Talk:Gospel of John/2019/July

Language
I came here with a basic question - what was the original language of the Gospel of John? This is not addressed in the article and it seems like a glaring omission. 73.203.27.222 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Koine Greek, but the entire New Testament is written in this language.:
 * "The New Testament is a collection of Christian texts originally written in the Koine Greek language, at different times by various different authors."
 * "The majority view is that all of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in the Koine Greek language. As Christianity spread, these books were later translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian Coptic. However, some of the Church Fathers imply or claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then soon after was written in Koine Greek. Nevertheless, the Gospel of Matthew known today was composed in Greek and is neither directly dependent upon nor a translation of a text in a Semitic language. " Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please rewrite this article - it damages the credibility of WIkipedia
This article is one of the worst that I have seen in Wikipedia for quite some time. It omits almost everything that might rationally be said about the subject; instead it includes every extreme theory tending to debunk the text, referenced to scholars whom few will have heard of, and whose views may or may not be reflective of the consensus of scholarship. They are certainly not reflective of the content of the historical record.

It is a serious mistake for Wikipedians to produce articles that make people laugh. When the second sentence is that the gospel is anonymous, that instantly discredits the article. The gospel is not anonymous in any publication that has ever happened on the history of the planet! Each and every one of them gives an author. What the writer actually meant was something different - that he did not believe that the apostle John was the author. Yes, lots of atheists and some scholars hold this view. It was generally held, indeed, in the early 20th century. But to state this as fact, baldly, as the second sentence ... no. This is abuse of editorial position.

The proper approach would be to avoid the question in the lead altogether, and instead have a section on authorship. This would contain the scholarship on the author, both for and against the authorship of John, and referencing the ancient testimony. It would also explain the historiography of the question. But of course that would involve some actual work.

I don't know if this article is one of those where a single manipulative individual is controlling it, backed by a gang of allies. I write this in case it is being maintained by someone honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.206.122 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"Thank you, Captain Obvious, but if top 100 US universities don't teach that the plagues are historical, neither do we. If none of those 100 universities teaches that those plagues were historical, then for Wikipedia it is holy writ that those plagues are unhistorical."

- Tgeorgescu


 * Quoted myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"It is a serious mistake for Wikipedians to produce articles that make people laugh." Which is why we state that all four Gospels are anonymous. It would be laughabnle to state that the evangelists are historical figures. Dimadick (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)