of the Bible: A study and analysis of major Bible Doctrines. Harper Collins, 1964. There's this: Blomberg, Craig L. "The Globalization of Biblical Interpretation: A Test Case—John 3–4." Bulletin for Biblical Research 5.1 (1995): 1-15.. This one should be a part of the only begotten discussion: Swain, Scott R. "The Bible and the Trinity in recent thought: Review, analysis, and constructive proposal." Journal of the Evangelical theological society 60.1 (2017): 35. This would be good to add to the discussion of the Son: Modibbo, Yakubu, Safiyanu Ishiaku, and Dani Mamman. "SCRIPTURAL ANALYSIS ON THE DIVINE SONSHIP OF JESUS FROM THE QUR’AN AND BIBLE.". These took me all of five minutes to find. If you can't access and read these, go to the [4] resource request and they will get that for you.

Retitle Exegesis to "Exegesis and Christian commentary". I don't object to having Christian commentary, it is just not appropriate to have only Christian commentary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I agree, the Commentary section is not the main problem; I have restored it but in the Exegesis section. I also add a sub-sub-sub section of Muslim commentary in the Only begotten sub-sub-section to make it covering other views, rather than being too evangelistic. Do you agree with the addition or does the article need more? I am still working on the article actually but I just want to inform you so you can know what I am doing now. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reread for the fourth time

Nicholas Michael Halim I can't see that anything has substantially changed. The addition of the Muslim comments is good but insufficient. I am going to fail this for now due to non-npov, referencing problems (still red), continued problems with English grammar, and a failure to respond to requested additions to the body of the text. Please don't be discouraged by this. Make the academic additions. Discuss the controversy over authorship and dating. Explain better that Jerome probably added 'only begotten' because of the Arian controversy. Work on this article and renominate. I wish you the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. Whatever. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]