Talk:Authorship of the Johannine works

message: In that bullet-list about arguments for authorship, there is a lot of talk about "the book", even references to bible verse. However, the heading concerns the authorship of "the books", and it is not even clear what book the article author refers to. vintermann
---
The dates given for the writings of John as well as his age at the time were greatly skewed toward the argument and left out a lot of fact.  The age for the apostles was 17-26 (estimated of course, but more accurate than "in his twenties") and the writings are dated as having been written in the last years of the first century (The Catholic Encyclopedia being the most complete on this subject is my main source for dates, not theology, folks.)  The age is still significant, but the placement of 102 as the minimum age for John when he wrote the Gospels is not based in any fact whatsoever.  Of course, the piece itself is contrasting opinions on which neither on has a whole lot of basis in provable fact, but again, this way is more accurate.
--TheGrza 05:18, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
As for the first point on the truth of the Apostle John's claim to the authorship, the use of language seemed to have a POV, regardless of intention.  I took it out of the parentheses and reworded slightly.  Hope it's better.  --TheGrza 05:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I think, given the title, this article is about Authorship of the Gospel of John. I.e. "of John". Thus should only be "book".
:I think also, given that the Catholic encyclopedia is the development of the views on truth of the Church which developed from the Early church, it is going to be POV about dates. It has a vested interest in the Gospel of John's date being plausibly connected to a still living Apostle. CheeseDreams 21:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So I'm idly reading this article, when I reach the bottom & notice that there are only three sources in the bibliography, & at least twice as many sources referred to in the article, e.g. "G.H.C. McGregor (1928)". Do I need to emphasize just how unprofessional this looks?
I'm not arguing any POV -- except that if you refer to a source, provide the referent -- name, title, publication details. If you care about this article, please fix it. Otherwise I'll let my inner grumpy nature out, & let it make a large number of edits to prove my point. -- llywrch 02:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have fixed this up with correct information about Ptolemy and Heracleon. --Peter Kirby 02:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * FYI, like many "lost" works, the existence and name of The Gospel of Thomas was known to us long before an extant copy was discovered.  For example, both Origen and Eusebius mention it by name in the third century, but a complete copy was not discovered until   Nag Hammadi, in 1945.  RBarryYoung (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Unreferenced}} 

message: My opinion, from reading the article, is that the article is a bit confused concerning authorship.  Sometimes very strong statements are given that the historical apostle John is completely eliminated as a possible author.  Then, at other times, the article gives positions iterating the possibility of John's involvement in authorship.  Also, there doesn't seem to be a very coherent approach to discussing the issue, rather the treatment is more frenetic.  As a result the reader is jolted into one position, then out of it, with nothing more than statements like "most scholars agree..."  I think there is room for subtle improvement here. Lostcaesar 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over authorship 

message: -Cut from article-
As well as the recent work of Charles Hill's The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. In which Charles Hill gives evidence that the Gospel of John was used between CE 90 and 130, the possible use of uniquely Johannine gospel material in several works which date from this period. These works and authors include Ignatius (c.107); Polycarp (c.107); Papias’ elders (c.110-120); Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles (c.120-132). Hill assesses that many historical figures did indeed reference the Gospel of John.
-End of Cut-
I've cut this because Charles Hill doesn't seem to be a notable scholar - see Appropriate sources for wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have affected the views of notable scholars. He just seems to be "some evangelical protestant seminary teacher" (that probably should make his bias clear as well). Clinkophonist 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Charles E Hill received his PHD from Cambridge this book I quoted was published by Cambridge-Oxford university. Please restore your deletions. According to this article it directly contradicts the works of Elaine Pagels as noted on her wikipedia article.
LoveMonkey 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view, excluding an academic work simply because the author is a religious teacher itself may represent a bias, and also a kind of ad hominem.  I know too little of the work in question to pass judgement, but its worth ought to be dependant on its ability to manifest rational arguments. Lostcaesar 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from article 

message: This text doesn't seem quite right:
:In the ancient traditions, these books were attributed to John the Apostle[ref]Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 355[ref], assumed to be identical to John the Evangelist. In the 6th century[ref]Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), but historians dispute the connection.[ref], the Decretum Gelasianum named 2 John and 3 John as having a separate author, "John, a priest" (see John the Presbyter). 
The identification of some of the texts with a "John the Priest" may be seen in Eusebius, long before the sixth century.  And the slow acceptence of Revelation among the Eastern Fathers is enough to show some hesitency about identifying John the Apostle as author.  The same may be said of one of the epistles.  My point is, even with the ref to Harris, I think the info is wrong - an oversimplification.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, granted, but its something we might want to think about.  Lostcaesar 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the 6th centruy bit is strange. Ehrman doesn't go into specifics, but says that the authorship of the Johannine works was controversial during the first 4 centuries of Christianity.--Andrew c 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the Priest &c 

message: John of Patmos contains info on the authorship of Revelation. I have redirected it here and checked that all information is copied here. --Ephilei 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with the redirect/merger. John of Patmos has been a motif in western art, and a religious figure for a number of Christian churches. Therefore, someone may be search of John of Patmos and be disappointed when they show up at a discussion on biblical authorship. I suggest that we restore the JoP article. Why did you want to merge it in the first place?-Andrew c 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John of Patmos 

message: As I have been following the links on this page, I have noticed that the first paragraph on "History of the Use of Johannine works is blantantly plagarized from http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works_-_History_of_use_of_the_Johannine_works/id/612856
As a result, I feel it necessary to this section, and to have a new beginning to this article. This is a shameful way to use wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.231 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the note at the bottom of this link. They clearly indicate that they used the wikipedia article as their source (not the other way around), so this is not a case of plagiarism.-Andrew c [talk] 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: A recently added sentence says that John the Presbyter probably never existed. That's strange, since he claimed to write 2 John and 3 John. I added a dubious tag because this statement doesn't match my research or seem to fit the evidence. It also seems to come from a source that implies John the Apostle wrote 2 and 3 John, which doesn't square with my textbook. Maybe we could get a quote from the source (an evangelical scholar). Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eusebius believed that "John the Elder" was a different person than "John the Apostle". He most likely did this to discredit the statements in Revelation against the Roman Empire. This "John the Elder" who is not also "John the Apostle" never existed, but was an invention of Eusebius. Perhaps the wording could be improved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you bringing John the Apostle into the equation? He didn't write any of these works, nor does the Bible ever say he did. Leadwind (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed statement 

message: Robert Fortna's work appears to be completely overlooked. See . He provides evidence for two (or three) stages in the writing of the gospel, the earliest dating to before Mark. Harry.Erwin (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortna

message: The final paragraph of the section entitled "Modern criticism" (Most scholars date the writing of the Gospel to c. 90 ... which was important in the early "charismatic" movement known as Montanism) appears to be misplaced: it doesn't cite any modern writers or movements. Indeed it doesn't cite anything and its concerns with John's age appear to be WP:OR while the remainder recaps early criticism. Any objections if I delete this paragraph? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern criticism 

message: Hi RomanHistorian,  As a Christian, I like your editing, but many of your edits show a Christian POV. Remember at Wikipedia we must fairly reflect the scholarship in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me to be a major edit war brewing. (No, not you Ret.Prof). If those involved can't solve this maybe they should seek mediation. Just a suggestion. PiCo (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PiCo, how does mediation work? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin and not very knowledgeable about these things. Try approaching User:Dougweller, who's both an admin and very knowledgeable. I think the basis thing is that both parties should agree that an impartial mediator is needed, and both should accept the mediator. PiCo (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its difficult to mediate when Dylan Flaherty makes clear in his most recent reversion that his method is just simply reverting everything I write ("your changes are controversial and your edit comments are misleading, so the best thing is to revert").RomanHistorian (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you discuss your controversial changes in advance and get buy-in, they will not be reverted. Instead, your boldness is rewarded with an immediate counter-reaction. I'm a Christian, too, but I don't believe the articles should enshrine fringe views or exclude Catholicism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to continue to fight this. It isn't worth it. I do think my last change should be restored, to make it clear that a non-fringe minority of scholars holds that John was behind some of his works. Currently it is rigid on this point, as though it is a fringe view to hold this opinion. I know a good deal of scholars personally who hold this. Dismissing this as fringe is wrong, as it is not.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Authorship of the Johannine works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.cerinthus.html?highlight=epiphanius,h
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010125113/http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk:80/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/ to http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514155357/http://www.answeringinfidels.com:80/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56 to http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427061404/http://www.utexas.edu:80/depts/classics/documents/Life.html to http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Either here or on John of Patmos, it might be worthwhile to mention that the Book of Mormon goes out of its way to claim specifically that John-the-author-of-Revelation and John-the-apostle are the same person. Quoting 1 Nephi 14:20–27:  Now, this is not evidence of any actual connection, but it's an interesting record of the identification of the two Johns with each other in the popular imagination circa 1830, and also in a present-day religious tradition. And it would be interesting to know if any other major religions have an official position on Johannine authorship. —Quuxplusone (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Mormon position? 

message: I don't want to start a theological debate, but Psuedo-Ignatius' Letter to the Philippians cannot be used to date the Gospel of John to before 107 AD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.39.140 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. As a general idea, you should WP:CITE WP:SOURCES for your claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Criticism error 

message: I'm no expert, but I feel that much is pretty clear.
I can't access the source, so I can't fix it myself.
Gospel          	Marcion	Justin	Valentinus	Hegesip.	Ptolem.	Melito	Apollin.	Athenag.
Synoptics       	Luke   	170   	1         	3?      	4      	4     	1       	13
John or Epistles	0      	1     	0         	0       	1      	4     	1       	0
Thmazing (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke is not a number 

message: Ptolemy (Gnostic) assigns the Gospel of John to an apostle in his letter to Flora. add that. Tuxzos22 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemy (Gnostic)