Talk:Gospel of John/Archive 4

Reverted edit
I posted this edit and it was reverted. It said "Darrell Bock notes that many scholars agree with authorship by John, and calls the dismissal of the traditional authorship account among scholars "contested." He also says that scholars differ in that the links are "direct as conservatives claim or more indirect as moderates claim". He says outright rejection of direct or indirect apostolic authorship is limited to liberal scholars."" The reason given for the reversion was that "Bock is an evangelical apologist". What does this have to do with anything? His statement was on the view of modern scholarship, not his own personal view of who the author was. The implication of rejecting his comment is that, being evangelical, he is sloppy or untrustworthy. Look at his bio on the DTS website. He is a "Professor of the New Testament" specializing in the historical Jesus, the gospels, and Luke-Acts among others. He has published at least 89 articles in scholarly journals. He was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, is an editor-at-large of the "Christianity Today" magazine, and has published well over 20 books (several of which have been New York Times best sellers). You can't get more academic than Bock. His being a scholar whom one wants to term an "apologist" is not a reason for reverting his statement. He is a scholar, pure and simple, and a well-regarded one at that. His publisher is also well regarded, and is the 6th largest publisher in the world. I think the editor who reverted my edit doesn't like the theology of Bock and is using this view to reject everything by Bock because of the Bock's supposed motivations. The comment should be judged on its merits (Bock is well regarded and making a more-or-less objective view of where modern scholars stand) rather than Bock's supposed motivations, and that the edit should be restored.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Bock's publisher a well regarded academic press or an apologistic press?- Civilized education talk  07:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-academic Christian press. I checked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, too. There are plenty of good nonsectarian, academic sources, so let's just use those. Leadwind  (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roman, if you want to use explicitly Christian sources, such as Thomas Nelson, just label them that way. "Certain Christian scholars such as Darrell Bock say that the mainstream rejection of John is contested." Then you can get you minority view on the page. Just don't pretend that it's a mainstream view. For that matter, why is Bock enough of an expert that we care what he says? Instead of citing no-name scholars just because you like what they say, let's just look at the best source and cite them, whether they agree with you or me or not. Leadwind  (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there is no good reason to reject him. His publisher is irrelevant, unless it is a fringe conspiracy theory publisher. Bock himself, as I said above, is a well published scholar. The comments above don't address the substance of what he said, and instead address the personal motives of Bock. That this flies in the face of Wikipedia policy is obvious. It is amazing that one could argue that Bock is fringe, and that he is wrong about what the view of scholars is, even though no proof of this has been offered other than the claim 'everyone knows that'. Bock is a reputable scholar who said outright what what the range of views amongst scholars are, and his quote was removed because of a claim that his statement on the matter is wrong, even though no sources have been cited to show explicitly that he is wrong. Show me your sources that show he is wrong about? A direct quote that "most scholars think 'x'?" That is what I presented here, a direct quote from a reputable scholar about what the range of opinion is amongst scholars at large. All I have seen so far are the personal views of a few scholars whom editors here say represent the "mainstream" although no sources are shown showing that they represent the mainstream. As Tom said above, this view is not at all "mainstream" and many scholars disagree.

I would like some other editors to comment on this.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * An indirect link is not the same as the apostle actually writing the gospel. So one could say that liberal and moderate believe in either no connection to the apostle or an indirect connection and that belief in actual authorship of the gospel is limited to conservative scholars. Barnabas Lindars says as much in his book writing in page 20; "Although this tradition continues to have support among modern scholars, the majority cling to it only in the most tenuous form, or abandon it althogether. Also how do we know "conservative", "moderate" and "liberal" scholars make up equal percentages of mainstream scholarship? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than framing the moderate view in one way or another, just state it outright: that they view the author to have been a disciple or associate of John. I guess I don't see what the problem with this is.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

historical reliability
I re-orged, putting the introduction first, then a paragraph on Jesus' teaching and a paragraph on narrative details. I tried to balance weight. Robinson, for example, used to get a paragraph all to himself even though his 1977 book failed to convince the academic world. Certainly someone writing outside the mainstream 30 years ago doesn't deserve far more ink than a contemporary, mainstream scholar. Likewise, Thompson is a virtual unknown published by a Christian press and contradicting mainstream scholarship, so I took out the contradicting piece. It could go back in if we wanted to describe the Christian view of historical reliability, but so far we've been sticking to mainstream scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added back the quotes from Robinson, moved the Sanders quotes together (they were separated into two places before) and merged what was left of the third paragraph into the first paragraph. I tried to minimize the focus on Robinson, but his views are shared by many scholars. I think we are defining "scholar" differently. "Scholar" includes biblical scholars at seminaries, even conservative ones (which many seminaries are), and not just a limited universe of scholars who are mostly limited to the historical Jesus tradition. Thus, a great number of scholars hold a view closer to Robinson or Thompson. We can include the views of Thompson instead of Robinson if you want, but I assume Robinson would be less controversial. RomanHistorian (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged the section for undue weight. Robinson's minority view from 1977 doesn't deserve this much ink, etc. Leadwind  (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic sources?
RH, could you tell me if the latest references which you have added to the article are sourced from academic publishers, or, are they published by non academic publishers who publish apologistic works? You have not added the names of publishers in your refs....- Civilized education talk  17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That D. A. Carson is a major authority on NT scholarship is well-known, and my finding more sources to prove it sure isn't going to convince you. In the comments above, Tom has commented on Carson being a highly regarded scholar and certainly an RS. Other editors, look at Civil's comment. This is what we are facing: editors who simply delete the views of well-regarded scholars who are certainly RS's. This is nothing more than POV pushing.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you even read my question?- Civilized education talk  18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and apparently you didn't read my response.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

a third page protected?
Here's the third page that needs protection. Either Roman or I (or both of us) must be out of line. This is getting silly. Anyone feel up to escalating this to an RfC or something? Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to escalate this, as neutral editors will see how improper many of your edits have been. The problem is that you delete sources you don't like, define the playing field narrowly and on fairly liberal terms, and then take what you have out of context. It is very difficult to edit with someone who does that. I don't agree with any of your deletions of sources, and reserve the right to restore all of the ones you deleted. At least you compromise some of the time, which some other editors seem to refuse to do, and oddly enough I do think these articles have been improving but it shouldn't be this difficult.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RFC is contraindicated, we already have more than enough opinions represented, what is needed is mediation between them. I invite all editors to mediation cabal. If there is truly interest in escalation, I have a page already preloaded, or we can create a new one. JJB 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets take this to the mediation cabal. I doubt we are going to get far here.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One should be expected to be uncompromising when one sees POV WP:QS being added, no, bombarded onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives to be a repository of human knowledge, and a high quality one too. We do not need promotional stuff produced by apologistic presses. It can be expected to be un-sense making and full of rhetoric. We only need academic stuff. Maybe you have gotten away with inserting some WP:QS. But don't expect them to last long.- Civilized education talk  17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Other editors, take a look at Civil's comment here. He thinks D. A. Carson is a dubious source. How do you work with people like this? Civil has said before that he is personally secular, and the scholars he considers RS's are also secular. It is unfortunate that he cannot see the POV he is pushing. He simply declares all scholars who are insufficiently skeptical "apologists" and deletes them off the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And you dismiss any scholar that doesn't believe the traditional authorships or thinks that not every element in the gospels is historical as "liberal" or "secular". The historical critical method is not empolyed by athiests or "secularists". Beliving Christians and Jews employ it. Read anything by John Dominic Crossan, or Helmut Koester or John P. Meier. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am more than willing to include them. I am just not willing to exclude the less skeptical scholars, and then claim the views of these skeptical scholars represent the "consensus".RomanHistorian (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hi, where did I say I am "secular", and what could it even mean, anyway, show a diff where I say "I am secular".- Civilized education talk  18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You implied it above. You also said it more explictly on one of your past edits.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Show the line where I imply "I am secular". And which past edit.- Civilized education talk  18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When you said I implied you were an atheist, and you said you "may or may not be." The inference was obvious, as you would have denied if it were not true. Not that it matters.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a non intelligent inference. One, which only you seem to be able to make. And where's the diff of my other edit in which I say "I am secular". Please provide it if your assertion is not full of untruth. And also clarify what is the meaning of "secular" in the present context. I am unable to see any meaning in it. And, I would not accept or deny anything in this regard because I want to keep my privacy. Stop making such uncivil inferences.- Civilized education talk  08:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roman, remember how you felt when I implied that you were hostile to my church? Right. Now think about how Civilizededucation is going to take your comments about his religious stance. Empathy is key. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

John illiteracy
Although I had started out this issue in another thread, it seems to be off topic there.So, I have brought this issue to a new thread so that the previous issue in that thread can be discussed comfortably there. Bart Ehrman hypothesizes that John was an illiterate, precluding him from authorship of the gospel attributed to him. This is the line is was talking about. IMO this needs not be attributed to Ehrman explicitly because there is no counter claim in this regard. In this instance, attribution would only be required if we have two or more differing mainstream views. So, what I was saying is that for eds who want to attribute it, they should find a differing mainstream view. One which say something like "John was literate". Otherwise stop trying to attribute it. It is up to them to find such a source. Secondly, "hypothesizes" is a weasel word and is not in the source? So, there is no need for it.- Civilized education talk  13:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, defenders of a minority POV like to say "According to So-and-so" when So-and-so states the majority view. But the point of citing RSs is that we can trust them, so we should be able to say that John was illiterate (as the Bible says he was) without attribution. Unless, that is, that some other, disinterested source can show that this issue is actually in play. But since Ehrman basically summarizes the majority viewpoints in his books, I doubt we'll find mainstream scholars disagreeing with him much.  Leadwind  (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No attribution is needed when stating the mainstream view. Only the minority views need attribution in these cases. Dylan   Flaherty  19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

equality of scholars
Tom, et al, I hope I'm not getting WP:WEIGHT wrong, but here goes...

Tom, you said, "All of which criteria confirm Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Carson, Hooker, and Rowland as equally authoritative." Let's say that all these folks are equally authoritative, as you say. WP:WEIGHT says that prominent proponents indicate that a view is at least minority and not fringe. But in order for a view to be authoritative, it needs to be found in reference works. So a good page should identify the majority view if there is one, i.e., the one found in reference works. In this case, if Rowland deserves mention, it's as a representative of a significant minority view. Same with Crossan, that troublemaker.

What Encyclopedia Britannica shows is what the majority view is. Unless someone finds a comparable reference with another view.

Can anyone cite a standard reference that says that Jesus' teaching in John is to be taken as authentic, or that it's an open question? If EBO says something, and textbooks agree, and no references disagree, then WP policy is to say that the EBO opinion is the majority opinion. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy again. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ''If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * ''If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * 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.
 * ebo doesnt report what is mainstream but what is non controversial. Thus it says the author is 'unknown' which is certainly true rather than the author was 'not john'. Plenty of scholars agree with the traditional view, your attempt to purge them from the article not withstanding. Plus, many take John to be less historical than the Synoptics but this says nothing as many who hold this view place little value in the synoptics. We should reflect the sharply view which we can't with ebo and a few skeptical scholars RomanHistorian (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Leadwind, you commit a formal logic error of believing the inverse. Jimbo said "IF it's majority THEN it's in references"; you implied "IF it's in references [EB] THEN it's in majority". Jimbo is not saying that everything in EB is automatically a majority opinion; he says if it's a majority opinion it's automatically going to be in some reference. That's why in this field I think we should shy away from attributing majority opinions at all (majority of what anyway? how would you count them?). I think we have cited commonly accepted reference texts (Bible dictionaries, i.e., more apropos than EB) that do state the traditional POV. JJB 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what Jimbo is saying is that we should be able to find majority views in commonly accepted reference texts, so when we see views in such high-quality sources and there is no indication that they are minority views (such as careful attribution without endorsement), we are right to conclude that these represent the majority. For example, when the best dictionaries have similar definitions of a word, we should accept this as the majority view. When some pamphlet from Crackpot Press offers a unique and distinct definition, we should disregard it as fringe. Got it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we do find the majority views in secondary sources, although when they disagree with the personal view of certain editors, rather than refute them they just delete the citation and claim the source is "biased". You are correct: when you delete all sources that disagree with you, the remaining sources will agree with you.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * JJB, I understand what you're saying about the logical error. I agree that maybe EBO isn't presenting the majority view. But if it isn't, what's the evidence that it isn't? The WP policy is that the majority view is the view found in commonly accepted reference texts. If prominent scholars disagree, then their minority view are significant and should be covered as minority views. For determining "majority viewpoint," the key feature is what's in the commonly accepted reference texts. Are there commonly accepted reference texts that throw EBO into question? If not, it's WP policy to accept what EBO says as the majority view even if one personally doesn't agree with that view and even if one personally feels that it's not the majority view. The policy is pretty clear. If there is a commonly accepted reference text that disagrees with EBO, let's see it. This is what I've asked Roman for over and over again and that he can never produce: a good tertiary source that agree with him. If it's out there, let's see it. "I think we have cited commonly accepted reference texts (Bible dictionaries, i.e., more apropos than EB) that do state the traditional POV." Please humor me with an example. Leadwind  (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already told you that secondary sources, like all of those that you deleted, are prefered by Wikipedia policy to tertiary sources like EBO. Why do you refuse to accept this? Another problem is that you have a habit of taking quotes out of context. When EBO says an author is unknown, you turn that into "the majority agrees that the author was not the apostle". EBO is trying to be as non-contriversial as possible, so it doesn't take positions on issues like this. It just says it is "unknown" rather than going into the scholarly debate, or taking a side. EBO is acceptable to some level, but you continue to take its quotes out of context. So this is how you operate: delete sources you don't like, and take the ones you like out of context. No wonder we have had these problems.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RH, "I've already told you that secondary sources, like all of those that you deleted, are prefered by Wikipedia policy to tertiary sources like EBO." I think you can read with your own eyes that tertiary sources are actually preferred in the particular case where editors are determining what the "majority viewpoint" is. If that's not what the policy quoted above means, what does it mean? Leadwind  (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite me the wikipedia policy that says this. Actually also show me the wikipedia policy that says editors are suppose to determine the "majority viewpoint". Actually what you just said is certainly a violation of wikipedia policy, as it constitutes original research. You are pushing a POV, where your POV is the "mainstream". Since you can't find sources that validate you, you simply take what you have out of context and delete sources that refute your claims about the "mainstream".RomanHistorian (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." This is fun. Now its your turn. Cite the WP policy that says we are not supposed to determine the majority viewpoint. Listen, I don't blame you for feeling threatened by the majority viewpoint. If I held to a minority viewpoint, I'd probably feel threatened, too. But on WP we're supposed to put our personal feelings aside and follow policy. Leadwind  (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that your logic is: if it is in EBO, then it must be the majority viewpoint, thus we will call it that, then the policy is No original research. None of your sources say "the majority conclude the author was not John and had no connection to him", thus your inference of it is OR.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try again: Cite the WP policy that says we are not supposed to determine the majority viewpoint. In fact, cite any policy you can about the majority viewpoint. That's the issue here: what's WP policy about the majority viewpoint. If you're right, cite the policy. Leadwind  (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

<Uh, V. If no source determines a viewpoint as "majority", we don't. If multiple sources disagree about what the "majority" is, we report all meta-POVs about what the majority is. V also has a subsection called WP:BURDEN, which you are not meeting. Also, you're arguing against the two uninvolved noticeboard watchers that you flagged down, so consensus is forming against you. JJB 16:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC) In addition to not recognizing the formal fallacy you're committing, you also commit it on the second of Jimbo's statements as well as the first. You're arguing that IF someone names adherents, THEN that's saying it's the minority, when it's the other way round. JJB 16:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, you have a good point. Of course having adherents doesn't make an idea the minority idea. Having adherents is merely what qualifies a viewpoint as significant (that is, "minority" or "majority," but not fringe). Now given that we have two significant views (teaching did or didn't go back to Jesus), we refer to the "majority view" policy quoted above. What does it tell us to do to identify a majority view? and look to what the commonly accepted reference texts say. If secondary sources disagree, look to commonly accepted reference texts. When you look at the commonly accepted reference texts, what do you see about whether the teaching in John is authentic to Jesus? Leadwind  (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Now please try to comprehend the rest of the point. Don't change what I said ("naming" adherents) into something else ("having" adherents). The point is that if there is no RS saying "this is the majority view", or if RSs meta-disagree on what is the majority view, WP does not permit you to declare a majority. You need to abandon the idea utterly that there is need for WP to define a majority view; that's an invalid appeal to the WP:TRUTH of the situation as you perceive it. Mangoe is continuing to answer this point as well. I invite you also to cabal, and also to direct talk citation of your sources as I asked Civil below. JJB 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, you're welcome. You say, "You need to abandon the idea utterly that there is need for WP to define a majority view." Defenders of the minority view say that all the time. People who say Jesus never existed resist the idea that there is a majority view on the topic. I cited a policy, above, about how to identify the majority view. Can you cite a policy that really says I'm to utterly forget about the majority view? Minority-view editors wish that people would forget about the majority view, but what's the actual WP policy? Leadwind  (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just told you. WP:V says that you need a source that says this is the majority, not just a source where a tertiary article editor says he thinks this is the case without providing secondary sources. If no source says this is the majority, per V at WP:BURDEN we can remove any statements to the effect that there is one. If sources disagree about what the majority is (which I suspect they do), per WP:NPOV we say who thinks the majority is this and who thinks it is that, without drawing conclusions or synthesizing. The policy you quote is not about "how to identify the majority view", it's about how to speak about what you think is the majority view without taking sides; to add the unstated implication, Jimbo is actually saying, "Since you think you know what view's in the majority, if a viewpoint [really] is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate .... Logically, if a POV's not in the majority, it might still be easy to substantiate in references anyway; therefore assuming the inverse is invalid (i.e., just because it's in a reference doesn't mean it's in the majority). This is all very simple if one doesn't have a preconceived notion that they perceive as necessary to get into the article at all costs; you don't have one of those, do you? JJB 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, "WP:V says that you need a source that says this is the majority," If that's true, please quote the policy. The actual policy says that for a viewpoint to be considered a majority viewpoint, you need to find it in commonly accepted reference texts. EBO says that scholars unanimously reject John's teaching. That's a majority opinion. So I have a commonly accepted reference text that states a majority ("unanimous") opinion. What's your evidence that this opinion isn't the majority opinion? Or here's another question: how would you go about ascertaining the majority opinion on the issue of whether the teaching in John (e.g., "I, Jesus, am God") goes back to Jesus? What do you consider to be the majority opinion, and why? Or if you claim there is no majority opinion (certainly possible), then what's your evidence that there is none? Leadwind  (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's several questions. WP:BURDEN says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Now if you have represented the source correctly, and if you finish carrying the burden by providing the link and page or section number, we go to the statement in WP:V, "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation." More info is at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Note policy doesn't say "Where a source is in the minority" but "Where there is disagreement", thus again proving your formal fallacy in assuming the inverse. The correct EBO quote is necessary for context, because I highly doubt it makes such a sweeping, unguarded statement in its own voice as "scholars unanimously", which can be contradicted with only one counterexample. Now the contrary evidence from other tertiary references has already been provided by Roman via Bible dictionaries and commentaries, although of course he needs to cite links and page numbers also; I also have a good tertiary review from 1945, but it doesn't cover scholars after that point. As to the question of what I consider to be the case, it is completely irrelevant to WP's function, though I am of course a believer in Jesus. The question is what WP should state, and we should only state there is a majority in WP's voice if that is undisputed. Since there is a source dispute about whether and where there is a majority, WP should not say there is one, per the quoted policy; and thus it is not our job to ascertain the majority. But all this is theory that is getting tangential to this article; the issue is what the sources say, and this talk has been notably lacking on that point, and I will not be giving my opinion on that until I can review enough of the sources presented to speak intelligently. JJB 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that, as I suspected, you didn't find anything specifically about the "majority viewpoint" on the pages you referenced. The "majority viewpoint" specifics are to be found on WP:WEIGHT, where I found them and quoted them. I also see that you are agreeing with me that we need to compare EBO to comparable tertiary sources. EBO does indeed say "unanimously." I've cited the reference, and you are welcome to look for it yourself. It might help us agree on the majority viewpoint if you were to read the "Jesus Christ" entry in EBO, especially the Sources section, where it says that the teaching in John can't be reconciled with the teaching in the synoptics (it's one or the other, not both), and that "Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching." If Roman has a source of comparable value that says prominent scholars think the teaching in John goes back to Jesus (even though Matthew, Mark, and Luke apparently had never gotten wind of any of it), then let's see those quotes. And if there is indeed an irreconcilable disagreement among commonly accepted reference texts, then we won't be able to label any particular view the majority viewpoint. Leadwind  (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the "Jesus Christ" entry on EBO. The Sources section is where the author, E. P. Sanders, evaluates the historical reliability of the gospels. Leadwind  (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection discussion
Ok, the article is protected for two weeks, so this is our big chance to politely hash out our differences. Have at it! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You start. JJB 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time, there was an article that everyone was interested in but nobody could agree about. It led to horrible fighting among the villagers, until they realized that the best answer was to appoint Dylan Flaherty (pbuh) as King of the Bible and allow his ex cathedra decisions to rule. And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
 * Your turn. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you start. JJB 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm doing is changing the sentence so it reflects the sources. Have posted four sources that say what the scholarly views are but RH keeps changing it by having it say "critical scholars like Anderson dispute the traditional authorship." but Anderson and such are NOT stating their personal opinion on the matter on those pages. Here are links to Anderson and Lindars directly. I know RH and Leadwind are having a dispute below in the section on the historicity. I have no part in that. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting citations. They do appear to support your version over Roman's. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IP, thanks, but I'm not likely to follow your point without taking the time to read through all the sources presented by everyone, and there are a whole lot. I'm only in it because attribution is usually safer than blanket statements already controverted (no matter how much Dylan sees in them). Without someone making a clear argument I'm not likely to make a direct content judgment in the time I'm choosing to take on this article. JJB 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your response twice, but I still don't see how it addresses 24's argument. As far as I can understand it, all you're saying is that you wish to attribute the majority view so that it can be mistaken for a minority view. Or am I misunderstanding? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 24/IP illustrates perfectly the problem about making blanket statements from a couple of sources. For one, these sources are old and the scholars a fairly liberal in any case. I am looking at one of the sources he linked to, which says "and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it". What does that mean exactly? Is a critical scholar a scholar who is critical of a particular (traditional) view? Is a critical Scholar (a scholar with a critical view) the same as a Critical Scholar (a proper name of a branch of scholarship)? Is he somehow different from a biblical scholar who isn't a "Critical Scholar"? Is renowned New Testament scholar Darrell Bock a "critical scholar" even though he takes a very traditional view on authorship? That quote doesn't say most scholars reject the traditional authorship, it gives a reason why "critical scholars" who reject the view reject it, and even this has been quoted out of context in the article. Other sources I added show that many scholars don't reject it. Even among scholars who do reject it, many see John directly behind it, even if he wasn't the one who physically wrote it. Actually my sources say outright that the large majority of scholars either think he wrote it, or it was written by his disciples based off of what he said directly to them. Only a minority of liberal scholars think the author has no link to John. Theses sources were all deleted from the article. Throwing all of this nuance into "critical scholars dispute traditional authorship" or "the majority conclude John didn't write it" obscures it and implies that scholars, as a whole, think something that 24's own sources don't support.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, when it comes to Biblical history, your notion of "fairly liberal" just means mainstream. You still aren't addressing 24's points, and you don't show any sign of doing the footwork. For example, you demand to know what a "critical scholar" is, but this just shows that you haven't read any of the reliable sources they've indicated. The quoted term comes directly from those sources. I could go on, but you're going to have to step up your game quite a bit in order to achieve the level of academic rigor needed to sway us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why discussing things with you is impossible. I have yet to see you compromise on anything. You just cold-revert, say 'lets discuss', and your "discussion" is to reiterate your point and give no ground.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sources are still there. They are just not being used to imply that John writing the gospel makes up half of scholarship. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roman, just cut to the chase and show us a commonly accepted reference text that agrees with you, and then we'll know that you're not advocating a minority view. Leadwind  (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have and you deleted them all. Then you take EBO and your other sources out of context.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just put your money where your mouth is and show us a commonly accepted reference text that agrees with you. Leadwind  (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Introduction to the New Testament" by D. A. Carson and Doug Moo explicitly agrees with the traditional view. Of course however, you will reject this source as that is what you do with sources you disagree with.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There have also been several Bible dictionaries mentioned, which are references and not just scholarly opinion. JJB 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A critical scholar is one who uses the historical-critical method to study the text. If a critical scholar is simply one who is critical of the traditional authorship than "most" wouldn't dispute it but all of them would. I have no problem with RH's sources as long as they are not used to imply that there is a even split among scholars. Most of his sources are simply the scholars stating their arguments for the traditional authorship but say nothing about what the opinion of overall scholarship. He has one source that says that US/UK are “more open” to the idea that John wrote it but this does not mean a significant amount do. Another source says that moderate scholars think that the text could have had an indirect connection to John but this is not the same as him writing it. In one of my sources, Lindars states that most scholars either reject the traditional authorship or accept it in a very weak form, obviously meaning a very indirect connection. If RH wants to put that there are scholars would believe John had an indirect connection to the text, then  I would have no problem, but it is clear that the position that John the apostle actually wrote the gospel is a minority position. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that mean, most who 'use the historical-critical method'? Where in Wikipedia policy does it define this, or that only these scholars are to be accepted? The views of all scholars are to be accepted, and the diversity of opinion should be reflected. Certain editors define the playing field on very narrow terms, and at best are willing to accept a compromise only under those terms. Some of the sources you cited above were deleted, and what remained was taken out of context. Your Lindars quote is the same and yet worded differently than mine: that most scholars either accept the traditional view or the view that the author(s) were close disciples of John, while only a minority of liberal scholars reject the link. Yet it is these liberal scholars whose views are given the most prominence. I changed the article to reflect this, and my change was reverted by editors self-appointed to represent the "majority" view.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Lindars source does not say that a significant amount of scholars believe that the author was a "close" disciple of John and neither do any of yours. An indirect or weak connection does not automatically mean that the author was "close" with the apostle. And no, the "diversity" of opinions should not be relected as if they are a significant amount of scholarship which is what you're doing. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually my source does say "close". By "close", it says outright that this means an author or authors that were part of some Johnnie community that John founded and ran. Whether they were 'close' to him personally or not I don't know, but your quote comes from an older source and a liberal scholar, thus it words it in a negative way.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't it says that "more moderate scholars like Dunn and Hengel" believe that the text can be traced back to a community that John "influenced". You keep exaggerating the claims in your sources. You also engage in the same tactics you accuse other of by dismissing scholars you don't like as "liberal". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Introduction to the New Testament" by Carson and Moo says exactly that.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Carson and Moo admit that that "large majority of contemporary scholars" reject Johnannine authorship. There just argue that they are wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I mentioned above. They say that conservative scholars accept direct authorship by John, moderates consider the author a dsicple or community of his, and only liberal scholars reject any link. I am fine with reflecting this in the article. That is what I originally did only to have the edit reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest this as a compromise; "Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him." 24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * '"Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him."' OK. Leadwind  (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are good reasons to think that John did not write GoJ. John was illiterate. (This should be mentioned properly, not as it is now.) There is no way he could have written in Greek. Academics show other reasons too. There is no good reason to insist that John wrote the GoJ. And the academic thinking is that none of the Gospels were written by any of the apostles, and all are anonymous texts.- Civilized education talk  08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Theories about John's literacy/illiteracy in the year 90 are nothing more than speculation. I don't expect to convince you, but other editors are more reasonable on this and other points.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please find a mainstream RS against it, or accept what the RS says. There is no need for you to accept it personally. Only agree that it needs no attribution in the article, and that the "hypothesizes" part is your thinking, and unnecessary in the article.- Civilized education talk  17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you help me by indicating exactly what sources you want, via links or name-year-page, and indicating what you think they say? I have not seen it above, and it appears more difficult than usual to divine through history, though my reasonable search has not been thorough of course. JJB 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not get off-topic. This topic is not meant to discuss weither John wrote the gospel but what the scholarly consensus is on it. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So can we argee on the sentence I proposed above? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Once again, that sentence was: "Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him." Do you have citations ready for it? Leadwind  (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay.

Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text,    although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any reason to object to any of these sources. Dylan   Flaherty  04:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I'd rather say that the minority view is held by "some prominent scholars believe" rather than "many believe." The issue is prominence rather than number. Hengel is prominent, at least, but the quote cited doesn't support the adjective "many." Also, the source for this information is promotional (Thomas Nelson), but this looks like an OK way to use a partisan source: to define a minority opinion. Leadwind  (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can argee to that. Now can we get the page unlocked early since we have a consensus. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The usual way is to drop a note on the talk page of the administrator who protected the article. Dylan   Flaherty  18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's done. I hope you guys will revert back to it if it is changed to show that it is the consensus and we won't go though this again. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the changes you made reflect the consensus we formed here. If anyone changes it without explanation, it will be restored. However, it is still possible that the mix of editors will change and consensus will change with it. Best you can do is create an account and add this page to your watchlist. This would at least give you a chance to respond. Dylan   Flaherty  00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)