Talk:Signs Gospel

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Judas Iscariot#Biblical narrative|Plot to kill Jesus]] The anchor (#Biblical narrative) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

[Untitled]

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

Good point. I will work on it.--Melissa

Most of this article is original research, irrelevant nonsense, and amateur thinking. It barely resembles any of the academic thinking on the subject and wildly contradicts several of the references given. I intend to correct this. --Clinkophonist 19:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the essentials

The Wikipedia reader needs to hear about the fundamental questions: What is it about the text of canonical Gospels that leads some scholars to posit a "Signs gospel"? Is John the only text concerned? Who first suggested that such a tradition must underlie the familiar text?

Taken together, the writers of the current article are so anxious to announce an uncharacterized "dispute" and repeat "hypothetical" that the actual material of the article is by-passed. If I were the kind of person who pastes "clean up" notices, this article is a bumper that needs such a sticker.--Wetman 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"John", John and the author of John

Notice how the use of John meaninmg the Gospel is arranged to slide together with John the author in the following excerpt, so that the reader is not permitted to distinguish between author and text:

"The Signs Gospel is one of the hypothetical source texts for the Gospel of John which textual criticism supposes to exist. It is now widely agreed that John draws upon a tradition of miracles which is substantially independent of the three synoptic gospels, even if its author(s) knew of them. Whether this tradition is real or invented by the author, the hypothetical text resulting from it on which John drew is known as the Signs Gospel.

Genuine neutrality is restored by the standard convention of using italics for titles thus: "the hypothetical text resulting from it on which the author of John drew..." Listen carefully to the ensuing arguments for not employing italics. --Wetman 10:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Later scholarship" unspecified referent: "this community"

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

miracles of Jesus vs. Miracles of Jesus

Hi, here is conflict in using "miracles of Jesus" and "the source named Miracles of Jesus".

Could it be resolve?

Thanks you very much. 31.30.172.61 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a conflict between those being entirely separate things in the English language. This article is very badly written, but that isn't even a minor problem. — LlywelynII 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bultmann Section Missing Citation

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

So what happened?

Did the actual content of the article get removed at some point? or has it always been missing its actual content?

There's no explanation of Beloved Disciple, the Miracles of Jesus 'tradition', or what makes it distinct from the synoptic gospels... all of which are fairly basic for the topic. — LlywelynII 12:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]