Talk:Gospel of John/Archive 2

Charles Hill
Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Apostle.

Does this Charles Hill deserve a page on WP? If so, could someone start one? That way someone who wants to know whether Hill's opinion is notable can check it out for themself. Or, if Hill's not notable enough for a page, then can we delete references to his work as not notable? Who is Hill? He's a professor at a conservative Calvinist seminary. Here's his faculty page online. Leadwind (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to search this talk page for "Hill" as there was some previous discussion regarding that topic (and even though I was involved, I don't really recall the details). This may help some, or it may not;) -Andrew c [talk] 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the folks that don't like the conclusions of contemporary scholarship sure like Hill a lot. Maybe LoveMonkey can work up a page on him. Leadwind (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one thinks that Hill is significant enough for a WP page, can we trim this page a little by removing references to his work? Leadwind (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were two references and I cut one. The other seemed straightforward enough to keep. Leadwind (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual but interesting theory of authorship
At risk of being screamed at, is it worth including the (admittedly minority) theory that the Gospel of John is based on the account of the story/teachings of Mary Magdelene - or at least her followers? Here is a relevant article:

http://southerncrossreview.org/37/jusino.htm

I have seen this position put across elsewhere, including the book THE MARY MAGDELENE COVER-UP (as scholarly work in spite of its rather sensationalist title). The thesis goes that John was included in the Canon because of its popularity and was ascribed to John because it was unacceptable to ascribe it to Mary. The creation of 'the Beloved Disciple' came about to shift the emphasis away from Mary, 'the Disciple Who Jesus Loved' who first gets mentioned in this way at the Last Supper. The Beloved Disciple only appears at key moments when Mary features ie at the foot of the Cross and at the Tomb. In both instances the reference to the Beloved Disciple seems to appear as an afterthought. At the foot of the Cross he appears suddenly as being with the Maries even though he is not included in the original description of who is present and at the Tomb he is suddenly mentioned as having come to look along with Peter and Mary.

The final verses of the Gospel, in which Peter complains of the Beloved Disciple following behind he and Christ and receiving special favour from him makes more sense in the light of this suggestion given the several instances in other Gospels, particularly the Pistis Sophia and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene in which Peter complains about Mary's favoured status to Christ.

NB I am not saying that I AGREE with this thesis, just asking if it should be included. ThePeg (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not if it is historically inaccurate. Where is the evidence from an ancient writer from the (1st Century)? Ever wonder why there are ONLY four Gospels? And HOW they were selected? If you look hard enough, which few people do, you will discover a very curious ancient detective who wondered about that and found the documented answer (as strange as it is). Would you believe it may of come from what is now France? Kazuba (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have me interested. Care to elaborate? From what we know there were many more than four Gospels but only four selected for canonisation... There have been lots of esoteric explanations why - the four animals of Ezekiel, the four worlds of Kabbalah - but you've intrigued me... Go on... ThePeg (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus as God
The first likely occurance of the useage of " God" for Jesus does not appear until Paul's Epistle to the Romans 9:5, about AD 58. It is unknown how widely this was used in the ancient world. Jesus is never called "God" in the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, or in the Acts of the Apostles ref: An Introduction to New Testament Christology by Raymond E. Brown, Paulist Press, 1994. Then it takes a while, hundreds of years, before this son of God becomes the one "Begotten" and only God of Christianity by the power struggles and democratic votes of the early Church. A remarkable story all in itself. ref: Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press, 2006 Kazuba (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Contrary to the above, the first three verses of the Gospel of Mark, generally accepted as the earliest gospel, clearly indicate that the author of the gospel identified Jesus Christ as YHWH by dint of his quotation of Isaiah 40:3, directly attributing the activity of YHWH to Christ. John's Gospel, therefore, only further elaborates upon this by openly declaring Christ to be the Word who was with and was God, against which John the Baptist's quotation of Isaiah 40:3 is juxtaposed. Whether or not the term "God" is used does not negate the fact that Jesus was considered to be God incarnate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdiaziii (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Epistle to the Romans, Paul the apostle explicitly attributes the name YHWH to Jesus Christ in 10:9-13 when he writes: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" The second quotation is taken the Old Testament Book of Joel, which, again, is speaking directly of YHWH, the God of Israel. The implicit and explicit references to the deity of Christ are inextricably woven into the fabric of this epistle. The doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ was not a later development, but formed the very core of basic Christian doctrine as early as AD 58 (the above given date for the epistle to the Romans).
 * The Acts of the Apostles, furthermore, does indeed make reference to Christ as the God of Israel, i.e. YHWH, in Acts 2:21, where the apostle Peter, again quoting from The Book of Joel says: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (cross reference with Acts 4:8-12). Jesus Christ was identified, therefore, as God in the highest sense by both the apostle Paul in his epistle and by Peter in Luke's account.

A Favorite Missing Angel Passage
When the water at the Pool of Bethesda is moved by an angel it heals. I am always amused by translators leaving out the mention of the seasonal angel. Check out different translations and the alternate rationalized explanation of this passage. Take note of when and where the passage first appears. [When Jesus ascended into the sky perhaps he was lifted by wires! Or is it Captain Kirk's "Beam me up, Scotty."? Instead of accepting myth and its magic and miracles some people can come up with some pretty silly things.] The thoughts and words of ancient authors are not always preserved if they invite question. For including the angel illustrates how unknowing and irrational these ancient people were. Magic ruled the ancient world. It rules now. Just read Raymond E. Brown when he writes about demons. An Introduction to New Testament Christology by Raymond E. Brown, Paulist Press, 1994. There is endless debate about did Jeus really come back from the dead. But Jesus flying away into the sky doesn't even raise an eye brow. How strange.. Kazuba (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not as soapbox. Please keep your insults to yourself. Str1977 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  is not in the earliest manuscripts. Likely added by a script to explained why people were laying around the pool, not that the legend was true.

Cana
You deleted: "The Gospel of John places Jesus at a wedding in Cana three days after baptism (1:29,35,43; 2:1), whereas the other Gospels indicate a period of 40 days in the wilderness immediately after baptism."

Please explain how this difference is merely an interpretation rather than a plain reading of the verses in question, aside from POV arguments comprised of, "They both must be true because they're in the bible."--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, the text does not say "three days after" at all. It does not even say "on the third day after baptism" - it merely says "on the third day". That might mean "on the third day after what was just related (which wasn't baptism but Jesus leading two disciples of John - traditionally believed to be Andrew and John - to his home. But it might also mean on "the third day of the week", i.e. on Tuesday. It is very common for Jewish weddings to be held on Tuesday (due to a certain exegesis of Genesis 1). So you see, your contradiction isn't that simple. Your plain reading is not even the correct text. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1:35 places the calling of Andrew and John the day after baptism, maintaining the incompatibility with going to the wilderness for 40 days immediately after baptism. Even if the stretched alternative interpretation of 2:1 is accepted, the account in John does not allow for 40 days in the wilderness immediately after baptism, but rather it has Jesus calling disciples and then heading to Galilee, at which he soon thereafter attended a wedding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will concede that there is some room for a very weak alternative interpretation of it meaning something other than the plain day-by-day narrative continuing from chapter 1 as indicated by the verses stated. Your contention that it wasn't following baptism but rather, the calling of Andrew and John, is more in support of my position than your defense, as 1:35 of the narrative indicates the calling of Andrew and Peter to be the day after baptism, unless you also contend some different meaning of the word "next".--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what you concedde. The fact there are different interpretations shows that yours is not a plain reading. My (not actually my, but the one presented by me) interpretation is not stretched at all.
 * In any case, at best it is a difference in presentation. BTW, did you not notice that the Evangelist doesn't describe any baptism? Does that mean that the Baptist did not baptise? Or that the Evangelist's account has a few wholes in it, for whatever reason?
 * "Wholes" are complete units. I think you mean "holes". The point is the "hole" is not big enough to allow for the 40 days, rather than simply omitting something that happened in between. (Incidentally, the plain reading of verses 31-33 very strongly imply that Jesus was baptized because John (the Baptist) indicates identifying him as the purpose of baptising in the first place.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your shifting from one argument to the other however shows that you apparently want to maximes the contradictions - your sentence above about supposed POV statements indicates that too. Please, let us restrict this to actual contradictions.
 * Ah, and keeping this discussion here is enough. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not shift from one argument to another. I added one argument to the other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let us not try to minimise contradictions either - it is surely well enough established that the author of GJohn often constructs the narrative in a very different way to the synoptics. The natural reading of the account is that the marriage feast took place on the third day following the encounter with John the Baptist. However, all of these points ought to be properly sourced, otherwise we end up with arguments over the personal intepretations of editors. --Rbreen (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is true that John narrates differently from others (and the other three differ among themselves as well), after all, the Gospels are narratives of the events, not the events themselves.
 * However, I disagree that your reading is the most natural one. At least not when taking Jewish marriage customs into account. Str1977 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of whether 'the third day' refers to Tuesday (which is speculative), or a continuation of the preceding narrative, the narrative in John's Gospel does not allow for a period of 40 days in the wilderness immediately after baptism. A sequence of days is explicitly indicated during which Jesus was baptised, then chose disciples, then went to Galilee, and then at some point in Galilee, he went to a wedding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, just because you repeatedly denigrate the view opposed to yours doesn't make it invalid. it is no more speculative than your "three days after baptism". As I explained above these words are not contained in the text, it merely says "on the third day". You are assuming that the account is continuous and doesn't leave anything out. However, it is clear that it omits the baptism itself. Str1977 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hey", I'm not 'denigrating' your view at all, merely stating that regardless off whether you're right or not on that point, it doesn't change the fact that John's account places Jesus in Galilee a couple of days after baptism, as indicated in the narrative in chapter 1. As Cana is in Galilee, it is reasonable that John's account is indicating the wedding to be a continuation of the narrative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been made aware that the contradiction in fact does not exist, and have removed it from the article. The placement of the entire narrative is an unstated period of time after Jesus' baptism. Specifically, in verse 29, it is evident that John knows who Jesus is as he's approaching, though verse 31 shows that prior to Jesus' baptism John did not know who he was. This instance of Jesus approaching John the Baptist therefore must be some time later, at which time John the Baptist mentions earlier events relating to Jesus' baptism.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Between the time you deleted the paragraph and the time you noted it here, Rbreen reverted your deletion (as "unexplained"). I was unaware of this when I substituted a new paragraph for the old one. Things seem to have settled down now. I think it's worth having a comment here as the mistake is a very easy one to make. I knew that John's gospel didn't directly narrate Jesus baptism, but it was only in checking the text for a comment on Str1977's talk page that I became aware that the baptism isn't mentioned at all. However, I have no doubt at all that John expected his readers to know that John the Baptist was referring to the events at Jesus' baptism in 1.32–33. Koro Neil (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Differences from the Synoptic Gospels" and "Characteristics unique to John"
As these two sections stand, the distinction between them seems to be a fine one. Either they should be one section, or some clear policy needs to be established for what goes in each. One possibility is that "Differences" could list those passages of John which have parallels in the Synoptics, but with significant difference in the details or context, while "Characteristics unique" could list those passages which have no parallel in the Synoptics. Another is that "Differences" has both the foregoing types of difference, while "Characteristics unique" could have stuff on overall difference of style, content, approach and perspective&mdash;longer passages of teaching, more teaching of disciples and less of crowds, use of "Truly, truly," rather than simply "Truly", etc. Koro Neil (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned them up, and merged them. I removed those things with cn tags, as well as those which were unclear or seemed non-notable. I also removed the section of scholarly treatment of the matter above; it makes sense that prose, based on scholars, should be given priority over a list section which is largely interpretation of primary sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

lead could use a summary
John is a story. The lead could use a summary of that story, maybe one paragraph putting it all together, from Logos to resurrection appearances. Leadwind (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did this, Lead. I'm not sure how good it is, you may well want to change it, but there is something there now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

authorship
I got a new textbook this week, and now I think I finally understand the authorship issues. Please collaborate with me in getting this straight.

AD 41-44 Herod Agrippa kills James (and likely his brother John too, say historians).

AD 65-75. Someone pens Mark, includes Jesus predicting both James and John dying, as well as his own martyrdom. This prediction gets picked up in Matthew and Luke.

AD 85-90. Someone pens Luke-Acts, and records James dying under Agrippa (but not John, why not?).

AD 90-100. Followers of the Beloved Disciple in Ephesus record the gospel of John, as vouched for by the Beloved Disciple. This anonymous figure is possibly a Jerusalem follower rather than an original disciple, in any event not a major figure on the order of James, John, James the Lord's brother, Peter, or Paul. Where the Synoptics put Peter, James, & John at the head of the disciples, here it's Peter and the BD, with no mention of James or John. The gospel is written shortly before the BD's death, perhaps because there's a tradition that the world will end before the BD dies. But then the BD dies, and another editor adds an appendage explaining that Jesus never really said that.

Mid 2nd century, schism and heresy challenge the church.

AD 178. Irenaeus reveals hitherto unknown information about the apostle John, that he lived to old age in Ephesus, where he, now revealed as the Beloved Disciple, wrote that strange gospel that doesn't match the other three. Then he was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote Revelation, and then returned to Ephesus and wrote three epistles. Irenaeus came up with the "John the Evangelist" idea, as part of his campaign to base the orthodox church on solid, apostolic ground, and to settle the split within orthodoxy between those who preferred John (Anatolians, and there were a ton of Anatolian Christians) and those who preferred Matthew (most everyone else) or Luke (bleeding hearts). No one bothered much with Mark.

Everyone likes Irenaeus's story, so it becomes official. A few bozos don't get the word, and we still have fragmentary references to James and John both being martyred up until the 9th century.

So is that it? Or am I missing something? Was John associated with Ephesus before Irenaeus declared that the BD of Ephesus was John? Leadwind (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

what language is it originally written in?
I was lazy and CTRL F ed every language around this time... that it could've been written in. ahhhhhhh! 208.126.51.56 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Greek, Koine Greek.-Andrew c [talk] 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * to be more precise, the earliest surviving manuscripts are in Koine Greek (which is what the article says). TomHennell (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorship issues
I think it is disingenuous to put so much emphasis on the conclusions of a blog post from biblicalfoundations.org. I think the use of WP:CLAIM is part of this POV push, to discredit Brown and thereby the vast majority view. I have solid sources from the The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Koester, Ehrman, Harris, Brown, and Theissen and Merz that all support the anonymous, non-eyewitness view. I don't believe the various theories of a few individuals is important for the introduction, nor such a strong emphasis on defending the traditional view. Furthermore, the claim "has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name", is false in some ancient Christians argued Cerinthus wrote the gospel, others denied the Gospel compeltely, while there was controversy regarding whether John the Elder or John the Apostle wrote the gospel among others. I don't believe Afaprof01's recent edits do the mainstream position justice, while containing errors and undue weight. -Andrew c [talk] 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect Andrew c's enthusiasm for his views. The traditional view, even if a minority stance today, deserves fair treatment. Errors? Where? Undue weight? When you look at the entire article, no space is given to that view other than what I've added. He was correct in pointing out poor editing in my original edits, and I made every attempt to meet his objections in my further research and re-writes. He comes across as rather judgmental of my motives--and incorrect. There is room in this and every Wiki article for competing viewpoints. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Afaprof, please stick to reliable sources. Andrew is right. See WP:V. Leadwind (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Afaprof's recent edits do include reliable sources for the Thomas view, as well as the Mary Magdalene view, however fringe these may be. However, the paragraph that has been inserted still contains a lot of direct copying from the Biblical Foundations page.  If we're actually going to deal with various other contenders for authorship, it shouldn't be done by copying from a source that's dismissing them.  As for the view that John the apostle was the actual author, if that's going to go in there, it should come from a reliable source, rather than a blog post.  Agathman (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Thomas and Lazarus positions are extreme minority views, which don't deserve this much space. See WP:NPOV. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The Mary Magdalene view probably deserves the same treatment: none. Leadwind (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009

(UTC)
 * Agreed. Actually, I'm waiting for a chance to look at some of the original sources on Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc., but I think that some of those are actually claims about the identity of the "beloved disciple" rather than the author of the Gospel of John.  Note, for instance, that the title of Charlesworth's book is "The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?", which doesn't seem to indicate that he's talking about who wrote the book.  Agathman (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Afaprof keeps reinserting the dubious material. Please help me keep an eye on this page and keep the unsuitable material from returning. Leadwind (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be specific in identifying "dubious." The material I believe important meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:SPS. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Afaprof, thanks for using the talk page. The two web sites you cite are not RSs and it is a violation of WP:V for you to put them on the page. The Thomas theory is dubious because it has no currency beyond this one author's conclusion. Leadwind (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, please tell me your qualifications to state "violation" so categorically and emphatically. I maintain that I am meeting the requirements of WP:V and WP:SPS. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Where do we go from here with our differences of opinion? Afaprof01 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are various methods of dispute resolution discussed at WP:DR. Or you could try to find some common ground. Perhaps, even if you don't agree that the source isn't reliable, you could try to find an even better source. We can all agree that scholarly publications that are backed by journals or university presses are superior to self-published blogs. Maybe it would help to find even better sourcing for this content?-Andrew c [talk] 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read WP:SPS, it says that self-published online sources are largely not allowed. The sources you cite are not superior enough to warrant an exception. Here's the exception by which self-published sources are allowed: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If you want to demonstrate that your self-published sources are actually so exceptional as to warrant inclusion, please do so, but by default these sorts of sources don't count as RSs. Andrew is right. If this material is valid, one should be able to find it in a scholarly publication. Leadwind (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

logos
Some editors made a mess of the logos section. There were uncited assertions and (what's worse) cited assertions that were nothing like what the cited sources said. This section looks to be the victim of a POV battle. There isn't even an explanation of the logos. The section just launches straight in to Christian apologia about the logos being God. The section could use an overhaul. Leadwind (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Gospel
I have reverted this addtion, as there is already a link to the text (KJV) in Wikisource TomHennell (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic, see WP:LEAD. Also spark interest in the topic.
I added this: "Prominent historians regard the Gospel of John as largely unreliable." Without this information, the lede said nothing about the relevant opinion of contemporary scholarship, a POV and undue weight issue. Leadwind (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It still seems a little POV, but the references support you. Sanders is good stuff. This is a good article but looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes, it seems a bit disjointed. Feel free to change things around ( as will I). I think the lead needs more work but I will leave that to you. I am going to work on Composition. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorship issues
I think it is disingenuous to put so much emphasis on the conclusions of a blog post from biblicalfoundations.org. I think the use of WP:CLAIM is part of this POV push, to discredit Brown and thereby the vast majority view. I have solid sources from the The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Koester, Ehrman, Harris, Brown, and Theissen and Merz that all support the anonymous, non-eyewitness view. I don't believe the various theories of a few individuals is important for the introduction, nor such a strong emphasis on defending the traditional view. Furthermore, the claim "has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name", is false in some ancient Christians argued Cerinthus wrote the gospel, others denied the Gospel compeltely, while there was controversy regarding whether John the Elder or John the Apostle wrote the gospel among others. I don't believe Afaprof01's recent edits do the mainstream position justice, while containing errors and undue weight. -Andrew c [talk] 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect Andrew c's enthusiasm for his views. The traditional view, even if a minority stance today, deserves fair treatment. Errors? Where? Undue weight? When you look at the entire article, no space is given to that view other than what I've added. He was correct in pointing out poor editing in my original edits, and I made every attempt to meet his objections in my further research and re-writes. He comes across as rather judgmental of my motives--and incorrect. There is room in this and every Wiki article for competing viewpoints. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Afaprof, please stick to reliable sources. Andrew is right. See WP:V. Leadwind (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Afaprof's recent edits do include reliable sources for the Thomas view, as well as the Mary Magdalene view, however fringe these may be. However, the paragraph that has been inserted still contains a lot of direct copying from the Biblical Foundations page.  If we're actually going to deal with various other contenders for authorship, it shouldn't be done by copying from a source that's dismissing them.  As for the view that John the apostle was the actual author, if that's going to go in there, it should come from a reliable source, rather than a blog post.  Agathman (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Thomas and Lazarus positions are extreme minority views, which don't deserve this much space. See WP:NPOV. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The Mary Magdalene view probably deserves the same treatment: none. Leadwind (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009

(UTC)
 * Agreed. Actually, I'm waiting for a chance to look at some of the original sources on Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc., but I think that some of those are actually claims about the identity of the "beloved disciple" rather than the author of the Gospel of John.  Note, for instance, that the title of Charlesworth's book is "The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?", which doesn't seem to indicate that he's talking about who wrote the book.  Agathman (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Afaprof keeps reinserting the dubious material. Please help me keep an eye on this page and keep the unsuitable material from returning. Leadwind (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific in identifying "dubious." The material I believe important meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:SPS. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Afaprof, thanks for using the talk page. The two web sites you cite are not RSs and it is a violation of WP:V for you to put them on the page. The Thomas theory is dubious because it has no currency beyond this one author's conclusion. Leadwind (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, please tell me your qualifications to state "violation" so categorically and emphatically. I maintain that I am meeting the requirements of WP:V and WP:SPS. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Where do we go from here with our differences of opinion? Afaprof01 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are various methods of dispute resolution discussed at WP:DR. Or you could try to find some common ground. Perhaps, even if you don't agree that the source isn't reliable, you could try to find an even better source. We can all agree that scholarly publications that are backed by journals or university presses are superior to self-published blogs. Maybe it would help to find even better sourcing for this content?-Andrew c [talk] 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read WP:SPS, it says that self-published online sources are largely not allowed. The sources you cite are not superior enough to warrant an exception. Here's the exception by which self-published sources are allowed: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If you want to demonstrate that your self-published sources are actually so exceptional as to warrant inclusion, please do so, but by default these sorts of sources don't count as RSs. Andrew is right. If this material is valid, one should be able to find it in a scholarly publication. Leadwind (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the back and forth and you folk have strong points of view on the Gospel of John (as does most of the world).
 * Traditional View: The Gospel of John is an eye witness account of the the ministry of Jesus Christ. This is supported by the Internal Evidence eg John 21:24. The External Evidence from the time of Christ to Jerome supports confirms this was an eyewitness account, by the disciple Jesus loved who was possibly John.
 * Modern Critical View: The Gospel of John is largely unreliable. The Internal Evidence about this being an eyewitness account was falsified by an author who had no direct knowledge of Jesus and the External evidence is equally wrong.

There is no way that we can ever reconcile the Jesus Seminar with Catholics. At Wikipedia we are to write a balanced article from a neutral point of view with solid references. Easer said than done! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy. We emphasize the predominant mainstream view and describe other views to the extent that they are notable. Could you explain what you mean by "old references"? I don't recall seeing anything like that in the WP:V guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. The traditional view must come first. Then the "predominant mainstream view", can say why the Church Fathers and the Gospel text are untrue. Then describe other views to the extent that they are notable. You may not believe the "Gospel text" or the "Church History" of Eusebius to be notable but without them the "predominant mainstream view" falls on its face because of the nemo dat rule. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you say that's a problem, or why you think I want to exclude the traditional view. In any event, the predominant mainstream view should be presented positively (what it says on the topic) as well as negatively (why it finds fault with tradition). My main issue with non-mainstream views is that in many Christian-themed articles the non-mainstream scholars that support traditional views are given as much coverage or more than the most prominent, well-respected, mainstream scholars on the topic. It's important that the mainstream view get clear, forceful treatment. Until I edited it, for example, this article's lede didn't even describe the mainstream view of the gospel's authorship and historical value. Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a number of edits mainly aimed at improveing consistency between the text of the article and the references given. I have also given a bit more space to John Robinson.  While his views are not accepted by the majority of biblical scholars, no one would seriously dispute that he represents a valid thread within the mainstream of late 20th century scholarship. TomHennell (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I edited out the statement that the Gospel of John is considered to be 'unreliable' on the basis that it is not - in my view - supported by the cited ref: "The Gospel of John is quite different from the other three gospels, and it is primarily in the latter that we must seek information about Jesus." Taken as face value, Ed Sanders is not saying that the accounts in John are bad; only that those in the synoptics (where these cover the same ground) are generally better.  It is quite possible to agree with Sanders entirely, yet hold that those events for which John is the only witness (e.g. Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night) cannot be dismissed as historically unreliable. But I shall await responses before changing it back. TomHennell (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanders not only considers John less reliable than the synoptics but considers it nearly without historical value, in recording either Jesus' teaching or the narrative of his life. Even when John has a plausible detail, such as the Jewish leaders' motives for having Jesus executed, Sanders cautions that such a detail might represent intuitive storytelling rather than historical evidence. Geza Vermes thinks so little of John that he doesn't even bother to include it when he gives a blow-by-blow assessment of which of Jesus' alleged statements are genuine. Everything Jesus says in John is dismissed. Thiessen and Merz are marginally more positive, considering it "not worthless" because it includes a handful of unique, plausible details. These three sources are top-notch contemporary sources in Jesus scholarship. There are no sources of equal prominence asserting that John is any better than that. Leadwind (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to my point. In part I think there is here a simple isssue of emphasis; those who defend the historical value of John do not generally regard the discourse material as verbatim records of Jesus's teaching, most would consider it more likely that this is reworked from the evangelist's preaching.  J.N. Sanders builds his commentary around this proposition.  Equally very few of those who reject the historical value of John would deny that in most narrative details it agrees much closer with the external evidence.  Ed Sanders says explcitly that John's acciount of the trial of Jesus is intrinsically far more plausible than that in the Synoptics, which is indeed generally considered historically impossible.  The difference is in the respective weight given to these two factors, and those who study John in detail tend to be less extreme in any negative judgement of its value. The authors you list are indeed top-notch contemporary scholars of the Synoptics; but none of them has written a commentary on the Gospel of John. Bearing in mind that this article is about the Gospel of John, not about the Synoptics, I would suggest it would be better in the lead para to outline the opinion on the matter of those who are recognised as prominent mainstream scholars of John - which for this purpose I would tend to think would include Raymond. E. Brown, C.H. Dodd, and possibly C.K Barrett. I suggest looking for an appropriate quote from one of these scholars, or an equivalent, and putting the Sanders/Vermes/Theissen material into the discussion on historicity.  Ed Sanders, for all his positive qualities, is particularly prone to looking at John through Synoptic blinkers; as witness his confused discussion of the relative historicity of the incompatible Gospel datings of the Last Supper and Crucifixion; Sanders tends to reject John's dating on the grounds that it agrees with John's supposed theology of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb; whereas Brown rejects the Synoptic dating because it agrees with their supposed theology of the Last Supper as Passover meal. But unfortunately for Sanders' argument, John doesn't in fact have a theology of the Paschal Lamb; only of the Lamb of God, which is an altogether different matter. TomHennell (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the discussion above; I would propose Barnabas Lindars as representative 'mainstream' scholar. He has, of course, been dead for several years, but he was both a respected critical exegete and, unlike Sanders/Vermes/Theissen, an acknowledged expert on John. I have been looking for appropriate quotes in his short 1990 book on John in the Sheffield New Testament Guides series - which evaluates the John Robinson arguments, as well as those of Brown, Barrett etc.  His broad view I think lies close to the current 'mainstream'; in that he says: that the author is not an eyewitness; that he has access to independent sources from those in the synoptics that are sometimes better; ; that there are at leasts two stages to the composition process; and that overall he is much more creative in reworking his material to his homiletic purpose.  In this respect, Lindars shares the view of Brown and J.N. Sanders, that John is best understood as a reworked series of homilies each one reflecting on an accepted saying or action of Jeusus in the historic tradition.  Some of these sayings or events are also found in the synoptics, others are not.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=slFiGAJ1y70C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22barnabas+lindars%22john&source=bl&ots=T0q9DgFyJ8&sig=vNqSO-Qk-OBLzO3noikSm2yZkCA&hl=en&ei=3Vl1S_H_JNSRjAf376GlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false TomHennell (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hav now composed a new lead para on current mainstream scholarship - taking Barnabas Lindars as the standard, rather than authors who have little specific expertise in the scholarship of John. I would welcome improvments to my draft (as referenced from scholars on John): though may be already a bit long for a lead para. TomHennell (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Predominant Mainstream View
Today I worked on the Traditional View that the  Gospel of John is an eye witness account of the the ministry of Jesus Christ supported by the Internal Evidence and External Evidence.

Next I plan to deal with the 'Modern Critical View that' the Gospel of John is largely unreliable and that the Internal Evidence was falsified by an author who had no direct knowledge of Jesus and the External evidence is equally wrong. I am at the library reading up on the Jesus Seminar etc etc. If I do a good job you won't be able to tell which side I support! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your characterization of the mainstream view is a bit hyperbole. Most historians studying the 'historical Jesus', do not think that John is as reliable as the synoptics, which them themselves aren't entirely reliable either. That is not to say that John is useless, made-up, fiction. The internal evidence is considered thusly by the "mainstream view": chapter 21 was a latter added appendix, and that the beloved disciple is actually not the author; the internal evidence from chapter 19 is a bit more accurate, and that the author could have been a disciple of the beloved disciple, or was part of a later community established by the beloved disciple, and thus not a friend of or eyewitness to Jesus himself. And while Hill more recently attempts to make a strong case against this, in regards to the external evidence, the "mainstream view" is that the Church Fathers were basically silent on John's gospel until Irenaeus; the gospel has a strong early tie to Egypt; the first known commentary on John (or any other Gospel) was Valentinian; and thus the orthodox church's interest in John cannot be externally traced before the 2nd half of the 2nd century, which is not the case for the Matthew and Luke (Mark, on the other hand...) Anyway, I wish you luck in your studies, and thanks for your work. I have a few "mainstream" books sitting around, and would gladly contribute, copy edit, and what not, where I can. -Andrew c [talk] 16:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. My goal is that the reader get a full understanding of the subject without knowing what the point of view the editors support. I hope you folk agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good - press on. I might myself suggest that the Jesus Seminar is not the best place to start - as their views on the Gospel of John are probably the aspect of their work that is least representative of modern critical scholarship - unless you understand 'critical' entirely in the sense of 'skeptical'. I might prefer Gerald F Downing, as providing a more balanced assessment of Jesus in the context of Cynic Philosphy. But then maybe you might add a third category of Positive Critical View including those scholars such as John Robinson who apply the accepted methods of critical analysis in support of the reliability of the Gospel of John. TomHennell (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew C, "That is not to say that John is useless, made-up, fiction." Sanders, Vermes, and Thiessen, all important representatives of current Jesus scholarship, regard John as historically worthless or nearly so. Leadwind (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that John is useless, made-up, fiction? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Nor does it matter what I say in any event. What matters is what the leading experts say. Leadwind (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe, but we are in full agreement! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are an honest, conscientious editor, then it's only natural that we're in full agreement. Leadwind (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor issues with the internal and external evidence sections
The "Internal Evidence" section seems a bit oversimplified. I believe it should at least make reference to the specific verses where this evidence is derived (or quote it), and perhaps even mention the common notion that the 21st chapter was a later appendix, and thus some of the internal evidence is questionable.


 * The style of his account shows the writer to have been an "eyewitness" of the historical events he records.

I believe this statement is a bit too bold, or at least not neutral. Brown goes into this quite a bit, agreeing that the author has a familiarity with geography and Jewish customs, but also listing a large number of anachronistic elements (or elements that would post-date the time of Jesus). He says there is both evidence of an "origin in the ministry of Jesus, while other factors seem distant from that ministry". He explains it by saying it "may be explained best if tradition about Jesus stemming from the Beloved Disciple has been reflected upon over many years and expanded in the light of Johannine community experiences". Thus, arguing that the author was not an eyewitness, but comes from a community established be a legit disciple of Jesus, thus retaining some authentic material dating to the time of Jesus, and also containing expanded, evolved, and later traditions. What we have in the second paragraph of "Internal evidence" is a couple pinpointed elements directly leading to a simplistic conclusion of "eyewitness", and I believe it may be a bit too bold, or at least not NPOV, to state such a blunt conclusion, when there is scholarly disagreement.

As for the external evidence, I think we need to handle two matters: (1) it is clear not all of the stated fathers reach the stated conclusion The author of the Gospel of John was written by the "disciple Jesus loved" named John., and thus we appear to be misleading the reader, and (2) the matter than not all of those Church Fathers are agreed to support even a familiarity with John. Koester explicitly states that Papias and Justin Martyr are not familiar with John. We could just remove those names from the list, but then we'd be ignoring the sources that disagree with Koester. So perhaps we could find a neutral way to present both sides, or state that some fathers are disputed?


 * Furthermore, no historical document has been found contradicting the evidence of the first three centuries.

Finally, I'm a little uncomfortable with that conclusion. I guess this may be coming from my personal disdain of trying to prove a negative, or arguments from silence. Maybe it is just the way it is phrased. But then, we go on to mention that one group attributed the author to Cerinthus. So it seems like the statement is in fact false, because that would be a contradiction of the evidence, would it not (even though I think you and I, and nearly all scholars would agree that the Alogi tradition is unreliable).

I'd be glad to try to make a few copy edits myself to address these minor concerns (that I found a way to write paragraphs about), but I wanted to bring them up in case I am overlooking something, or if any of my concerns have responses, or if any editors want to help me "fix" things. Anyway, carry on. -Andrew c [talk] 17:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not put in chapter and verse because The Bible was not my source, but rather the references I cited. If you check them, you will see that I took great care and was very fair, as I hope to be with the Jesus Seminar. Please add chapter and verse. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Postscript: I used the term eyewitness advisedly.
 * Andrew, I have more than minor issues with the internal and external evidence sections. They included uncited or wrongly cited information, some of it just plain wrong (e.g., that external evidence for John's authorship goes back to Christ). Furthermore, it portrays the "John" tradition as if it were evidence for authorship, when modern, mainstream scholars don't regard it as such. The authorship section is now fragmentary, and there are are also too many Capitalized Words that don't need to be capitalized. Leadwind (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, "Furthermore, no historical document has been found contradicting the evidence of the first three centuries." In fact, Mark, Acts, writers from the 5th and 9th century, and some ancient martyr lists all contradict this evidence by suggesting that John was martyred. Plus, what does "the first three centuries" mean? Not the first three centuries after Jesus or the first three centuries of the AD era, as there is no evidence for John as the author until Irenaeus (178) or the Muratorian (sp?) fragment. I'll take that sentence out until we can get some clarification on it. Leadwind (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with citations
I just removed some citations. Some were to outdated scholarship, over a century old. Some were to current sources but were not legit. I read the sourced articles, and the articles do not support the sentence. The sentence, stating that that the style of the text demonstrates that the author was an eyewitness, is now supported only by a single source, and I can't vouch for its notability. Leadwind (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work! You are keeping me honest. A great article will come of this back and forth. I soon will be off to the bowls of the the Seminary Library to get high on the "dust" of Biblical scholarship and to meet the challenges you have put before me. All the best! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC) POSTSCRIPT: I will also be praying that we get some cold weather and snow for the (Winter?) Olympics.
 * Thanks. Please try harder to stick to information that you can cite to reliable sources. Leadwind (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing a bit of research, I came across this, which on first glace appears to be a quite good summary on the topic of "The Authorship of John". http://books.google.ca/books?id=ryybidJYMAQC&pg=PA77 It starts on the middle of page 77 and goes maybe 5 pages or so. It's worth a read, I think. Also, I wish you could have some of our snow, Ret. Prof. We rarely get more than one snow a season, and have gone years without snow, and now it seems like a new system is rolling in every weekend.-Andrew c [talk] 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Source. It will be helpful. Today I have been reading Bart D. Ehrman. His position is that Jesus was a man of few words and fewer still were recorded accurately. In Jesus, interrupted, Bart deals effectively with "eyewitness" issue (p.103) and the "forgery" issue (p.112). He is a great scholar and his work will give balance to this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

bad information restored
Unsubstantiated information that had been removed or fact-tagged has been replaced or the fact tags removed. Ret Prof, maybe that was you? Let's stick to substantiated information cited to reliable sources. Leadwind (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, some information about evidence was moved out of the evidence section. If we're going to have an evidence section, it needs to have all the evidence, pro and con. It would be POV to have only the pro-John evidence in the evidence section. Leadwind (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, fact tags have been removed from questionable sentences, with no citation given. That's not the way WP works. Leadwind (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the the author was an eyewitness was once again cited to three out-of-date works and falsely cited to two current works. Falsely cited information is not WP policy. Ret Prof, please stick to legit citations. Also, if you want to make an exceptional claim (such as that the author was an eyewitness), find exceptional sources, not 100 year old ones. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores questionable information, so before you add this material back in, find some support from other editors. Leadwind (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting References
Leadwind, my real concern is the way you delete references without discussion. In future please explain why a source is unacceptable citing the appropriate authority. It also good to take our time, be polite and enjoy ourselves. By the way Andrew mentioned a good source called the The Authorship of John which is very very helpful! Happy Editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Encyclopedia is 100 years old and not a reliable source. Please consult WP:RS. Leadwind (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did but I could not find the 100 year rule for sources. Please be specific when you cite authority - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm surprised to find no mention of how current a source should be in order to be an RS. That said, exceptional claims, such as "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, require exceptional references." The claim that the external evidence is solid is contradicted by the prevailing view and requires an exceptional source. In fact, even if the CE weren't 100 years old, it wouldn't qualify as a top-notch source. "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Would the CE qualify? Why don't you try to win other editors over to the idea that the CE is an RS and see how it fares. Leadwind (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took your suggestion to see if other editors accepted the idea that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source and found that editors have used it in many, many, many articles on Wikipedia. More importantly WP:RS simply does not allow you to go around deleting sources because you think they are too old. Also, the Historical method has no problem with early sources. I also looked at your block log and found it helpful in understanding your editing pattern. Therefore I have restored the references you deleted. Please try to drop the attitude. In future please explain why a source is unacceptable, citing the appropriate authority.  It also good to take our time, be polite and enjoy ourselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to stir things; but my personal view is that both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the on-line 1911 Britannica are far too often cited in Wikipedia. They are easy to get to on the web, and out of copyright, but - especially in matters of religious history - articles in both tend to conform to a strong ideological agenda.  And of course they are 100 years old.  If it is possible to find a reference from a more recent standard work (an preferably not another encyclopedia), that is generally to be preferred.  In my view.  TomHennell (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom. In most circumstances, it's best not to use such old sources, and we must be cautious of presenting out-of-date information. And if using the CE, it is often associated with strong POV, and it may in some instances only be appropriate in presenting the Catholic view (not a more general view). I'd say avoid if possible, or use with caution, and qualification. -Andrew c [talk] 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you and Tom. If you look at my edits, you see I rarely use it. However it was a very good source in understanding the Traditional Position, just as Bart D. Ehrman is helpful in presenting the opposing view. As I do more and more research into this topic I find neither of the aforementioned have very convincing arguments. Andrew's suggestion that I read Anderson has been very very helpful. I think it may be wise to take a break from editing this topic and let some fresh eyes review our work. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Other editors have this to say about it. If we use it to say "X is the traditional view," then that's fine. If we use it to say "X is so," that's misuse. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a reference in the section about external evidence to authorship. The reference was called as a verification of the fact that the evidence is conclusive and undisputed; which (all facts aside) can not be verified by a single source. I suggest more educated folks look at the other references and implications of this section. WovenLore (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

composition section is now a mess
Look at the ToC and you'll see that the sections in the composition section no longer fall into coherent categories. We could have two sections: traditional and modern, with subsections for date, authors, sources, etc. Or we could have a section on the author (with all author material there, traditional and modern), a section on date (ditto), a section on sources, etc. The material has recently been shuffled, and I hesitate to try to make it coherent again because I worry it will just get reshuffled. Leadwind (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re worked the composition section and hope you find it satisfactory. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) PS I really do hope the Bart Ehrman material fixes things making the article less POV
 * I rereworked it. Leadwind (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

New Lead Paragraph
Great Editing! The old lead simply did not work! Keep up the good work. God knows we need the help! - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) PS. I have been distracted by the Olympics but I will be back to work soon.


 * Thanks, I will try to add more into the body of the article - mostly referenced from Lindars or (more seletively) John Robinson. I will try to avoid the bits that you are working on; the authorship question etc.  Looking at the main text, there is a lot of repetition, e.g. of the fairly negative views of non-specialist scholars; and some important topics are underdeveloped (such as John's chronology, the nature of the Johannine community, and the historical context for the apparent conflict with the synagogues).  TomHennell (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is Lindars? On the issue of date, at least, he contradicts Harris, Theissen, Sanders, and Vermes. I'm not sure we should prefer Lindars's date against the most prevalent date of circa AD 100. Leadwind (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Barnabas Lindars (1923 - 1991) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis from 1978 to 1990; and is the author of one of the three major critical commentaries on John to have been written in English in the last 40 years (the others being the slightly earlier studies of Raymond Brown and CK Barrett) - together with several other major studies of John and the Synoptics. He also produced a brief critical guide to John in 1990 (which is what I have been quoting from) which surveyed the critical debate up to that date.  This makes him eminently suitable as an authority for the lead paragraph; which should aim to summarize the mainstream scholarly view, and not get distracted into minority opinions. If we accept him as the leading authority, then we should accept his dating.  Harris, Theissen, Sanders, and Vermes claim no particular expertise on John; none of them, so far as I can find, has published a study of the Gospel or Epistles; their expertise is in the Historical Person of Jesus, which is a different Wikipedia article.  Horses for courses. TomHennell (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Off-hand, I might prefer Brown. He's notable enough to have a WP page so editors can readily verify that he's a highly reputable expert on the topic. But I'm grateful that you're using such a good source and I won't quibble. Leadwind (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I added a topic sentence to the last paragraph. Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I considered using Brown for exactly the reason you state. I chose Lindars in part because he is more consistent; Brown's views on the historicity of the 'Disciple whom Jesus Loved' have changed and changed back again several times; but also because Brown's views are much more directly in conflict with those of Harris, Theissen, Sanders, Vermes, etc. Lindars regards the Markan account of Jesus overall as more reliable than that of John (albeit selective and theologically conditioned); while Brown argues strongly that each gospel account should be regarded as of equivalent historical value.  I believe the mainstream consensus is closer to Lindars on this point and othes, than it is to Brown.  TomHennell (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just getting around to reading (and looking at) this new lead. It appears well written and well sourced, but I think it fails as a lead for a) being too long and b) too detailed. I'd cut the last sentence of the first paragraph, almost all of the second paragraph (third paragraph looks great to me) and the fourth monstrosity needs major work. I don't think the content I'm suggesting be cut, be completely removed from the article. Instead, we should move it out of the lead, and find a better home lower down in the article. -Andrew c [talk] 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it is too long, the problem with the original lead was not only that it was inadaquately sourced, but also that the article promptly plunged into a whole series of debating points (apostolic authorship, relation to the Synoptics, Gnosticism) without any intoductory matter making the basic territory clear to readers who might have no prior exposure to New Testament study: what are the Synoptics? who was John, how and why was his name associated with this Gospel? what are the main points on which mainstream scholarship is agreed?  Probably we need a new shorter lead, and something like the current lead as an introductory section. TomHennell (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Leads are my special passion. I agree that this lead is too long and detailed, and that the good material we cut from the lead should go in the body. On the issue of an "introductory section," it is against WP guidelines to have such a section. The lead is supposed to introduce the topic and to summarize it so well that it could stand alone and still be reasonably coherent and informative. Leadwind (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Source
The Authorship of John was very helpful. Do you have any more like that. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Helmut Koester's "Early Christian Gospels", and Raymond Brown's "An Introduction to the New Testament" have good overviews as well (and some of Brown's earlier work is extensively related to John). That's what I have off the top of my head. I just ran across the book I linked to a few days ago. It's an anthology related Johannine topics, and that one essay is dealing with a small movement working to re-historicize John, but the author goes over what he sees as the prominent and mainstream views (and I personally thought the authorship section seemed balanced, sourced, and covered multiple POVs).-Andrew c [talk] 14:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I am going to take a bit of a break and do some more reading on this topic. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"False" accusations by Leadwind
Sorry for getting pissed off upset about your "false" accusations. Please see the bottom of my talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well. Leadwind (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Date
The current section is a mess (not unusual in this article). We do need a section on the dating of John, but I think it is a good idea to get a broad view first on what is the overall mainstream position. I have taken 85-90 from Lindars, which is also the date in the Oxford companion to the Bible (article by Stephen Smalley); but elsewhere in Wikipedia dates seemm to be quoted as 90 to 110. And there are earlier and later dates advanced by mainstream scholars.

So far as I can gather, it is generally agreed that archeological discoveries of the 20th century rule out the mid 2nd century dating preferred by the descendents of the Higher Criticism. P52 suggests that John is known and regarded as scripture in Egypt by around 150. The Dead Sea scrolls show that the religious language of John's discourses are entirely comprehensible within 1st century Judaism, and the Nag Hammadi codices show that - in so far as there are Gnostic parallels, they are likely to be from John to the Gnostics, not the other way round.

A date around 100-110 is proposed by Martin Hengel, on what is essentially neo-traditonalist grounds. Hengel denies that there could be such a thing as an anonymous gospel - hence all the Gospels have always been publoshed with named authors, who are who they say they are (or are followers writing in their names). And hence the church traditions which require a late date (Papias etc.) represent valid evidence.

A date a bit earlier for both Matthew and John is defended by on internal text critical grounds - e.g. by Lindars and Brown. These scholars associate the references to expulsion from the synagogue as linking the community within which the gospel was written to the historic circumstances of Juadaism in the decades immediately after the Jewish war, when Rabbinic Pharisaism was asserting its dominance.

A rather earlier date still is advanced by John Robinson; on the basis broadly that that the historical accuracy of much of John's detailed reference points to as early a date as possible, while the supposed incompatibility of John's religious thought with Judaism has now been shown to be unsustainable. But as Lindars points out, that requires Robinson to take 11:48 literally, when almost all commentators see this as dramatic irony on John's part.

But I am not sure I have covered all the bases here - are there other scholarly traditions I should take into account TomHennell (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this will help, but I'll quote key bits from various books I own:
 * "While an early draft of the Gospel may have come into existence soon after the middle of the 1st century, it was probably not composed in its present form until the very end of the century, and later redactional comments were added even during the 2d century, perhaps in the context of the production of the Johannine Epistles" Koester Ancient Christian Gospels p. 267 [and he is citing Brown on this]
 * "The time of origin is to be put around the turn of the century. P52 rules out extreme late dating. Theissen and Merz The Historical Jesus p. 36 [They first cite Baur and Schmithals, who argue for the extreme late dating, and then site Wengst, saying "dates the Gospel of John around 90..."]
 * "The Gospel of John was the last canonical Gospel to be written, probably around 90-95" Ehrman The New Testament p. 174
 * "DATE: 80-110. Those who think that the Gospel was redadcted (edited) by another hand after the main writer composed it may place the body of the Gospel in the 90s and the additions of the redactor ca. 100-110, about the same time as III John" Brown An Introduction to the New Testament p.334 [Brown argues that there were at least 3 versions or different levels of Gospel that developed over a longer period of time, with the final chapter being late (100-110), but the main text in the form c. 90]
 * "the date would be within the decade or two following the centralized Jewish decision to expel believers in Jesus from the synagogue, that is during the last fifteen years or so of the first century--roughly contemporary with, but evidenctly independent of the writing of Matthew and Luke-Acts." Miller/Funk The Complete Gospels p.198 [note: this is a JS publication]
 * I found this from Meier, regarding Robinson:
 * "The most thorough challenge to the commonly accepted dating of the Gospels if that of J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Robinson wishes to place all the writings of the NT before . While he does not even attempt a serious argument for the hopeless case of 2 Peter, he does strain to mount such a defense for Matthew, Luke, and John. The result is a dazzling tour de force that fails to convince,. The thesis has been largely rejected by NT scholars; for a telling review, see Robert M. Grant in JBL 97." Meier A Marginal Jew vol. 1 p. 50
 * Not sure if any of this helps. I'd say that maybe if we left the dating at c. 90, it would encompass all of this. Not sure we want to emphasize/single out the 85 of Lindars. alternatively 80-100 seems OK as well.-Andrew c [talk] 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Decided to use the Oxford Reference Online (even though such tertiary sources are not the best). In the Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993), they write "a date in this period (ca. 85 CE) may be assigned to the gospel." On the other hand, in A Dictionary of the Bible, they write "A reasonable date for the gospel’s composition would be 95 CE either in Ephesus or in Gaulinitis".-Andrew c [talk] 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My sources say 90-100 (Harris), circa 100 (Theissen & Merz, which Andrew cites), and 100 plus (Vermes, Jesus Seminar). If I could sit this bit out and let you folks make it work, I'd be grateful. Leadwind (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. You have my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, thanks, and GA dream
To the editors who recently have made such significant improvements on this article, my heartfelt thanks. IMHO, more improvement to this article has occurred in the past month or two than in the previous year or so. Having just served as a Good Article WP:GA reviewer on another Christian-related article, I'd like to see this article nominated for GA soon. There are almost no Christian-related articles that have earned the GA tag, but this one now─for the first time─is approaching at least the potential. Again, thanks! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I speak for all of us when I say it truly was a group effort, full of mutual compromise and debate. We also have an Admin. who has been doing a great job in keeping balance and pointing us in the right direction. (speaking of which, I must say his suggested readings are making me rethink my positions! Not a small feat for an old professor who is set in his ways). Also please be advised that I agree to delete the material from the Catholic Encyclopedia as it is not essential to the article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnostic elements
Someone messed up the gnostic elements section. All those phrases that need citation are not supported. For example the first 18 verses of the Gospel may not refer to a certain kind of gnosticism but they can fit perfectly with other kinds. Docetism does not represent gnosticism general views. Stratogustav (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. We need all the help we can get! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lead
It is very much improved but is a bit too long for Wikipedia. Can it be tightened without losing quality? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of the Ministry
I have added a section on chronology; I will add citations to Sanders, Veremes, Robinson and Brown; but please feel free to edit and adjust if you consider my approach as mis-stating the various scholarly viewpoints. TomHennell (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great section. I added a chart. Same back at you ie (please feel free to edit and adjust if you consider my approach is mis-stating the various scholarly viewpoints). - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

the date of the crucifixion
an anonymous editor has added the following


 * In John, Jesus dies on the daytime portion of Passover; the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calender ("In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover" Lev 23:5). Biblically, the days began at sundown (even), so the 14th day of Nisan begins at sundown, when the passover was to be killed and eaten, so that the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and Jesus trial and crucifixion take place on the daytime portion of the passover day. On the 15th day of Nisan is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread, an annual High Day Sabbath ("And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" Leviticus 23:6). As the Book of John notes, the Jews wanted Jesus off the cross before sundown because that would begin the High Day Sabbath, the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened bread ("The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away" John 19:31). This day is often misinterpreted as being the weekly Sabbath, which John 19:31 points out is not the case, since the Jews wanted Jesus off the cross before this High Day Sabbath began. Because of this misinterpretation, the belief began that Christ was crucified on a Friday, before the weekly Sabbath. Jesus prophesied that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights ("For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" Matthew 12:40), so noting that the tomb was found empty on Sunday morning, and that Jesus was placed in the tomb just before sundown, he must have risen at the same time of day (just before sundown)to fulfill this prophecy, therefore, scripturally, must have risen just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath (Saturday). Counting back three days and three nights before Saturday afternoon would place Christ's crucification on a Wednesday, on the daytime portion of passover, just before the sundown that would begin the High Day Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. This would be backed up by the verse in Mark that states "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him" (Mark 16:1). The english translation of "Sabbath" in the greek is actually plural, meaning two Sabbaths past while Jesus was in the tomb, namely the first High Day Sabbath of Unleavened bread, and also the weekly Sabbath.

All this is unreferenced, tendentious, and mainly (I think) besides the point. Which is that John has Jesus die on the 14th Nisan, while the Synoptics have Jesus die on the 15th Nisan. Brown goes in detail into the complex question of the relation of the festival of Passover with that of Unleavened Bread, and how these terms were understood in Palestine in the 1st Century; but I cannot see that the discussion is relevant to the chronological issues; unless it is being argued that in some way the the Synoptic and Johannine datings can by such be made to reconcile. I wil restore the previous wording, unless advised to the contrary. TomHennell (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * for what it is worth, I agree with TomHennell. I noticed the problems with the additions, but could not articulate a response.  It appears to be an attempt to smuggle a POV, and it is completely unreferenced; it ought to come out. A Georgian (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this article, or is it not, about the book of John? Does the book of John place the death of Christ on the 14th, or the 15th. Quite clearly it places it on the 14th. Nothing I posted was incorrect, was it? I referenced everything with verses from the very book this article discusses.


 * Thanks for responding, anonymous(incidentally, it does help a lot if you sign your edits). This section is intended to discuss the points where John;s chronology differs from that apparent from the synoptics - in that John locates the Last Supper and crucifixion clearly on 14th Nisan, whereas all the Synoptics place the Last Supper on 15th Nisan; and hence by implication the crucifixion too.  In your edit, I think, this point was lost in an involved, and non-mainstream, argument to the effect that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesday afternoon. The main points are discussed in detain in Raymond Brown 'The Death of the Messiah'; and I have been remiss in not completing the in-text cititions, which I promise to do shortly.  Wikipedia is not a forum to advance or defend novel theories or original research, but rather to record the range of publshed critical research from acknowledged scholarly authorities.


 * With reference to your particular edit, not only do you not provide scholarly citations, there are several points that appear unsupported historically. For example, I understand you as stating that the Passover lamb was killed at the beginning of 14th Nisan (that is sundown of 13th Nisan); whereas the Jewish sources are unanimous that the Passover lambs in this period were sacrificed in the Temple from noon onwards on the 14th. This is important, as Mark states explicitly that the preparations for the Last Supper were put in place during the time period when the lambs were being slaughtered (i.e. on 14th), so the Last Supper itself must, in Mark, be on the 15th. Secondly, you argue that the reference in John to the day after the crucifixion being a High Day Sabbath precludes its also being a weekly Sabbath. I am not aware of any mainstream scholar (or Christian tradition) that supports that reading.  The common interpretation is that the reference in John specifies the 15th Nisan that year being sumultaneously a high festival - the feast of Unleavened Bread - and also a regular weekly Sabbath.  Hence there is no reason not to maintain the unanimous ancient tradition that Jesus died on a Friday, and the tomb was found empty on the Sunday morning following, In my view, the contrary minority opinion - if it could be supported in published scholarship - would be proper to an article on the chronology of the crucifixion, rather than this one on John's Gospel; unless perhaps you are arguing that Jesus died on a Wednesday in John, but on a Friday in the Synoptics? TomHennell (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jews today observe the passover meal on 15th Nisan, but this tradition is contrary to the first passover. The lamb was to be killed and eaten on the 14th in the evening, which began the 14th day (after sundown that ended the 13th day). The 12th Chapter of Exodus also states it was to be eaten that same night.

''EXODUS 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: 6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.''

To be killed both "in the evening", and on the 14th day, the Passover would have to killed on the evening which began the 14th day. If was also to be eaten "in that night" it would have to be eaten also during the night time portion that began the 14th day, otherwise they would have had to wait until the following night that began the 15th. This could not be the case because the book of Numbers also states that all the ordinances and rites of the Passover were to be kept on the 14th day, not at any part during the 15th.

''NUMBERS 9:2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season. 3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.''

The Israelites left Egypt on the 15th, by nightfall, the day after the passover took place.

Numbers 33:3 And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians. Deuteronomy 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

Since the Israelites left Egypt "by night", "on the fifteenth day", and this was "on the morrow after the passover", the 15th day begins at nightfall, and all the rites and ordinances of the passover (the killing, eating, and striking of the lintels with blood) were to be held during the night of the 14th, the the passover could not have been eaten during the night-time portion of the 15th, because it was eaten the previous evening, just as God commanded in Exodus 12:5-8.

The Jews will not admit this, but the have gone astray on the timing of passover. Also the passover lambs were to be killed and eaten in their houses, not at the temple. The animals killed at the temple on the afternoon of the 14th were the preparations for the Unleavened bread sacrifices that took place at sundown (which began the 15th), they were to be taken of the flock and herd, meaning cattle....

DEUTERONOMY 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. 2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there. 3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

These sacrifices were different to the passover lambs, these sacrifices were to mark the night the left Egypt, which was the 15th. The passover lambs were killed and eaten the previous night, since they left Egypt on the morrow after the passover....

Numbers 33:3 And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.''

The passover sacrifices at the temple were different to the passover lambs. The passover Lambs were not sacrifices for God, they were God's sacrifices for men, which were killed in their own homes.

The passage in Mark (16:1) makes it clear that two Sabbaths past while Christ was in the tomb. He was in the tomb for three days and three nights, and you don't get three days and three nights from Friday afternoon and Sunday morning, because the two Sabbaths were two separate Sabbaths.

Also, how exactly do the synoptic gospels give a different date than the version in John? They all state he was to rise three days after his death, and they all state the tomb was already empty early Sunday morning. You can't get three days from Friday night to Saturday night.

Anyway, I don't believe anyone will change their mind on something that has been ingrained for nearly 2000 years, no matter how much the gospels prove to the contrary, or how much one could show WHY it was changed, namely to incorporate it into the Pagan Holiday of Easter (Ishtar/Astarte/Ostara).

All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.34.153 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making your views clear - but I strongly suspect that the fall under the heading of 'original research' and are consequently excluded from Wikipedia. What the 'original' Passover looked like is lost forever - it is most unlikely that the accounts in Exodus and Leviticus have much historical value. But we do know much better how Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem in the 1st century.  The historic record makes no mention of a 13th/14th Nisan sacrifice of Passover lambs, only of a sacrifice on the afternoon of 14th, preparatory to a Passover meal eaten in the 15th. Maybe indeed the Jews of that period were doing it 'wrong'; but if so, then Jesus was also doing it 'wrong' since he was - above all other things - a highly observant Jew in the matter of the major festivals of his faith. TomHennell (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in miracles, parables, etc.
Help will be appreciated from those who are well versed in Gospel episodes. Please see:


 * Talk:Miracles_of_Jesus
 * Talk:Parables_of_Jesus
 * List_of_key_episodes_in_the_Canonical_Gospels

The 3rd item includes a list of key episodes in the 4 Canonical Gospels. Suggestions about possible errors or omissions will be appreciated. Please leave messages on one of those 3 talk pages, and not here, in order to focus the discussion. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

the nativity
It would help if someone could suppy citation reference for the observations in the first part of this para:

"The gospel of John gives no account of Nativity of Jesus, unlike those of Matthew and Luke, and although Jesus's father is twice named as 'Joseph', his mothers name is never given. In Chapter 7 41-42, and again in 7:52, John records some of the crowd dismissing the possibility of Jesus's being the Messiah, on the grounds that the Messiah must be a descendent of David and born in Bethlehem, stating that Jesus instead came out of Galilee; John made no effort to refute or correct this, and this has been advanced as implying that John rejected the synoptic tradition of Jesus's birth in Bethlehem. Other commentators see this as characteristic Johannine irony; placing in the mouths of opponents of Jesus, statements that both the gospel writer and his readership know to be mistaken."


 * The argument that John is here being ironic is fairly commonly argued; and I am sure you have good grounds for presenting the contrary position from published sources; but I have not been able to find it. The problem is that the statements "Jesus is not of the line of David" and "Jesus was not born in Bethlehem" stand or fall together.  If the one is non-ironic, so too must be the other.  But the tradition of Jesus being of Davidic descent does seem to have been widespread from an early date (Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, Revelation 22:16). So can it really be maintained that the writer of John's Gospel did not intend the denial of Jesus descent from David to be ironic?  But if that is conceded, the case against his being born in Bethlehem appears to fall too.  Can you give a reference to a published author who argues against this point?  TomHennell (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bogus source?
I looked for: "The picture in the Fourth Gospel needs to be corrected by the less consciously contrived indications furnished by the Synoptic tradition" Lindars, Barnabas; 'John'; Sheffield Academic Press 1990; p. 42.

And couldn't find any reference to such a book. Amazon lists almost a thousand items published by Sheffield Academic Press, and "John" is not one of them. It's not found under Google Scholar, either. Any help finding/correct this citation would be appreciated. Rklawton (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These pages, , , etc lists it. It can be bought here. It is also on google books . You can preview page 42 . -Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=119531&SearchType=Basic


 * ISBN: 9781850752554 TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Making changes
I am making the authorship sections more balanced. It seems that my cited changes are being removed because some people you just don't like themRomanHistorian (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

John as author
I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that John wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've explained elsewhere, your changes are fringe and not minor. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fight this one anymore. The changes I wanted were minor so this isn't worth it. I do think that the beginning of Gospel_of_John ("Prominent, mainstream scholars view the Gospel of John as being a largely unreliable written account forged by an anonymous author posthumous to the Apostle and could not have been an eyewitness to the historical Jesus") includes weasel words "unreliable" and "forged". I also think calling these scholars "Prominent, mainstream" is an unnecessary redundancy that amplifies their importance. I am not going to make these changes but I think they should be made.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Prominent" is a peacock term, and "forged" just isn't correct, if you are arguing for an anonymous author. When I have more time, I'll examine your edits more closely, and see what else we can save.-Andrew c [talk] 13:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably used the term "prominent." We should be able to distinguish between, say, a scholar who is tapped to write Encyclopaedia Britannica articles and who is named as an important scholar in a college textbook (he's prominent) and a scholar who wrote a book that got published by Zondervan. I once saw a rule of thumb from Wales about what counts as a "prominent" scholar or viewpoint, but I can't find it and admittedly might not be remembering it right. In any event, the top scholars generally agree that John didn't write John. Leadwind  (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar
An editor has systematically removed all references to the Jesus Seminar claiming it was controversial. This wholesale removal isn't appropriate without discussion. Reasons for keeping these references: First, the Jesus Seminar includes leading biblical scholars from many denominations. Second, they've published numerous books and articles in scholarly journals - the exact sort of work we'd like to see included in our articles. Third, there are zero Biblical scholars who lack equally scholarly detractors. The fact that the Jesus Seminar has detractors, therefore, should not rule it out as a source. Lastly, they represent a significant scholarly point of view, so these views should be represented - we can and should balance these views with the scholarly works of those who disagree. This is how we create a fair, balanced, and useful article. Rklawton (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with The Jesus Seminar that makes them so controversial is that one of their tenets is that miracles are impossible.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The specific problem with the Jesus Seminar, in relation to his article in particular, is that they take the historical unreliability of John as a basic pre-supposition; one of their "seven pillars". In respect of John's Gospel, they are therefore assuming what they are seeking to prove, and this calls into question the value of anything they say on the subject - unless it is backed up by unbiased critical judgement, in which case it is better to refer to this judgement directly.


 * in addition:


 * - The rejection of miracles represents a seious critical bias, as Jesus' status as a wonder-worker is just about the strongest attested historical fact about him.


 * - They are a self-selected group, some of whom are genuine scholars, others more like hangers-on.


 * - Much of their scholarship is stuck in a time-warp at the time of their founding. The nature of their membership and proceedings make it very difficult for them to take on board the radical changes to Jesus scholarship that have occurred since.  So if they once looked like one version of the critical mainstream, they can now appear as fundamentalist, sectional and outdated. TomHennell (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These criticisms aren't unique to the seminar. For example, scholars have been questioning John for centuries, most biblical scholars reject "miracles" (depending on their own definition of the word), etc. Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know Christians hate the Jesus Seminar, and well they should. But the JS is a reliable source by WP standards. The Seminar includes a number of scholars who are reliable sources in their own right: Funk, Crossan, Borg, Harris, etc. The seminar's findings are pretty well in line with contemporary secular work, including their general rejection of John. They are in the minority in rejecting an apocalyptic view of Jesus, but the Gospel of John also rejects the apocalyptic view of the synoptics, so ironically the JS fits here pretty well. I know people would like to erase the JS from WP, but that would be against WP policy, so let's not do it. If you can find prominent scholars who object to the way that the JS treats John, let's include their views, too. Unfortunately for those who hate the JS, it's typical for scholars to dismiss miracles as ahistorical and to rate John very low in terms of historical accuracy. Leadwind  (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See the quote below. They are viewed by scholars as fringe. Only a small number of their members are mainstream but their weighing method skews their opinion in favor of the other members, many of whom aren't even biblical scholars. I don't know what you mean by 'secular' biblical scholars. Atheists? You are probably right that most athiests would reject John, though they don't represent mainstream biblical scholarship. Also, its not typical for scholars to dimiss miracles, not unless they are atheists (by definition). And it is certainly not typical for scholars to use the methodology JS uses, including a requirement that the claims in the gospels be proven rather than disproven, which is the standard in most historical scholarhip.
 * They aren't 'another viewpoint'. They are a fringe viewpoint (see the quote below) and as such have no place on wikipedia.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Go and take a look at Jesus_Seminar:
 * "According to Greg Boyd, a prominent pastor and theologian, 'The Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholarship.'"


 * Seminar critic William Lane Craig has argued that the self-selected members of the group do not represent the consensus of New Testament scholars. He writes:


 * "Of the 74 [scholars] listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies. Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college"


 * On your points: first, as you can see above, they don't include many biblical scholars from many denominations. Few of the members of the seminar are prominent, and about half aren't even biblical scholars. Second they have published books, but so have many others, including those with fringe viewpoints. Fringe is fringe, even if they published books. Third, you may be right that few scholars lack detractors. The difference here is that most of these scholars aren't rejected wholesale as fringe by the rest of the scholarly community. Finally, the Jesus seminar doesn't represent a mainstream nor even a merely contriversial viewpoint. They are outright fringe. Wikipedia policy is to allow weight for minority viewpoints though not fringe viewpoints. The scholarly view on the Jesus Seminar being fringe seems widespread and airtight. Their views have no place here.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are applying WP:FRINGE correctly here. I welcome you to ask WP:FTN. Fringe is applied to views "that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field". The Jesus Seminar rarely departs from the mainstream, and often cite other "mainstream" scholars to support their views. One of the minority views that they hold is that Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet. This is simply a minority view though, not a fringe view, as there are other scholars who agree. They do have a reputation for some of their more vocal claims, and they do have honest criticism, but that does not mean they are no longer considered a WP:RS or that we should ban their use in this, or any other article. But the idea that John is the least historically reliable gospel is repeated in many sources, the idea that supernatural events cannot be demonstrated through historical methods is a basic principal of history (and furthermore, the Jesus Seminar clearly says that Jesus was considered a healer and miracle worker during his time, but adds that there were probably natural explanations for such occurrences). Fringe doesn't mean, find a single scholar who has used that word, but something specific in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think those two quotes above demonstrate this by any means. Please demonstrate that we are giving every single point you want to delete from this article undue weight due to their nature of being so far from the mainstream. I personally don't believe this is the case.-Andrew c [talk] 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The question, as I understand it, is whether statements of the form: "The Jesus Seminar rates this passage as black" are of value within this article. The point to remember is that the article is specifically about the Gospel of John; there are entirely different articles on the Synoptic Gospels and on the Historical Jesus. It is quite possible - indeed not uncommon - for a scholar to be clearly within the mainstream of synoptic scholarship or scholarship concerning the historical Jesus, and still to express fringe views on the Gospel of John.


 * The argument that such statements have no place in the article rests on the observation that the Jesus Seminar takes the historical unrelilability of the Gospel of John as a presupposition - one of their "Seven Pillars" So the statment above may be expanded as "Those who have agreed amongst themselves in advance that John's Gospel should be regarded as historically unreliable, reject the historicity of this statement in John".  That may not be precisely a tautology, but it is a near to it as makes no difference.  The authority of the Jesus Seminar, as such, can have no meaning or status within the context of an article on John.


 * Which does not at all preclude the article's referring to the substastiated and published conclusions of particular individual scholars as to the historicity or otherwise of particular events or sayings reported in the Gospel of John.  Which includes those members of the Jesus Seminar (such as John Dominic Crossan) who are acknowledged as scholarly authorities writing in their own names. And indeed some recognised authorities on John  (including some who have writted major commentaries) would concur that the synoptic accounts are "less consciously contrived"(Lindars) and so rather to be relied on for historical data.  But how the Jesus Seminar may collectively have voted on the issue, is as such of no interest or signficance. TomHennell (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Tom's view on this. Rklawton (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Favoring the synoptics over John is mainstreams scholarship and has been for over a hundred years. It seems weird to exclude the JS for the "transgression" of being in sync with mainstream scholarship on this issue. Are we to base this article only on authors who are outside the mainstream in their understanding of John? That seems a little backward. Leadwind  (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So just to be clear, is there any specific text currently in the article that anyone wants removed or modified? Is there any support for removing ALL citations to any JS related content?-Andrew c [talk] 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose deleting all citations to any JS related content. Many people find it shocking the difference between what is taught in seminary and what is preached in the pulpit, but that's the state of biblical scholarship. Rklawton (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view, these two current quotes are problematic

"The Jesus Seminar rated this account as black, containing no historically accurate information."

"The scholars of the Jesus Seminar identify the historical inferiority of John as foundational to modern gospel scholarship."

The first is without content. It is equivalent to the statement: "The Southern Baptist Convention rates this account as totally true and trustworthy". You cannot join the Jesus Seminar without subscribing to a particular view that John is to be considered of lesser historical value; just as you cannot join the Southern Baptist Convention without subscribing to the view that Scripture in inerrant. How such a pre-selected body votes tells the reader nothing about the text in question (though it may well be informative about the body itself)

The second needs rewriting: perhaps something along the lines as "Most current scholars of the Historical Jesus, including those of the Jesus Seminar, urge that the accounts of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels should be generally preferred to those of John as a basic source of information about Jesus". But then this simply repeats what Sanders says, and I am not sure it merits inclusion on its own account.

There is a third reference:

"The Scholar's Version of the Gospel, developed by the Jesus Seminar"

I see no objection to this, as it is simply descriptive of a particular translation which incorporates a range of scholarly judgements (as all such translations must do).

Does this help? TomHennell (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the second sentence, it may be redundant, but I think it is helpful in establishing the prevalence of a view. Sanders, JS, and Vermes, Dunn (well Dunn probably doesn't hold the view, but comments on the dominance of it). I would not support an ouright deletion of the citation and mention of the JS, but perhaps we could condence the paragraph so we don't have 4 different sentences saying the same thing only attributed to different scholars. I would not be opposed at all to a re-write or combining, as long as the citation is kept, and we explicitly state JS somewhere. In regards to the first, I strongly disagree with your claim that there is a litmus test as such for membership in the JS regarding beliefs pertaining to John's gospel, but I think that is beside the point. I think that whole paragraph in question is rather week, and wouldn't mind removing the mention of the black rating, or removing the thing entirely. Is it important to mention this gospel depicts Jesus' ministry as larger than JtB? Is it then important to mention that some scholars don't think that is historically viable? And then how dominant is that view? Meier probably discusses it, so I could look it up further, but do we need to play this tit or tat, that any time we mention something in this gospel, we need to judge it's historical reliability? -Andrew c [talk] 16:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)