Talk:Signs Gospel

message: "The contemporary scholar of the Johannine community Raymond E. Brown identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel" So it tells us, but doesn't identify what those layers are. Waffle in the text that needs to be cited or sourced or quoted is note  a standard template. --Wetman 01:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The Wikipedia reader needs to hear about the fundamental questions: What is it about the text of canonical Gospels that leads some scholars to posit a "Signs gospel"? Is John the only text concerned? Who first suggested that such a tradition must underlie the familiar text?
Taken together, the writers of the current article are so anxious to announce an uncharacterized "dispute" and repeat "hypothetical" that the actual material of the article is by-passed. If I were the kind of person who pastes "clean up" notices, this article is a bumper that needs such a sticker.--Wetman 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the essentials 

message: Notice how the use of John meaninmg the Gospel is arranged to slide together with John the author in the following excerpt, so that the reader is not permitted to distinguish between author and text:
:"The Signs Gospel is one of the hypothetical source texts for the Gospel of John which textual criticism supposes to exist. It is now widely agreed that John draws upon a tradition of miracles which is substantially independent of the three synoptic gospels, even if its author(s) knew of them. Whether this tradition is real or invented by the author, the hypothetical text resulting from it on which John drew is known as the Signs Gospel.
Genuine neutrality is restored by the standard convention of using italics for titles thus: "the hypothetical text resulting from it on which the author of John drew..." Listen carefully to the ensuing arguments for not employing italics. --Wetman 10:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "John", ''John'' and the author of ''John''

message: "They argue that the disciple who formed this community was both a historical person and a companion of Jesus Christ." The community in question is presumably the one mentioned In the title of the attached reference. However, since "this community" is missing any prior referent in the text, it has no clear meaning. Michael (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Later scholarship" unspecified referent: "this community" 

message: Hi,
here is conflict in using "miracles of Jesus" and "the source named Miracles of Jesus".
Could it be resolve?
Thanks you very much. 31.30.172.61 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a conflict between those being entirely separate things in the English language. This article is very badly written, but that isn't even a minor problem. — LlywelynII 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  miracles of Jesus vs. Miracles of Jesus 

message: the final sentence in the "Bultmann" section of the page is lacking any sort of citation, as noted by the footnote. I can't find any evidence that Bultmann had heresy proceedings instituted against him despite his controversial beliefs. Is it OK to remove that sentence at this time given its lack of supporting evidence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernlegal (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bultmann Section Missing Citation 

message: Did the actual content of the article get removed at some point? or has it always been missing its actual content?
There's no explanation of Beloved Disciple, the Miracles of Jesus 'tradition', or what makes it distinct from the synoptic gospels... all of which are fairly basic for the topic. — LlywelynII 12:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: So what happened?