Talk:Gospel of John

Intro is too long

I wanted to note that the intro is too long and needs to be shortened, probably by about a third.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right. It can be hard to summarize a contentious topics because both sides try to get their material in, but we should do it anyway. Leadwind (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro isn't suppose to go into disputed issues, that is what the body is for.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First, please cite a WP policy that says a lead shouldn't go into disputed issues. I hear that all the time, but only from editors who don't like the majority view on a topic. Second, there's no real dispute about John's author or the gospel's historical value: there's a strong consensus among non-apologists that John didn't write it, and all the important things that Jesus says in this gospel are false. If there's no real dispute, then for sure we should include the majority view in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You presumably define an "apologist" as someone who believes that the facts agree with the historical legitimacy of these biblical issues. Thus, the only scholars who have legitimate views (non-apologists) are scholars who believe that the gospels are historically dubious.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to cite WP policy to back up your self-serving view that disputed details shouldn't go in the lead. Minority-view editors like to say things like that because they want the majority view to be undermined. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for your evidence that Ehrman represents the "consensus" view. Presumably TomHennell is tooRomanHistorian (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RH asked for my input. It is true that Ehrman as a "consensus" view should not be unsourced (and the POV of Ehrman as consensus should be deleted if so), and it is also true that both literalist and skeptical views should be alluded to in the lead. I will probably have other comments. JJB 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems some editors just accept Ehrman as representing the 'consensus' view and hold it to be so obvious that it needs no evidence. This is especially so with regards to questions like the reliability of John, as Ehrman is a textual critic and as such these questions are not part of his core specialty. If you question him here you are criticized for having a POV because apparently, as an evangelist for atheism, Ehrman is totally neutral and impartial.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

John as less historical than the synoptics

It looks like a common defense for the Jesus Seminar is the belief that John is considered less historical than the synoptics. Some scholars think this, others don't. Besides, many of the people who hold John to be ahistorical (like atheist Bart Erhman) hold the synoptics to be mostly ahistorical as well. There isn't actually as much agreement on this issue as is suggested above. In the areas where John has been subjected to external scrutiny, such as the existence of the bath at Bethesda or the geography of the region, he has been shown to be right. On the other hand, claims made by John that can be disproven have yet to be. There are other points that also vouch for John's historical validity. For example: internal evidence (criterion of embarrassment, excessive detail, testimony of women, ect), similarity to the synoptics and Paul's writings, certainty that it was written relatively soon (possibly within the lifetime of an eyewitness of Jesus) after the events it records, universal agreement by the 2nd century church of its authenticity (it was the framework around which the Diatessaron was written around 170 AD, suggesting it was viewed as being the most historical gospel) and others. If subjected to ordinary scholarly standards, John would show itself to be very reliable historically. This is why a good number of scholars do hold it to be historically as good as the synoptics. Of course many scholars are atheists or skeptics who hold that the miracles it records ipso facto prove it to be ahistorical.

The article should reflect the view that John is considered equally historical with the synoptics by many scholars. It should show the variety of opinion, and not assume ipso facto that it is less historical.

The last paragraph of the intro is a good example of this.

• "Prominent contemporary scholars regard the Gospel of John as more theological and less historical than the synoptics, and they dispute that the Apostle John was the author."

A good number of "prominent scholars" would disagree with that. It is misleading to say "prominent contemporary scholars regard..." which implies that this is close to consensus.

• John's picture of Jesus is very different from the accounts in the synoptics.

Is it?

• However, this anecdotal material also appears to have been extensively reworked, especially in order to dramatise the narrative.The discourses in John are considered by mainstream scholars to originate in homilies and sermons, that are predominantly the evangelist's own composition but which expound on a saying or action of Jesus from the tradition

How so? This sounds like unprovable speculation. The body doesn't really go into this. Again, the opinion of some scholars (oddly enough usually skeptics) is taken to be the near consensus view.

• There is no consensus in current scholarship as to how far the material in John may derive from a historical 'Disciple whom Jesus loved'

In other words, there is consensus that it doesn't accurately portary the historical Jesus, even though there isn't.

• it is broadly agreed that the authorship of the Gospel should be credited to the person who composed the finished text, rather than to the source of material in the text

In other words, even if John was behind most of it, one wouldn't consider it his work. Sounds like something straight out of the Jesus Seminar.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Most of those statements (i.e. other thqn the first) are sourced to Lindars or Brown; whose work I take as 'mainstream' in so far as there is one. The last point (that the author is the one who finished it) is particularly important, and key to most modern studies. Everything points to the current state of John's gospel as being the outcome of a great deal of reworking and rewriting - much more so certainly than Mark of Luke. It is a sound princple of method to take the text in its 'finished' form; rather than (which is exactly the intention of the Jesus Seminar) constructing a version of what the 'base text' looked like; as the lattter procedure inevitably ends up simply conforming to the critical scholars' prior hypotheses TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a problem, not just here but on other articles. The opinion of one or two scholars is taken to be the "mainstream" view. Also, why is it that "everything points to the current state of John's gospel as being the outcome of a great deal of reworking"? I can't think of any evidence to support claims of reworking, outside of possible reworkings in the last chapter. I think it is odd that one would assume John, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness, to have been subject to more reworking that Luke, which claims to be a compilation of earlier sources.

As I said above, much of this doubt comes from "liberal scholars" who are often atheists/agnostics (like Bart Ehrman) or skeptics who aren't too far off. John claims to have been written by an eyewitness, who testifies to miracles and the resurrection. The last chapter says (presumably about John by his disciples) "we know his testimony is true". Thus, either it was written by an eyewitness and the faith of the atheists/skeptics is challenged, or the author is a liar and the gospel is dubious. It is often easier to fit the facts to the belief than the other way around. As I noted above, if John was subjected to historical-critical standards used to judge any other ancient work, it would show itself to be one of the most historically reliable works from antiquity. Atheist/skeptic scholars have had to invent new reasons, which are totally out of line in comparison with historical criticism in other fields, in order to doubt John. Their methods are dubious, and as such are not shared by a great deal of biblical scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source who says that John is to be taken as seriously as the synoptics as a historical source. The top historians of Jesus (Theissen, Vermes, Crossan, and Sanders) all discount most of John. If you can't find a reliable source that says that there's no mainstream preference for the synoptics, you have no case. Leadwind (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, in their book "Introduction to the New Testament" (one of the best selling biblical commentaries on amazon.com) both hold that the apostle John wrote the gospel and that it is at least as historical as the synoptics. I could easily find many more examples. What is impressive is that normal scholarly standards would show John to be quite solid historically, and yet a good number of people still manage to discount it, or to imagine a 'reworking' or that it is something close to a forgery, despite a total lack of evidence for either of these claims.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Carson certainly counts as a serious critical scholar; albeit one who tends to default towards a a more evangelical viewpoint. But then he also - very consciously - sees himself as carrying the flame for the Lindars tradition; which is very far from being evangelical. Brown also supports the view that the narrative elements in John are of equal value to those of the Synoptics. Morna Hooker has stated "It is by no means certain that , when John differs from the other Gospels over some detail, their version is to be preferred to his as more accurate (Studying the New Testament p 185).

Attempting to summarise the views of a range of scholars; I think it is clear that there is much more reservation about the historicity of the discourse material in John, than there is for the narrative material. Brown's study of the "Death of the Messiah" demonstrates how often John's account of the Passion is to be preferred to that of Mark. Perhaps more interesting though is the judgement of Vermes (who is quoted above as largely discounting the historicity of John). Vermes most recent book "Jesus: Nativity, Passion, Resurrection" examines the Passion narratives in the four Gospels. He notes that Matthew and Mark are in key respects the same; so there are basically two Synoptic accounts (Mark and Luke), and one non-Synoptic account (John). Vermes concludes that the Luke account - where it differs from Mark - is without historic basis. Hence he says (page 171) that "the events in the last day of the life of Jesus have been transmitted in two fundamentally different traditions". In Vermes detailed evaluation of these two traditons, there are a number of places where he regards the Mark version as better (as in designation of the funtionaries who arrested Jesus, and his last words on the cross). But on the major key points he consistently prefers John's account where it differs from Mark (that the Last Supper and Crucifixion took place on the eve of Passover, not Passover itself; that Jesus was not convicted in a Jewish trial, but informally investigated by Annas the former high priest; that Jesus was condemned for sedition against Rome, not blasphemy; that Jesus was mocked and mistreated by the Roman soldiery, not by the Jewish authorities; that there were no supernatural phenomena associated with Jesus's death: darkness, rending of the veil of the temple). Vermes is aware that this might appear to contradict his well known dismissal of the historical value of John; but explains it thus: "The main problem one has to face if John's version is preferred comes from the late date of the Fourth Gospel (c100-110); as a rule the Synoptics represent the more primitive version of the Jesus story. Nverthelss, the generally greater historical reliability of Mark does not necessarily exclude th possibility of John occasionally inheriting a more authentic tradition". Hence Vermes does not - in the Passion narrative, take the view that Jophn may be dismissed as unhistorical.

The discourses are a different matter. It is partly that here the additional teaching material in Matthew and Luke is consistent in broad terms with the (relatively sketchy) teaching material in Mark. It is also the case that there are common teaching elements in the Matthew and Luke material (Q). Hence the Synoptic accounts of Jesus teaching appear to imply several steams of transmission of material that nevertheless has strong elements of underlying similarity (albeit with other elements of peculiar difference). In John we find the occasional phrase in the mouth of Jesus that corresponds closely with a saying in the Synoptics, but generally John's discourses are very different. So in terms of independent traditions, John is in a minority. Moreover, and awkwardly for those who wish to present John's discourse as being reported words of Jesus, it is very difficult in the Gospel of John to tell which statements are intended to be the teachings of Jesus, and which are teachings about Jesus of the Evangelist (as for example in the first chapter of the Gospel). Lindars has developed in detail the view of a number of scholars that the discourse are derived from sermons which expand on Jesus texts from the tradition. Hence Matthew 18:3 corresponds to John 3:3; which is then expanded into a homily in verses 5-21. TomHennell (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Top scholars agree that there are elements of John's narration that provide information superior to or lacking from the synoptics. I guess there are about half a dozen such details, the synoptics' improbably date for the crucifixion being the major one. On this point, I wonder if the Christian-POV editors are OK with that. To say that John is right about the date of the crucifixion is to say that the synoptics are wrong. Is that really what y'all are happy to say? That the synoptics are wrong? In any event, the main issue is this: John gives a unique view of Jesus' teachings. The main value of John to a Christian isn't the gospel's more-likely date for Jesus' cricifixion. The main value is the stuff that the gospel claims Jesus said about himself. Historians regard all this stuff ("I am the way," etc.) as inauthentic and in fact contrary to the historical Jesus. Can we at least agree that no serious critical scholar thinks that Jesus said what John has him say? That would be a start. Leadwind (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts there a bit Leadwind. I have been casting around for major critical scholars who regard John as of equal historical status with the Synoptics; and so far my list includes not only DA Carson and Morna Hooker, but also Christopher Rowland and IH Marshall. (that all these were pupils of Barnabas Lindars is, I suspect, no coincidence). F.F. Bruce has also been named by other editors, and the case of Raymond Brown is well known. That is quite a list (and from a wide range of tradtions) and, at least in terms of mainstream reputation, at least the equal to the skeptics. Mostly, as you say this is due to the developing consensus that John is right on the details of the Last Supper, trial and Crucifixion (though Morna Hooker also supports John's early dating of the cleansing of the temple, and Christopher Rowland (and Graham Stanton) are amongst those who regard the longer ministry in John as more credible. Christopher Rowland, for one, also regards the discourse material in John as having equivalent status to that in the Synoptics (not that he is saying that John is historical, just that he is no more unhistorical than Matthew or Luke).

Of course few critical scholars think that John records the verbatim words of Jesus (even apart from the fact that John is written in Greek not Aramaic); but then no crtical scholar believes that Julius Caesar spoke the words he puts in his own mouth in his Gallic Wars. But a great many scholars would maintain that the discourses of Jesus in John convey genuine teachings recorded in the apostolic age. Can we claim any more for the Syncoptics? I would personally like to think so, but I am aware of plenty of scholars - Gerald Downing for example - who would say that the teachings in the Synoptics are every bit as much a church construct. If we are looking for the core of the Historical Jesus, we must acknowledge that our earliest witnesses (Mark and Paul) are united in maintaining that what Jesus did was far more significant than what he may have said. I note, for example that EP Sanders presentation of the Historical Jesus dedicates more than two thirds of its discussion to the narrative of Jesus minstry, and less than a third to his teachings. That seems about the right proportion to me.

One point that I have noticed, is that no scholar (outside of its members) defends the views of the Jesus Seminar as having any status or authority. The chief view (expressed by most forcibly by Tom Wright) is that the Jesus Seminar is the last gasp of the old 'second quest' for the historical Jesus, and hence has been superseded by the findings of the 'third quest' (in which category Wright includes JD Crossan, writing in his own name). That may be a bit unfair; but clearly such scholars as Sanders or Vermes could not hold the scholarly views they do, without dismissing the Jesus Seminar in its entirety. TomHennell (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Leadwind seems to be suggesting different rules for what he believes to be the "mainstream" view. The mainstream view is what the mainstream view is, not what a few editors on Wikipedia think it is. The view that John's historical validity is comparable with the synoptics is the view of a great many scholars, and can't just be ignored or relegated to fringe status. It is a bit ironic anyway, since the people who most believe John to have little historical value (like Ehrman) also believe the synoptics have little historical value. I also strongly dispute the idea that some scholars (like Ehrman) have no POV and speak from the standpoint of knowledgeable and impartial experts, while the scholars who disagree with him have a POV and cannot be trusted in any case. A good number of well-regarded scholars hold John to be equally historical with the synoptics. I suggest we arrive at some kind of consensus on this issue before people begin making edits again.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Leadwind, I am not aware that he is promoting Ehrman as a 'mainstream' scholar on John. What he does say is; Historians regard all this stuff ("I am the way," etc.) as inauthentic and in fact contrary to the historical Jesus. Can we at least agree that no serious critical scholar thinks that Jesus said what John has him say?, I think Leadwind deserves an answer. As it happens, Christopher Rowland discusses just this issue (in 'Christian Origins' p 127). Rowland points to the three verses, Matthew 11 25-26 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. There is a parallel to the same pericope at Luke 10 21-22, but otherwise this sort of language is unique in the Synoptics, but extremely common in John (see 1: 18; and, John being John, half a dozen other places). Early 20th century biblical critics tended to regard both passages as spurious, and assume that if we only had early enough manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, they would be absent. But now we do have such manuscripts (P45 in Luke) and the passages are undubitably ancient. So if there was a 'Q', it must have contained these verses, which are exactly of the form Leadwind finds it impossible that the historical Jesus would have said. The various evaluations of the passages are not really germane to this article; but Leadwind's point is clearly contraindicated. There is indeed a major critical scholar (Rowland) who regards the language of the discourses in John as fully compatible with an undoubted passage in 'Q', and securely located in the earliest traditions of what the historical Jesus actually said. TomHennell (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Rowland? For real? He died in 1967. I'd be happy to say something like, "As late as the 1960s, credible scholars accepted Jesus' statements in John as reliable." Honestly, if you have to go back in time 40+ years to find someone who agrees with you, shouldn't that tell you something? Can you find any contemporary historian of Jesus who grants John equal reliability to the synoptics? Every major voice in contemporary Jesus research disagrees (Sanders, Vermes, Theissn, Crossan, etc.). Where is your nonsectarian biography of Jesus that includes Jesus' statement from John? Leadwind (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A book written 40 or 50 years ago isn't worth anything but a book written 15 years ago is? Do opinions change that drastically in such a short time span?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Without reviewing the details, this too should be easy on its surface. List the "equally historical" POV and its proponents and the "less historical" POV and its proponents, and list any tertiary evidence of what is regarded as mainstream. Leadwind is tending to recentism as if knowing what the Gospel has meant to all its readers is not as important as knowing what it means to Crossan and Vermes. JJB 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. The issue right now is that some editors are saying that one view (their view) is the "neutral" view while others push a POV. Their view is the consensus because "everyone just knows it is" the consensus so evidence is not needed apparently. This simply isn't the case, and as this talk page indicates, this is a highly controversial issue. It may not be controversial with Jesus Seminar fans like Leadwind but for most it is very contested.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a sourced edit reverted because of an unsupported claim it was fringe

I added a sourced comment into the intro that other scholars hold John to be equally historical and theological, and it was reverted for a reason that had no support. How is this proper?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of your contributions here, it appears that you are editing from the fundamentalist Christian point of view. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia works diligently to maintain a neutral point of view, and those editors with strongly biased points of view are encouraged not to force these views into our articles. In answer to your question - when the predominate and demonstrable point of view is that John is not historically reliable, then claims to the contrary would be considered "extraordinary" - and would thus require extraordinary references. Failure to provide or discuss such references are sufficient grounds for removal. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am far from a fundamentalist. Many of these articles give excessive weight to one side. I just modified the intro and added a good number of sources. I suppose these are all fringe?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are non-mainstream and you seem to be trying to pass them off as mainstream, which is undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in your edit war, but your wholesale reverts are destructively broad. So now that you have involved me - I ask you to present some refs that demonstrate what the so called "mainstream" view is. Hardyplants (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in RomanHistorian's edit war, either, but like you, I have been pulled in. It's really not up to me to demonstrate that his sources are mainstream. They're his sources, so it's his job. I wish him the best of luck. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

you say "not up to me to demonstrate that his sources are mainstream" no but if your going to make blank reverts on the claim of "mainstream" you have show that you represent the "mainstream" view and not just make the claim. We do not know if you know anything at all about the topic in general or gnosticism in particular- so there is no bases to trust your judgment on what is mainstream and what is not. Hardyplants (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, I very much appreciate it. Given that I added 14 citations (including one from "The most important work to appear in this field in a generation") and Dylan said they were all fringe, he obviously is simply going to revert everything that deviates from his view as to what constitutes "mainstream". Several of the sources I cited included quotes to show how the "mainstream" view isn't what Dylan says it is. There are now many more sources cited arguing for a more nuanced view than Dylan's "mainstream" view. I can easily find many more good sources saying the same thing, but obviously at some point it becomes redundant, and if these sources aren't going to convince someone, then adding more sources wont either.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for the article to include the main competing views - assuming there really are scholarly debates about these views. However, these views need not share equal space or top billing. In this case, it's clear that some scholars do not entirely discount John's historical accuracy at least in part. For example, it's much more likely that Jesus was killed the day before Passover rather than during Passover, and there are some suggestions in the synoptic gospels that Jesus' ministry must have extended beyond one year. Properly sourced from the most respected scholars, we should include these views. All that said, however, the article still needs to clearly reflect the current state of scholarship which is that John is least reliable. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Rkl, "the article still needs to clearly reflect the current state of scholarship which is that John is least reliable." Exactly. Leadwind (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that past scholarship and those dependent on it still sees John as the least valuable for Jesus research, but that view is slowly changing. The Gospel of John has been, more or less ignored, but some scholars are finely giving the book some critical research.[1]Hardyplants (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You touch on a very good point. Scholarship is always changing. To assume that the view today is right is to assume that scholars and theologians for 1800 years were either stupid, mythologically-minded, dishonest, incompetent, or otherwise untrustworthy. We don't have much more evidence than they did on this issue, and much of the new evidence we do have actually supports the traditional view (such as the fragment that vouches for its date, or the Dead Sea Scrolls which show the work is not a gnostic work, or the archeological validation of the bath at Bethesda). One of my sources makes this point: the different views today compared to 50 or 100 years ago are due to the different theological views of scholars, not because of new evidence or better methods of analysis. When we talk about these issues we need a little humility. Scholars today don't 'know' this or that, they simply view this or that as the right answer. Scholarship will continue to change, and this article should report the views today as what they are: today's views. It shouldn't simply report the views today as the 'right' ones or as being somehow more legitimate or more likely to be right as the views of scholars for 1800 years. The objections raised today were well known to the church in the 1st century, and to scholars in later centuries. We flatter ourselves when we assume it was only us who were smart enough to discover these things. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship is cumulative. The reason we make progress is that we learn from the past instead of either forgetting it or blindly accepting it. We have new evidence, new methods, and the combined efforts of academics throughout the world. If the consensus changes as a result of this scholarship, we dare not ignore it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we have no new evidence (other than a few pieces that confirm the traditional account) this is not a progressive culmination leading to a more accurate view. It is simply a view changing with the temperaments of scholars. Human beings are biased and fallible, and in an area of scholarship that sees almost no new evidence or methods, that will be the only determinant of change.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RH, you've got a lot of citations there, but one citation from a top scholar is better than ten by unknowns. You also leave the years off a lot of these citations, and I bet that plenty of them are old enough to be out of date. If you want to contradict current mainstream sources, you need extraordinary sources yourself, and a large number of mediocre sources does not amount to an extraordinary source. The most serious attempt to establish apostolic authorship came from Robinson. Maybe we could say, "The general skepticism about John and its author has been challenged by scholars such as J. Robinson." As long as we portray the minority view as the minority view, we're good. Leadwind (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, one source was from "The most important work to appear in this field in a generation". Another, F. F. Bruce (his book was updated in 1981 and again in 2003) is another widely read and well-known source. Yale scholar Benjamin Wisner Bacon has also been widely read. Same with W. H. Brownlee [2] and I. Howard Marshall. Many of the others are well known as well. Other sources are quoted mentioning the views of scholarship at large. Cambridge scholar Leon Morris who, from his Wikipedia article, appears to be well published, says "The view that John’s history is substandard “is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Many recent writers have shown that there is good reason for regarding this or that story in John as authentic"".

It seems to me that at least a couple of those citations come from "top scholars". I added the years where I was aware of them. I don't think any come earlier than the mid 20th century. Several, including that by Leon Morris (which is the one mentioning the direction of modern scholarship) comes from just over a decade ago. There are plenty more sources I could find for this view, including those by many "prominent, mainstream, modern scholars". I will do so if necessary, but at some point it becomes redundant.

I find it ironic that I have used a good number of sources, many very recent and by well known scholars, which show that many hold John to be equally historical and by the apostle, and yet the other view (most have more-or-less dismissed it on both accounts) still deserves the permanent status as 'mainstream' no matter what the sources say.

I disagree that the view that John is the author is "minority" because I disagree with the view that there are only two sides. There is a wide gulf in between (including the view that John didn't write it but dictated it, or that John's testimony is behind it to varying degrees). To say the majority view is "John didn't write it" would be to mislead and be grossly over-simplistic.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My readings on the topic, the author of the Gospel is still not know and I have seen three or more views that are commonly argued, this holds true across the spectrum, The Apostle John as the author is minority view but deserves a place in the article with the arguments used to support it. Hardyplants (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The most serious attempt to bring apostolic authorship into the debate was Robinson's, and he failed. Practically no serious scholars advocate for John as the author of the gospel. It would be a disservice to our readers not to tell them the consensus of contemporary, non-apologetic scholarship: John didn't write it. Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is a view disputed held by a good number of mainstream scholars, not just Robinson. I agree that if you discount all of the scholars who hold that John wrote the gospel, then none hold he did. Your logic does work under the right conditions.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a mainstream reference to Robinson's view holding sway to any significant degree. I bet you can't. I can find a mainstream reference to Robinson's view not holding sway. Let's humbly set aside our individual differences and stick with what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then find one.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes on scholarship

I made some changes on Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship. I added sources on the point about John being illiterate to show that this isn't the view of all scholars. Second, I changed the third paragraph, which said before that scholars had concluded that John has little or no valid history in it. From the comments above, I don't think even many who have argued against John in comparison to the synoptics would go that far, so I just added a sentence mentioning that scholars typically see at least some historical value in the gospel.

Also, the second paragraph is dubious. I don't know what one would mean about John being anti-Jewish, although this might be a poor reading of a reference to possible Gnostic terminology in John (which has since been refuted because of the dead sea scrolls). The sentences on John not being the author, and on him being "unschooled and ordinary" are already referenced elsewhere so I don't think they should remain here. There are also charged terms like "falsified", "hostile against Judaism", and "killed by the Jews" which are unnecessarily provocative. In addition, it uses sources from the 5th and 9th centuries to doubt John's authorship. There is something ironic about using evidence found in sources from the early church to doubt other claims made by the early church.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this was rebutted here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If a gospel is anti-Jewish because it blames them for Jesus' crucifixion, then all the gospels are anti-Jewish to some extent.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian if you make smaller changes and additions, then we can deal with them more constructivley, thus hopefully avoiding these wholesale reverts that never discuss the material. Hardyplants (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Will someone take a look at Dylan Flahetry's most recent revert? There are real problems with Gospel_of_John#Modern_critical_scholarship and I can't do much more. It doesn't even agree with what was in the intro before I made any changes. It says John is mostly ahistorical although the intro didn't go that far at any point.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman, yes, all the gospels are anti-Jewish to some extent. It starts with Mark, where Jesus intentionally obscures his own message to prevent the Jews from repenting and being saved. Matthew has some real choice anti-Jewish commentary, and so does John. All this reflects the Christians being rejected by the Jews and the evangelists' hostility toward mainstream Judaism.

And, yes, there is something ironic about using early church evidence to question the early church's claim that John wrote the gospel. It shows that the early churchmen had trouble keeping their story straight. How ironic.

Another problem you missed is that Robinson, Bruce, and Morris get treated incorrectly. As for Robinson, no mention is made of his failure to sway scholarship in his direction. Bruce is an apologist, not a contemporary critical scholar. I'd like to have a section on what apologists say, but it doesn't belong in the section about what mainstream scholars say. Morris is a lightweight, not in the same league as the mainstream scholars who disagree with him, or even with Robinson. His name doesn't add anything to the content here. I know that minority-view editors like to portray their minority-view scholars as the equivalent of the majority-view scholars, but that's not good WP practice. Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Tom's response above. I also have a major issue with you redefining the rules and asserting that scholars who disagree with your view are "lightweights". Bruce is a Christian apologist just as much as Ehrman is an atheist/agnostic apologist. Neither are impartial and it is dubious to suggest either are. As Tom says above, a good number of well regarded scholars hold to a view much like Robinson's, Bruce's, and Morris'RomanHistorian (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman represents the consensus view of academia and of mainline seminaries. That's the view that WP respects most. WP prefers the testimony of a Ehrman to Bruce because Ehrman is in line with the academic consensus and Bruce is not. Minority-view editors like to say it's all relative and that mainstream scholars are no different from sectarian apologists, but it's WP policy to prefer the academic view over the sectarian. Ehrman > Bruce. Leadwind (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for your claim?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To understand this, one need only look at the publishers of their works. How many of their works are published by academic presses, and again, how many are published by apologistic presses. This should be a fair indicator?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation, there is no incompatibility between the critcal and apologetic scholarship; both are recognised academic approaches, many leading authorties write in both forms, and many publihsers (Penguin, SCM, IVP, Eerdmans, Fortress) produce both sorts of work. Hence, Ed Sanders' "Jesus and Juadaism" is a work of critical scholarship and is published by Fortress Press; while his "The Historical figure of Jesus" is a work of apologetic scholarship and is published by Penguin. Of their nature, however, apolgetic works tend to be shorter, more accessible, and cheaper; and it is often the case that such works are more likely to contain their author's views set out in pithy phrases. Conseqeuntly we often seem to find - as indeed is the case in respect of Sanders in this article - that Wikipedia editors refer in preference to an author's apologetic works. I see nothing wrong with this, Sanders sholarly opinions are the same in both books; but do you see it as a problem? TomHennell (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do see a problem when apologetics intrudes into academics. There's a difference. And, I was talking about the academic and the apologetic. Not about conservative/critical.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to examine your terms. 'Academic' = in the intellectual traditon of the 'Academy of Athens'. 'Apologetic' = in the intellectual tradition of 'The Apology of Socrates'. Both go back to Plato, and much scholarship is both. Apologetic is to do with the justification of an intellectual standpoint entirely through rational arguments, assuming a notional audience that is informed and receptive but as yet unpersuaded. Academic is to do with the presentation of ideas within an open formum of scholary debate. So all apologetic is potentially academic, but not everything that is academic is apologetic. It has been, since Augustine of Hippo characteristic of many Christian writers to employ the apologetic approach; but it is also widely applied by non-Christian (and anti-Christian) writers - such as Richard Dawkins. But employing the apologetic method does not make Dawkins less of an academic, rather the contrary. TomHennell (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with argument from etymology is that things change; they are no longer true to their original meaning. As I've explained elsewhere, an apologist is like a lawyer; they have a duty to support one side to the best of their ability, no matter what the truth is about guilt. That's why, as much as I appreciate apologetic efforts, they cannot be considered scholarly. Scholars are like the judge: neutral and beholden to none. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your analogy Dylan, but your association of scholarship with a judge is misleading. Scholarship is a process, not a person; hence to pursue your image, 'scholarship' equates to the judicial process - within which advocates (on both sides), the judge and the jury all equally play an essential part. The assumption is made (in English law) that, over time, an adversarial judicial process delives justice; just so the process of scholarship, in the course of which both critical and apologetic arguments are essential, will lead to a broad consensus whose dissemination should increase general understanding. But here a caveat is vital; Wikipedia is not itself scholarship, and contributors to Wikipedia ought never claim scholarly judgement for themselves. Wikipedia describes the state and range of current scholarly debate; it has no business evaluating which minority views might - in the course of the scholarly process - eventually achieve consensus support. TomHennell (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

TH, '"The Historical figure of Jesus" is a work of apologetic scholarship.' Not so. Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In "The Historical figure of Jesus" , Sanders is arguing cogently and concisely for a particular scholarly standpoint - which he summarises in the final paragraph as ".. we have a good idea of the main lines of (Jesus's) ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. Perhaps most important, we know how much he inspired his followers, who sometimes themselves did not understand him, but were so loyal to him that they changed history". In all of the book, his argument contests the views of a previous generation of scholars of the Historical Jesus - Kasemann, Bornkamm, Perrin. Their contrary view is however, in the whole work, mentioned only in two paragraphs on page 176 (where he namechecks Perrin). Otherwise, the entirety of Sanders discussion, and almost all the footnotes, relate solely to primary sources, to Sanders own work, and to that of scholars taking a similar view (such as Geza Vermes, and Albert Schweitzer). This is characteristic of a work of apologetics, and none the worse for that. In apologetics you present the rational arguments for your standpoint as well as you can; you do not devote time or space to opposite views. As Sanders points out in the preface, if you want to explore the balance of scholarly arguments behind his conclusions, you can always follow his references to his earlier, critical, works, where Kasemann, Bornkamm and Perrin all receive due acknowledgement. As is to be expected, Sanders makes no mention - here or in any of his critical works so far as I know - to the latterday survival of the contrary view represented in the Jesus Seminar; but that I think, is because he considers that entire enterprise to be unfounded, outdated, and wrongheaded. TomHennell (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanders is no apologist. Conservative, maybe, apologist, no. Anyway, he has a good academic standing. And I doubt if we could find any good RS saying he or his work is apologistic. So, it is unjustified to try to gain legitimacy for Bruce by citing Sanders. They are in altogether different leagues. Sanders towers over Bruce.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

I was about to edit this article and found it to be padlocked. We must stop our POV pushing and work together to produce balanced accurate articles. This sort of thing really hurts Wikipedia. I can't tell you how much I hate bitter infighting and users who are skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out. New users have badly bruised as it is not easy to tell Sockpuppet from good faith user, friend from foe, or to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. Please show a little goodwill and let us try to work together. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the article is protected, if you have an uncontroversial change or one that is supported by consensus, consider using {{editprotected}}. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the bad behavior that upset me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, yes, it looks as though there's a new editor among us who is determined to undermine our reporting of contemporary scholarship. It's too bad, but it's nothing we haven't seen before on this page and others. Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have redefined what "contemporary scholarship" is (scholars who agree with your view). As Tom mentions above, you are wrong on your assertions.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that someone is trying to redefine "contemporary scholarship" to the advantage of their own POV. Here's the trick. When I first came to this page, I thought that John was historically reliable like the synoptics were. That was my presupposition, my original POV. Only by doing actual research did I come to my current conclusion, that historians roundly reject John. So I'm not pushing my own opinion (John is OK), I'm pushing the opinion that I found in the writing of every major voice in contemporary historical Jesus scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Leadwind. As it happens my personal trajectory on this point is the opposite of yours; I started taking broadly the view of Sanders; that John is to be treated as less reliable than the Synoptics in recording the events of Jesus ministry and the substance of his teaching; but reading more widely demonstrated that the contrary view was a great deal more widely held in current scholarship than I had thought. Morna Hooker was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Christopher Rowland is Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture; Barnabas Lindars and F.F. Bruce were both Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. Whatever my (and your) personal opinions, it cannot be denied that the holders of these teaching offices at any one time represent the then-current critical mainstream of biblical scholarship in English. There are plenty of eminent voices taking the opposite view, which must also be stated in the article; but the egual historicity (and non-historicity) of John and the Synoptics is in no way a fringe opinion. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that Wikipedia editors often reference scholarly opinions as to the state of debate 'This is a view no serious historian disputes' when such statements are POV themselves. TomHennell (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I followed a similar path. I rejected outright the historical value of John (I was an agnostic for a long time but that is a different story) but came to a similar conclusion through a similar path. Plus I have never been under the impression that there are "serious" scholars (who just so happen to be atheists/agnostics) like Ehrman who are impartial and "unserious" ones (who just so happen to be Christians) who are incapable of seeing past whatever they want to believe. I keep making this point: a good number of scholars view John as equally reliable as the synoptic, and containing few or no claims that should legitimately be doubted. I keep having this view rejected by editors who claim they know what the "consensus" view is and often cite one or two scholars (usually atheists like Ehrman) as evidence. Then all cited scholars who disagree are dismissed as having a POV, which Ehrman apparently doesn't have despite the fact that he behaves like an evangelist for atheism. I am told that "everyone knows" Ehrman represents the consensus view, despite no sources actually saying this, and regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. There isn't much I can do when other editors dismiss long lists of prominent modern scholars because they disagree with a couple of atheists or Jesus Seminar members.

It is personally amazing to me that some people here (and elsewhere) can claim to be without a POV and to be impartial, while apparently few others (or at least any who disagree with them) have this gift.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that Morna Hooker, Christopher Rowland, Barnabas Lindars are all preachers or priests. And FF Bruce an apologist?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second CE's question. We can find Christians who think that John is unreliable (Crossan, Borg, Ehrman's academic Christian friends). Can anyone find non-Christians who think Jesus really said "I am the Way" and "You Jews are Satan's children"? Christians are divided on whether to credit John, but secular scholars seem to be in agreement. Is there any contemporary historian of Jesus who incorporates Jesus teaching from John into the worldview of the historical Jesus? Leadwind (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On your first point Leadwind, there has been in the recent past a non-Christians scholarly tradition that privileges statements such as "Jews are Satan's children", and very nasty it was too. This was among the major themes of National Socialist biblical study - which attempted to gut the Gospels to demonstrate a non-Christian Jesus; who was an Aryan supremacist; but whose message was corrupted in the Synoptic Gospels by the 'Rabbi Paul' - polluting it with such themes as loving your enemies. I venture to speculate that they took this trope from Nietzsche. On your second point (and as noted in other threads), Christopher Rowland is an outstanding figure in the most recent historical scholarship on Jesus and the origin of Christianity - who incorportes Jesus's teachings equally both from the Synoptics and from John.

But as I point out below, this is besides the point. The Wikipedia principle of avoiding POV is a restriction on editors, not on content. In assessing content we should not privilege scholarship that we evaluae as 'non-POV' over those we evaluate as POV. It is not the job of Wikipedia to evaluate at all. The key in assessment of schoarly content is to privilege the 'mainstream' over the 'fringe'. It may well be, on any one subject, that mainstream scholarship is mistaken while the the views of a fringe may be better. If so, then in time the finge will become the mainstream and vice versa - and when it does, Wikipia (if it is still around) will reflect this. It used once to be a mainstream view that the Synoptics were historical and John was theological. Now the mainstream view (i.e. the one that is found taught in recognised academic institutions and publishjed in peer-reviewed journals) is that all four Gospels are both historical and theolgical; and the former opinon (though still held by some) is now a fringe view. For Wikipedi we describe the conclusions of current scholarship, we do not sit in judgement on it, or pick and choose other than on the basis of public academic standing. TomHennell (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking of big guns, Ludemann-Heretics,1996,p302 says that the theological points of John are treated and the historical question is no longer considered.[3]. What do we make of this? At the bottom of p301, he also says that the critical consensus is that GoJ was written by someone other than John. Why do we need to let the apologists dominate the article? Apologists are WP:QS.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, "For Wikipedi we describe the conclusions of current scholarship, we do not sit in judgement on it, or pick and choose other than on the basis of public academic standing." I'm glad we agree. The best sources say that John is not nearly as historically valuable as a source for Jesus' life and teaching as the synoptics. So this page should say that. I'm still waiting for a single, prominent historian who says that John and the synoptics are of equal historical value. You suggested Rowland, which is not quite right since he died 40 years ago. So once again, please, who is the most prominent mainstream scholar who agrees with you? As for me, I just cite what the best mainstream scholars say (Theissen, Harris, Crossan, Sanders, Vermes, Ehrman, etc.). Leadwind (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, if D A Carson and Morna Hooker are sources to be respected equal to Sanders, etc., prove it. Find, for example, a university-level, nonsectarian textbook that refers to them as important voices in contemporary scholarship. I've never heard of either of them. Sanders, Vermes, and Crossan turn up all the time in the contemporary literature. Leadwind (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

restore mainstream scholarship to central role

A Christian-POV editor showed up on this page several weeks ago and did what minority-view editors like to do: undermined the majority view of mainstream scholarship. For example, the lead used to tell the reader what mainstream scholars of the historical Jesus have found: that John isn't anywhere near as reliable as the synoptics. Christian editors think John is equally reliable, but it's a simple fact reported by all our mainstream sources that contemporary academia has passed its judgment on John and found it wanting. Distressed by modern scholarship and unfamiliar with it, someone has removed this information from the lead.

It's WP policy to report the academic consensus, and Christian-POV editors have undone this work. The debate on the talk page is winding down. Can we now get back to fixing the page so that it's in line with WP standards and academic scholarship again? Leadwind (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to participate in this but I wanted to make a point as the "Christian-POV editor" referenced above (I presume) is me: Everyone (Wikipedia editors and scholars) has a POV. No one is neutral or "impartial". I don't need to remind anyone that Wikipedia rules say this explicitly. I think the lead before was too long so if anything is brought back to the lead, it should only be the most important parts. The rest should be discussed in the authorship section. As another editor mentioned above, a good number of modern scholars disagree that John is less historically reliable. Those are scholars, not theologians, and their views are not less valid because they are personally religious. Your logic seems to be this: scholars who are personally Christian are biased and scholars who are not personally Christian (i.e. agnostic) are impartial and objective. This is not a valid presumption, neither on Wikipedia nor in general. I don't know what the percentage of scholars is who view John as less historically valid, although I will assume it is a majority. The "majority" view is not a "consensus" view. How could it be "consensus" when so many scholars (as mentioned above) doubt it?

I also have some issues with the authorship section. It says “Furthermore, Jesus was recorded as foretelling that John would suffer martyrdom along with his brother, James.[Mk. 10:39] [Ac. 12:2] [8][26] “ Those referenced biblical passages say nothing about John dying. The passage from Mark mentions baptism and the passage from Acts references only the martyrdom of "James, the brother of John". This part of the article claims the bible suggests John was martyred. Since the biblical versus it cites for this don't make any such claim, this sentence should be removed. “In addition, 5th and 9th century writers referred to an alleged passage by Papias indicating that James and John had been killed by the Jews, and their deaths are recorded in several early martyrologies; this evidence for John's martyrdom, however, is inconclusive.[26]" If this article is so critical about the reliability of John, why is it citing 5th and 9th century unknown writers as evidence for a point? I assume that the “martyrologies” referenced as evidence for John’s early death are apocrypha which were often fake history or outright fabrications. On top of that, the quote at the end says outright that the evidence is “inconclusive”. So it makes dubious claims to support a conclusion it says is inconclusive. As I see it, the view that John died early is a minority one (probably small minority) among scholars, and even if it isn’t, the elaboration in the article is dubious and should be replaced with a note that some scholars believe John may have died young. A more mainstream view among scholars is that it was unlikely that a man in the 1st century would live the 90 years John would have had to have lived to have written his gospel. I think the article should elaborate on the scholarly view on this issue, not claims made by dubious or non-existent sources regarding a view held by few scholars. There are no widely accepted specific claims of John’s early death outside of this general doubt.

I also see that the views of skeptics/agnostics Vermes and Ehrman are elaborated on, and seem be more skeptical than most and to have a view outside the “majority” view that John is less historically reliable. Ehrman is quoted as saying it is outright unreliable, although the rest of the sources in the article simply say it isn't completely reliable. Why include these views but not balance them out with a modern scholar who holds a more traditional view? And again, after the section on Ehrman’s views, that claim is again made that the bible suggests that John may have been martyred young and uses biblical passages that don’t make the claim (check those biblical versus yourself if you don’t believe me).

I think we should give other editors some time to comment before we make changes on this, as the block was only removed a day ago.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind; there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in various threads on this discussion page; but I think one point emerges clearly; that the article cannot state or imply (whether in the lead or elsewhere) that "contemporary academia has passed its judgment on John and found it wanting". Contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship does not hold a consistent view on the relative merits as history of the Synoptics and John. If we were to make a headcount of specialists in the Synoptics, I am sure we would find a majority regarding John of lesser historical value; but some major critical scholars on the Synoptics (e.g. Morna Hooker) apparently take the contrary view. If we were to make a headcount of specialists in John, I am sure we would find a majority regarding John of equal historical value; but some major critical scholars on John (e.g. CK Barrett) take the contrary view. This appears independent of the author's confessional standpoint - Christian, Jew, non-believer; and also of whether the author is otherwise inclined to a conservative or radical approach to critical biblical enquiry. Wikipedia should not record as established critical consensus, a statement that is disputed by several leading authorities on the subject of the article. TomHennell (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a great deal of variation within just about any view point. Ehrman may think John is mostly unreliable, but he doesn't hold a much more positive view of the synoptics. Some Christian scholars think John is less reliable than the synopitcs, but that neither have many historical defects. D. A. Carson has noted that a good number of scholars view John as equally historical with the synoptics though written by his disciples and not John himself. A good number of scholars think of John as possibly being equally (maybe even more) historical and equally theological with the synoptics. One view I have heard is that John takes an inductive approach (states the conclusion at the beginning, that Jesus is the Son of God, and uses the gospel to elaborate on that), while the synoptics take a deductive approach (describe the ministry and lead to a conclusion at the end of Jesus being the Son of God) and this inductive/deductive approach is what makes the gospels seem so different even though they may not be.

There is a great deal of variation amongst scholars, and even if 55% of "scholars" think John is less historical than the synoptics, this tells us nothing as there is a great deal of variation within that 55% (as well as the other 45%). Also, as I noted above, many who view John as less historical than the synoptics would think of it as being much more historically reliable than other scholars like Ehrman. Beyond that, you get into other issues, like whether to include in the category of "scholars" people who wrote, say, 50 years ago, and why they should or should not be included in the category. Also, you get into the question of who is a "prominent" scholar and who is just a 'regular' scholar, what the evidence is for either classification, and what weight to assign the views of different scholars. The issue is simply too complex to say what the "majority" think and maybe make some space for the "minority" view as these distinctions are illusorily. This is even more so the case as many sources have been cited to say that there is no consensus or majority view and a great deal of variation.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I need a clear definition of what "mainstream scholarship" means, and references that clearly make the claim that this view is recognized as such. I think what you are referring to is a liberal Protestant view point, which is in contention with Conservative, Catholic and secular views. 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Hardyplants (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that some editors are defining "mainstream" as what they believe to be "mainstream". This is only possible by dismissing large numbers of scholars as "not mainstream" and going with the few that hold this so-called "mainstream" view because 'everyone just knows' it is the mainstream view, thus the claim needs no evidence. This is of course not the way Wikipedia works. An example of a view that is truly a near-consensus view would be the two-source hypothesis. Some legitimate scholars disagree but few do, and agreement is close to universal throughout the scholarly community (liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, ect). The reliability of John is certainly not an issue with similar agreement.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Every important voice in current historical Jesus research basically rejects John: Sanders, Vermes, Theissen, Crossan, etc. Ehrman isn't recognized as an expert on historical Jesus, per se, but his work summarizes the state of academia in general more than it represents his particular views. Name one prominent expert on historical Jesus who uses Jesus' teachings in John as part of the picture of who Jesus was and what he taught. It's fine for an advocate of John to say that it's historically reliable, but the proof would be a contemporary historical Jesus expert who really thought that Jesus said "I am the way," etc. Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since each one of the people you list has a different view, simply put, John would mess up the picture of Jesus they are each trying to portray. They do not make any strong claim why John is not used, as this source mentions. [4] Hardyplants (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom just listed several such scholars. The views of the scholars you mentioned, in particular Vermes and Theissen, are reflected on the article already.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, the glaring absentee from your list is Christopher Rowland; whose "Christian Origins" is probably the most important contribution to the subject of the last 20 years; and which you will find on pretty well any seminary or theological college first year reading list - alongside Vermes "Jesus the Jew" and Sanders "Jesus and Judasim". In effect these three form the major strands of the 'third quest' for the historical Jesus; in that all three regard Jesus as unintelligible except in the context of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. As such, all three totally reject the criterion of "dissimilarity", which was the guiding principle of the 'second quest'; and which limps on in the Jesus Seminar. Vermes of course emphasises Jesus as a Gallilean sage and wonder worker in the tradition of Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the circle-drawer; Sanders by contrast rather tends to see Jesus as much closer to the Pharisees; Rowland regards Jesus as an eschatological prophet in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic - and hence having many common features with the Qumran Essenes, as well as with later Rabbinic traditions. To an extent, the differing evaluations of the Gospel of John amongst the three of then reflect their respective theories as to which strands of tradition are to be considerd as being most strongly represented in 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Since John is the most Rabbinic of the Gospels, it is not surprising that Rowland of the three is most likely to consider it as a usable historical source; and to present the discourse material as taking the form it does (so unlike the synoptics) specifically because it is one side of a dialogue with apocalyptic rabbinic ideas. But you should read the book.

That summary, however, is probably misleading in imputing too great a degree of opposition in the three sets of views. "Christian Origins" emerged folloiwing a Cambridge seminar series led jointly by Rowland, Sanders and John O'Neill; Sanders is in fact its dedicatee, and his help is prominently thanked in the acknowledgements. Rowland and Vermes are colleagues and near neighbours in Oxford, and I believe close friends. I suspect that the world of New Testament scholarship is more varied (and much smaller) than your charactisation appears to allow. TomHennell (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Add David Flusser to that list of appreciators of John. A Georgian (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Leadwind, he has a point. If this article weere not about the Gospel of John, but about the Historical Jesus; then it is fair to say that the predominant tradition of academic study has tended to discount the events and teachings transmitted in John (although that is much less true now than it was 50 years ago). The argument used to be made that modern scholarship could disect the Gospels and otehr early evidence, applying critical methods to strip away the accumulation of early church traditions and the presuppositions of the evangelists themselves, and so extract a core of historical facts relating to the life and words of Jesus of Nazareth. But, as Vermes, Rowland and Sanders would all agree, this old approach was primarily faith-driven; in Sanders terms, it was importing into discussion about the historical Jesus, the categories and presuppositions of 19th century liberal Protestantism. Vermes, Rowland and Sanders are each trying to explore the New Testament accounts from the perspective of 1st century Palestine within the Roman Empire. But in these terms, the histsorical 'Jesus event' is as much or more about the aftermath of Jesus life and ministry, as it is about the man from Galillee; quite simply, that is what our earliest non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny) are interested in, and it is the almost exclusive focus of our earliest surviving Christian source (Paul's letters). So it is illegitimate - from the perspective of the most recent scholarship, to conflate the statement, "The Synoptics provide more reliable evidence as to the life and teachings of Jesus" with the statement "The Synoptics have greater historical value" even if the first statement were justified - which many recent scholars dispute. TomHennell (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

...which many recent scholars dispute. Aren't all the disputing scholars lightweight evangelical apologists?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Tom just listed several disputing scholars who aren't lightweights.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean......they are heavyweight evangelical apologists?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the scholars mentioned as defending the equal historical value of John is lightweight - nor indeed are Sanders, Vermes or Barrett; who take the contrary view. Don Carson (who defends John) would probably be considered and evangelical; as too would Tom Wright (whose views on John are, I believe, close to those of Ed Sanders). Otherwise, Raymond Brown is Catholic; Ed Sanders, Morna Hooker and CK Barrett are Methodist; Graham Stanton was Presbyterian; Tom Wright and Christopher Rowland are Anglican, Geza Vermes is Jewish, although raised as a Catholic and now tending most strongly to associate with Anglican academics. Most of these figures have held one of the major chairs in biblical exegesis at a British university; Morna Hooker and Graham Stanton having both been Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge - and you cannot get much more of a heavyweight than that. TomHennell (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And Flusser was a practicing Orthodox Jew who headed the New Testament department at the Hebrew Universtiy in Jerusalem A Georgian (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Except for Flusser, all the ones arguing for John's authorship seem to be priests/preachers/apologists.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are defining "apologist" as anyone who doesn't dismiss John as fiction, or at least come close.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's at all accurate. It seems to me that we are defining it in terms of commitments, not conclusions. Anyone who is committed to defending a certain view of the faith, typically a fairly literalist one, is acting as an apologist. In contrast, a genuine scholar simply follows the evidence, without fear that it will lead them away from their faith. In my view, a faith that fears evidence is not much of a faith at all. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree Dylan; which is why Hooker, Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland and Wright are undertaking critical scholarship; while the Jesus Seminar (which presupposes the non-historicity of John as an article of faith) is not. Others appear to rule out as scholars any ordained Christian minister or member of a religious community (a criterion which would exclude Erasmus and Hort, both former holders of the Lady Margaret's chair in Divinity. However the point at issue is what is to count as 'mainstream'. Some editors have taken the view that the 'mainstream' consists only of those scholars whose conclusions on John correspond with the views that predominated in discussion of the historical Jesus in the 1970s. But genuine scholarship doesn't lie easy in any particular box - and many more recent studies have come to opposite conclusions, both in John and the Synoptics. I tend to regard the mainstream as neccessarily including (but not restricted to) the scholars elected to the major academic chairs in critical exegesis, and the editors of the most important peer-reviewed journals in the field (in this case, 'New Testament Studies', and the 'Journal of Theological Studies'). By that standard, there are many 'mainsteam' scholars on both sides of the debate - although the absolute rejection any independant historical value in John is now so rarely advanced as to be effectively 'fringe'. TomHennell (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't suggest you agree with me and then misrepresent my point. I would never claim that the Jesus Seminar somehow falls short of critical scholarship. You seem to be rejecting it simply because it takes a secular, historical approach, instead of a theological one. Theology starts with faith: that Jesus as we believe in Him not only existed as a historical personage but exists as the Son of God, a person in the Trinity. Scholarship starts with the evidence and sticks with it; it never takes that leap of faith, so it cannot speak of the Godhead. These are non-overlapping magisteria.

My faith would not be shaken by the knowledge that some of the words attributed to Jesus are not His own, or even if all the might of secular history was unable to confirm His existence. Physics can't prove God, either, but it can't disprove Him, and that leaves room for faith. But there is no room for faith in proper scholarship. Faith is personal and transcendent. It is not to be cheapened by mixing with the secular world, which is necessarily public and shared. When someone tries to be both a theological apologist and a secular historian, there is an inherent conflict that may well lead to one aspect biasing the other.

As such, anyone who has apologetic obligations but represents themselves as a scholar of history is suspect. We cannot simply ignore such sources, but we must determine their reliability by looking at how they are viewed by genuine scholars who are not encumbered with commitments to defending their faith. If they are not seen as respectable and unbiased, we must exclude them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise if I misunderstood your point - I had thought you were being critical of scholars who constrict the permissable scope of scholarship withing theological or ideological presuppostions. As I understand the Jesus Semianr, all participants are required to subscribe to their "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom". Of the scholars I named - Hooker, Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland, Wright - probably only Barrett would thereby qualify for membership of the Seminar. That implies to me that the "Seven Pillars" cannot be treateed as assured conclusions of scholarship; but are rather statements of faith; and their particular adoption invalidates any claim that the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar can represent a current scholarly consensus. Where we do appear to differ is in your category of 'secular historian' 'Secularism' is a theology like any other - an no worse for that, many of the best biblical historians have been secularists. Other biblical historians have been 'theist' in their theology. I take you as proposing that the historical method sits better with a secular theology, than it does with a theist one. But in fact - as Vermes never tires of pointing out - a scholarly historical understanding of Jesus is likely to present problems for both secularists and theists; hence a theist may have difficulties accepting that, on the basis of historical evidence, the nativity accounts appear to have no substantial basis; while a secularist may have difficulties accepting that, on the basis of historical evidence, Jesus performed miracles.

A specific example may illustrate my point. FF Bruce, as a evangelical Protestant, believed that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul - because that is explicitly stated in the text, and inspired scripture does not lie. But in his scholarly studies of Paul's theology, Bruce sets aside the Pastorals - and other questionably Pauline material such as Colossians - and draws his conclusions solely from the undisputed letters. So long as you recognise and explicltly acknowledge your theological standpoint, there is no reason why your historical studies should be discounted or devalued. In my view, it is possible, indeed possibly desirable, to be both a theological apologist and a critical historian: so long as you are open in acknowledging the limitations of both methods - and are clear at any one time of which one you are applying.

But my views - and yours - are beside the point. For the purpose of Wikipedia, a scholarly atuhority is one who is acknowledged as such by their peers, as Lindars, Bruce, Vermes, Flusser, Sanders, Brown, Barrett, Stanton, Carson, Rowland and Wright are; while me, you (I presume) and the Jesus Seminar (when acting in their collective capacity) are not. TomHennell (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The pillars are simply a statement of consensus, not an ideological straitjacket, and their content is largely non-controversial. They represent a scholarly commitment to secularism, but secularism is no more a theology than "non-religious" is a religion (or "bald" is a hair color). Secularism is defined in terms of the absence of theological commitment (though not necessarily belief). Even atheism is closer to the status of religion than secularism. In any case, if secular history cannot in principle confirm the miraculous, this is a small price to pay for avoiding sectarian squabbling.

Keep in mind that, as a Catholic, I do not accept sola scriptura, so I do not expect the Bible to be perfectly true when (mis-)interpreted literally. As a result, there is little conflict between secular history and my religious beliefs. Perhaps this is less the case for you, as indicated by your odd belief in "secular theology". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluser simply discerned an authentic tradition independent of those available to the synoptics. A Georgian (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FF Bruce is definitely an apologist. His writing is so devoid of objectivity that it does not even look scholarly to me. The rest of the disputing scholars-almost all appear to be priests/preachers. I am opposing the conversion of WP into an apologetics website.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Most critical Biblical scholars are Christian or Jewish believers. Many (perhaps most) Biblical scholars are also apologists, Sanders for example, presents his scholarly conculsions in 'Jesus and Judaism'; and then represented them in apologetic form in "The Historical figure of Jesus". Graham Stanton does the same in "The Gospels and Jesus" and "Gospel Truth". This can I suppose be confusing - Wright deals with the problem by presenting his scholarly works as N.T Wright, and his apologetics as "Tom Wright". Bruce's books on the theology of Paul especially "The Apostle of Free Spirit" remain standard critical studies on the subject.

F.F. Bruce - along with his friend and contemporary C.F.D. Moule - combined an evangelical religious faith with rigorous critical biblical scholarship; demonstrating that there is no inherhent incompatibility in these intellectual standpoints. This certainly both made them unpopular with those for whom rejection of evangelical Christianity is an article of faith; but as Dylan points out above, prescribing the conclusions your studies are allowed to reach is a mark of polemics, not scholarship. TomHennell (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By that measure, your rejection of the Jesus Seminar is based on polemics, not scholarship. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting into motives is always a tricky business. How can you know that a scholar who happens to be Christian set out to prove his views regardless of the evidence? How do you distinguish such a scholar from a Christian scholar who doesn't let his views get in his way? Because the scholar says so? They all say make that argument in one way or the other. Thus the difficulty of judging motives. How do you distinguish them from someone like Ehrman, who rejects Jesus as anything more than a man because of a philosophical viewpoint (for Ehrman, since evil exists there can be no God, thus Jesus must have just been a man no matter what the evidence), even though this view heavily colors everything he does? Its not possible to do, which is why Tom's method of accepting scholars is more objective and would result in an article that reflects modern scholarship, not just the small section of modern scholarship that happens to be highly skeptical. As I said earlier, you are defining "serious" scholarship as those who reject John and probably Christianity in general. No one is 'impartial' and no one undertakes scholarship from an impartial or objective standpoint. Everyone has biases and a 'faith' one way or the other that is going to color their scholarship. Bart Ehrman is more evangelistic than most well known scholars, only he is he a evangelist and apologist for unbelief. Your rejection of most scholars who happen to be Christian and embrace of the Jesus Seminar and atheists/agnostics (most 'impartial' scholars, per your definition) like Ehrman would inevitably result in a view heavily skewed against John (and Christianity in particular). There is no sound basis for this, as your reasons (some people are impartial and others are inherently biased) don't actually describe how people think and act.

Jesus and his message are not supposed to be true because they are based off of some persuasive existential or abstract philosophical argument. They are viewed by people as true because of events that happened in space and time, and recorded in the New Testament. As such, their historicity a critical issue, and so this question is a critical issue. This also means that a scholar's personal view as to whether Jesus was just a mere man or the Son of God is going to shape their scholarship, and few scholars are going to 'investigate' the evidence that reject their faith/nonfaith because of persuasive evidence (this gets into the whole area of cognitive science which is another issue entirely). If the truth of Jesus and his message was that simple, the evidence would be enough that either everyone would accept his divinity like they accept quantum physics, or everyone would reject it like they reject the Loc Ness monster.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does have a way of determining bias for it's purposes. Bias=mainstream/minority.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very much agreed. We need to stop bending over backwards to make room for fringe beliefs driven solely by sectarian commitments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hennel, above, may be on to something. We could say that scholars of the historical Jesus reject John, but that Bible scholars still consider John an important historical source for insight into apostolic Christianity. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

new changes

I reworked the section on current scholarship for various reasons.

• It was one sentence about the views J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris at the end of the first paragraph. However there is later a whole paragraph describing their views in detail while citing the same sources. So the above sentence was redundent and deleted.

• It cites Anderson pg 77 on the views of liberal scholars but the page says nothing about it. It does however mention authorship being absorbed into the reconstruction of the Gospel's development so it was linked to the proper sentance. The views of conservative and liberal scholars are discussed above so these sentences were deleted. I also deleted the sentence about the date since it's discussed below.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it was again reverted without addressing my statements and with no regard for the new sources I put. Not to be mean but is anybody listening? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making major edits, including the removal of large chunks of cited material. You are anonymous, and are engaging in edit warring. You have reverted what, 6 times now? I also believe you have violated 3RR. If you want to edit, stop edit warring against the consensus, get an ID, and make smaller edits because most of what you are deleting and adding is debatable at best.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, we treat anonymous editors as equals. There is absolutely no need for this editor to "get an ID" if he or she does not wish to. So please do not use this contributor's anonymity to denigrate his or her edits. Consider the edits on their merits and on their merits alone. Rklawton (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making major edits, including the removal of large chunks of cited material.

The cited material is still there, I just deleted repeats. Read the post again. You have no privilage to simply revert my edits while ignoring my summaries just because you have an ID and I don't. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP. I have reviewed your edits and find them to be very helpful. As pointed out by Rklawton above, your having/not having an ID does not make a difference for the credibility of your edits. Secondly, most of us who do have an ID are also anonymous, it doesn't matter. There is no need to feel obliged to get an ID and you should still expect to be treated equal as an editor.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I posted this edit and it was reverted. It said "Darrell Bock notes that many scholars agree with authorship by John, and calls the dismissal of the traditional authorship account among scholars "contested." He also says that scholars differ in that the links are "direct as conservatives claim or more indirect as moderates claim". He says outright rejection of direct or indirect apostolic authorship is limited to liberal scholars."" The reason given for the reversion was that "Bock is an evangelical apologist". What does this have to do with anything? His statement was on the view of modern scholarship, not his own personal view of who the author was. The implication of rejecting his comment is that, being evangelical, he is sloppy or untrustworthy. Look at his bio on the DTS website. He is a "Professor of the New Testament" specializing in the historical Jesus, the gospels, and Luke-Acts among others. He has published at least 89 articles in scholarly journals. He was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, is an editor-at-large of the "Christianity Today" magazine, and has published well over 20 books (several of which have been New York Times best sellers). You can't get more academic than Bock. His being a scholar whom one wants to term an "apologist" is not a reason for reverting his statement. He is a scholar, pure and simple, and a well-regarded one at that. His publisher is also well regarded, and is the 6th largest publisher in the world. I think the editor who reverted my edit doesn't like the theology of Bock and is using this view to reject everything by Bock because of the Bock's supposed motivations. The comment should be judged on its merits (Bock is well regarded and making a more-or-less objective view of where modern scholars stand) rather than Bock's supposed motivations, and that the edit should be restored.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Bock's publisher a well regarded academic press or an apologistic press?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-academic Christian press. I checked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I did, too. There are plenty of good nonsectarian, academic sources, so let's just use those. Leadwind (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, if you want to use explicitly Christian sources, such as Thomas Nelson, just label them that way. "Certain Christian scholars such as Darrell Bock say that the mainstream rejection of John is contested." Then you can get you minority view on the page. Just don't pretend that it's a mainstream view. For that matter, why is Bock enough of an expert that we care what he says? Instead of citing no-name scholars just because you like what they say, let's just look at the best source and cite them, whether they agree with you or me or not. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there is no good reason to reject him. His publisher is irrelevant, unless it is a fringe conspiracy theory publisher. Bock himself, as I said above, is a well published scholar. The comments above don't address the substance of what he said, and instead address the personal motives of Bock. That this flies in the face of Wikipedia policy is obvious. It is amazing that one could argue that Bock is fringe, and that he is wrong about what the view of scholars is, even though no proof of this has been offered other than the claim 'everyone knows that'. Bock is a reputable scholar who said outright what what the range of views amongst scholars are, and his quote was removed because of a claim that his statement on the matter is wrong, even though no sources have been cited to show explicitly that he is wrong. Show me your sources that show he is wrong about? A direct quote that "most scholars think 'x'?" That is what I presented here, a direct quote from a reputable scholar about what the range of opinion is amongst scholars at large. All I have seen so far are the personal views of a few scholars whom editors here say represent the "mainstream" although no sources are shown showing that they represent the mainstream. As Tom said above, this view is not at all "mainstream" and many scholars disagree.

I would like some other editors to comment on this.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

An indirect link is not the same as the apostle actually writing the gospel. So one could say that liberal and moderate believe in either no connection to the apostle or an indirect connection and that belief in actual authorship of the gospel is limited to conservative scholars. Barnabas Lindars says as much in his book writing in page 20; "Although this tradition continues to have support among modern scholars, the majority cling to it only in the most tenuous form, or abandon it althogether. Also how do we know "conservative", "moderate" and "liberal" scholars make up equal percentages of mainstream scholarship? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than framing the moderate view in one way or another, just state it outright: that they view the author to have been a disciple or associate of John. I guess I don't see what the problem with this is.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

historical reliability

I re-orged, putting the introduction first, then a paragraph on Jesus' teaching and a paragraph on narrative details. I tried to balance weight. Robinson, for example, used to get a paragraph all to himself even though his 1977 book failed to convince the academic world. Certainly someone writing outside the mainstream 30 years ago doesn't deserve far more ink than a contemporary, mainstream scholar. Likewise, Thompson is a virtual unknown published by a Christian press and contradicting mainstream scholarship, so I took out the contradicting piece. It could go back in if we wanted to describe the Christian view of historical reliability, but so far we've been sticking to mainstream scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I added back the quotes from Robinson, moved the Sanders quotes together (they were separated into two places before) and merged what was left of the third paragraph into the first paragraph. I tried to minimize the focus on Robinson, but his views are shared by many scholars. I think we are defining "scholar" differently. "Scholar" includes biblical scholars at seminaries, even conservative ones (which many seminaries are), and not just a limited universe of scholars who are mostly limited to the historical Jesus tradition. Thus, a great number of scholars hold a view closer to Robinson or Thompson. We can include the views of Thompson instead of Robinson if you want, but I assume Robinson would be less controversial. RomanHistorian (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the section for undue weight. Robinson's minority view from 1977 doesn't deserve this much ink, etc. Leadwind (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

majority view, per WP:WEIGHT

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

We can find the view that Jesus' teaching in John is not authentic in Encyclopedia Britannica. Therefore we can and should state that this is the majority view. RH would like to say that "many argue" this or that, but WP policy is to call this view the majority view. If RH can find prominent scholars in opposition, we can list them as representing a significant minority view. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You misquoted your own citation. The EBO citation simply said scholars prefer the synoptics. You disregard a huge number of scholars, apparently only those who disagree with your own (non)theology. You are unable to refute the views on these matters of people who are more religious than you, thus you simply delete their sources as if the claims don't exist. You are unable to refute them, and your mass-deletion is simply a confirmation of this. You have defined 'scholars' as a narrow band of (largely secular) scholars of the historical Jesus tradition like Vermes and Sanders. In the process you throw out the views of the most common type of scholar: those at seminaries (many of which are very conservative). A scholar is a scholar, and the views of people like Darrell Bock, D. A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg are just as legitimate as those who are more skeptical.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's highly problematic to say that a view found in EBO is "the majority view". In these matters there is no real way to determine the majority view besides a synopsis of literature; some reliable tertiary scholars will come out with such, and say (long list) holds this view while (shorter list) holds this view. Short of that it's a bit misplaced to argue from a single unclear EBO statement when we can (theoretically) array the secondary scholars as well as any other tertiary source. It should be a simple matter on this point to make a list of 20 or 30 scholars and a single clause quote from each indicating their position, while also tagging any that are ambiguous. Why this isn't done on more points where everyone claims a "majority" is beyond me, other than that it's real work. JJB 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A scholar is a scholar, and the views of people like Darrell Bock, D. A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg are just as legitimate as those who are more skeptical. It is simply wrong headed to think that Bock, Carson, Blomberg are to be regarded as equal to Sanders and Vermes. They are in altogether different leagues.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. In areas other than historical Jesus studies, Bock, Carson and Blomberg are superior (Sanders simply refers to himself as "an historian and an exegete"). In any case, a scholar is a scholar. Wikipedia articles reflect the views of scholars, not the views of a narrow set of scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the field of apologetics, I don't see in which field Bock, Carson and Blomberg could be superior to Sanders and Vermes. The difference in academic standing is too great. And as for "a scholar is a scholar", the same can be said about Earl Doherty, Ellegard, Wells, Acharya S, M. M. Mangasarian, etc. You don't know what "skeptic" means until you have been through Mangasarian and Acharya S. Would you still hold "a scholar is a scholar" for them? And Wikipedia strives to be a high quality repository of human knowledge. We don't want trash or substandard or nonsensical or promotional stuff. We want intellectually satisfying stuff. So, we have to be selective. In relation to Jesus, it is even more true because of the sheer amount of material available out there. We can't just include stuff just because it is available out there. We have policies like WP:NOT and WP:QS.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In an above thread, Leadwind has asked for proof that Morna Hooker and Carson are to be regarded equal to Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, etc. Why did you not prove it?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly; Sanders was Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture; Christopher Rowland is his successor in the same post. Morna Hooker was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Former occupants of that chair include Hort and Erasmus. These two are the most prestigious academic appointments in the field of biblical studies in English universities. Vermes is also a former Oxford professor. Trying to rank their current academic standing would be attempting to make a distinction without a difference. TomHennell (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than chairs, we have to see how their work are received in academia. Going by your analogy, every German top man should be seen as a Hitler!!!!-Civilizededucation^talk 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer that CE, the by all means; but as you don't get elected to one of the more prestigious chairs unless your work is highly regarded in academia; so the results will be exactly the same. But you should be more careful in your throwaway lines; your 'Hitler' is in this context particularly offensive. All of the leading German figures in the post-war 'new quest' for the Historical Jesus - Kasemann, Bornkamm - had been heroic anti-Nazis. But that can be seen as part of the problem. They were painfully aware that when Bultmann and Barth (also anti-Nazis) proposed in the 1930s that study should focus on the Christ of Faith, rather than the Jesus of History, that this had left the field clear for a pernicious Nazi antisemitic and anti-Christian reading of the Gospels, in which the Jesus of History was an Aryan anti-semite. Their programme to re-assert a true Jesus of History focussed on 'Q' (and hence on the common teaching matter in Matthew and Luke, which lacks the passages that supported antisemitic readings) and downplayed Mark, John and the singular traditions of Luke and Matthew as essentially non-historical. What unites Sanders, Hooker, Rowland and Vermes, is a conviction that this approach was fatally flawed, as it generated a Jesus who is a 20th century existential philosopher rather than a 1st century eschatological Jewish prophet. These latter figures do differ in how thay evaluate the relative reliabillity of paritucalar Gospel texts; Sanders is strongly pro-Mark; Rowland is on balance pro-John. But that is a secondary issue to their basic common understanding of how Jesus related to the world of his age. TomHennell (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When I said "top man", I was referring to the German heads of state, not scholars. Hitler occupied the chair of head of state, and he has nothing to do with scholarship. He is just an analogy that we do not see German heads of state in the light of Hitler. I am trying to say that one occupant of a chair can be completely different from another occupant of the same chair in their thinking and thus in their standing in the world. Let us take another example, if Einstein or Newton occupied some scholarly chair, would it mean that every occupant of that chair must be as great as Einstein? The contrast in this example does not seem to be as striking as that of Hitler with his successive heads of state. That is why I tried the Hitler example. Again, I did not mean to describe him as a scholar of any sort, nor do I want to compare him to any scholars, German, or otherwise. I know that Germany has been historically the greatest seat of academic thinking on Christianity. Clear now?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy loses me; since when did we cite heads of state as authorities on Wikipedia? But to return to the main point. Isaac Newton was Lucassian Professor of Mathematics. More recently that post has been held by Stephen Hawking. I take you as arguing that we cannot claim that Stephen Hawking is as great an authority on theoretical physics in this day, as Newton was in his; which is arguable one way or another, but does not turn on their mutual occupancy of the most prestigious academic post in the subject. But the issue here is not whether an academic is 'great' least of all whether one academic is 'greater' than another. The issue is whether an academic is citable, at any particular time, as representative of the academic mainstream of their day. Not every Lucassian professor has been as great as Newton, or inded arguably as great as Hawking; but every Lucassian professor, purely as the current Lucassian professor, is entitled to be cited in Wikipedia as a mainstram authority on theoretical physics. See the quote from Jimmy Wales below. "What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter?" There maybe an argument as to who is or is not on the list of 'prominent physicists', but any such list must necessarily always include the current Lucassian professor. Equally we may argue about who is on the list of those citable as prominent biblical scholars; but such a list must neccessarily always include the current Lady Margaret's professor. Which is the 'greatest' scholar is a subjective judgement; which are the mainstream scholars is an objective fact. Those scholars are the mainstream who occupy the most prestigious chairs, and edit the leading peer-reviewed journals in the subject. TomHennell (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Undent 1

The majority view is, per Wales, what we find in generally accepted reference texts. EBO is a generally accepted reference text. This is the issue that Wales's distinction is there to resolve. Until Roman can find a generally accepted reference text that disputes EBO, WP policy is to call EBO's viewpoint the majority viewpoint. Those who disagree get their views described as well, as minority views. It's right there in black and white on WP:WEIGHT. Roman can't find support for his views in EBO or in university level textbooks because they are minority views. Leadwind (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please link me to the Wikipedia policy that calls EBO's viewpoint the majority viewpoint.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the source of the statement to which Leadwind refers, discussing an issue within the discipline of physics;

What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

So there is no explicit privilege to the EBO; no indeed (if I understand it correctly, a Wikipedia rule that general works of reference (such as encyclopedias) are to be considered automatically as valid reference texts. The general point is clear, I suggest. Specific works of reference on the subject in hand, are to be preferred to general works of reference; mainstream scholars (i.e. those occupying prestigious academic positions, or editorships of the main peer reviewed journals) are to be preferred to sholars in niche institutions; the views of the authors of authoritative texts for the current major standpoints of academic debate are to be preferred to those of popularisers. All of which criteria confirm Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Carson, Hooker, and Rowland as equally authoritative. TomHennell (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur that Leadwind has misread the policy. It does not say that tertiary references are automatically accorded majoritarian status, in lieu of well-footnoted literature reviews such as I've alluded. Further, I'm not convinced Leadwind correctly represents EBO as saying "Jesus' teaching in John is not authentic", because tertiary sources rarely make such partisan determinations. JJB 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom and JJB, could you two take a look at Gospel of Luke, as Leadwind has been causing similar disruptions there. Leadwind seems to have a habit of doing this: he claims that sources that make a point represent the "majority" even when they make no such claim. He takes a claim on EBO that an author is ultimately unknown (this is of course true of all gospel authors) and turns it into "the majority of critical scholars conclude the apostle did not write the gospel". He does this with other sources as well. I am sure he genuinely does not see the nuance. As you can see from his recent edits, Carson and Blomberg were mentioned and he qualified them by changing the article to say they were "Christian scholars" which of course is simply meant to marginalize these well-regarded scholars. His explanation was strange, as he said of Carson and Blomberg: "non-mainstream sources describe only their own field, not the field in general, thus "Christian" scholars". The scholars are not "non-mainstream". I don't know what "their own field" means, maybe "Christian" biblical scholarship (which is somewhat redundant). He has done this elsewhere on this article and on others.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You may also note, among numerous other things, RH has been warned against canvassing RECENTLY. More than one editor has identified RH as disruptive, RH is scandalized that Leadwind should think of Geza Vermes as an ideal source. And RH think that Vermes, among a long list of others, is anti christian. RH has also identified more than one IP editor as a vandal, on this very article, without any good reason. It is uncivil to do so. He has been pursuing a vendetta campaign against Leadwind and his above post is also part of the canvassing. RH has also tried to make out that I am an atheist. Which I may, or may not be, but I definitely do not want my personal convictions to be guessed by RH or anyone else .........-Civilizededucation^talk 01:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is crazy, we are not citing the opinions of Vermes and Sanders and saying they represent the majority, we are citing sources on what the opinions are in Johnanne scholarship. Paul Anderson, Collen Conway and Barnabas Lindars are top Johnanne scholars and are reliable sources on this matter. We already have a paragrah on what conservative scholars say. Isn't that enough? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Roman does need to learn that proper WP:CANVASSING is nonpartisan in audience and unbiased in tone; I'm not working Luke right now. It would also be wise for him to find other words than WP:VANDALISM such as (to speak hypothetically) unsourced, weasely, ungrammatical, redundant, controverted, misweighted, synthetic. It is also true that these words are good for using in lieu words like fringe, insignificant, leagued, prominent, majority, mainstream, ideal, and so on. I see no "vendetta campaign" nor original research about other editors' beliefs, but those would be inapropos as well.

Back to the subject, it is unclear to me that any source is more respected than any other, and so I attribute most everybody and give them equal weight unless and until sources indicate otherwise. We seem to have critical mass though for a mediation on the many points of dispute, and I have one open already with Dylan's name on it that will fit the current debates in no time. Would anyone like to continue there? JJB 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation keeps reverting to a version that says Stephen Harris (yes, the member of the Jesus Seminar) represents the mainstream. It is amazing that a Jesus Seminar member would be used for this claim, especially given their dismissal by most scholars and the fact that one of their rules was to discount John's legitimacy from the start. It would be too easy to find sources that back me up on this, so I will let him provide evidence that Harris represents the scholarly consensus. If anything Harris represents a fringe view on John, certainly not the "mainstream".RomanHistorian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will show you that Harris is mainstream.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Technically, Civil's version, which reverts my original edit that has I think been otherwise undisturbed, changes "Harris argues" to "They also argue", with "they" referring back to "Scholars like Bart Ehrman". The sentence is sourced to Harris 1985, pp. 302–10. I sincerely doubt that Harris attributes the view to "scholars like Ehrman", so (some time back) I removed what appeared to be an unconscious WP:SYNTHESIS, replacing it with safe attribution to Harris. Roman is quite correct that the WP:BURDEN remains on the inserter of "They also argue" (our own burden having been met for "Harris argues"), and so the budding edit war should stop. Now. There are several other phrasings involved in this revert set, but they all have similar attribution problems; they could be accommodated if inserters were willing to defend them from sources, but what I see instead is circular appeal to authority. JJB 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor who might be Leadwind (the IP's history and this suggests it is) is deleting sources I added that he apparently doesn't like. The main source is, again, Stephen Harris of the Jesus Seminar. Harris, whose view of John's dubiousness is a presumption of his (not a conclusion after research) is probably fringe on anything John-related. He cites the sources on the article, then when I add good sources he deletes them.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This user should be reported for 3RR violation.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this user is taking up an aggressive edit war.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources are still there. My sources state what the scholarly opinions are. You're mostly just state the opinions of the authors themselves. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User 24.180.173.157 are you Leadwind?RomanHistorian (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Do the other subjects I edit match those of him?24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You sure act a lot like him, and seem to be bothered by the same things.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to take a postion on the whole authorship question; it is obvious to me that Harris is a populariser and summariser, rather than a mainstream scholar. Membership of the Jesus Seminar does not disqualify him from having citable views of his own (as it does not for Crossan etc). But the fact thatHarris appears never to have published a study of John; never contributed to a major biblical reference series, nor edited a peer-reviewed journal, all count against his being citable. TomHennell (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put him there, someone else did. I put in Anderson, Conway and Lindars. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Undent 2

Roman, it's not helpful to guess IDs on this page, try a sock report or a checkuser when you have evidence, very educational. IP, you'd do best to say things like "my source [name] page [number] in this diff [diff] says 'scholars agree [what]'". Without an easy pointer to that kind of info it is nearly impossible for someone to judge the nuances of an edit war, rather than simply stick with WP:PRESERVE. JJB 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My sources state the page numbers and the exact quotes. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that requires us to carry your burden by digging them out ourselves, if you're not going to take the time to cut-and-paste the links you think are relevant. But look, you've gotten the article semiprotected against you now (at my report), and there are several editors here without any consensus on how to solve the basic content issue. I'm not taking time to review the details right now, I'm stepping in only to stabilize matters so the details can be reviewed. See next graf. JJB 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I repropose that we take this issue to the [mediation case] that has my and Dylan's name already on it. I count about eight editors including IP that can hash it all out there. If not, what? JJB 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? There's no mediator on it and there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in it anymore, other than you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

equality of scholars

Tom, et al, I hope I'm not getting WP:WEIGHT wrong, but here goes...

Tom, you said, "All of which criteria confirm Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Carson, Hooker, and Rowland as equally authoritative." Let's say that all these folks are equally authoritative, as you say. WP:WEIGHT says that prominent proponents indicate that a view is at least minority and not fringe. But in order for a view to be authoritative, it needs to be found in reference works. So a good page should identify the majority view if there is one, i.e., the one found in reference works. In this case, if Rowland deserves mention, it's as a representative of a significant minority view. Same with Crossan, that troublemaker.

What Encyclopedia Britannica shows is what the majority view is. Unless someone finds a comparable reference with another view.

Can anyone cite a standard reference that says that Jesus' teaching in John is to be taken as authentic, or that it's an open question? If EBO says something, and textbooks agree, and no references disagree, then WP policy is to say that the EBO opinion is the majority opinion. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy again. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

ebo doesnt report what is mainstream but what is non controversial. Thus it says the author is 'unknown' which is certainly true rather than the author was 'not john'. Plenty of scholars agree with the traditional view, your attempt to purge them from the article not withstanding. Plus, many take John to be less historical than the Synoptics but this says nothing as many who hold this view place little value in the synoptics. We should reflect the sharply view which we can't with ebo and a few skeptical scholars RomanHistorian (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Leadwind, you commit a formal logic error of believing the inverse. Jimbo said "IF it's majority THEN it's in references"; you implied "IF it's in references [EB] THEN it's in majority". Jimbo is not saying that everything in EB is automatically a majority opinion; he says if it's a majority opinion it's automatically going to be in some reference. That's why in this field I think we should shy away from attributing majority opinions at all (majority of what anyway? how would you count them?). I think we have cited commonly accepted reference texts (Bible dictionaries, i.e., more apropos than EB) that do state the traditional POV. JJB 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what Jimbo is saying is that we should be able to find majority views in commonly accepted reference texts, so when we see views in such high-quality sources and there is no indication that they are minority views (such as careful attribution without endorsement), we are right to conclude that these represent the majority. For example, when the best dictionaries have similar definitions of a word, we should accept this as the majority view. When some pamphlet from Crackpot Press offers a unique and distinct definition, we should disregard it as fringe. Got it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we do find the majority views in secondary sources, although when they disagree with the personal view of certain editors, rather than refute them they just delete the citation and claim the source is "biased". You are correct: when you delete all sources that disagree with you, the remaining sources will agree with you.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

JJB, I understand what you're saying about the logical error. I agree that maybe EBO isn't presenting the majority view. But if it isn't, what's the evidence that it isn't? The WP policy is that the majority view is the view found in commonly accepted reference texts. If prominent scholars disagree, then their minority view are significant and should be covered as minority views. For determining "majority viewpoint," the key feature is what's in the commonly accepted reference texts. Are there commonly accepted reference texts that throw EBO into question? If not, it's WP policy to accept what EBO says as the majority view even if one personally doesn't agree with that view and even if one personally feels that it's not the majority view. The policy is pretty clear. If there is a commonly accepted reference text that disagrees with EBO, let's see it. This is what I've asked Roman for over and over again and that he can never produce: a good tertiary source that agree with him. If it's out there, let's see it. "I think we have cited commonly accepted reference texts (Bible dictionaries, i.e., more apropos than EB) that do state the traditional POV." Please humor me with an example. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you that secondary sources, like all of those that you deleted, are prefered by Wikipedia policy to tertiary sources like EBO. Why do you refuse to accept this? Another problem is that you have a habit of taking quotes out of context. When EBO says an author is unknown, you turn that into "the majority agrees that the author was not the apostle". EBO is trying to be as non-contriversial as possible, so it doesn't take positions on issues like this. It just says it is "unknown" rather than going into the scholarly debate, or taking a side. EBO is acceptable to some level, but you continue to take its quotes out of context. So this is how you operate: delete sources you don't like, and take the ones you like out of context. No wonder we have had these problems.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RH, "I've already told you that secondary sources, like all of those that you deleted, are prefered by Wikipedia policy to tertiary sources like EBO." I think you can read with your own eyes that tertiary sources are actually preferred in the particular case where editors are determining what the "majority viewpoint" is. If that's not what the policy quoted above means, what does it mean? Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite me the wikipedia policy that says this. Actually also show me the wikipedia policy that says editors are suppose to determine the "majority viewpoint". Actually what you just said is certainly a violation of wikipedia policy, as it constitutes original research. You are pushing a POV, where your POV is the "mainstream". Since you can't find sources that validate you, you simply take what you have out of context and delete sources that refute your claims about the "mainstream".RomanHistorian (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." This is fun. Now its your turn. Cite the WP policy that says we are not supposed to determine the majority viewpoint. Listen, I don't blame you for feeling threatened by the majority viewpoint. If I held to a minority viewpoint, I'd probably feel threatened, too. But on WP we're supposed to put our personal feelings aside and follow policy. Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that your logic is: if it is in EBO, then it must be the majority viewpoint, thus we will call it that, then the policy is Wikipedia:No original research. None of your sources say "the majority conclude the author was not John and had no connection to him", thus your inference of it is OR.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again: Cite the WP policy that says we are not supposed to determine the majority viewpoint. In fact, cite any policy you can about the majority viewpoint. That's the issue here: what's WP policy about the majority viewpoint. If you're right, cite the policy. Leadwind (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

<Uh, V. If no source determines a viewpoint as "majority", we don't. If multiple sources disagree about what the "majority" is, we report all meta-POVs about what the majority is. V also has a subsection called WP:BURDEN, which you are not meeting. Also, you're arguing against the two uninvolved noticeboard watchers that you flagged down, so consensus is forming against you. JJB 16:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection discussion

Ok, the article is protected for two weeks, so this is our big chance to politely hash out our differences. Have at it! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You start. JJB 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time, there was an article that everyone was interested in but nobody could agree about. It led to horrible fighting among the villagers, until they realized that the best answer was to appoint Dylan Flaherty (pbuh) as King of the Bible and allow his ex cathedra decisions to rule. And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

Your turn. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you start. JJB 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

All I'm doing is changing the sentence so it reflects the sources. Have posted four sources that say what the scholarly views are but RH keeps changing it by having it say "critical scholars like Anderson dispute the traditional authorship." but Anderson and such are NOT stating their personal opinion on the matter on those pages. Here are links to Anderson and Lindars directly. I know RH and Leadwind are having a dispute below in the section on the historicity. I have no part in that. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting citations. They do appear to support your version over Roman's. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP, thanks, but I'm not likely to follow your point without taking the time to read through all the sources presented by everyone, and there are a whole lot. I'm only in it because attribution is usually safer than blanket statements already controverted (no matter how much Dylan sees in them). Without someone making a clear argument I'm not likely to make a direct content judgment in the time I'm choosing to take on this article. JJB 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I read your response twice, but I still don't see how it addresses 24's argument. As far as I can understand it, all you're saying is that you wish to attribute the majority view so that it can be mistaken for a minority view. Or am I misunderstanding? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

24/IP illustrates perfectly the problem about making blanket statements from a couple of sources. For one, these sources are old and the scholars a fairly liberal in any case. I am looking at one of the sources he linked to, which says "and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it". What does that mean exactly? Is a critical scholar a scholar who is critical of a particular (traditional) view? Is a critical Scholar (a scholar with a critical view) the same as a Critical Scholar (a proper name of a branch of scholarship)? Is he somehow different from a biblical scholar who isn't a "Critical Scholar"? Is renowned New Testament scholar Darrell Bock a "critical scholar" even though he takes a very traditional view on authorship? That quote doesn't say most scholars reject the traditional authorship, it gives a reason why "critical scholars" who reject the view reject it, and even this has been quoted out of context in the article. Other sources I added show that many scholars don't reject it. Even among scholars who do reject it, many see John directly behind it, even if he wasn't the one who physically wrote it. Actually my sources say outright that the large majority of scholars either think he wrote it, or it was written by his disciples based off of what he said directly to them. Only a minority of liberal scholars think the author has no link to John. Theses sources were all deleted from the article. Throwing all of this nuance into "critical scholars dispute traditional authorship" or "the majority conclude John didn't write it" obscures it and implies that scholars, as a whole, think something that 24's own sources don't support.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, when it comes to Biblical history, your notion of "fairly liberal" just means mainstream. You still aren't addressing 24's points, and you don't show any sign of doing the footwork. For example, you demand to know what a "critical scholar" is, but this just shows that you haven't read any of the reliable sources they've indicated. The quoted term comes directly from those sources. I could go on, but you're going to have to step up your game quite a bit in order to achieve the level of academic rigor needed to sway us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why discussing things with you is impossible. I have yet to see you compromise on anything. You just cold-revert, say 'lets discuss', and your "discussion" is to reiterate your point and give no ground.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are still there. They are just not being used to imply that John writing the gospel makes up half of scholarship. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, just cut to the chase and show us a commonly accepted reference text that agrees with you, and then we'll know that you're not advocating a minority view. Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have and you deleted them all. Then you take EBO and your other sources out of context.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just put your money where your mouth is and show us a commonly accepted reference text that agrees with you. Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction to the New Testament" by D. A. Carson and Doug Moo explicitly agrees with the traditional view. Of course however, you will reject this source as that is what you do with sources you disagree with.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There have also been several Bible dictionaries mentioned, which are references and not just scholarly opinion. JJB 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A critical scholar is one who uses the historical-critical method to study the text. If a critical scholar is simply one who is critical of the traditional authorship than "most" wouldn't dispute it but all of them would. I have no problem with RH's sources as long as they are not used to imply that there is a even split among scholars. Most of his sources are simply the scholars stating their arguments for the traditional authorship but say nothing about what the opinion of overall scholarship. He has one source that says that US/UK are “more open” to the idea that John wrote it but this does not mean a significant amount do. Another source says that moderate scholars think that the text could have had an indirect connection to John but this is not the same as him writing it. In one of my sources, Lindars states that most scholars either reject the traditional authorship or accept it in a very weak form, obviously meaning a very indirect connection. If RH wants to put that there are scholars would believe John had an indirect connection to the text, then I would have no problem, but it is clear that the position that John the apostle actually wrote the gospel is a minority position. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean, most who 'use the historical-critical method'? Where in Wikipedia policy does it define this, or that only these scholars are to be accepted? The views of all scholars are to be accepted, and the diversity of opinion should be reflected. Certain editors define the playing field on very narrow terms, and at best are willing to accept a compromise only under those terms. Some of the sources you cited above were deleted, and what remained was taken out of context. Your Lindars quote is the same and yet worded differently than mine: that most scholars either accept the traditional view or the view that the author(s) were close disciples of John, while only a minority of liberal scholars reject the link. Yet it is these liberal scholars whose views are given the most prominence. I changed the article to reflect this, and my change was reverted by editors self-appointed to represent the "majority" view.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the Lindars source does not say that a significant amount of scholars believe that the author was a "close" disciple of John and neither do any of yours. An indirect or weak connection does not automatically mean that the author was "close" with the apostle. And no, the "diversity" of opinions should not be relected as if they are a significant amount of scholarship which is what you're doing. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually my source does say "close". By "close", it says outright that this means an author or authors that were part of some Johnnie community that John founded and ran. Whether they were 'close' to him personally or not I don't know, but your quote comes from an older source and a liberal scholar, thus it words it in a negative way.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't it says that "more moderate scholars like Dunn and Hengel" believe that the text can be traced back to a community that John "influenced". You keep exaggerating the claims in your sources. You also engage in the same tactics you accuse other of by dismissing scholars you don't like as "liberal". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction to the New Testament" by Carson and Moo says exactly that.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Carson and Moo admit that that "large majority of contemporary scholars" reject Johnannine authorship. There just argue that they are wrong. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above. They say that conservative scholars accept direct authorship by John, moderates consider the author a dsicple or community of his, and only liberal scholars reject any link. I am fine with reflecting this in the article. That is what I originally did only to have the edit reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest this as a compromise; "Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him." 24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

'"Currently, most scholars dispute that John the Apostle wrote the text, although many believe that the community that it was written in could have been founded or influenced by him."' OK. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are good reasons to think that John did not write GoJ. John was illiterate. (This should be mentioned properly, not as it is now.) There is no way he could have written in Greek. Academics show other reasons too. There is no good reason to insist that John wrote the GoJ. And the academic thinking is that none of the Gospels were written by any of the apostles, and all are anonymous texts.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Theories about John's literacy/illiteracy in the year 90 are nothing more than speculation. I don't expect to convince you, but other editors are more reasonable on this and other points.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

a third page protected?

Here's the third page that needs protection. Either Roman or I (or both of us) must be out of line. This is getting silly. Anyone feel up to escalating this to an RfC or something? Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to escalate this, as neutral editors will see how improper many of your edits have been. The problem is that you delete sources you don't like, define the playing field narrowly and on fairly liberal terms, and then take what you have out of context. It is very difficult to edit with someone who does that. I don't agree with any of your deletions of sources, and reserve the right to restore all of the ones you deleted. At least you compromise some of the time, which some other editors seem to refuse to do, and oddly enough I do think these articles have been improving but it shouldn't be this difficult.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC is contraindicated, we already have more than enough opinions represented, what is needed is mediation between them. I invite all editors to mediation cabal. If there is truly interest in escalation, I have a page already preloaded, or we can create a new one. JJB 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets take this to the mediation cabal. I doubt we are going to get far here.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One should be expected to be uncompromising when one sees POV WP:QS being added, no, bombarded onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives to be a repository of human knowledge, and a high quality one too. We do not need promotional stuff produced by apologistic presses. It can be expected to be un-sense making and full of rhetoric. We only need academic stuff. Maybe you have gotten away with inserting some WP:QS. But don't expect them to last long.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors, take a look at Civil's comment here. He thinks D. A. Carson is a dubious source. How do you work with people like this? Civil has said before that he is personally secular, and the scholars he considers RS's are also secular. It is unfortunate that he cannot see the POV he is pushing. He simply declares all scholars who are insufficiently skeptical "apologists" and deletes them off the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And you dismiss any scholar that doesn't believe the traditional authorships or thinks that not every element in the gospels is historical as "liberal" or "secular". The historical critical method is not empolyed by athiests or "secularists". Beliving Christians and Jews employ it. Read anything by John Dominic Crossan, or Helmut Koester or John P. Meier. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I am more than willing to include them. I am just not willing to exclude the less skeptical scholars, and then claim the views of these skeptical scholars represent the "consensus".RomanHistorian (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hi, where did I say I am "secular", and what could it even mean, anyway, show a diff where I say "I am secular".-Civilizededucation^talk 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You implied it above. You also said it more explictly on one of your past edits.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Show the line where I imply "I am secular". And which past edit.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When you said I implied you were an atheist, and you said you "may or may not be." The inference was obvious, as you would have denied if it were not true. Not that it matters.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a non intelligent inference. One, which only you seem to be able to make. And where's the diff of my other edit in which I say "I am secular". Please provide it if your assertion is not full of untruth. And also clarify what is the meaning of "secular" in the present context. I am unable to see any meaning in it. And, I would not accept or deny anything in this regard because I want to keep my privacy. Stop making such uncivil inferences.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, remember how you felt when I implied that you were hostile to my church? Right. Now think about how Civilizededucation is going to take your comments about his religious stance. Empathy is key. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic sources?

RH, could you tell me if the latest references which you have added to the article are sourced from academic publishers, or, are they published by non academic publishers who publish apologistic works? You have not added the names of publishers in your refs....-Civilizededucation^talk 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That D. A. Carson is a major authority on NT scholarship is well-known, and my finding more sources to prove it sure isn't going to convince you. In the comments above, Tom has commented on Carson being a highly regarded scholar and certainly an RS. Other editors, look at Civil's comment. This is what we are facing: editors who simply delete the views of well-regarded scholars who are certainly RS's. This is nothing more than POV pushing.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my question?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and apparently you didn't read my response.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)