Talk:Gospel of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I did some minor changes: changed "historical part" to "narrative part" and "history" to "story".

Contents 1 John 6 2 Needs work 3 Signs and faith 4 The John Rylands Library papyrus fragment 5 P52 6 Gospel of John is a text 7 Reasons why the dating is "important" 8 Bultmann on John 9 This needs rethinking 10 suggest Title: "according to" 11 "According to liberals, the text states..." 12 Chapters 13 Italicizing names of biblical books 14 No entry for "Foy Wallace Jr." 15 javanaut2001 16 Small NPOV considerations 17 Section: The following is not based upon "scholarly" presumptions... 18 Redundent sections 19 "Some stuff"? and Bible version 20 Simplification of the opening graph 21 TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 22 Parables? 23 External links in article body 24 Audience for the Gospel of John 25 Differences from the Synoptic Gospels 26 Raymond E. Brown 27 Proposed link 28 Audience and 'I am' source 29 John contains parables ? 30 differences from synoptics 31 Sections and subsections 32 content summary 33 Other characteristics unique to John 34 Authorship edits 35 Christian scholars 36 Sources section 37 Amalgamated two sections 38 unbalaned tag

[edit] John 6

Um.... I just created a template linking the chapters of John; is there a reason why "John 6" redirects to "Gospel of John"?? A J Hay 10:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

Neither the "sources" (current first section) nor the "Bridging the Old Testament and New Testament" (previous first section) make a good introduction to the Gospel of John. Need more explanatory and introductory information up front. Jdavidb 20:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "sources" is prob. not best opening section. Perhaps a beginning paragraph summarizing theological content. One paragraph under "structure" already indicates four distinctive content areas: (1) relationship of Son to Father, (2) relationship Redeemer/believer and (3) promise of Holy Ghost (4) importance of love. Stuff like that is better as it goes to the particular content of the book and its position in Christian tradition. Also: it might be better to say Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost. The former is the far more common term at this point. --Dkwright 23:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The "Bridging," reidentified by our reverter, is simply John's use of sources and his conscious parallel with Genesis. The "bridging" is someone's inexperienced but good interpretation. It's a metaphor: not suitable in the name of a subsection. Surely "Handling of source material" is a quite standard and neutral title that is free of problems. It also admits of more important examples of "John"'s literary practices, which need discussing, as this is the most consciously rhetorical of the Gospels. Wetman 11:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the article currently suffers from NPOV problems in several areas. Let me say up front that my own particular POV is that of an evangelical Christian and that this POV assuredly influences my views on the Gospel of John. So I'm not claiming that I approach the text as someone without a distinct and strong POV.

That's precisely why I think the current article has NPOV problems. Here are areas that I think could use some work. (1) Critical scholarship is represented as more monolithic than it is on John. (2) As one example of this, the discussion on the date of authorship reflects critical scholarship's consensus (if there ever was one) from a time prior to the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. Prior to Qumran, the distinctive theological emphases (and language!) of John were thought to be influenced by Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. Those positing such influences needed John to have a very late date indeed. (3) The Johannine community viewpoint is cited rather uncritically. (Why not other view-points, then?) (4) This leads me to my last point: It seems to me that the article gives evidence of a strong bias concerning who is or isn't a critical scholar. Contemporary evangelical scholars have views on John that are quite different from views given in the article, which generally are attributed to critical scholarship. It seems to me that a critical scholar is one who practices a kind of scholarship that is willing to look at evidence criticially, regardless of his or her own religious presuppositions. There are, in my opinion, evangelical scholars who fit this definition in whole or in part. You wouldn't know this from reading the article. Whether I'm right or wrong on this, views on John that come from religiously motivated communities are poorly represented in the article and the article seems structured so as to influence against such views.

In any case, what suffers in the process is the text itself. This article is more of a mono-chromatic view of scholarship about John (which should only be a part of the discussion of a text) than it is a good article on the text itself. Someone who hasn't read the text would come away still knowing almost nothing about it.

Note that I've posted these thoughts here to generate discussion. I've got some strong viewpoints and welcome strong disagreements. I've not done any editing on the article, because I don't want to get into edit wars about bias, etc. So please, if someone doesn't like what I've said here, let's talk about it. Perhaps we can discuss things to the point of agreeing on some changes that might be made to strengthen the article in a way that people from different viewpoints can agree to. --Dkwright 19:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GofJ is a text. A text has sources. A text has a manuscript tradition. A historical text is initially directed to an audience and addresses contemporary concerns. Then, it has a history of interpretations which should include evangelical interpretation of course. A "beginning paragraph summarizing theological content" is not how an authentically neutral POV discussion of any text would normally open, is it? Instead, why not compare the treatment of the other gospels at Wikipedia, and see if any of them are genuinely dispassionate enough so that a similar framework could be adopted here. If evangelical interpretations should be expanded, fine; but a mainstream scholarly historical interpretation should not be subverted, should it? --Wetman 22:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I agree that a discussion of sources, manuscript tradition, and history of interp. are important to this article.

However, these are matters of considerable complexity and variety of opinion. I don't think that complexity and variety are well-represented in the current article. I happened to come at things citing an evangelical perspective, but that's just my particular starting point and that starting point isn't even the main point regarding the criticism I was bringing. (1) The critical views represented are a very narrow slice of even the mainstream (I'll concede the label for one moment) scholarship on John. (2) That slice is rather dated. (3) Now, I'm not conceding the label: I suspect that your term mainstream, might, if examined, reduce to being the set of those who study the text from the perspective of more avowedly secular, as opposed to religious, presuppositions. (4) Scholars with religious presuppositions can and do also study from a perspective of historical interpretation and method. Brown is one such scholar and is already being cited in the article. So bringing up the existence of, say, evangelical viewpoints, is not immediately an attempt to subvert historical interpretation. (5) A NPOV should seek to do this complex picture justice. That's not easy, but I think there is room for improvement here. However, I admit that I'm not sure where one might begin, because the field (Johannine studies) is so broad and deep in this case.

One idea I do have is to give the material that deals with the content of John greater emphasis (and to expand it). Quite a while ago I wrote something about "a beginning paragraph summarizing theological content". That was poorly phrased, although perhaps we can agree that the content of GoJ is in fact quite theological, regardless of what we personally think of that content. Further, I don't know that it would be right to put the focus on content first. Author and Date do make a lot of sense in first position. In this case, though, those are quite contested. Regardless of position, I think the article really could use more material on the content of John. (How about a brief outline of John? I'd be willing to try my hand on it.) Right now, someone reading the article would come away not having learned much of what John is about. Do you see what I'm getting at? First and foremost this is a text that has a literary unity (whatever its source composition). What is this text about? In my opinion, that question is an important one to answer. The current entry doesn't go about answering that so much as it does a very uneven job of wading into the scholarly fray about the text. --dkwright 00:09, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

A further thought: other models for rational discourse of Scripture might come from two books where Christianists don't intrude: compare the Wikipedia treatment of Ecclesiastes or the Book of Judith --Wetman 22:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the entries for Ecclesiastes and Judith and I did like their structure better. The subjects are, of course, far less massive that that of John. But in my opinion those entries did a better job of discussing content. I don't know how well they did at representing scholarly opinion--I have little background with these two.

I wish you were less dismissive about my particular interest in John, although I will say that the notion of a Christianist intruder gives me the amusing mental image of some sort of Christian cat-burglar who breaks in and put tracts under a person's pillow. --dkwright 00:09, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

[edit] Signs and faith

Made several changes to the sources section; the conclusion that the signs in the synoptics occur as a result of faith rather than in order to generate faith in the observers is POV; my religious tradition generally disagrees and teaches that the primary purpose of the miracles was to validate the miracle worker (i.e., generate faith). Jdavidb 20:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entry should eventually discuss the "signs" as the author apparently intended and used them, with quotes for examples. All our various traditions have their own entries by now, where our various teachings concerning "signs" and miracles etc etc are discussed. Whether GofJ partly uses miracles to validate the miracle-worker and partly as the result of faith, that does belongs here. This entry is still a stub. Wetman 00:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But apropose Jdavid b's frank entry just above: it certainly is refreshing to see so honestly and bluntly stated what is often disguised in entries that concern religionism (and racial nationalism too): first that a perfectly acceptable motivation for replacing information with counterinformation is that "my religious tradition" coincides with the edited version, and that information counter to which "my religious teaching disagrees" is POV. It will never be possible to discuss John's specific agendas in writing this work, the literary persona of this "John" and the manipulation of his source-texts will it? So the entry will remain on the Sunday School level. Wetman 10:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The John Rylands Library papyrus fragment

I have removed and placed here the following misleading though official-sounding mystification. Notice the techniques of identifying an "authority" whom only a theology student could know, without a work listed in the links or references (but given a most authenticizing date) and of offering an accession number, which sounds very official but actually serves to disguise the papyrus' identity, unless you can decipher it as "Papyrus John Rylands Library, Manchester, Greek language":

However, in 1934 C.H. Roberts published a scrap of papyrus (P⁵² = Papyrus Ryl. Gr. 457) that contained a few verses from the Gospel of John, whose handwriting he dated to the first half of the second century.

Could so many techniques come together without a covert agenda? What is actually being supported by this sleight-of-hand? Can you see? ...At any rate, a more authentic (and later) dating, a more direct and informative identification of the fragment, and a link to a John Rylands Library website where it is illustrated, are all now incorporated in the entry now. Any issues? Wetman 11:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] P52

I've added a starter article on the Rylands parchment, entitled P52, that might serve as a better place to insert some of the arguments surrounding the dating of the extant record. I've tried to make it a fairly simple and balanced presentation of the parchment, but feel free to pick away at it! -sm

I'll add an explicit statement that fuller details are to be found at the entry for P 52. We better come up with a less cryptic title than P 52, does everyone agree? I notice that here and at the new entry there is now no reference to the fact that the fragment was bought on the antiquities market. Was it not bought on the market? Wetman 02:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's unclear where the fragment came from. It was likely the result of excavations at Benhesa. As far as coming up with a less cryptic title, I think it's probably best to use the standard parchment designation. As an alternative, the Rylands designation might be acceptable (GP457), but most people searching for info on it will likely know the P52 designation.--Michael Lee 03:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"P52" is an accession number. Like all such numbers, it is meaningful only in the context, in this case, of the John Rylands Library collection of manuscripts: Rylands Library Papyrus P52 will be more reader-friendly, and I shall move it. P52 remains as a redirect, so nothing is lost. The P does not stand for "parchment" but for papyrus, as a glance as the illustration confirms. I shall make that simple change too. It is not unclear that the papyrus was bought on the antiquities market, unless I misremember. That I'll leave for now. Wetman 05:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel of John is a text

Full information on the text, the manuscripts, the manuscript tradition, the contents of the text, authorship and date ordinarily remain with texts in Wikipedia. A digest of information spun off into individual entries should remain at this main one. Details that may be gleaned about an author ordinarily belong at an author's entry. Wetman 05:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons why the dating is "important"

"The dating is important since John is agreed to be the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written and thus marks the end date of their composition." An honest evaluation of the date is actually what's important to me. The "importance" of an early dating doesn't keep me wakeful at night, so I can't usefully edit this. But come now, is this really the very best and most serious rationale for the "importance" of dating John that Christipedians can come up with? --Wetman 02:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Some scholars say that the Gospel of Luke was the last one, making use of John (Mark A. Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?: The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke). Some scholars say that the Gospel of John was/could be the first one (JAT Robinson, Priority of John). Seems to me like grounds for deleting this misinformation. Can I get the go ahead? --Peter Kirby 03:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bultmann on John

Bultmann’s views on John have been some of the most influential in the 20th century, and I think they deserve a more in-depth treatment than they have received at present. (In fact, for one of the most influential theologians of modernity, the entry on Bultmann is woefully short.) Third Quest historical Jesus scholarship that reasserts both the Jewishness of Jesus and the New Testament—including the Gospel of John—is also completely neglected. --MHazell 14:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely concur. I could edit the resulting text for idiom and flow, but I'm not competent to assess Bultmann. Would you take up this project? --Wetman 20:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give it a damn good go! I think that I'll try to considerably expand the Rudolf Bultmann entry to cover everything—including his work on John—rather than attempt to edit both the Bultmann and John entries at the same time. If anything needs to be imported/exported between the two entries, I'm sure it'll become clear. --MHazell 03:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This needs rethinking

I have not removed from the article the following: "The Church Fathers believed only The Gospel of John and Authentic Matthew to be written by deciples of Jesus. " This is not true of any one of the writers who may be grouped under this label. Who thought what of the authorship of John and when is relevant here. The rest, even if it were accurate, is not. I haven't the patience to struggle over this. --Wetman 08:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] suggest Title: "according to"

The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.) Portress 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel According to John is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "According to liberals, the text states..."

The latest edit! One assumes then that "liberal" means someone who reads the text. The current editing of this article makes no pretense of a balanced view. --Wetman 12:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapters

Are entries on individual chapters (every one) of a book encyclopedic? Maybe we need a wikicommentary:John_14 thing, i.e., some place offsite Wikipedia for commentary on books. Otherwise, why not link to wikisource? --Peter Kirby 03:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Update: I see that there's already a sizeable controversy about such things. --Peter Kirby 06:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italicizing names of biblical books

Don't ask me why, but it is standard writing not to italicize the names of books of the Bible. --Peter Kirby 03:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

...yes—thank you Peter Kirby— so that John is rendered identical with John, and any doubt of the author of Luke is eliminated, because what is stated in Luke is what Luke states—excellent sleight-of-hand, we all agree! And not just a Little Pious Gesture after all, is it. --Wetman 03:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, I don't make up the rules. For what it matters, I don't believe that John the apostle wrote the Gospel of John. --Peter Kirby

Seeing as how you've acknowledged that Biblical books are not italicised, perhaps we should actually do this. cf. Gospel of Luke...the practice is already used in WP, so this article should follow suit. Carl.bunderson 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No entry for "Foy Wallace Jr."

"One school of thought called Realized Eschatology places the date of the Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem. Among those who led this idea was Foy Wallace Jr." Let's begin with a sensible entry for this "Foy Wallace Jr." and the school of thought called "Realized Exchatology" before we insert text like this here. --Wetman 05:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] javanaut2001

Removed javanaut2001's subjective entries added Dec 11 & 12 2005, NPOV --User Kazuba/Kazuba 15 Dec 2005

[edit] Small NPOV considerations

The wording of the Structure section, specifically the sentences: "As a Gospel writer, he essentially developed the concept of the Trinity...John makes far more direct claims of Jesus being the only Son of God..." could stand to be re-written a little to make it more NPOV. There are quite a few respected translations that don't agree with this notion. I'm not saying a lot of re-writing is needed, just a few words here and there to make the point that it's "commonly held" in most translations but not as universal as the article currently suggests, or something similar. <Oscillate 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)>

[edit] Section: The following is not based upon "scholarly" presumptions...

I don't even know where to start with this giant section. I reverted it since it appears to just be personal commentary. --Oscillate 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundent sections

There are two sections that over lap, Differences from the Synoptic Gospels and Other characteristics unique to John. Both are bulleted lists. I propose either merging them into one long list, or maybe making two lists, where one is notable features of John, and the other being the differences from the synoptic gospels. Would someone mind giving those lists a once over please? --Andrew c 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some stuff"? and Bible version

If we're going to outline the contents of this or any other book of scripture, I'd think we could be a bit more specific about them than "some stuff" and "some other stuff." Unless, of course, these are recognized scholarly biblical terms.

Also, in the popular passages section, the first verse is from the King James Version, while the second verse isn't. I couldn't find a Wikipedia policy on which version of the Bible should be used, but it seems that we should use the same version for quotations in a single article.

Thoughts on these issues? JordeeBec 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, user at IP address 70.179.69.187. JordeeBec 18:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The same user has inserted the exact same format into all the other gospel articles as well. It is part of an effort to delete all the individual chapter articles and replace them with articles on the bigger topics/events. I guess the reasoning behind this move is that a lot of the content is repeated over and over in each gospel, so the individual chapter articles would be redundent in places where there are double traditions (or more). That said, I agree that "some stuff" is unencyclopedic. Maybe some editors other than me could look over the other gospel articles and see if the recent additions are needed.--Andrew c 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplification of the opening graph

The opening paragraphs of the article really distract from the basics that need to be conveyed. It immediately introduced controversies on which there is no consensus, and indeed suggested there is consensus on dating -- which there is not.

The entire article has problems and is loaded to with dating issues that distract fro the theological content. Looking a the evolution of the article over time one can see that this has come to dominate it to the point where the content, context and characteristics, tone, etc are lost and essentially a footnote to the article as a whole. 72.75.50.198 04:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the content comes from Higher criticism which is a large portion of biblical scholarship. Remember, to be NPOV, we need to present all POVs with due weight. Perhaps you are right that there is TOO much of the scholarly view, but what you suggest to be the main point of the article (theological content) is just another POV (that should be included, but not exclusively). That said, I feel like you blanked some important information in the opening. There is nothing wrong with saying scholars agree that it was the fourth gospel to be written. There is nothing wrong with saying John differs theologically from the synoptics. And there is no reason to remove the paragraph on the traditional view. I would like to hear your specific reasoning for doing these things, however I have a strong desire to restore the blanked content.--Andrew c 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "theological content" - do you mean content covering theological issues, or content written from a non-critical POV ? Clinkophonist 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parables?

Two parables are listed in the events covered in John, but later in the differences with the other Gospels, a difference listed is 'no parables are covered in John'. This should be reconciled in some way (not that I would know the correct statement) TheHYPO 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its due to the article titles. John doesn't treat them as parables, i.e. as short aphorisms, but as long drawn out theological essays. Clinkophonist 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

there are NO parables in John. niether the Good Shepherd nor the True Vine metaphors are small storys that illistrate a larger point. if they were parables, then why arent all the I AM statements parables?

I'm re-adding the link, as it does occur in John, but I'll change the name of it to reflect that it is not a parable. And anon user, since it means so much to you, please take up the issue on the talk page of Parable of the Good Shepherd. Carl.bunderson 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that, Carl.

[edit] External links in article body

I've removed the following portion: "There are other theories of authorship. One of the most audacious is the claim by Ramon K. Jusino that John was written by Mary Magdalene. "Mary Magdalene, author of the Fourth Gospel?', 1998, available on-line." This doesn't seem to be notable--we should favour formally published work that has actually made an impact--and is probably linkspam. There are other external links remaining in this section that are notable, but they must be enclosed in <ref> tags with a proper citation below, or go in the "External links" section. Crculver (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audience for the Gospel of John

Edits made to Cana assert that a "majority" (perhaps code for RC) readers find that this text was written to a Jewish audience. The original audience should at least be discussed here; there are some details that need to be explained away. The reliability or lack of it in John's topography should also be addressed.--Wetman (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from the Synoptic Gospels

The current statement, "John places Jesus' clearing of the temple at the outset of his ministry, while the Synoptics place it after the Triumphal Entry, near his death," is inaccurate. That is an assumption made by the reader, not something implied by the Scriptures. Even adding the "However" clause leaves the inital statement in such form as it is considered fact. Thus, you are stating as FACT something that you are ASSUMING, not something which is EXPRESSED.

It is likely that John recorded a separate event than the other three books mention.

From http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/528

"What evidence does a person possess, which would lead him to conclude that Jesus cleansed the temple only once? There is none. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded a temple cleansing late in Jesus’ ministry, much evidence exists to indicate that John recorded an earlier clearing of the temple. It is logical to conclude that the extra details recorded in John 2 are not simply supplemental facts (even though the writers of the gospels did supplement each others’ writings fairly frequently). Rather, the different details recorded by John likely are due to the fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7, which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing."

Again, whether you accept the argument or not, you are stating as fact something that is assumed. Not only does this undermine the Word of God, but it is misleading and lacks objectivity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.132.102.163 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 August 2006.

Your changes to the article are pretty good, however the use of "some" and "others" are weasel words. When I find the time to look up references, I suggest changing "some" to "critical scholars" and "others" to "apologists", and then I'll also properly format both citations.--Andrew c 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond E. Brown

It's not that it's his religion being stated, but that is part of his credentials. In addition to being a Roman Catholic priest, he was twice on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Catholic scholarship vs. someone who practices Catholicism and is a scholar. Sorry for the confusion, but maybe that bit of information isn't relevent. I was just trying to describe him in more detail, that's all.--Andrew c 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops... I think the link suffices. If people want to know more they can click through. Rtrev 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to get in the way of constructive edits. To explain my edit, we generally don't mention those sorts of things with scholars (I have removed instances where articles said things like "a scholar from Yale" for the same reason: consistency). Also, he is linked. My confusion was over "of the Johannine community". I have only heard that phrase used with the theory that John had a community of followers who, after his death, complied his writing and produced his gospel (a theory I find rather sensible). So I though this alternate usage was confusing. But don't let me get in the way. Lostcaesar 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

See Book of Revelation's talk page because it is the same issue with both links. Also it is best to sign all your posts with "~~~~" (four tildes) which is converted into your signature. Such as the following --> Rtrev 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audience and 'I am' source

Is there a reason why there is no mention of the audience for this book. I am not a biblical scholar by any means so I would barely know where to start, but that seems like it would be useful information.

Also I believe that the 'I am' sayings are generally considered to be a source that the author used because of how frequently they appear. Particularly interesting is John 8:58: "Truly, truly I tell you, before there was an Abraham, I am!". Contrast this with the name for God in Exodus 3:14 "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM" (AJKV). -Alan Trick 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John contains parables ?

I have removed the second of these two comments as they directly contradict each other.

"The Gospel of John does not contain any parables, although metaphoric stories (such as John 15) are still found in the gospel. The Gospel of John contains one parable; "The Good Shepherd" (John 10)"

IMO the Good Shepherd passage is not a parable but more a 'metaphoric story' as the existing sentence describes. However if there is evidence that some authorities state that this is a parable then the sentence could be changed to

"The Gospel of John contains only one parable, although metaphoric stories (such as John 15) are still found."

rgds, ||:) johnmark† 09:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a parable and a metaphoric story? It sounds to me like a complex way be getting to say that John doesn't have parables when he does, and probably has more do to with someone's theory than the actual Gospel. Lostcaesar 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Brown's Into to the NT "In the narrative sequence the metaphorical discourse on the good shepherd (10:1-21), although it has a certain autonomy, is directed to the Pharisees whom Jesus accused of being blind in 9:40-41. This and the description of the vine in 15"1-17 are the closest that John comes to the parables so common in the Synoptics. In John there is a mixture of metaphors offering different ways of looking at the same reality: Jesus is the gate by which the shepherd goes to the sheep, and by which the sheep come into the fold and go out to masturel and Jesus is the model shepherd who both knows his sheep by name and is willing to lay down his life for them." p.348 and he cites a work called "The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context". Then on pages 364-5 "A comparison of the Fouth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences. Peculiarities of John include: ... long discoursed and dialogues rather than parables". And Ehrman's NT "In John, however, Jesus does not speak in parables, nor does he proclaim the imminent appearance of the kingdom. He instead focuses his words on identifying himself as the one sent from God." p. 162 --Andrew c 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds thin to me; I have seen plently of table that list John's parables, and though less than the synoptics they are given as parables nontheless. Lostcaesar 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of NPOV is including all relevent POV. We can simply explain the controversy if we can get some reliable citations that call these verses "parables". We could say something like, "critical scholars typically do not consider the metaphorical discourses in John technically the same thing as the "parables" in the synoptics, however some Christian theologians consider them parables." However, what would violate NPOV would be claiming one way or the other whether these things are in fact parables (and maybe they are parables under some definitions and not parables under others)--Andrew c 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems like a finer point. I don't think it can really be said that the people who define John's didactic accounts as "parables" are all Christian theologians, or that all critical scholars make a techinical distinction between a "parable" and a "metaphoric story". My contribution here is really to suggest that the article ought to at least explain what the supposed difference between the two is, since it is not at all obvious from the words. And I think you are right to observe that we should perhaps present this as a particular method of analysis (if not point of view), one which need not be thought of as universally accepted. Lostcaesar 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What references claim John contains parables? If it is just Original Research, it should be deleted.75.14.212.250 05:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reference against: Catholic Encyclopedia: Parables: "There are no parables in St. John's Gospel. In the Synoptics Mark has only one peculiar to himself, the seed growing secretly (4:26); he has three which are common to Matthew and Luke: the sower, mustard seed, and wicked husbandman. Two more are found in the same Gospels, the leaven and the lost sheep. Of the rest, eighteen belong to the third and ten to the first Evangelist. Thus we reckon thirty-three in all; but some have raised the number even to sixty, by including proverbial expressions."

just to reiterate what I said before, if the article is going to claim that John has no "parables", but does have "metaphoric stories", then it ought to state what the difference between them is, for I would think to many, and at least to me, it doesn't seem at all clear.Lostcaesar 09:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Parable and Metaphor have their own pages, no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were, here.

And according to the definition of parable on that page, John has parables. Hence the definiton is needed here - must I ask again? Nowhere here has the distinction, as made by the referenced sources, been so much as mentioned. Lostcaesar 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

LC, I gave it a shot. Is the distinction clear? I don't want to bog this list down with a long explanation, but you're right that the modern reader is ill-equipped to see the distinction between parables and metaphoric tales (esp. after centuries of people treating Jesus' parables as metaphoric tales). I could expand on this (and might should do so on the Parables page). Jonathan Tweet 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably getting too technical, but I'll take a shot at it. John 10:1-6 is generally considered the closest John gets to a parable, in fact the UBS Greek NT calls it the "Parable of the Sheepfold", but that largely assumes it was once a separate saying of Jesus that John incorporated into his gospel. John 10:6 calls it a "figure of speech", see also [1]. But then, John 10:7: "Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep." That's no longer a parable (a fictitious tale), it has become a metaphor. The Scholars Version notes for v.10:8 :All who came before me: The allegorical meaning of aspects of the Good Shepherd metaphor like this (and, for example, the hired hand or the wolf in v.12) was undoubtedly apparent to this gospel's original audience but probably a matter of guesswork for later readers. They may refer either to the Jewish leaders in conflict with the Christians to whom this gospel is addressed or, just possibly, to some conflict among Christian leaders, as in 1 John." 75.15.203.141 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] differences from synoptics

Please help me figure out how to include this information on this page.

Secular Academic Analysis

Over a hundred scholars contributing to the Jesus Seminar concluded that most sayings attributed to Jesus in John are inauthentic, not having been said by Jesus, nor reflecting his ideas.[2].

Jonathan Tweet 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At Rtrev's request, I ran this by the talk page. Seeing no objections after a week, I put a new version of this section in the article. It is only fair that the secular reader be advised that secular historians often regard John's protrayal of Jesus as inauthentic. This article isn't "Christian views of the Gospel of John." It needs to serve both the faithful Christians and the godless whoremongering lackeys in Satan's doomed army (like me, apparently). Jonathan Tweet 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the new version to which I referred. I added it, but it was deleted without explanation, other than that I had not gotten anyone's buy-off. This is the second time that someone has deleted my addition to this page without explaining what was wrong with it. The first time was when I posted the above quote.

===Critical scholarship on the differences between John and the synoptics=== Critical scholars have often concluded that, unlike the synoptics, the gospel of John almost entirely inauthentic in its portrayal Jesus. This view was nearly universal among critical scholars in the 19th century (see Authorship of Johannine works). It continues today, as reflected in the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar [3].

May I add this text in place of the text quoted above?

Having heard no objections, I reposted the material that another editor had deleted. Jonathan Tweet 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections and subsections

Current outline (excerpt)

• 8 Differences from the Synoptic Gospels
• 8.1 Critical scholarship on the differences between John and the synoptics
• 9 Characteristics of the Gospel of John
• 9.1 Other characteristics unique to John

By my reading, "8. Differences" is properly a subsection of "9. Characteristics." Anyone want to move 8 under 9, or should I? Jonathan Tweet 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, I rearranged the sections as above. Jonathan Tweet 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] content summary

This article could use a content summary. The "events covered" section is sort of like that, except that it's undigested. A one-paragraph summary of the content of the gospel would address the central topic of this page: the gospel of John itself. Material that would serve well in such a summary is currently spread throughout the article. Jonathan Tweet 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other characteristics unique to John

"Mary Magdalene visits the empty tomb twice. She believes Jesus' body has been stolen. The second time she sees two angels. They do not tell her Jesus is risen. They only ask why she is crying. Mary mistakes Jesus for the gardener. He tells Mary not to touch or cling to him. (John 20:17). That very evening, in the same chapter (John 20:28), Jesus asks Thomas to touch him and to place his fingers and hand in Jesus' still open wounds. At the sight of Jesus, Thomas gives an exclamation of faith but if he follows Jesus' direction, it is not in the text."

I just wanted to say that this part of the article is wrong since the event with Thomas did not happen that very night. When Jesus appeared to the disciples that night Thomas wasn't there... as is stated in John 20:24... I suggest you read John 20:19-29 for you to see the whole picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.244.196 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 November 2006.

[edit] Authorship edits

I believe the most recent edit, that put 7 external links in 7 different ref tags, was an edit intended to disrupt wikipedia to make a point (see WP:POINT). I believe the reason for this is because I tagged 3 things as needing a citation. This wasn't me being skeptical, or being a jerk, but me trying to keep wikipedia up to a specific standard. Any time you add ANY new information, it is ALWAYS a good idea to add a citation to a reliable source. This makes wikipedia verifiable, and can help avert any problems that may arise in the future. Please also see Template:cn. The citation needed tag is used for a specific purpose, while there are other tags (such as template:verify source) used for other purposes. I wasn't saying the new content was wrong or inaccurate, simply that it would only make wikipedia better if we had references to back up these claims. I did not mean to offend. Now, lets examine the 3 tags I placed on the article. The first tag was placed after the "Christian scholars" says x claim. Who are these Christian scholars? One simple citation could clear this up. Otherwise, it is weasely. The second tag could probably be covered in the same reference for the first tag, but I added it just to make it clear that both claims (not just the first) would benefit from a citation. The third tag is after "Critics point out". Who are these critics? Once again, probably one citation would suffice. If we are saying that "someone says x" we need to say who these someones are. That's all this is about. Finally, when the citations are added, if they are web links, could you please format them using template:cite web or Magnus' makeRef tool. Thanks.--Andrew c 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian scholars

What's all this about Christian and non-Christian scholars? Are all Christian scholars bound to take a single view? Aer the non-Christian ones Buddhists, Muslims, or what? Sounds odd. PiCo

I agree that Christian is a poor word choice. Maybe we should adopt the language used in one of the other gospel articles. Such as "traditional view" or even "a minority of scholars".-Andrew c 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to start dividing scholarly opinion - how many does it take to make a majority, does one scholar constitute a minority? Even the phrase 'traditional view" can be problematic, although less so than "Christan/non-Christian." Probably better just to cite scholars for various note-worthy points. The source noted in fn 3, for example, in the section on authorship, turns out to have been written in 1963 by a professor of New Testament at the Uni of Chicago, and I'd have no difficulty accepting that as an authority - but why not just say: "The author (of John), traditionally the "beloved disciple" John the son of Zebedee, was probably a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus who wrote his gospel around the time of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70," with a footnote identifying the source? (I'd be a bit cautious about a source dating from 1963, though - I'd prefer the most recent writings we can find). PiCo 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a problem we encounter on many NT related pages. If we simply cite scholars, we could end up with situatiosn like "E. P. Sanders argues for a Jesus who was an apocolyptic prophet like John the Baptist, while Earl Doherty argues for a completely mythical Jesus." In this case, stating what each scholar believes puts their claims on equal footing, when this is actually giving undue weight to the mythist position. Similarly, there is a consensus view of mainstream scholars (scholars who teach at secular universities and moderate to liberal religious schools, people with post-graduate degrees who publish in top journals in their field, etc) on most matters (synoptic problem solution, dating and other issues of higher criticism). However, because these historical issues effect some peoples theology, there is a minority of scholars (usually associated with the more conservative religious institutions and colleges) who argue minority positions when it comes matters of higher criticism. Their scholarship is normally in line with the traditional views of the Church (such as the apostles actually being the authors of the NT books, Matthean/Aramaic primacy, early dates for the gospels, etc). These views are notable, but among scholarship, they are a minority. So how do we go about describing this seeming dichotomy? Liberal/conservative? Critical/traditional? Majority/minority? Calling this view Christian is not appropriate because many, many mainstream scholars (like John P. Meier, N.T. Wright, Raymond E. Brown just to name three) are Christian, so I completely agree that the article needs to change.-Andrew c 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. Taking the passage I gave above (simply because it was the first I came across), how about a formulation along these lines: "Although the traditional authorship by the beloved disciple is still held by some, the majority of scholarly opinion believes that etc etc." This assumes, of course, that one opinion is held by a majority of scholars - which might be difficult to demonstrate. Otherwisew, if there must be a type-casting, I think I'd rather describe opinions than scholars - "the traditional opinion", "modern opinion," whatever fits the individual case. Regrettably I can't really do much myself as I don't know the subject (although ignorance seems to be no handicap in most wiki-biblical articles). Incidentally, if Raymond Brown really does represent the scholarly consensus, as the last para of the section on authoprship suggests, he really should be placed much higher up in the section. PiCo 10:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown wrote a fairly comprehensive introductory text to the NT, and discusses various issues involved with each book. He states what most scholars agree upon, and he states his personal opinion as well. His view that John was written in 3 stages is supported by other scholars, but isn't necessarily a majority view. When he states that most scholars argue for a date of John c. 85, plus or minus 5 or 10 years, then he is trying to represent scholarship in general. I will review the references and see if he is talking about a majority view or just his own opinion.-Andrew c 13:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You people probably already know, but of course Raymond E. Brown is most famous for his Commentary on the Gospel of John.75.0.2.20 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"According to Trinitarianism, (see also Trinitarianism— Scripture and tradition[2]), of the four gospels, John presents the highest christology, implicitly declaring Jesus to be God." How do you 'implicitely declare' something? A declaration is by definition explicit. PiCo 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources section

I tried to tighten up the first para of this section without changing the sense or deleting anything important (although I did delete some material which seemed to me to be unnecessary). Someone should check what I did in case I inadvertently made a major change.

The other 2 paras, in my opinion, should be deleted. They aer:

• 1. Further arguments that Jesus was also known as a "Divine Man, Wonder-worker (One who is favored by the Gods), or even a Sorcerer" in the late 3rd and 4th centuries have also been given as an explanation of artistic representations of Jesus with a magic wand. Since these representations exist only in the Western part of the Roman Empire, it has been suggested that this has a relation with Arianism. Peter is the only apostle portrayed in early Christian art who also carries a wand. These wands or staffs are thought to be symbols of power. This art, since its discovery, has not been kept secret.

• 2. The mysterious Egerton Gospel appears to represent a parallel but independent tradition to the Gospel of John. According to scholar Ronald Cameron, it was originally composed some time between the middle of the first century and early in the second century, and it was probably written shortly before the Gospel of John [16]. Robert W. Funk, et al, places the Egerton fragments in the 2nd century, perhaps as early as 125 AD, which would make it as old as the oldest fragments of John [17].

The first is unreferenced and both of them have no obvious connection with the sources of the John gospel. PiCo 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree about the second para. The Egerton gospel is definitely worth mentioning in the article given its apparent closeness to the Johannine tradition. Grover cleveland 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is about sources for John, and although I belieev Egerton has been suggested as a source, the real interest and relevance is the closeness, as you yourself say. I would certainly mention Egerton in the article, but I'm not sure it belongs under 'sources'. PiCo 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the para about artistic representations as it seems to me unrelated both the the article and to this section. The Egerton para is relevant to the article but the relevance needs to be made more explicit IMO. PiCo 05:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgamated two sections

I took the "Structure" section and joined it with the "Content" section, as the two seem to belong together logically. No changes to either beyond some style edits. PiCo 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also joined two sections that both covered sources. Deleted a para from the "Sources" section (see above), nothing touched in the "Treatment of sources" section - but I feel that a fair amount of material in that second part is really about theology (John's view of the Logos) rather than sources, and should have its own section.PiCo 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unbalaned tag

I added a sentence to the "unbalanced" section on John's distinctive characteristics. Is it "balanced" now? Jonathan Tweet 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence doesn't seem accurate and isn't cited. The user didn't bring their concern to talk, so I'm going to remove the tag and your sentence. The section is about critical scholarship. This isn't a debate so there isn't a need for rebuttle. (other section are for other POV. we don't have critical scholars commenting on every other section, so why should theological views matter in the critical section?)-Andrew c 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the section better without my addition. You caught me pandering. Jonathan Tweet 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I come off with a stern tone over the internet, when I don't mean for it. Sorry if my comment was a little harsh. A lot of your recent edits (at least the ones that I've seen from my watchlist) are quite helpful. Your intention to fix the "unbalanced" tag was obviously well off, but I personally do not see why that section is unbalanced to begin with (and the user who tagged the page didn't bring the concerns here, so we can only guess why). Anyway, carry on.-Andrew c 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, really, you came off fine. And thanks for the "helpful" remark. Jonathan Tweet 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold text