# Talk:Gospel of John


### Gospel of John
I had recently nominated this article for FA, but other editors pointed out some serious flaws that need to be resolved before it's ready to be promoted.  I would like to work on these issues.  I'm transcluding the failed FA nomination below. EDIT: Transcluding created problems, so I'm replacing it with a simple wikilink. Thanks, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC), edited 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

FA candidacy page
Notifying editors from the previous FA discussion: @Maunus, Johnbod, Caeciliusinhorto, Brianboulton, Laser brain,  and Gerda Arendt:. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I said "I'd recommend a Peer review, after a period of improvement", but you've launched it straight away. Personally I think the various FAC comments gave you plenty to work on, so I'll come back later, probably in a week or three. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you should work on the points identified in the FAC, in particular the straightforward ones such as uncited statements, bullet-point prose, and sorting out the sources from the general bibliography. I'll be watching the article page, and will comment here when some of these issues have been tackled. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Regarding your last two bullets in the FA review:

The editor who inserted the claim actually mis-paraphrased the source.  I've corrected that.  The evangelist was always called "John", according to the source.  In any case, saying "the evangelist" doesn't imply "John the Evangelist" or any other particular identity—the word "evangelist" simply means "author/writer of a gospel", whether he be named John, something else, or truly anonymous. A capitalized "Evangelist" might in certain contexts, but this form isn't used in the article.
I'd like to know, too.  That notice was here when I first arrived (albeit somewhere else, IIRC), and I haven't been able to figure out which part of the text it refers to.  But I haven't removed it in case there really is something from CE that I've missed.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I think that the lede in particular could do with some work. At the moment I feel that it presupposes too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. For instance, we don't mention the part of the world in which it was written, or the rough date in which this happened. These is the sort of essential information that really needs to be in the lede. Still, I wish you all the best with your revisions to the article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User Silverfish wants to edit the article with some material, but his edit (his words, that is) repeats what is already there, while the page cited by him does not support what he wants to say.
Here is his edit, the original material in square brackets, his addition in quotes: [The author may have drawn on a "signs source" (a collection of miracles) for chapters 1–12, a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, and a "sayings source" for the discourses, but these hypotheses are much debated], "and recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John." 
Clearly, the material sourced from Reddish ("these hypotheses are much debated", meaning the passion source and the sayings source) means exactly the same thing as the material Silverfish wants to add. I'd be fine with replacing Reddish as our source, except that Silverfish's source - page 142 of Chris Keith's 2020 book titled The Gospel as Manuscript - says nothing about John's sources beyond the synoptics. Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My addition reveals a recent trend in scholarship against advocating for hypothetical sources behind John rather than simply claiming that hypotheses are debatable without any information about where the debate is headed. There is a clear trend though, as Chris Keith explains:
...Johannine scholarship has witnessed a turn away from source-critical hypothetical reconstructions of John's sources. Source-critical reconstructions of the tradition history of the Gospel of John, whether Bultmann's three-source theory, Fortna's signs source, Brown's complex multistage community development theory(ies), or any modern variants, gain(ed) currency from a form-critically inspired and historical-positivist era of New Testament scholarship. In this era, scholars had great confidence in their abilities to stratify layers of the gospel tradition and assign them to corresponding stages of a community's development. This source-critical procedure and the concomitant Gospel community hypothesis it requirees, however, have both received strong criticism. Scholars working in media studies...have increasingly eroded confidence in the criteria by which scholars identify earlier (often oral) traditions in written texts...There really are only four known Jesus books that could antedate the Gospel of John. Among them, only the three Synoptic Gospels have a clear-cut case for priority to the Gospel of John."
In short, scholars are moving away from trying to discover hypothetical sources of John and from treating oral traditions like an onion where you can peel back accretions to find a pristine core. The source supports the claim. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Not 'turned against', but 'turned away'. And not 'positing', but 'reconstructing' and 'identifying'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I said in my edit summary and again at the head of this thread that the material you wish to add to the article is already there, sourced to Reddish; I also said that the material as you source it, page 142 of Keith's book, is not actually there. These are the issues you need to address. Achar Sva (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Wherever this discussion goes, the current source for the change in the debate actually concludes by supporting the Johannine hypothesis. Honestly, my immediate reaction was to not read this article, since the citation doesn't match the text argument. 2603:9004:901:FAFC:C147:4D90:6623:D56E (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Placing myself in a growing minority of Johannine scholars, I presently consider John 21 a constituent part of the early text of the Gospel of John. Keith, Chris (2020). The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact. Oxford University Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0199384372.
Yes, Chris Keith unambiguously states that the minority is growing. Birjeta01 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Birjeta01 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m glad you appreciate it. Keith provided more citations supporting his claims.
Several scholars note the growing popularity of this minority position. See, for example, Carsten Claussen, “The Role of John 21: Discipleship in Retrospect and Redefinition,” in New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective, ed. Francisco Lozada Jr. and Tom Thatcher, RBS 54 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 57; Raymond E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Brown Francis J. Moloney, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 84n. 95.  Birjeta01 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised if this hasn't been raised before.  I get the impression that John is referred to as the "fourth gospel" much more than Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the "first gospel", "second gospel" and "third gospel" respectively.  I furthermore note that the article uses the phrase twice, before you count the references in which it appears eight times.  This is indeed much more than the corresponding labels in the other gospel articles.
I furthermore see that the article makes no comment on the label.  Is it used primarily to differentiate John from the synoptic gospels?  I would imagine so, and one of the uses of the label in the article suggests this.  It feels to me like the article ought to at least say something about the label. — Smjg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)