Talk:John the Baptist/Archive 1

locusts
"locusts"

John the Baptist ate Locusts and honey and mainly lived in the wilderness. He wore camel skin.


 * I recall from a documentary I saw years ago (and I wish I could remember the citiation, so that we could include this in the article), there are certain locusts which eat carrion, and thus are not kosher, and others that only eat vegitation, and thus are. I'm not sure if the Gospels are clear which one John ate.  JHCC


 * Um, don't ask me to cite a source on this 'cause I can't, but isn't the locust he dined on a locust bean? It would explain why the carob tree pods are known as St John's Bread... any Aramaic scholars out there able to confirm/deny? 172.215.192.93 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, apparently that's no longer believed to be right, see Matthew_3:4. 172.215.192.93 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What the phrase in the gospels where Jesus says, 'John came neither eating nor drinking'? This is a reference to strict naziritism and strict vegetarianism. This could be taken as proof that he ate beans and not insects. But, it would not be wrong for him to eat the locusts, since Leviticus 11 allows it. Also in the Mishnah (Chullin 8), it is flatly stated that both fish and locusts are excluded from the vow of one who vows not to eat 'meat.' Meaning that one could still be technically be considered a vegetarian if one ate either locusts or fish, or both. Still, I think the carob bean theory fits best with what we know of John the Baptist.


 * Sorry, I was unclear, I meant check the Wiki article Matthew_3:4 links to. Section 3.1 states "It is certainly the case that in Greek the two words are very similar, but most scholars today feel this passage is referring to the insects, particularly since the other 22 times the word is used in the Bible, it quite clearly refers to insects". 172.216.101.50 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food... ...And every animal he abhorred [as food], and every wrong he rebuked, and tree-produce served him for use. German Scholars of the 19th century believed the Slavonic version to contain lost elements of Josephus. Do you know much about them? I have also read New Testament critics who believe the reference is not to insects.  --Rakovsky - Jumbling together like this material from the canonical Gospels, material from the apocryphal Infancy Gospels, and bits of medieval lore from the Golden Legend is petty much what might be fairly termed "Sunday-School." A start towards a more creditable entry would be to disentangle these elements. Wetman 02:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The Old Slavonic Version of Josephus says:

Excuse my irascible start. But, look! in the entry I'm reading this: According to Christians (Muslims too?) he was a relative of Jesus Christ. So I read that Elizabeth, the Baptist's mother, "was of the daughters of Aaron", according to Luke I: 5. Then in I: 26 Luke calls her the "cousin" (syggenis) of Mary. So, since all us Christians seem to agree on this, exactly how has this discrepency been overcome? How could a cousin of the BVM be "of the daughters of Aaron"? Wetman 08:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "Daughters of Aaron" is a term referring to Jewish women who were descended from Levites (Jewish priests): it was very common for these people to refer to themselves (and for others to refer to them) as sons or daughters of Aaron, who was held to be the first priest. Jor 13:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Mormon things should absolutely not be included in a serious discussion on the historical John the Baptist. Joseph Smith's magical adventures have no place in a serious article exploring John the Baptist.


 * 1. This discussion is about the section labeled "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," so I changed the name of this topic to match the section in the article.
 * 2. This article is about John the Baptist and his Earthly history. If it is believed that he returned to Earth after his death then that is part of his history in some people's eyes.  If there is a section in the Jesus article about his (Jesus') resurrection and visits after his death, the same should be held to all people (including John).
 * 3. I do not believe we are discussing Joseph Smith, Jr., but John the Baptist. ~ Danielwellsfloyd

The article has the beliefs of the Mandaeans, unknown to me until today, and numbering "conservatively" 70,000 worldwide. Mormons also hold beliefs about John (as do Cathoics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, and other groups larger than the Mandaeans). A NPOV approach to those beliefs seems appropriate. After all, any non-believer can choose to regard a given faith's accounts as "magical adventures." More important, it's hard to make the case that articles like this should restrict themselves to "earthly life" (in the sense of 'established historical fact') when verifiable information is (a) thin on the ground for many religious figures and (b) only part of the full story, ignoring the significance of what their contemporaries or subsequent followers believe about them or attribute to them. — OtherDave 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
Why is there a christian POV rebuttal in the Gnostic POV section? In none of the other sections are alternative viewpoints disputed. - Amgine 06:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As there was no justification proffered as to why the Gnostic view was rebutted, it was removed for consistency's sake. - Amgine 16:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josephus' Dating
John Meier, in his book JESUS A MARGINAL JEW, explains Josephus' dating. Instead of writing "32 AD" for example, Josephus dates events according to when other events happened. Meier says that on this basis, Josephus' dates of the lives of Jesus and John the Baptist can be interpreted differently. -Rakovsky

The section on Josephus fails to mention that there is controversy over the authenticity of the passage. Zindler in "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" argues that the passage is a later interpolation. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

John the Immerser
Some conservative Protestant groups who insist on baptism by total immersion insist on calling him John the Immerser, based on the idea that this is the true translation of the Greek verb baptizo, saying that baptism is a mere transliteration and that the verb form is truly translated immerse. I have not added this to the text of the article in that John the Dipper, which is already included as an alternate title, implies the same thing. This is its origin, FWIW.Rlquall 12:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Picture
I'm not sure I agree with that picture being used in the article. I've always understood that Jesus was baptized by immersion. Matt 3:16, Mark 1:5, and Mark 1:10 say that He was baptized in the river, and that He came up out of the water. It doesn't sound like He was sprinkled to me. ---Parlod

I agree with this; can we have a note added to the picture explaining this? Must the picture be there at all? ---Kyle Mullaney

Changed to a portrait to avoid controversy.ReaverFlash (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

John the Dipper
John the Dipper is a very rare name for JTB. I suspect it was made up by someone to give their theology lectures a 'cool' feel. It maybe deserves a mention but not in the intro. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Head of John the Baptist
There are a at least half dozen heads of John the Baptist in Europe and the former Byzantine Empire (and various other reliquaries and shrines to JtB). Why is the Muslim one and only that one mentioned in the lead paragraph? --Peter Kirby 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here, here. I'm going to start a section on his relics to address this. Carl.bunderson 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The skull of John the baptist is also in the jewelry room at Topkapi Palace (former Sultan Palace) in Istanbul.

Jesus and John the Baptist
I have added the first paragraph from the article Jesus and John the Baptist and merged the rest of the article in Theology of the Unification Church. That this article should be merged was the result of an AfD discussion, but If somebody thinks the new section is inappropriate here, please go ahead and remove it. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Some historians, as well as at least one prominent Catholic theologian, believe that based on text criticism, John the Baptist did not accept that Jesus was the Messiah. Such a view can be found in John Hughes, "John the Baptist: the Forerunner of God Himself," (in the journal Novum Testamentum) -Rakovsky

Catholic Encyclopedia
The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia brings up the 1910 edition - almost a century old, and more than a little out of date. If there can't be a more recent link, it would be better to delete it. PiCo 07:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia is almost a century old, and it is written with a Catholic pov, however it is public domain, available free on the internet, and a very valuable source of information. Anyone interested in learning would be well advised to make use of it.

John the Baptist was not a "Baptist"
John the Baptist is in the category "Baptists". If we include everyone who has baptised as a "Baptist" we would have to include virtually every Christian clergyperson! John the Baptist was a Jew. The were no "Baptists" as we usually use the term for over a millennium and a half after his death.Rockhopper10r 00:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we can not 'verifiably' assret that. As to the classification of other leaders it would bedepend on the interpratation of the grk word 'baptizo'. Kyle.Mullaney 03:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Kyle Mullaney


 * Landmark Baptists name him as the first Baptist...might be something to throw in there somewhere... -DavidK 18:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John the Baptist-Jew
The article does not relate what Jewish party JTB was a member of, Why? How should this best be added? Should it be added as a section that discusses him as an Essene jew? ---Kyle Mullaney


 * Catherine Murphy, in the book I added to the "Further Reading" section of this article, argues that he belonged to a "purification" movement that was separate from the better known Pharisee & Essene groups. This movement survived his death, at least for a short time: Acts mentions the missionary work of Apollos, who is described as teaching the baptismal beliefs of John the Baptist. (This group is not mentioned in this article, which is a major omission & needs to be fixed before it could be considered for better than "B" class.) I would guess that this group is not well known because of its close association with Christianity: on one hand, the early Christians had little interest in preserving the knowledge of an early competitor, & on the other, the Jews of this time had little interest in preserving any record of a Jewish group with strong connections to those "heretical" Christiams. -- llywrch 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslim stuff
What the hell is all this utterly inconsequential waffle from Mecca doing in this article about one of the key figures of Christianity? Grow a backbone, Christians, and edit this out of the article, lest your faith die to the world under the whip of the Mohammedans.


 * edited for obscenity*

I'm sure Christ, in line with his policy on, you know, loving his neighbors and enemies, etc. entirely agrees with you.

Muslims do believe in prophet John (Yahya), his Islamic view has just as much do be on this page as does his Christian, Jewish and Bahai views. I think that you should find out what Islam is really about before you claim that it's killing Christianity. I'm a muslim and I respect all over faiths. Christianity and Juadaism are the two closest religons to Islam.This is just a minor point and nothing to do with the article. Please can you not call Muslims followers ofMohammedanism. The politicly-correct word is Islam. Also the PC word for a follower is a muslim, not Mohammedan. Some of us find it offensive, as it implys that we worship Muhhamed (pbuh), we don't we only worship God (Allah). thanks TheDalek 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to reply to a months-old comment -- but you have the etymology wrong. "Mohammedan" simply means that Mohammed was the founder of the movement; it says nothing about who is worshiped. Yes, I know the article makes the claim that its based on the idea the Muslims worship Mohammed. It can only cite an Islamic website to support this because this is a common Muslim misunderstanding. You can find no support for it among those who actually use the word. It simply doesn't mean that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't believe that Muhammad founded this religion. We believe that God did so calling us Muhammadans is incorrect. Besides, it sounds to close to Christianity and how they worship Jesus and call themselves by what he was "The Christ," hence Christians. The term "Muslim" in Arabic means one who submits to God's will. So essentially, Jesus Christ was a Muslim and no can deny that.


 * It's only incorrect if one believes Islam's teachings. In that sense, it's actually a more NPOV term, not that I'm going to press the issue. After all, whatever one believes about God speaking to Mohammed, it's undeniable that Mohammed was the one who physically set down the Koran, and who was the human leader of the movement in its first years. A Christian would only agree with your last statement to the extent that Jesus Christ was a muslim -- as an adjective, not as the proper noun indicating that he taught or knew the same faith as Mohammed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ISLAM SECTION: Why is the fact that he is a prophet in Islam noted as an afterthought? "John is also honored as a prophet in Islam..." The Christianity sections begin as if they have ownership of him. Then the Islam section begins as if they are also trying to claim him, almost undeservingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.63.2 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Prophets in Islam
I have deleted the "prophets in Islam" template. It does not belong in the article. Templates of that nature "hog" page space for one religion vs. another. This article is about John, not Islam. If you want to link to Prophets in Islam, that's ok, but the template is overkill. Merecat 09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the template is useful and appropriate, and I have restored it. John is a prophet of Islam. Maybe the template's size or page placement can be adjusted to address your concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that you are making a mistake. Please think about this: If we are to be truly NPOV, then each religion would do best to stick with it's own name for its prophets. For example, Noah in English language Christianity & Judaism (not Hebrew though), and Nuh is Arabic and Islam. If we start putting "templates" for Islam on the non-Islamic named prophet pages, then we must make a reciprocal template for the Jewish Prophets and the Christian Prophets and put them on the Islamic named Prophet pages. And there is absolutely no way we will have peace here, if we insist on putting a template of Jewish Prophet names on Islamic pages. Surely you must know that something like that would lead to discord among editors. Suffice it to say, this Islamic template on John the Baptist is the same thing. Personally, I'd prefer that there be no inclusion of this template, but if you insist, to mantain editorial consistancy between prophet pages, you'll force me to proceed as per above. I urge you to reconsider - no good can come of forcing differing faith pages to be homogenized with other faiths. Some distillation of the facts and histories about prophets into separate pages along the lines of each faith is the best idea. If I haven't explained this well, reply to me here and I will try to clarify.

Merecat 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you support breaking out Yahya to a separate page, like Nuh/Noah? Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is an historically accurate name, then yes. Merecat 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay; I'll do that tomorrow, unless people object or someone beats me to it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Merecat 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I split off the Islamic material to Yahya. If I overlooked anything, please send it there. Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't sleep tonight until I toss this firecracker into the room: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not completely distinct faiths. Like many siblings they don't always get along but it's a mistake, I feel, to treat them as distinct, warring entities. Monotheists -- correct me if I'm wrong -- all believe in a single god. That's not to say that this bunch of monotheists over here believe in this god over here and that bunch believe in that god. No, they all believe in the same, single god. All the prophets are of this one god and his messengers. Different monotheists may accept different sets of prophets, of course.


 * Now -- again, correct me if I'm wrong -- Christians accept the prophets accepted by Jews; Muslims accept the prophets accepted by Christians, including those accepted by Jews; and Baha'is accept the prophets accepted by the others. This seems fairly inclusive to me. We can toss into this mix prophets such as Joseph Smith, Jr. who are accepted by some Christians but not by others and not by any Muslims (correct?).


 * From a Data modeling viewpoint, Category:Prophets looks very much like a tree. Various kinds of monotheism -- religions, if you like -- may be thought of as subnets of the whole tree. Having said this, it seems clear to me that we need one and only one Template:Prophets. It should be structured as a tree and transcluded on the article pages of all members of the set. For the purpose of this template it should be understood that the term prophet refers exclusively to prophets of the one single god, whatever name is given to that deity.


 * This will be an interesting exercise in design. John Reid 14:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well-intentioned though ye are, you should know that Joseph Smith Jr. is not accepted by any Christian, but by the Mormons alone. The faith of Christ Jesus is not the same thing as Mohammedanism. The Mohammedans would be the first to back me up on this. Religions aren't like editions of computer programmes, please don't treat them as simple data. Christianity is completely distinct from Mohammedanism, and vice versa.


 * I furthermore shall add that to class the money-making racket of the notorious "Reverend" Moon under the category of "religion" is an insult to Mohammedan and Christian alike. Get rid of the Moonie bumf, I entreat.


 * I disagree. There should not be two entries on John the Baptist, with one on a Msulim page, and another on a Christian page. We are dealing with a real historical figure. You would not make 2 articles on Vladimir Lenin on a Socialist page and another on a proCapitalist page. How many figures would end up being put on different pages based on ideology or religion? How many "Moses" and "Abraham" pages? Muslim, Jewish, Christian interpretations of John the Baptist should be on different sections of the same page, since it is about the same historical figure. -Rakovsky


 * I'm adding this here aswell as you mihght not have read it above. This is just a minor point and nothing to do with the article. Please can you not call Muslims followers ofMohammedanism. The politicly-correct word is Islam. Also the PC word for a follower is a muslim, not Mohammedan. Some of us find it offensive, as it implys that we worship Muhhamed (pbuh), we don't we only worship God (Allah). thanksTheDalek 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't think I really need to explain. This article is written very Christiany and is a clear violation of NPOV (e.g. christ....). eeemess 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need to explain. The article discusses the views of Mandaeans as well as groups not always considered Christian (Unification Church, LDS), and links to the article on the Muslim view. What specifically do you want changed to be less non-NPOV? Angr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, an explanation is needed. RentACop 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mandaeans aren't Christian, nor are Muslims. The New Testament is certainly Christian, but it is also one of the main written records claiming anything about John with any sort of historical contemporaryness. Josephus, the source of the other major written record, certainly isn't Christina. What is it that you feel is biased about it? If it is the term Christ, applied to Jesus, then it should be borne in mind that according to some Christologies this is the point in the New Testament that Jesus became Christ, and the title is certainly important to use in this context. Clinkophonist 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We've got no explanation from the guy who put up the tag, and 3 people want one. I'm going to take down the NPOV tag until there's some sort of explanation.--outsidethewall 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

muliple perspective censorship
WTF?! Mandaeanism belongs here less than Muslim stuff. actually Islam is one of the few widespread religions today, and I would say it definitely belongs in here somewhere that John the Baptist is an important part of Muslim teachings. IMO, that should only re-emphasize that value of the John the Baptist story, not detract from it. Yeah, this article requires cleanup and that it's editors not mess around with it constantly.

There are a few ways I see this article going. All the sects and religions could have their own pages, i.e. John the Baptist (Mormon), John the Baptist (Mandaean), etc. all listed on the disambiguation page, or they could each be listed on one page with shortcuts to each at the top. I would suspect that most wikipedia editors don't see their own perspective as the only one worth noting. The only thing eliminating other points of view entirely does is censorship. Another possibility is the division JTB in history among other world religions, JTB in Christian tradition, JTB in Muslim tradition, listed among profits.

Tom Harrison moved Islam-related text to Yahya and it's linked at the bottom. Personally I would be interested in the other stuff as well. - Ben N., May 16 2006

The Islam related text should be moved back, and Yahya redirected here (since Yahya is an arabic name, and this is the english language Wikipedia - the name should really be translated). Clinkophonist 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Horned and hooved John the Baptist?
Apparently early statues of John the Baptist often depicted him with horns (like Moses) and sometimes even the hind-quarters of a goat, including cloven hooves. I'm trying to track down some decent references for this though. Can anyone help? Thanks, Fuzzypeg 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an art historian. I've looked at hundreds of representations of John the baptist and never seen one as you are describing it. I would be interested.

--Amandajm 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged prophecy about John the Baptist in the Old Testament
Alleged prophecy about John the Baptist in the Old Testament

''Christians believe John the Baptist was the forerunner or precursor to the Messiah, whom they believe to be Jesus. Some Christians argue that a passage in the Book of Malachi should be interpreted as prophecy that refers to a prophet who would prepare the way of the Lord:''

''Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. - Malachi 3:1 '' ''Though this interpretation was uncommon amongst Jews prior to the 2nd century BC, it became significantly more common under Hellenic, and later Christian, influences. Christians also sometimes believe that Isaiah 40:3-5 refers prophetically to John. This belief is based on John's own interpretation in John 1:22-23''

I don't understand the tone of this section at all. The words used, starting with the word alleged and including "Some Christians argue..." and "Christians also sometimes believe..." don't seem to capture the sense of how Christians think about these passages from the so-called "prophets".

I consider some of the words to be spurious because, although it might be argued that the writer of them has sought absolute accuracy, the tone implies an essential "wrongness" about the Christian thinking. And there is just a possibility that these Christians might be 100% right.

So I'm going to rewrite it, nicely.

--Amandajm 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong but this is a firt-time submission
Not sure where or how to post this, but the following paragraph in the article on John the Baptist in the New Testament, Public Ministry, last paragraph, contains some errors and misreadings of the biblical text:

According to the Gospels, John also baptised Jesus. According to the Gospel of John, but not the Synoptic Gospels, John initially excused himself, saying "I need rather being baptized by you", but Jesus declaring that it became them to fulfill all righteousness, John complied. The Gospel of John states that the next day John publicly announced Jesus as the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:19-29), and that John's office as forerunner ended with the baptism of Jesus, though he continued for a while to bear testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus. The other three Gospels state that John baptised Jesus shortly after Jesus presented himself, and make no indication that John's ministry had ended, even making further references, later in the text, to John the Baptist continuing to have followers that were independent to those of Jesus.

My proposal for a corrected version is as follows

According to three of the four Gospels, John also baptised Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew (but not Mark and Luke) reports that John initially excused himself, saying "I need rather to be baptised by you." With Jesus declaring that it became them to fulfill all righteousness, John complied. The Gospel of John (hereafter called the Fourth Gospel to avoid confusion) does not record Jesus’ baptism, but has John publicly announcing Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The Fourth Gospel also says that the importance of John's role decreased as Jesus’ increased (John 3:23-30) and he continued to bear testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus. The other three Gospels state that John baptised Jesus but do not indicate that John's ministry had ended. Matthew even reports that John seemed to have some uncertainty about whether Jesus was the Messiah (Matthew 11:2-6), and it is clear that John continued to have followers that were independent of those of Jesus (ibid.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by G A Cooper (talk • contribs)


 * Only two things wrong, really. First, on talk pages (but not in articles) you can append four tildes ( ~ ) to your post to add your sig and a timestamp. (Your default sig is your username with a link to your user page.)


 * Second be bold and just update the article. There's no reason to discuss most edits unless they're likely to be controversial. Don't worry if your edit isn't perfect. Very likely someone else will come along and fix anything that needs fixing.


 * Anyway, thank you and welcome to Wikipedia! TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Amendment to the Above
'''I have just read the Talk Topic above, which I had accidentally skipped over and redundantly posted the same issue. Either way, I only corrected the name of the Gospel referenced, rather than rewriting the entire paragraph as proposed. I hope this is sufficient.'''

In all the copies of the Bible which I have here, almost all of which are the King James Version, the Gospel of Matthew is the book which includes this exchange, whereas the scene from the Gospel of John doesn't mention the scene in the present, only mentioned John's response the day afterwards.

Compare:
 * From the Gospel of Matthew
 * [13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
 * [14] But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
 * [15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
 * [16] And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
 * [17] And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Because of this, I think it's safe to edit the line in the article concerning this statement. If I am at error, please let me know. --72.148.136.13 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic perspective lacking?
I noticed that this article discusses several faith traditions' perspectives on JB, but not that of the Catholic Church. Even just the date on which his sainthood is celebrated would be an improvement.

Mandaean Views of John
I'm substantially editing this section, as it contains many of the classic erroneous misconceptions current among outsiders about John the Baptist within the Mandaean community. I'll expand later as time allows. Kaelus 14:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Wondering where in the Ginza Rba this explanation of John's death is. Any place I can get an English translation of this story? Easily find German, but no English.

Rating
GA? That should be for articles actually identified as good articles. This article has two cleanup tags in it; it's missing at least one major section, and some of those that are there make no sense; there are probable POV problems; and it's virtually unreferenced. I'm changing the quality rating to a "B". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First leader of the Ebionites
According to James Tabor John the Baptist was the first leader of the Ebionites (succeeded by Jesus and later James the Just after John's death).--Michael C. Price talk 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He was Jewish
This is not mentioned in the article. I really think it should be. Steve Dufour 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor do I see any mention that he might have been an Essene, which is a pretty popular theory. --Michael C. Price talk 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weren't the Essenes Jewish as well?Steve Dufour 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Careful about splitting up other people's sigs.


 * Yes, they were one of the three main "denominations" of Judaism at the time. Josephus mentions them first, and only then the Pharisees and Sadducees that Christians know from the Gospels. He describes them in much more detail than the others too. But not every Jew of the time was clearly a member of one of these parties. In the end, only the Pharisees survived the calamities that fell later in the 1st century. They are the forerunners of modern Rabbinic Judaism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I at least added his ethnic background to the intro. His connection with the Essenes is held by some, but it's based on highly circumstantial evidence. Neither the Gospels, Christian oral tradition, nor Josephus mentions it. We should add this as a strand of opinion, of course, but I have no sources to hand. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is just a POV, not established fact. Here are relevant sources:
 * Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, Simon & Schuster, 2006, ISBN 0743287231 & ISBN 0007220588
 * Tabor, James D. Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, 31 August 2006, 20:02, [accessed 31 August 2006]
 * Rabinowitz, Jacob. Buried Angels. Invisible Books, 2004.
 * Eisenman, Robert & Wise, Michael. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. 1992, ISBN 1852303689
 * Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1997, ISBN 1842930265.
 * There must be many more. --Michael C. Price talk 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "POV" in my last edit summary was on an unrelated edit. But if you have these sources available, then by all means add it. It's probably worth a new section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that the Essene view of John the Baptist has grown up principally through readings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Would this be worth a new section? --Michael C. Price talk 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check
In reference to the multiple Christianity vs. Islam et al. posts above. I would like to add this perspective.

Most (if not all) of what we know about John the Baptist comes from the Christian documents as interpreted through the Christian religion. That is, all the historical records are Christian, or reinterpretations of those records by later religions. These reinterpretations are secondary data (like hearsay evidence) and should have minimal space on this page. Of course people of other faiths believe that their information is more correct or more directly traceable to the word of God (Muslims and LDS for example) but we can not argue about beliefs here. Other religions that have a different understanding of reality must have separate pages. This page should cover the accepted historical figure replete with contradictions and disputes as best laid out by historical records. As I said these records are all of Christian origin.

I think it is appropriate to have a section "John The Baptist in Non-Christian Faiths" and list the other religions that hold him as significant, but to treat all the religions as equal in regard to this figure is POV. The Islamic prophet template should be removed for the above reason. Let people who are looking for the other reinterpretations follow a link to the proper page and get all the information. 221.28.55.68


 * Indeed. This entire article is very POV, discussing events as if they actually happened. Not enough "blabla believes this" and "according to the evidence" that. It's all written as matter of fact. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The initial posting here actually turns matters on its head. The Gospels and Josephus are the main sources about John, written pretty soon after John (1st century) by people living in the region, including a possible eye-wittness. The Quran however was written in the 7th century and other texts even later. Sure any text has its specific outlook and interpretation - there is no such thing as a disinterested author - but to somehow portray the Gospels as "secondary", "hearsay" and Muslim and LDS documents as "more correct" is simply insane. Str1977 (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unification church
The section under "Unification church", reads like "'The Unification Church teaches that God intended that John help Jesus during his public ministry in Israel. In particular, John should have done everything in his power to persuade the Jewish people that Jesus was the Messiah. He was to become Jesus' greatest disciple. John's failure to do so was the chief obstacle to the fulfillment of Jesus' mission.'" This is blasphemy. Well i take back. It means to say that the mission of a prophet, God's mission, failed. Any kind of failure attributed to God, is indeed blasphemy. It is atleast so in Islam, i'm not sure of other religious views. Atif.hussain 10:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you write is no basis for removing information (as long as it is accurate and NPOV and sourced). Please do not force your narrow views on everyone else. Str1977 (smile back) 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew name
Is there any reference for the Hebrew name of John, especially regarding the surname? I am talking "primary" source. If not, it should be removed. Str1977 (smile back) 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Leadwind (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikvah
Is there some relationship between John's practices and the traditional mikvah purification? Er, in other words, was John somehow presiding over a normal Jewish ritual of the era, or was he doing something new and untraditional by contemporary standards? 151.197.28.239 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What was new and untraditional by contemporary standards is the fact that John did the baptizing. Up to his day people "baptized" themselves. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
1/. There were more than 3 Jewish movements at the time, and I suspect most of the Israelites were unattached to any of them. The Sadduces were originally the High Priests descended from the First High Priest, Zadoch. The name Sadduces is the plural of the Greek for Zadoch. Zadoch is not an Israelite name, some believe it to be the name of the High Priest of Jerusalem when it was conquered by David. The theorem goes that David made a deal with Zadoch to stay on as the High Priest, but to convert to the Yahweh cult of the Israelites. This sounds plausible, as this would help David keep the peace with the original inhabitants of the city. The Romans destroyed the lineage line, and under Herod [who was an Idumean puppet ruler of Roman Israel, and not Jewish] the High priestly line was purely political. They took the view that as long as they were able to run the Temple rituals as they pleased, then they would not resist the Roman occupation. They were, therefore, hand picked collaborators of the Roman occupation.

2/. The origin of the term Pharises is obscure, but they were enemies of the collaborator Sadduces. They believed and taught that the Roman ["Kittim"] occupation was against God's rule, and that anything Roman was therefore evil. They were, I suppose, "Religious Nationalists". They believed that God's annointed [Moshiach = Messsiah = Annointed] would appear and deliver "The Kingdom of God" from Roman occupation. Who better to be the Moshiach than one from the tribe and tribal area of King David, the deliverer from the Philistines? This "deliverance on earth from occcupation" is far removed from the later Christian view of "Deliverance to heaven from Original Sin", understandable because the Roman Church was created by the Emperor Constantine, and he could hardly preach deliverance from himself. There had been hundreds of men who, it was hoped, would be the Moshiach, but by Contantine's time, the Jewish followers of the Jewish Joshua [Greek, Jesus] had been largely replaced by Pagan converts to the Jesus Cult, which was becoming supercessionist, and overtly anti-Jewish. Constantine could hardly maintain the fact that the Romans killed Jesus because of a perceived danger of insurrection, so "If it wasn't us, it must have beeen the Jews, who reject Jesus as the Messiah". Post hoc, ergo propter hoc [poppycock]. The Pharises and those like them were prominent outside of Jerusalem, away from the Roman seat of governance. This was especially so around Gallilee, the Gallileans [for want of a better term] were remote from the bulk of the Roman occupiers, frontiersmen, and were able to be much more outspoken and independent than those in and around Jerusalem. You can view them as Israelite Texans. Jesus first preached in Gallilee. The Sadduces were prominent in Jerusalem, where the temple was located. The destruction of the second temple destroyed the temple cult, and the Sadduces. Some Pharises survived and began to teach a new form of Judaism, minus the temple rituals. The first such school of what became Rabbis [Rabbi = My teacher, plural = Rabbonim] was at Yavneh. To this day, Rabbis are not "Holy Priests", not "God's men on earth", but can be viewed as professors of Judaism, scholarly men who help Jews lead good lives in accord with the written and oral laws. They have no real central person of authority, no "Pope" or "Archbishop", each Rabbi is hired and fired by each synagogue community, just like a University professor.

3/. There was a third group in Israel at the time of Jesus. These were the Siccarii. They were religious fanatics, with the same basic beliefs as the Pharisees [Get rid of the occupation and replace it with God's rule], but their methods were not of the pulpit, but of the assassins' dagger [hence the name]. They were Jewish terrorists, who assassinated anyone who got in their way, especially collaborating Roman puppet Sadduces. The martyrs of Masada may well have been Siccarii.

4/. There were others, e.g. Essenes to name but one, but they proved to be bit players in the larger battle.

5/. The picture of JB obscures the last line of the first para. Can someone correct this?

Cheers Historygypsy 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)HistoryGysy

John's views on animal sacrifice

 * I remember reading somewhere that John was opposed to animal sacrifice. Can anyone confirm or rebuke this?--Hraefen Talk 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Knights Templar's and John's Head
I don't know how fitting this is, as the Knights Templar were also reported to worship a cat according to the same inquisitorial reports... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redroven (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Organization?
Putting aside theological issues and terminology, is it possible to view Zechariah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter or Paul as leaders of a single organization that persisted over time? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

lead needs real work
A mediocre lead defines a topic, while a good lead describes it so thoroughly that it can stand alone as a concise summary (see wp:lead). I've expanded our lead, with references. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Lead. I ask you in particular, but everyone, two things: Is the sentence about Josephus needed in the lead? It feels a bit too-detailed to be there to me. It is mentioned in the body, and we could just move the ref there. Secondly, ought his name in Latin be there? It really seems secondary to a first century saint. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no-one has replied in like 6-7 weeks, so I made those changes, as well as others, though those are trivial. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Carl. Looks like the Josephus sentence is out (good), but the Latin name is still there. I'll delete it. In fact, I don't like any of the names there. They make the first sentence hard to read, and they're not informative. Leadwind (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra info in sentence
In the sentence: "Mandaeans, a tiny Gnostic religion, consider John a divine prophet but reject Jesus as a false prophet." I took out the word "tiny" and the information about their view of Jesus. "Tiny" sounds like a put-down of the group and the thing about Jesus is off-topic and distracts from the information about John the Baptist in the sentence, since most people think Jesus is much more important than John. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'tiny' is not appropriate here, but the details about their beliefs are important because John is central to them, and their view of Jesus in this context is unusual and therefore notable. --Rbreen (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steve. In an article on John the Baptist, what Mandaeans think about Jesus is nn. It is is important and relevant to Mandaeism and Jesus, but not to John the Baptist. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm going to do it, discuss if it's that big a deal. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a big deal. John is chiefly notable for his relationship to Jesus; the Christian view places Jesus above John, Muslims (and Baha'is apparently though this remains uncited) regard John, along with Jesus, as a prophet. As currently worded, readers will assume that the Mandaeans hold a similar view; what is notable is that they do not. The Mandaeans, uniquely, revere John but not Jesus - it's not just their view of John but of his relationship to Jesus that is important. Without this information, readers will miss a significant insight into this group's understanding of John. --Rbreen (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does it need to be in the lead though? It's fine having it in the body, as it is, but the lead should focus on John, not groups' views of persons close to John. Moreover, the lead doesn't explicitly say that Muslims and Baha'is view Jesus as a prophet. I'd question whether most people are aware of that, honestly. A number of people will know that Muslims do, but I certainly didn't know that Baha'is had anything at all to do with Jesus. I see no reason for hold your view that readers will assume Mandaeans hold a similar view; particularly since they likely don't even know what view Baha'is have of Jesus. It is too much of a tangent to include in the lead.
 * I think though that if Baha'is view Jesus as a prophet, perhaps we should move their sentence above the Mandaean sentence, to have it grouped with the Muslims, in deference to the Jesus issue. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think it's notable enough to go in the lede, actually. However, you make a fair point and I will not quibble. The Baha'is do regard John as a prophet, along with Jesus - I see that there is a citation to this in the body text, which could be used also in the lede. I agree with the suggestion of moving the Baha'i reference next to the Muslim one especially as I understand the Baha'is have drawn this from their Islamic roots. At the moment there are three separate sentences; these should reasonably be combined in a single paragraph.--Rbreen (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bring the ref from the body to the lead, and make a paragraph of them, and group the Baha'is with the Muslims. I wish this garnered more attention, cuz it's really annoying to have a disagreement with someone and no way to solve it. I don't especially want to include Jesus still, but if you do it I have no intention of reverting you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I reduced it to one sentence, I'm not sure about it, but I hate making things long, so idk you might want to re-write it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition
John the Baptist The article mentions that John was a priest, by virtue of his parentage. Scholarly discussion has made little of this, but I believe it opens the door to important insights regarding John: John’s oft recorded Isaiah quote, expanded by Luke,  depicts preparing the way for YHWH to return from exile. This necessarily implies YHWH is also currently in exile – having abandoned the temple. Choosing the Jordan Valley for his preaching and baptism becomes an expression of a priest distancing himself from the temple – like the Essenes. Camel hair and a leather girdle (camel hide?) come from an unclean animal. For one thing, that exempts them from  tithing,  which could be an expression of John rejecting his priestly entitlement to tithe support. More radically, it may be an overt expression of barring himself from the temple courts. Locusts and wild honey are naturally occurring foodstuffs, also outside the tithe system – more independence from the tithe. Immersion was a regular rite preparatory to entering the temple. So, in conjunction with his call to prepare the way for YHWH to return,  John invites people to a preparatory cleansing. For John – a priest – to say that he ought to be baptised by Jesus has added significance. Would an entry along these lines be a welcome addition to the article? --Ernie Pennells (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds interesting, but it also seems like conjecture. It would need to be sourced; ie, these ideas need to have been published before they can go in the article. If you have sources to back this up, please add it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Carl. Just cite it. I'm dubious, however, because there's no historical evidence that John ever said that Jesus should baptize him. That conversation appears in one Gospel, and historians take it to be a Christian invention meant to answer the natural question: "If Jesus was so hot, why did he need to be baptized by John?" Also, John apparently did expect a Messiah, but he didn't quote Isaiah. The evangelists did that, not John. Leadwind (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dating style
Restoring it to the way it originally was is not a substantive reason, when it has been stable for a long period of time. You have failed to provide a substantive reason for you unnecessary edits. Please provide one here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do have a substantiated reason. This article used the BC/AD dating system from its creation in 2001 until 27 Feb 2007, when the user Bunk78 altered it from BC/AD to BCE/BCE for a presumed stylistic reason, as that user did not provide a legitimate reason. This edit was in violation of WP:ERA (not WP:NPOV as a mistakenly stated before), which states that the dating system shopuld not be changed unless there is a legitimate reason. Bunk78 did not have a legitimate reason. I DID have a legitimate reason, as I am upholding this policy. WhenYou&#39;reAJet (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please search for Bunk78's edit for proof. I will find an appropriate url to make it easier in the near future. WhenYou&#39;reAJet (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not understand policy well enough to be doing this. It has been nearly a year since it was changed to BCE/CE. And I'm not questioning that he made the edit. You're mistaken in the righteousness of what you're doing, however. No one raised a fuss at the time, nor since, until a brand-new user comes along wanting to change it back, and doing the same thing on the page on Jesus. I am highly suspect of one-issue editors. You don't wish to improve the encyclopedia, you're not invested in it. You just want to push your POV. Given that the article has been stable on this issue for some time, you need a better reason than "it used to be this way" to make this change without discussion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jesus edit is per a different issue, considering that the article vioaltes WP:ERA not because of a stylistic revision, but because it is erroneously utilizing two different dating systems. What gave Bunk78 the right to change a longstanding usage? I'm sorry, but the fact remains that AD/BC WAS in usage the longest up to this point, it's not jsut because it's been used longer, or that it's been used first, but that it has been removed for stylistic reasons. And you are opposing my support of Wikipedia policy by pushing your POV on me. I have policy backing me, you do not. This may be a new account, although that does not mean I have just joined wikipedia. Experience, recorded on an account or not, does not matter in this case, it is policy, which I am upholding.WhenYou&#39;reAJet (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need consensus to make this change. There is no indication you have it, ergo you may not make it. Please refrain from discussing it until you have support for your actions. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Carl on this one. This style has been used without serious dispute for almost a year. In addition, although I am something of a traditionalist and I do tend to use BC/AD myself, I must admit there are very good reasons for continuing to use the BCE / CE approach in this article at least:


 * John the Baptist is an important figure in Jewish history and Jewish historians and Jewish media generally prefer BCE/CE. For example, the Jewish Chronicle (example here), the Jewish Daily Forward (example here ) and the Jerusalem Post (example here: ).


 * Equally, in scholarly study of the era, BCE/CE seems increasingly to be the standard usage. The Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style, for instance, says "The preferred style is B.C.E. and C.E. (with periods)."; "The terms B.C.E. (before common era) and C.E. (common era) are perferred in scientific publications" according to the University of Minnesota Style Manual.


 * As a general rule, we ought to aim to be as inclusive as possible. What good arguments are there for not using the more inclusive term in this particular article? --Rbreen (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I honestly would prefer BC/AD. I think the other system is a bunch of politically-correct smoke and mirrors. And I believed that before I was Christian, so its not "Christian POV" on my part. However, that would mean that I would advocate for AD in all situations, so I'm sure others might discount my opinion on this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rbreen, CE/BCE is just as inclusive/exclusive as AD/BC. In society, different cultures make contributions. For example, we have the days of the week from a variety of pagan gods, and the months of a year from the Romans, 7 of which refer to deities, and one of which refers to a religious festival. Although most people in general do not recognize the gods, aside from neopagans, they are religious in nature. People who do use this system of days/weeks who know what they mean realize that gods were honored during these months in the context of their origin. Same goes for BC/AD, which many seem to object to by taking it out of context, as evidenced in the WP discussion regarding the dating system, citing that it is not "their lord." Yes, BC/AD may be Christian in nature, but is not exclusive. In fact, if you were to say it was exclusive for that reason, then many other terms, such as Sun, Moon, and Earth should be renamed appropriately as well. So, one could argue that BCE/CE is exclusive censprship. However, according to WP, it has been reached that neither term is more appropriate. If you want to argue this point, please discuss it in the appropriate AD vs CE discussion.


 * Now, getting back to this article. I understand that John the Baptist may hold significance in Judaism, but he also holds significance in Christianity as well. Now, as far as wikipedia is concerned, one religion shouldn't exactly be favored over another, that would violate NPOV. So, whichever system has held precedence shall be used, so long as it is legitimate. That's why BC/AD is appropriate for this article. Holding that one or the other is more "inclusive" is opinion. I did not make the change based on opinion, I made it based on policy, correcting an illegitimate edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYou'reAJet (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Carl, with all due respect, DNFTT. This is a SPA. A newbiew should try researching and maing positive contributions to the contents of article before jumping into content disputes, or trying to creates on. You have never lifed a finger to make Wikiepdia a good encyclopedia and now you burst in telling us what do do? What is your agenda? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Troll? This is not an SPA, it just so happens that one of my first edits has stirred up a lot of commotion lately. This still does not change the fact that I had legitimate backing to make the change. What is my agenda? Be a good Wikipedian and uphold WP policyu, that's what! WhenYou&#39;reAJet (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No progress has been made on this front. Jet, there is no consensus for your edit. No one supports it but you. That is sufficient reason to return to the status quo, BCE/CE. If no reply is made by tomorrow morning, I am making the change. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, and no reply having been made, it being mid-afternoon here (it is 21:51 GMT), I have just reverted to the status quo, as there is no consensus for Jet's change to the dating style of this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I agree with your action, Carl. --Rbreen (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mkvah?
Was John's baptism related to/identical to the Jewish Mikvah? It seems to me that this is the case, but there is no specific mention of the mikvah in the article. Experts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.238.156 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The mikvah (as I understand it) is a ritual cleansing, whereas John's baptism was a baptism of repentance that symbolised a one-off 'rebirth'. John tried to refuse to baptise the (sinless) Jesus because he had no sins to repent; as I understand the mikvah, it's not something which one would be refused on these grounds. 142.150.218.144 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The mikvah might have an attendant but he or she does not actually confer anything; John conferred the baptism. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus as a follower of John
To defend my edits: John 1:26-28 shows that Jesus has not yet encountered John. (If he was a follower of John, the crowd would have known him, and John would have been worthy to untie his sandal.) John 1:29ff; The next day, Jesus approaches John and John introduces him to the crowd, and emphasises that (v31) 'I myself did not know him'. The next day (v35), Jesus, who already has at least two disciples, gathers more disciples; and the next day (v46), Jesus departs. Perhaps is is a slight simplification to say 'Jesus only met John for two consecutive days', but that is certainly the implication of the passage (not long afterwards, John is beheaded); in any case, it is clearly contradictory to suggest that that Jesus, who had followers of his own before he even met John, and began his own ministry immediately afterwards ('on the third day, John 2:1), was also a follower of John - except in the sense that he 'came after' John.

I'm not sure of the best way to encapsulate this in the lead, but I'll have another attempt. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John's name in languages
Why is John's name listed in Arabic? Why not Latin, as it was probably translated into Latin before Arabic, and it is through that form that it entered into English? Why not Syriac, which is not exactly the same as Aramaic, and again the name was translated into Syriac before Arabic. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is listed in Arabic because he is a figure in Islam. It is not listed in Latin because the Latin name is generally used for saints of the Catholic Church. But since John was 1st century, it's a bit anachronistic to include his name in Latin. Priority isn't the issue here, which is why Latin and Syriac are not included but Arabic is. A bit of prior discussion on Latin can be found in the thread 'lead needs real work' (#37). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

jewish view of john?
if someone could add some about it.

thanks.

The Jews did not know who John was, so they asked.

John 1:19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ." 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

John answered that he was preparing the Jews for the coming messiah.

23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

Paul, a Christian, echos John's words.

Huh, Paul was NOT a Christian - the NT is clear Paul was a Jewish rabbi. The NT is also clear that the term 'Christian' was used on Jesus' disciples in Antioch - Paul was in Jerusalem and kept the Jewish feasts his whole life. He was a Messianic Jew but not a Christian. Same with John. Why can't people here actually read the Bible?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.213.188 (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Acts 19:4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." Srtek (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)srtek 24OCT2009

Josephus and New Testament are not incompatible???
I want to just submit the perspective of Isaac Mayer Wise on this subject. Hopefully if this article is ever updated you will take these thoughts into account. This is from the footnotes of the chapter entitled "The Messianic Commotion" from "History of the Hebrews' second commonwealth". Footnote 28 begins on page 257:

"The story of John sending from his prison messengers to Jesus is ... spurious as the captive was sent away out of the country to prevent a sedition, which was certainly done hurriedly and secretly before his disciples could save him. The whole story of John rebuking Antipas on account of his misalliance with Herodias, together with the dancing of her daughter, etc., is fictitious; because John was dead before Antipas married Herodias. Macherus belonged to Aretas, (Antiquities of the Jews referenced). The wife of Antipas and daughter of Aretas left her husband on discovering his intended faithlessness, before he brought Herodias to Tiberius. This was the beginning of hostilities on the part of Aretas. Antipas could not have had John beheaded in a city which belonged to, and was garrisoned by, his enemy. Consequently John must have been beheaded before that second marriage of Antipas."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cpx86I5IapMC&dq=Isaac%20Wise%20second&pg=PA257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexmoron (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing. What WP needs is more research. You seem to have a point. Unfortunately, Isaac Mayer Wise doesn't represent current scholarship. Maybe check out what E. P. Sanders says on the topic. Or consult the Jesus Seminar and see what they say about John the Baptist. They represent a notable faction in current scholarship, and they are comprehensive. Leadwind (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Era Notation
This 2005-Aug-08 edit is the first entry I can find that uses any era notation for this article --JimWae (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA: Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

Three different IP accounts - all starting with 70.233 & one of which vandalized my user page (and was banned) & another of which removed this section -- have been changing to BC & AD despite wiki guidelines. I shall consider any repeats to be vandalism. --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just change it to BC/BCE and AD/CE like it is on the Jesus article? --ADDFL (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've semiprotected for a month to dissuade the IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article now is using the BC/AD format although previous versions use the BCE/CE. Concensus?  WBardwin (talk)

The article presently alternates between AD & CE notation, contrary to WP:MOS. Per WP:ERA, the article should stick with CE/BCE. Also there seems to be some reverting going on re the year he died. I do not think anyone knows this - and I do not think the Josephus reference should be used since it really says nothing about when he died --JimWae (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I have reverted the edit made by the IP whose only 2 edits violate WP:ERA. I still think the death year (30? 36? c. 30? 30-36?)  needs further consideration.--JimWae (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again restored BCE/CE to counteract another IP edit--JimWae (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jordan River
The Jordan River stretches all the way north to the Sea of Galilee and north beyond that. Does anyone know where along the river John preached? I'd assume it would be near Jerusalem, but Jesus was from Galilee and he was baptized. Maybe John roamed up and down the river? Or maybe Jesus made a special trip to Judea, or was baptized while visiting Jerusalem for a festival? Leadwind (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the article it says, "Most biblical scholars agree that John baptized Jesus at "Bethany beyond the Jordan," by wading into the water with Jesus from the eastern bank." It gives two sources. Tomsv 98 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite
I believe the introduction needs some heavy editing in order to establish greater neutrality and cohesion. For example, there are several uses of weasel words which I have marked out. Also, the intro has a clear Christian slant to the point of bias and should have give greater emphasis to the historical and religious-neutral aspects of John. On the subject of cohesion, the sentence "He baptised Jesus Christ.", for example, appearing in the middle of the first paragraph seems extremely out place if only for the reason that it is so short (the only non-compound, non-complex sentence in the intro) and given no surrounding context.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On Historic Context
Is the following passage really going to be significant 100 years from now: In July 2010 a small sarcophagus was uncovered on St. Ivan Island, Bulgaria. According to local archaeologists, the sarcophagus holds relics of John the Baptist which were donated by Constantinople to the destroyed monastery on the island. A few days later, the discovery was disputed, and denoted a mistake by another group of Bulgarian archaeologists, who stated that no tests were made on the remains before concluding. I find it difficult to believe, in a historic context, this incident will be worth mention in a treatment of this subject. I mean, anyone can say they found relics, and even get the fact they said it printed in a newspaper, but without some semblence of tangible proof to back up their claims is it really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article? --K10wnsta (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Death
So there is a section on his birth, his ministry, Josephus, his cultus in various churches and other religions, but nothing on his death. Bad oversight. Rwflammang (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most historians agree" ?
Why say "Most historians agree John baptized Jesus" when the gospels say John baptized Jesus and they are the source material for most of what's been written about him? I mean why not just cut out the middlemen?
 * Jesus doesn't get baptized at all in John, and in Luke he seems to get baptized after the Baptist is in prison, and in Matthew he doesn't really get baptized (it's just for show). So it's not clear that "the gospels" say any one thing about Jesus being baptized. Plus, historians agree with most of what's in the gospels but not all of it. A secular reader might care more about what historians say than about what the evangelists wrote. Leadwind  (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Then that secular reader is an idiot. What historians say is derived from the primary sources and the primary sources, in this case, are clearly accessible to the reader! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.133.252 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Birthyear
We seem to have conflict between the birthyears presented by the lede and the infobox. I've no knowledge of the subject and so have no way to choose between them but, especially since both are circa, it seems an improvement would result from choosing one and being consistent.Czrisher (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Ebionites, Ebionite views on John the Baptist
For anyone active in this article, moved here from Ebionites since not relevant to Ebionite views (since none stated/sourced) may be relevant to John the Baptist: ref name="Tatum" W. Barnes Tatum. John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar., Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press, 1994, ISBN 0-944344-42-9, ff. 93, Chapter 5 John and Jesus: The Two Baptists subsection: Jesus as John's Disciple; /ref ref name="Crossan, John Dominic 1998 p. 146">Crossan, John Dominic (1998). The Essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books; p. 146 name="funk">Funk, et al. (1993), refer to John as Jesus' precursor and mentor. Funk, Robert W.;Hoover, Roy W. Hoover; & the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels. San Francisco: Harper. "Stages in the Development of Early Christian Tradition", p. 128 ref
 * and Jesus initially may have been amongst his followers.

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with the lead?
This a ridiculous amount of citations and footnotes. There are 5 in the first sentence alone. It's simple- if any of these points needs a citation or footnote, it should be found in the corresponding section in the body of the article. If there is no corresponding section in the body, then it doesn't belong in the lead as a summary of what is in the body. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is a disaster
This article is a disaster: it is disorganized, self-contradictory and just plain low quality. The quality problems are evident from the start: In the box at the top, it boldly claims the date of birth to be 5BC, and the date of death to be 36 AD (aged 38-42)! Hello? Hello? If the dates are certain, how does one get 36 + 5 = 38? And the article provides little justification for said obviously incorrect chronology. It is well established that the defeat of Herod Antipas in the battle with Aretas IV of Nabatea took place in 36 AD and Josephus (Ant 18.5.2) squarely pins that after the death of John. In any case, the death certainly too place before 36 and most likely before 35 AD. Most scholars estimate 31-32 AD, etc.. But that is just the start of the problems.... The lead has citation needed tags in it! Then the problems continue....

Towards the end, the art section is really unkempt and disorganized. The feasts and churches sections really need to move out to separate articles... the whole thing is disorganized, often incorrect and pretty much low quality. I will try to set aside some time to clean this up in the next month, but help in moving out the subsections etc. will be appreciated before then. History2007 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Several things here. First THERE IS NO YEAR ZERO in the Anno Domini year system and so it is only ONE year between 1 BCE and 1 CE.  Second as far as "most" putting the death of John the Baptist in 31 or 32 that all depends when they put the death of the Philip who was the former husband of Herodias.  Thomas Nelson for instance puts it at 34 CE which would put Jesus three your minimum ministry ending in 37 CE which creates other problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The year range presented in the article was inconsistent, which ever way you try to count it - I noticed that someone changed it now, so it looks better. In your reference to Philip, you are discussing the mechanics of how different scholars may arrive at their conclusion, yet that is just one element in the analysis. However, the methods modern scholars use to arrive at their conclusion is a different issue from the conclusion they present. The conclusion of the scholars is clear, as I stated above. There are a small number of scholars who argue for a late date such as 34/35 but very few. Most scholars place it before then, as the references indicate. And those who argue for a late date for the death of the baptist generally assume a shorter ministry for Jesus, etc. But that is a separate discussion. You can debate the details of the strategy the scholars use, but that will not change the conclusion the scholars present regarding the date range for the death of the baptist, which I correctly stated above. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

John the Baptist was born 7 BC (747 AUC), died c. 27 AD (780 AUC)
John the Baptist was born c. 7 BC (747 AUC [ab urbe condita]). We now know that Jesus was born on 17.4.748 (April 17, 6 BC) http://michaelmolnar.com. BBC, Discovery Channel, History Channel, CNN, FOX, and CBS have all reported this, as well as this appearing in several books and videos, i.e. Jesus: The Complete Story (BBC Video, 2001). John died c. 27 AD (780 AUC) at age ~33. We know this because Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover Friday 7.4.783 AUC (April 7, 30 AD). - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most Biblical scholars agree" vs "The Bible says"
Surely we should cover what the Bible says before moving on to what extent Biblical scholars agree? Otherwise, we are making secondary sources primary and primary sources secondary and treating Bible scholars as if they were priests to read and interpret the Bible for us. It's the world's most widely published and read book in history. Quote it as it is the ultimate text (regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof!) and then move on to what these secondary modern commentators think. --69.242.133.252 (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible restructuring, other comments
Based on the information available to me, which isn't as much as I would like, and wikipedia guidelines, I think that this article should be, basically, rebuilt. So far as I can see, maybe something along the lines of the following might work best:


 * 1) Lede
 * 2) Contemporary attestations - OK, at least roughly contemporary attestations, basically the Gospels and Josephus, which seem to be the ones upon which all later material is based
 * 3) Later Christian and other religious accounts - This information could all, reasonably, be included in one section, with subsections, I think anyway.
 * 4) John the Baptist in religion - This section would probably be the most problematic. The extant religious group John seems to be most significant to is the Mandaeans, although the Bahai, Islamic, and Christian populations also give him a great deal of attention. Personally, I at least would probably create subsections in the order Mandaean, Bahai, Christian, and Muslim, based on his comparative prominence in each group. This would probably also include reference to the Bab, Marcus Garvey, and any other alleged reincarnations of John.
 * 4) Recent scholarship - This would be the section to discuss the modern opinions, which seemingly are primarily speculative, about whether John were affiliated with the Essenes or any other groups.
 * 5) John in media - Movie portrayals and the like.

I honestly do not see the need to have the list of "prominent" churches and the like named after John included in this main article. List of places named for John the Baptist or similar would presumably be a good place for such material, provided it is notable, and I tend to think it almost certainly is.

According to the Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion from the 1980's, Carl H. Kraeling's 1951 book John the Batist was still at the time the single definitive work on this topic. If that is still the case, and I think it probably is, that source would probably be the best one to use most extensively.

Anyway, I welcome comments and responses of any sort. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The following summary of John's activities can be found in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, 1st edition, 1998, by Malachi B. Martin. I am not proposing that as a source for related content, mind you, just indicating where I got it from, because I to think it is a reasonable summary of John's known activities: "According to the sources, John was a reforming zealot. He preached an imminent catastrophe of divine punishment; he castigated hypocrisy, demanded repentance, and announced the imminent coming of the Messiah. ... John furthermore insisted that all who repented of their sins should come to him and go through a rite of washing or baptizing; hence he was called the Baptist. Two major events marked John's career. First was the baptism of Jesus... . The second event concerned King Herod, who had dismissed his first wife, the daughter of King Aretas, and had married Herodias, the wife of his brother. John denounced this act. Heord, fearing that John's preaching might provoke retributive action by Aretas, imprisoned John in the fortress of Machaerus. The Gospels relate that Herodias, wounded in her pride, prevailed on Herod through the charms of her daughter, Salome, to have John beheaded. He died sometime between AD 26 and 31."
 * I acknowledge that the above does seem to contain a few judgments on the part of the author which are not necessarily supported by the texts themselves, but otherwise I wonder whether other editors might agree it is a fairly accurate summation of what is known about John, and maybe a good starting point from which to begin a rewrite of a section based on the Gospels and Josephus. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also agree with your general outline of headings. The list of Churches has gotten way out of control as lists of this type tend to on Wiki - especially since I'm not sure whether many of these bldgs are named for John the Baptist or for St John. My suggestion is that you have a general sentence in the area that also includes "Christian Veneration" that "there are many churches throughout the world that are named for John the Baptist" and then include a list of notables within the sentence (not as a bulleted list). Also the windows at Amiens are interesting, but do we need the whole set? There is alot of good stuff here, but some of it is simply pasted in and I've already seen some repetitive text. Ckruschke (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Agree me too, with the following comments:
 * 1. there prob was a historical guy Yohannan-something, that made a considerable impression on a few religions, most notably (my priority order):
 * Mandeanism
 * Christianity
 * The impression on religons such as Islam and Baha'i is secondary and less, via Christianity, considering that the Mandean scriptures were mostly unavailable to outsiders. The structure of the document should IMHO be ordered in accord to the priority.
 * 2. specifically Christian traditions – when to detailed – belong to John the Baptist in Christianity,
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to readdress this issue? It looks like the discussion got started and died, but we still have the same issues with "Commemoration" and "Art". The list of Churches has gotten way out of control as lists of this type tend to on Wiki - especially since I'm not sure whether many of these bldgs are named for John the Baptist or for St John - and who is to say any of these or all of them are "Notable"? My suggestion is that you have a general sentence in the area that also includes "Christian Veneration" that "there are many churches throughout the world that are named for John the Baptist" and then include a list of notables within the sentence (not as a bulleted list). Also the windows at Amiens are interesting, but do we need the whole set? There is alot of good stuff here, but some of it is simply pasted in and I've already seen some repetitive text. Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Incomplete sentence
Among the early Judaistic Christian groups the Ebionites held that John, along with Jesus and James the Just - all of whom they revered. [58][59][60][61][62][63]

Is there something missing here? Feketekave (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it; it was meant to say they're vegetarians. Thanks for catching it.

John executed in 28 CE, a year BEFORE he started baptizing people?
Given Luke 3:1-4 says John the Baptist "came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar"(ie 29 CE) how can he be executed in 28 CE?--216.31.124.232 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Corrected. The earliest the sources say is 31. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question.
The original word used to as "baptist" couldn't have been confused with "anoint-er" by any chance, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.34.102 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the part of this article talking about possible concerns with the authenticity of this passage as it would lead someone to believe there are ACADEMIC concerns over the authenticity of this passage. Unless a valid source can be produced for this claim then it inappropriate to misrepresent the view of historians on this passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.3.162 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the part of this article talking about possible concerns with the authenticity of this passage as it would lead someone to believe there are ACADEMIC concerns over the authenticity of this passage. Unless a valid source can be produced for this claim then it inappropriate to misrepresent the view of historians on this passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.3.162 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Armenian name
I'm changing Հովհաննես Մկրտիչ (modern Eastern Armenian spelling) to Յովհաննէս Մկրտիչ (Classical Armenian spelling). -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

copy-editing
Editing Wikipedia articles may put me in danger of suspecting that some people don't know that "p." means "page" (singular) and "pp." means "pages" (plural). 2601:2:4D00:27B:64CE:509D:AE31:8032 (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Remains
It is widely believed the remains of John the Baptist were located in Surp Karapet Monastery in Taron before the Armenian Genocide. During which the site was intentionally bombed. Although the location of the remains are not currently known, this important fact should be mentioned.Arzashkun (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yahya
The name John and John the Baptist are not the same name..., there is a reason in Islam the name Yahya is given rather than the Hebrew variant. As it state in the Qu'ran he was the first to have that name, because they are not exactly the same. The Islamic variant for John the Baptist originate from the words which means life, to live etc., the source of all life. In Christian iconography John the Baptist would submerge his followers in water (source) to bring them back to their source and purify them, some elements of this are present in Sufi mysticism. The transliteration I reverted is a Christian biases, which generally I have nothing against, but here the original Islamic version should be preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

NRSV and NIV
It's absolutely basic in New Testament studies that the NRSV is the preferred version of the Bible used in academic circles, not only because it is considered the most accurate but also because it is accepted across a wide variety of denominations. Almost all academic reading lists will cite the NRSV as the translation of choice.

Here's a quick list of weblinks that support this (it would take little time to compile a list ten times as long):

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm http://www.nrsv.net/about/endorsements/ http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/2sppe5/is_the_nrsv_still_the_academic_standard_of/ http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2008/09/my-top-5-catholic-bible-translations.html http://www.nbts.edu/libhandouts/Citing%20the%20Bible.pdf

Three major universities citing NRSV as standard:

https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/content/group/8464e329-91c7-4f27-9a14-ec08e7edb5ae/Information%202014/Reading%20list%202014.pdf (Oxford) http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/data/PartIIA.pdf (Cambridge) https://www.tcd.ie/Religions_Theology/assets/pdf/Handbook%202014-15B.pdf (Trinity College Dublin)

This really isn't controversial. Anyone editing New Testament articles should know this. --Rbreen (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The NRSV is favored by a majority of biblical Greek scholars because Metzger also worked on the Novum Testamentum Graece (UBS edition), by all accounts the standard eclectic Greek text for scholarship. Thus, the Greek text behind the NRSV is drawn from the widest selection of manuscripts and the most thorough scholarship to determine the most likely original readings. Virtually all textual studies of the New Testament will use the Novum Testamentum Graece, as well they should, and as a result, they will often use NSRV translations, because it draws from the same Greek text they are using.


 * What we are doing at Wikipedia is not an investigation into the original Gospel manuscripts, or comparative study to figure out what the Evangelists wrote. This is an encyclopedia entry with the objective of informing the general reader, not a springboard for New Testament textual scholarship.


 * Though it is obviously important that the translation not be wrong, the cases where this happens are few. (The NIV deliberately translates the same word different ways to torture an evangelical reading out of the Pauline epistles.) The gospels, especially the synoptic gospels, are much less controversial and one cannot simply insist upon a standard version because it has the most precise Greek text underpinning it. At Wikipedia, our primary purpose in choosing a Bible translation should be idiomatic English that accurately and clearly expresses the Greek (or Hebrew) meaning to the reader. This means abandoning a single standard translation and choosing between a number of significant translations in specific cases. I generally share your aversion to the NIV, but its heavy, disingenuous theological agenda does not impair its rendering of the gospels. Zondervan published the Greek text underlying the NIV a couple years ago; it is strikingly similar to the UBS text, to the point where the supposedly more precise scholarship of the UBS text is really a marginal consideration.


 * Idiomatic English, however, is not a marginal consideration. To use an example in this article, the NSRV renders the end of Matthew 3:17 as “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased,” footnoting the far more idiomatic "my beloved Son" as an alternative reading. Clearly, another translation ought to be used for this passage.


 * If we recognize that the quality of the translation, not the Greek text underpinning it, ought to be the primary concern when writing an encyclopedia entry, then we must also respect the absolute necessity of including traditional translations like the KJV, despite the lack of access to early manuscripts and thus the greater susceptibility to textual corruption. The mere fact that it is the most widely used English Bible in the world demands its inclusion. Aperiarcam (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)