Talk:John the Apostle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John the Apostle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422214640/http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html to http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we know the date of birth?

The New World Encyclopedia and Catholic.org list the birth of John at 6 CE, but I can't find a primary source. I get that we use "circa," but 6 is a very specific number to use without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupumped (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Place unknown

Wills, Garry (10 March 2015). The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-698-15765-1. (Candida Moss marshals the historical evidence to prove that "we simply don't know how any of the apostles died, much less whether they were martyred.")⁶ Citing Moss, Candida (5 March 2013). The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. HarperCollins. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-06-210454-0. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor do we have reliable accounts from later times. What we have are legends, about some of the apostles – chiefly Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John. But the apocryphal Acts that tell their stories are indeed highly apocryphal.

— Bart D. Ehrman, "Were the Disciples Martyred for Believing the Resurrection? A Blast From the Past", ehrmanblog.org

Quote by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you choose only apostle John? Is it known the place where the apostle was born? Aleksei m (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. Contributions to Wikipedia are voluntary, and articles about some other apostles are not on my watchlist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And what reliable sources about apostles from any times Bart D. Ehrman and others want? Aleksei m (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources means for Wikipedia something else than it means for Ehrman. He simply states there are no reliable historical accounts of how the apostles died, there are only late legends, and Candida Moss has examined very thoroughly all Ancient reports of martyrdom, including martyrdom ascribed to the apostles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Elaborate or Shift?

This statement, "The Gospel of John was written by an anonymous author," seems oddly placed to me. The section reads as thus to me: "not attributed," "still attributed by scholars," "anonymous author." In lieu of removing it, how could it better be incorporated within the section without seeming like a stand-alone? It reads clunkily to me. Am I the only one? No worries if so, and I'll leave it be. I am here to respect scholarship and just wish to make things clearer for the general public. Thanks for your input and time. Respectfully yours, Thematerialisticmaiden (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

All four gospels are anonymous. The attributions to specific gospel writers are not historically reliable, which is what this sentence is supposed to explain. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am greatly appreciative of your cordial response. That is very well, and I will not contest with the information provided. In speaking of the sentence alone, could we introduce it with "Ultimately" or "However"? I am merely talking about the flow of the article itself, rather than the historicity of the statement.Thematerialisticmaiden (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

John the Apostle born c. 10 AD, died c. 90 AD

I tweaked the article to... John the Apostle was born c. 10 AD, died c. 90 AD (80-years-old). 73.46.151.7 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

– a citation to a reliable source is needed to support these changes – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Non consensus edits

User Beyond My Ken twice returned his version of this article ([1], [2], [3]). He didn’t explain the reason why he removed the image of the tomb of Saint John, also he removed the image from the section Art and added the image from picture Last Supper not clear by whom restored. Aleksei m (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) I added more images to the art section

(2) I removed an image from the art section that was already in the infobox. We don't need to repeat images

(3) I increased the size of the images in the gallery so that they are more easily seen by the reader, without changing the number of images per row

(4) I removed the tomb image because it says nothing whatsoever about John the apostle, it's just 4 columns and a platform, nothing memorable or interesting

(5) I also removed it because there were so many images in the right hand column that they spilled over into the gallery, preventing it from properly centering

(6) There is only one "restored" Last Supper

(7) Alesei m's removal of the new layout was not adequately explained in their edit summary

(8) The layout changes I made provide a superior article to the previous one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You only removed the image "St. John the Apostle by Jacques Bellange" from art section for no reason.

The image of the thomb is interesting. It shows that the tomb is preserved.

You did not answer who restored the painting Last Supper. Aleksei m (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bellange is still in the article, just slid up a bit -- directly opposite the "Art" section -- to clear the Gallery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

– see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#It's interesting and WP:NOTEVERYTHING – Epinoia (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit to intro paragraph

I have removed the sentence "However, modern scholars believe these to be separate people" citing "The History of the Church by Eusibius [sic]. Book three, point 24." There are several issues with the sentence.

First is the citation itself. Unless the person adding it is using some very odd edition, that is not how early writings are cited. It should be book, chapter, and verse. Since this is an odd citation, I'm not even quite sure what the original author was referencing. If they were referencing Book three and the entire chapter 24, that is not what chapter 24 says at all. That chapter states without equivocation that the apostle John is the author of the gospel.

The debate about John from Eusebius (not found in The History of the Church) had to do with the authorship of Revelation. He claimed there was another teacher in Ephesus named "John the Elder" who wrote it. Eusebius based this claim on a quotation from Papias,

"If, then, anyone came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, —what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter [or elder] John, the disciple of the Lord, say" Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4

Note that all this says is that there was another Christian named John. Eusebius, a writer in the third century, can in no way be considered "modern." "Modern" scholars believe Eusebius's attempted undermining of the authority of Revelation to be theologically motivated (also remember Eusebius supported Arius) as there is no other evidence from earlier writers in Asia minor of another John.

Cma01 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't Catholic theology should be separate from biblical facts regarding John?

Seems like the catholic church tradition of John has taken over this article.

Response:

What specifically are you referencing as "theology" that you are concerned that is "taking over" this article?

The writings of John are part of the Bible. The attestations to the historical person are found in the early writers of the church. Is that what you are referring to as "theology?" If that is what you are referring to, that is simply citing the sources. The interpretation and meaning of those sources might be considered "theology."

If it bothers you that quotations from those early church writers are included, this page would have next to nothing on it because "Biblical" details about the apostle are sparse.

Cma01 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to attempt to edit this article, but I should point out (so that it can be considered and discussed) that the last apostle to be "called" was Paul. I haven't checked, but I believe that Mattias replaced Judas before God called Saul. BTW I only mention this, not because the article says it, but because Google searches on the question "Who was the last apostle?" turn up this Wiki article. So, it might ought to make that clarification for the benefit of the reader/googler.

What Ehrman thinks

I have corrected a statement about what Ehrman thinks. This isn't about what Ehrman "thinks", it is about the fact that the NT gospels nowhere make a claim of having been written by eyewitnesses. Ehrman has seen all the verses people have offered during the ages for the claim that the NT gospels were written by eyewitnesses and he also noticed that all these purported claims of eyewitness reports have been debunked by the community of mainstream Bible scholars, so there is not the least shred of evidence that any of the NT gospels ever made an explicit claim of being written by eyewitnesses. That, friends, it isn't a fact about what Ehrman thinks, but about the gospels themselves, as really-objectively existing manuscripts which have to be acknowledged for what they do in fact claim and for what they have never ever claimed. The gist is: it is an empirical-analytical, objective fact that the NT gospels do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses.

And the claim by F.F. Bruce is in fact an elementary misreading of the gospel, whether intentional or unintentional. Yup, Bruce displayed a subpar reading with comprehension of that verse, in context, and if you Google it you will soon find out what is wrong with it, namely there is a difference between a he who was purportedly an eyewitness and the we who wrote the gospel. So, no, the Gospel of John never claims to be written by that he. That's sheer fideism or eyeglasses in need of repair. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Come on now. The statement is by F. F. Bruce, a marginally significant "scholar" who was mainly popular with Evangelicals. Expecting serious work or lack of bias from such types is a bit too much. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"John lived on for more than fifty years after the martyrdom of his brother James"

This claim is unsourced in the article, and I am not aware of any biblical or extrabiblical source backing it up. Johannes Rohr (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)