Talk:John the Evangelist

message: Changed where it was stated simply that Evangleist, Patmos, and Apostle are all the same. This is the only page to say that, and it is still debated. Reworded the entry.
:: The New Catholic Encyclopedia dates his death at "about 100 A.D. at a great age" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm). The Orthodox Church in America says he wrote the Gospel of John in 95 A.D. and died sometime between 98 A.D. and 117 A.D., over 100 years old (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/May/May-08.html). A couple other sources say the date isn't certain, but that he was very old when he died in any case, and for a time was the last living eyewitness of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Perhaps we should go with the broadest date range of between 98 and 117? Wesley
:Also tradition holds that he was quite young at the time of Jesus' death
------------
I added "According to the New Testament account" to the beginning of this article. To contributors to articles on Biblical events and persons: There is a great deal of uncritical public acceptance of pop-Christian accounts of history. I feel that it is incumbent on Wikipedia to specify that Biblical accounts are exactly that - "accounts", often supported by no text or evidence other than the Bible itself. This is necessary for reasons of NPOV and simple scholarly honesty. Thanks.
For reasons of NPOV, I have split out this article into two.  There is dispute as to whether the author of the fourth Gospel is the same person as the apostle (I for one don't believe that they were the same person).  Therefore there are now two articles, one on the "evangelist" and one on the "apostle".  Both articles mention that there is a dispute as to whether it is the same person in both cases, but I don't think it is NPOV to assume that they are the same person and to write a single article as if they are.  soulpatch
Similar logic has led me to split out John of Patmos, author of the Book of Revelation into a separate article, being sure to mention the dispute and link to both this page and John the Apostle. There are good reasons to think that they may have been three different people, so having them all point to the same page is probably confusing and not NPOV.   Alecmconroy 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except possibly Luke's Gospel?
----
You mean two supposed disciples of Jesus. Outside the gospels and the acts there is no evidence that Jesus had any disciples; actually there is not much evidence of his historical existence. Even among the four gospels there is not much agreement on the disciples. Each gospel gives its own list of names. So I guess my question is: does it make sense to ask whether the author of "John's gospel" (somebody we know existed but we don't know his or her name) is the same person as the
John of the gospels (a fictitious character which we are not sure if it is based on a real person)?
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians testifies to the existance of John as one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church so he clearly existed, even though we know very little about him. However, I don't for a minute think he wrote the Gospel.82.46.178.25 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworded 

message: John the Divine and John the Theologian currently redirect to this page.  Does anyone know who these names "most" refer to:  John the Apostle, John the author of the Gospel, or John the author of Revelation? Alecmconroy 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John the Divine and John the Theologian redirect

message: Excessive specialization, differentiation, and divergence may be interesting to those who like to count the number of angels on the head of a pin, but its not only preferable to integrate articles about the same person, (leaving any differentiation to the article) but its unholy to not do so. -Ste|vertigo 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...or at least a summary of each of them should, with a link to their full page if length is really an issue"  That is what exists at present, with Authorship of the Johannine works as the "summary" article.  As I said above, some tidying and improving of cross-linking is possible; but a merge is a bad way to attempt this. jnestorius(talk) 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't looked too thoroughly at Authorship of the Johannine works before, and now looking at little more closely at it I can see your point, but I still don't think that was exactly what I meant. The page does do a little bit of what I was referring to (especially with having the links to each of the Johns at the bottom of th page), and maybe if it was cleaned up a lot more I might see it differently, but the reason I support the merge is more for the fact of those who aren't too familiar with any of the Johns and was confused by stumbling onto a page like that, which John was being referred to. That was what I really meant by saying "or at least a summary of each of them should", just to clarify which of them is unarguably known for what, and where/why the lines blur between them at times (such as the summary is for the Johainne works is already on this page). Maybe the Johannine's article does that more than from what I've read of it, but I still think a different page would make it more comprehensible, and a merger of at least these two articles would be the better way to do that, rather than a major rennovation of the one page (which I'm not sure all the Johns link to--least not as clearly as the Authorship of the Johannine works does at the bottom of the page), which could just lead to that article becoming more confusing (and lengthy--that is definately one of the pages that does not need anymore information added without splitting into seperate sections/pages) than it already is. John the Evangelist is not filled to the brink with information as is, and John the Apostle still has room to grow as well. Given the confusion between the two, to the point where historically they are the same person, I still think the merger would help more than hurt either article, and consideration should be given to merging at least the Disciple whom Jesus loved after the merger as well. Irish♣Pearl 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A page has actually begun for that (begun towards the end of the lengthy merge debate): Names of John, which a link can be found to in the "'John' of the Bible" template. The goal of the page is to do just what you said, but its still in its stub-phase right now because it's still quite new. You're welcome to contribute though! Irish♣Pearl 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Technically, John the Apostle and the beloved disciple (author of the fourth gospel) are two different people, at least as far as history is concerned. Historians discount the 2nd-century tradition that John wrote this gospel. With that in mind, the article could be merged with "Beloved Disciple." But that proposal won't fly, and merging this with John the Apostle is the right thing to do. Leadwind (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting keeping this article with a short text that John the Evangelist is one of John the Apostle's names in his speculated role as the writer of the fourth gospel, then just copying the rest of the contents to that article's discussion page for someone to merge it with the existing text. --Drieakko (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I lean toward deleting this article with a redirect to Authorship of the Johannine works, or some section therein. What can we really say about John the Evangelist? We can discuss the theories identifying him with John the Apostle, John the Presbyter, John the Revelator, the Beloved Disciple, the author of the Johannine Epistles, and/or any number of others who may or may not have been named John. These are all questions of authorship, appropriate for the authorship article, and beyond that... I guess there's just the later treatment of the possibly composite figure, as in artistic representation with the eagle (actually, does it more represent the evangelist or the gospel?). I do agree, further, that this is a big mess that needs to be sorted out editorially and explained in detail to readers in some central place. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'm not so fond of treating authorship of all the Johannine works in one place. If we break it up, we could once again have authorship of John, but then I would probably have that one redirect here. It may seem prejudicial to speak of "John the Evangelist"—was it really the work of a single author, and was his name really John?—but actually scholarship seems to accept a convention of personifying the author(s) this way. Names of John, BTW, seems to have been written and deleted. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is there any page that talks about the debate about his name? Why not have a central page for that with explanations for all sides?  If we aren't really sure of anything, it would seem that that is the only fair thing.  Have a central page for the John(s) of the New Testament, with subpages to each separate one, and a clear explanation for the arguments for and against such separation. Wrad 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A page has actually begun for that (begun towards the end of the lengthy merge debate): Names of John, which a link can be found to in the "'John' of the Bible" template. The goal of the page is to do just what you said, but its still in its stub-phase right now because it's still quite new. You're welcome to contribute though! Irish♣Pearl 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Technically, John the Apostle and the beloved disciple (author of the fourth gospel) are two different people, at least as far as history is concerned. Historians discount the 2nd-century tradition that John wrote this gospel. With that in mind, the article could be merged with "Beloved Disciple." But that proposal won't fly, and merging this with John the Apostle is the right thing to do. Leadwind (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting keeping this article with a short text that John the Evangelist is one of John the Apostle's names in his speculated role as the writer of the fourth gospel, then just copying the rest of the contents to that article's discussion page for someone to merge it with the existing text. --Drieakko (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I lean toward deleting this article with a redirect to Authorship of the Johannine works, or some section therein. What can we really say about John the Evangelist? We can discuss the theories identifying him with John the Apostle, John the Presbyter, John the Revelator, the Beloved Disciple, the author of the Johannine Epistles, and/or any number of others who may or may not have been named John. These are all questions of authorship, appropriate for the authorship article, and beyond that... I guess there's just the later treatment of the possibly composite figure, as in artistic representation with the eagle (actually, does it more represent the evangelist or the gospel?). I do agree, further, that this is a big mess that needs to be sorted out editorially and explained in detail to readers in some central place. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'm not so fond of treating authorship of all the Johannine works in one place. If we break it up, we could once again have authorship of John, but then I would probably have that one redirect here. It may seem prejudicial to speak of "John the Evangelist"—was it really the work of a single author, and was his name really John?—but actually scholarship seems to accept a convention of personifying the author(s) this way. Names of John, BTW, seems to have been written and deleted. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Central "John" Page

message: This comment was on the main page.  I figured I would move it here to see if it creates discussion.
*** As an anthropogist & christian, it made me very sad to see the New York Times compare Wiki against a son of Phyllis Schafly ( sp?).  I think you scored better on 7 out of 8 points...but how could you say that John The Divine Love/ Revelator was John the Evangelist?  John the Baptist was the evangelizer:  "I must decrease as the Christ/ Enlightenment Increases".  He had to be beheaded...i.e.:  Our sentient reasoning powers can only bring us to Repentance...read his own words.  
True enlightenment is Personal. Read the Companion Bible, written from new information of British archaelogical studies in the late 1800's when excavations were being undertaken in The Holy Land....which led to conflicts between the "traditional"  and the "visible"....More on that later.
However, my point is that whoever of you went along with even traditional writers of the Bible:  That the Gospel of John is  [seemingly ]  contradicted by the other three,  failed in three ways yourselves: 1.  The 4 Gospels define Christ as the 4 animals of Isaiah....Matthew:  King;  Mark:  Servant;  Luke:  Man: John: GOD.
As sentient beings, we cannot understand Christ as God:  "My Kingdom Is Not of This World"...";  He saves others;  why can't He save Himself?'...etc.  John will always supercede the other 3 gospels....More than that:  Read John 20:  Jesus Says to Peter:  "if I Want him to Remain....what is it to you...?"
But mostly:  Even if you didn't get it...and as I've already said...even most writers of the Bible don't....How could you not at least get it correctly about the simple DEFINITION of The Gospel, Epistles * Revelations of "The Other Apostle"/ John of Zebedee....brother of James...whom Jesus Loved  [ most, because he Loved Jesus most] "?
This was added to the article by User:Patlillie. I am Wrad 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Comment 

message: May I ask why 'John the Divine' redirects to 'John of Patmos', but 'St John the Divine' redirects to John the Evangelist? I believe that both John the Divine and St John the Divine (the precise name given in the King James Version) should redirect to the John of Patmos article — of course, the speculation that both individuals may very well be the selfsame personage is touched upon in the John of Patmos article. Grammaticus VII (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone has fixed this problem by now. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ST JOHN the DIVINE 

message: for the record, I think this page should be subsumed under John the Apostle because there is nowhere a "John the Evangelist" who isn't John the Apostle. 
That said, I got a new textbook this week, and now I think I finally understand the authorship issues. Please collaborate with me in getting this straight.
AD 41-44 Herod Agrippa kills James (and likely his brother John too, say historians).
AD 65-75. Someone pens Mark, includes Jesus predicting both James and John dying, as well as his own martyrdom. This prediction gets picked up in Matthew and Luke.
AD 85-90. Someone pens Luke-Acts, and records James dying under Agrippa (but not John, why not?).
AD 90-100. Followers of the Beloved Disciple in Ephesus record the gospel of John, as vouched for by the Beloved Disciple. This anonymous figure is possibly a Jerusalem follower rather than an original disciple, in any event not a major figure on the order of James, John, James the Lord's brother, Peter, or Paul. The gospel is written shortly before the BD's death, perhaps because there's a tradition that the world will end before the BD dies. But then the BD dies, and another editor adds an appendage explaining that Jesus never really said that.
AD 178. Irenaeus reveals hitherto unknown information about the apostle John, that he lived to old age in Ephesus, where he, now revealed as the Beloved Disciple, wrote that strange gospel that doesn't match the other three. Then he was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote Revelation, and then returned to Ephesus and wrote three epistles. Irenaeus came up with the "John the Evangelist" idea, as part of his campaign to base the orthodox church on solid, apostolic ground, and to settle the split within orthodoxy between those who preferred John (Anatolians, and there were a ton of Anatolian Christians) and those who preferred Matthew (most everyone else) or Luke (bleeding hearts). No one bothered much with Mark. 
Everyone likes Irenaeus's story, so it becomes official. A few bozos don't get the word, and we still have fragmentary references to James and John both being martyred up until the 9th century.
So is that it? Or am I missing something? Was John associated with Ephesus before Irenaeus declared that the BD of Ephesus was John? Leadwind (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little more complicated than that.First, Irenaeus has a certain amount of authority because he was the student of Polycarp, who described himself as the student of the Apostle John in Ephesus. This was the basis for Irenaeus' argument for the authority of episcopal succession. ("There are no secret teachings; everything that has been taught to me I teach to you.") So unless either one of these three--Irenaeus, Polycarp, or John of Ephesus--was lying or mistaken, this may be the truth. Further, although the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis (fl. 130) mentions the Apostle John as living & dying at Ephesus, in one passage quoted by Eusebius he refers to John in an ambiguous manner that Eusebius later interpreted (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.29) as implying the existence of two Johns--the Apostle, who lived in Palestine, & the Evangelist who lived in Ephesus. Add to this the fact the style of Revelation is clearly different from the other NT books attributed to John, & that 2 & 3 John bear the name of "The Presbyter", & one can suspect there are more than one early Christian leader named John.As for his martyrdom simultaneously with his brother James, I'm unaware of any early tradition of him suffering that fate. At least as early as the 2nd century, it was believed he went to preach in Asia Minor & died in Ephesus; neither Eusebius nor Stevenson's handy compilation A New Eusebius include any account of his martyrdom, although Tertullian repeats the tradition that John was brought to Rome, boiled in oil, yet did not die (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 36). I'm not surprised at this confusion: most of the early Christians are barely more than names to us. And John's history is one of the best known ones, after Peter & Paul: compare what we know about John to, say, Matthew (about whom there are clues he was more important than existing evidence would suggest) or the other disciples. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the death of John with his brother of James, the only such statement I know is Philip of Side saying "Papias in his second book says that John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews." --SlothMcCarty (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing topic! 

message: :Modern scholars do not regard John to have authored any of the texts ascribed to him.[4]
:No scholar believes that the Apostle John wrote none of these texts [5]. 
Wardog (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contradicts itself 

message: I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that John wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been posting pretty much the same text on every talk page, and I've been responding. Do I need to repeat myself? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is acceptable and I am not going to continue modifying it.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: John as author

message: Deleted section on Freemasons due to lack of germane content. 75.166.230.121 (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry

message: What does this mean?:
"Harris believes that the tradition that John lived to old age in Ephesus developed in the late 2nd century,[5] although the tradition does appear in the last chapter of the gospel, though this debatable tradition assumes that John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, the Beloved Disciple mentioned in John 21 and sometimes also John the Presbyter are the same person."
It looks like too many editors spoiled the soup. All the contrasting clauses with 'although,' 'though,' add up to a big mess. Please, if you understand this, render it readable.
"H believes that x developed, although x appears in gospel, though debatable x assumes something and sometimes something more..." Nope, still don't get it. zadignose (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on that sentence and I think it is clearer now.  I also made a small change in the sentence right before it.CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible Sentence 

message: It is unclear what way this picture illustrates this article. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration. 

message: The painting by Domenichino has its own article [] too. Is it really important enough to warrant such an elaborate mention here? Any thoughts? Ddke1811 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to be bold and remove what seems to be excessive, overly specific information on one particular painting, which already has an article of its own with the exact same text. This section is more suited for general information. Ddke1811 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Domenichino painting - do we need this much detail here? 

message: About: 
I read a course about the Old Testament written by the Orthodox theology faculty teacher Constantin Oancea stating that the Orthodox Church never made a dogma about the authorship of the books of the Bible: it regards these all as inspired, regardless of who wrote or did not write these. See .
Protestant churches who belong to liberal theology don't give the lie to higher criticism.
Conclusion: the phrase is only true for fundamentalist Christians. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogmas