Jump to content

Talk:John the Apostle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheFloydman (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 13 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Beloved Disciple

There needs to be made mention here of the tradtion which identifies the Beloved Disciple with John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.68.73 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why born-again Christian?

"This category contains only self-identified Born again Christians that follow the Bible's teachings as the Word of God and worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour." So, does "John the Apostle" belong? I didn't notice any self-identification as such. --Peter Kirby 12:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Divine"

As far as I know, "Divine" is a Latinate word for "Theologian", not "one who has had a revelation" -- which would, after all, make that title a tautology. (See the second definition of the noun here.) "John the Theologian" in many traditions is how the author of the fourth Gospel is called, and thus "John the Divine" simply identifies the author of Revelation with the author of the Gospel. However, I question whether this is what the book is "formally" called anyway. This online Greek Bible simply calls it "Apokalypsis Ioannou", while the current version of the Vulgate has "Apocalypsis Ioannis". I think we need a cite for "John the Divne" in the title of that book if it's to be kept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octave of St John

Hi. Great article. Forgive me for a bit of editing. You make a reference to an octave in the Roman Catholic calendar after the Feast of St John on December 27. This octave (though not the feast) was surpressed in the Roman Rite in 1963( refer to the Roman Missal, 1963 edition, approved by Pope John XXIII). I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to an octave. --Gaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.128.90 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why 3 sections

Why are there three sections on John the Evangilist, John Aposle of Jesus, and John of Patos? There is a further section on John the Presbyter. This all seems very redundant. 65.5.230.181 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, even though Christian tradition is clear that these are all the same person, scholarship is not so sure. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle

Hi, I'm doing my confirmation project and I need to know what this means:

"In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose in the first chapter of his gospel."

How exactly did he "rise?" I've looked on other sites, but they all say the same thing, with no explanation. --Thrashmeister 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better place for questions like this is the reference desk. Article talk pages are really for discussing issues over article content.
But this will tell you that it is because of the "lofty heights of his theological thought." St. John's Gospel is considered the most theologically sophisticated of the canonical Gospels, with its parallels to Hellenic thought and relatively elegant language. (There's a lot to be said about his Gospel, which I won't get into now. This is really about more than just the first chapter, but the first chapter is an excellent example.) For this reason he is called "John the Theologian" in the East and "John the Divine" (which means the same thing) in the West.
Of course, the symbols of the four evangelists are drawn from scenes like those of Ezekiel 1:10 after the likenesses of the "living creatures". TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trained by polycarp?

This article states as a matter of fact that John, the disciple of Jesus described in the New Testament, trained Polycarp, a Christian bishop of the early 2nd century. What is the proof for this? Also the article on Polycarp only says it is 'probable' the two knew each other.Revilo098 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding tradition that Polycarp was a student of John's as a boy or young man. Hopefully I'll remember to dig up a source. It should be stated in exactly those terms, as a tradition and not a fact, unless I can find a quote from Polycarp himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek?

Does anyone wanna take on translating this to Greek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teofil Bartlomiej (talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is simple, just go to: 

http://www.greekbible.com

Type in the verses from The Gospel of John where he is described as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved", and you will see that the ancient Greek word is "agape".

What is most interesting is that the Greeks used four separate words for four different types of love. See: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

Agape love is NOT erotic love - which has it's own separte word (Eros)!!

The case should now be closed on this outrageous claim ! Wolfgrogan 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Wolfgrogaqn[reply]

Picture

Picture? - I am not a scholar but that looks incorrect...

Queer Readings

The suggestion that Jesus & John had a Homosexual relationship is totally illogical and unsubstantiated! It seems to be based soley from the Bible's description of John leaning his head back against Jesus' chest at the Last Supper. In this regard it is important to note that they did not use chairs back then when they dined, but rather that they reclined on pillows at very short tables. The fact that John considered himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" bears testimony to the fact that Jesus loves each and every one of us - 'Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so'." It only goes to show that John knew that Jesus did love him enough to die for him.

In addition, all one has to do is to go to Greekbible.com and punch in the verses from The Gospel of John to read the Greek for yourself. When you do, you will see that the Greek word used here for love is Agape love (agapaw,v {ag-ap-ah'-o} 1) of persons 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 2) of things 2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing. The acncient Greeks had four separare words for love. Agape is the one for a type of intentional unconditional love, There is a separate word for erotic love "Eros" in Greek - WHICH IS NOT USED IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN to describe Jesus' relationship with John. The other two types of love in Greek are "Philos" for Brotherly Love - hence Philadelphia, and "Storge" for family / parental love.

See separate article on the four Greek words for defferent types of love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

Whoever wrote this section of this article needs to learn his Greek !!! When he does, he will quickly realize that this claim should be dropped immediately based on the true menaing of "Agape" love.

In any case, had there been any hint of such a sexual relationship, you can rest assured that the Pharisees and Scribes would have accussed them of such and used it against them! The fact that there is no evidence of any of the enemies of Christianity having made such an acccusation until the 16th Century -- according to your own blurb is significant! The Jews of that day would certainly have quoted from Leviticus 20 had either of them been known to have committed any kind of sexual sin. In other words, even their contemporary enemies did not accuse them of such a thing!!

The Apostle Paul - once a perscutor himself of early Christianity - would never have written Romans 1:26-32, if there had been any truth to such accusations.

This section is nothing more than Politcally Correct BS to placate Gay Readers. The text itself is pure. It is only the minds of those reading into what they want - or hope - to see that creates such a perverse idea.

In any case, the arguement is totally unspported by any contemporary evidence and defies logic - when one considers that their contemporay enemies never saw fit to accuse them of such behavior!--Wolfgrogan 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The content of the section is probably acceptable, but the heading is certainly at best badly phrased. John Carter 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usage is quite humdrum - do a quick search for "queer studies" and you will see what I mean. Did you have an alternative? Haiduc 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is "humdrum" to you, but is probably not up to encyclopedic standards, as per wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps a more clear and straightforward statement like "allegations of homosexuality" or "later interpretations of the character" would be both clearer for those who do not regularly peruse homosexual literature and more straightforward. Also, if there are any other such legends not supported by the canonical text (and there are), they would also be able to be included in the same basic section. John Carter 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scholarly term, odd as that might seem to some. It is also very fitting, since these are "readings" and they extend beyond the mainstream Western homosexual constructions. I'll be interested in what others have to say on this topic. Haiduc 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly true. I do not know the subject well enough. However, if that is true that they are "readings" then it is questionable whether it belongs in the article about the subject per se, or possibly in another page. As the word was not explained, I am forced to assume from context that it might be a reading into the text something that might not actually be there. If that is the case, then perhaps adding it to a separate page regarding interpretations of the subject might be more appropriate. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is an example of that. I have indicated that the article needs attention on the Saints banner and am posting a message on the WikiProject Saints talk page. I imagine we might get responses shortly. John Carter 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Queer theology" and "Queer Interpretations" are scholarly terms. I am quite familiar with the idea in both theology and biblical/historical interpretations. However, I feel that way presented in this article is POV because of undue weight. In the field of queer studies, John is very notable. In the field of Johannine studies, the queer interpretation is not very notable. I do think that the info should be present in the article, but I question the prominence of the info and the amount of relative article space given over to it. -- Pastordavid 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue was devoid of historicity I would be tempted to agree with Pastordavid that this is a queer studies issue rather than a Johannine matter. But I have second thoughts when taking into consideration the age of the events. Let's be frank and admit that the absence of scholarship on the topic in Johannine studies could well reflect the Church's distaste of "un-natural relations" far more than the absence of material to be studied. Haiduc 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will get no argument from me that the reason most people don't ever hear this, or even of the idea of queer studies, is because of the "ick-factor". I am not saying "let's just sweep it under the rug." It just seems like undue weight in the way it is presented here. -- Pastordavid 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I remember having read an allegation in a book that Jesus had sex with the fellow in the white sheet at Gethsemane, and had no particular objections to it as a hypothesis. However, I do tend to think that this section might better fit into a larger section perhaps incorporating some of the ideas from the apocryphal books of the NT and other subsequent interpretations (like in The DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail) than as a separate main heading. And while I acknowledge the "ick-factor" I'm not sure that we can automatically assume that it is one of the primary reasons for lack of attention to the subject. That seems to me to be getting uncomfortably close to being original research. John Carter 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As often happens in situations such as these, the only solution is to expand the section so as to strengthen the scholarship behind it, which in time will lead to a spin-off and a new article with a stub left here in its place. But spinning off at this point seems premature. Haiduc 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a dilemma here -- as I see it. The queer studies articles are to general (or undeveloped) to support the addition of this material, and the material is too specific for this article as well. I think you have an idea though ... I think a stub, something like "Queer Interpretations of John" or better, "John in Queer Studies" would be a good idea. I agree, there is enough out there for an article at some point -- but I also think that there is currently enough for a stub (certainly more than is included in some stubs). -- Pastordavid 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering several saints stubs are just a single sentence, I have to agree. This section is certainly already more substantial than many stubs I have recently seen. John Carter 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are treading on slippery ground here. It is one thing to spin off a top-heavy section to make it into its own article, leaving a brief paragraph or two behind as an abstract. It is quite another to spin off that section when it is little more than an abstract to begin with, because it is an uncomfortable and provocative topic. That is known here as a POV fork, and generally discouraged. Again, I think we need to expand this to the extent supported by existing scholarship, and at that point reduce it again to a paragraph or two and start a new article with the rest. But now?! Way premature, as I see it. Haiduc 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. However I notice that according to google this is the only article in wikipedia which at this point has a "queer readings" section. On that basis, it might be better to create a basic "queer readings" article, perhaps describing the term, its use in culture, etc., and perhaps include much of the present abstract on St. John in that article. Alternately, a "Queer readings of the Bible" (sorry, like I said, I am less than familiar with the term or the subject, so I don't know if it is applied anywhere outside the Bible) could be created, with the content from this page included. I do note that in the Mona West article several works on the subject are referenced, and they could also be at least initially included in the same article. Also, I sincerely doubt that such an article, particularly as it deals with literature which qualifies as significant according to wikipedia guidelines, would be described as being a POV fork. John Carter 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a "homosexual reading" has more to do with John's identification with the Beloved Disciple than anything the Gospels say explicitly about John. And since we say very little about the Beloved Disciple here (and we don't need to, we have several dedicated articles dealing with the identification), the queer theory section seems unnecessary to the point of receiving undue weight. Not that the issue shouldn't be discussed, it should just be discussed at one of those other articles. Perhaps moving it to Beloved Disciple, and linking there with a sentence saying something like, "Due to the tradition that identified John with the Beloved Disciple, an interpretation arose that John and Jesus were lovers (see [[new section]]). This has been discussed in queer studies..." Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with the recent sentiments of John Carter, Pastordavid and Cuchullain. The problem with this matter is not that it is “provocative” or “uncomfortable”, it’s that it is a fringe theory. I don’t think there is any question that it is, and as such it should be handled with the Wikipedia content guidelines relating to fringe theories. A few of the guidelines that are particularly salient here I have included below and applied to this matter: 1) “If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.” For example, the subject is not even mentioned at all in the Encylopedia Britannica entry (The New Encyclopedia Britannica v.6 pp 585-586). As noted above, the subject may be untouched in Johannine studies but considered in queer studies. In which case it probably should be treated in an article on queer readings of the bible, or a like article. This does not constitute a POV fork. 2) “The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article.” 3)“Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.” Haiduc claims that the absense of this theory in Johanine studies may be due to bias, but as Wikipedia guidelines note, this “is not a forum…for countering systemic bias”. If mainstream Johanine studies ignore the subject, for whatever reason, this is not the place to remedy that. There may be a place for mentioning this reading of John’s life somewhere on Wikipedia but probably not in this article and certainly not to this degree, as it is plainly given undue weight in light of the idea’s status. Mamalujo 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to withhold judgment on the Beloved Disciple issue. While the topic is clearly relevant it is not clear that it would free us from needing to mention this aspect here also. As for the notion that this is "fringe", I am afraid that there we are descending into a complex discussion of who is and who is not fringe. Whatever else Wikipedia is, it is not a religious project but a secular one. Thus holding up the religious mainstream as being THE mainstream is simply not tenable. From the secular scholarly perspective, religious views are highly suspicious and viewed as quite possibly biased. Consider for example Qur'anic studies in western academia, which are beginning to identify changes to the text over the centuries, a text seen as a historical document, and the "mainstream" Islamic position, that it is and has always been the unchanging word of god. Who is mainstream and who is fringe? Here likewise the "fringe" argument is a sword with two edges, which you would be unwise to wield on a topic that has NOT been fashioned out of whole cloth by queer scholarship, but which is documented for centuries, touched upon by writers and personages as diverse as Christopher Marlowe, James I, Denis Diderot, and Jeremy Bentham, among many others.
Certainly a reader who opens an encyclopedia deserves to read about all aspects of the topic, not just what the church with its Johannine dogma would like him to read. Perhaps we need to solidify further the historicity of this point of view? Haiduc 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be possible to "solidify further the historicity of this point of view", I regret to say that given the existing quality of the article doing so would lend even more weight to the idea than it already has in the article, and could possibly result in an RfC or other action which might result in some sort of less-than-voluntary editing on the part of someone else. Like I said above, I think that, at this point in the development of wikipedia's content regarding this subject, the creation of an article specifically dealing with queer readings and establishing the notability of such ideas is probably the best idea. That article could then be linked to from this article and other relevant articles, and possibly have the content diffused to other articles, including this one, when the amount of content in that main article becomes too much for one page. Otherwise, as it is now, without the "queer readings" heading in use, which would be almost required as a reference to establish the notability of the content under discussion, I think a great many more people might see and possibly object to the inclusion of the content here, which would almost certainly be counterproductive. John Carter 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I fully understand your argument. Spinning off and linking is clear enough, but I do not see why a lot of people objecting, presumably on religious reasons, would be an issue. And anyway, if we did spin off, we would still have to maintain the section heading and leave a paragraph or so behind, a kind of abstract. I think some additional input would be welcome, we should not fear the RfC process. Haiduc 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your presumption that it would be because of religious regions does not take into account the fact that what many people might see is a disproportionate amount of the extant article deals with a subject which is probably not essential to the average person's understanding of the subject. Also, creating a separate article would also make it easier for additional links in other articles, rather than just this one. Also, I am aware of how a good many people who might oppose the inclusion of the content might be "requested" to comment, and how that very likely disproportionate response could potentially lead to the consensus opinion to remove the content altogether. Certainly such extreme responses have been known to happen in other religious RfC's. And it would be much harder for any one or group to completely remove the content if there were another extant article which it directly ties and links to. On that basis, I think including just a short synopsis here with a link to elsewhere might be the best way to go, unless someone else decides to put in all the content from the NT apocrypha relating to John which has not yet been added. I really don't think that is likely, though, so I think the creation of a larger article dealing with either queer studies of the Bible or queer studies in general would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable, I would agree to such a split as long as enough material was kept here under a separate heading for people to find easily. By the way, I have requested comments from people interested in LGBT issues, it cannot hurt, and feel free to request comments from other groups. We have no choice but to assume good faith all around. Haiduc 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think something else we're missing here is that the section doesn't make it clear why it is notable. There are no references from actual publications discussing it, it just names some people who said (or were said to have said) that Jesus and John might have been gay. It does not say why they thought this; as I said above, I'd imagine the idea came about because of John's traditional identification with the Beloved Disciple, but the section makes no mention of that. It also doesn't include any analysis from scholars, or even provide reliable sources for who said what (with the exception of the bishop [and now Diderot and Bentham]). Finally, it does not make the case for why such thoughts are important enough to include here, making it look like the subject is receiving undue weight compared to the rest of the article. If the section is to be kept, this will need to be remedied. If the queer reading is notable, it shouldn't be hard to find sources to prove it.--Cúchullain t/c 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article spun off, abstract left in place. Thank you all, this has been very instructive and helpful. Your suggestions and critiques point the way for developing that article further. Haiduc 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the section based on the opinion of the source quoted or are there verifiable facts to support the section and meet the test of verifiability? It seems that this section may contain objectionable content based on opinion or hearsay and then question of notability comes into play. If we are to deal with hypotheticals when adding to a subject I think it takes away from the validity of the article. And in that case I think the section should be omitted in good faith. Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Chronicle2000Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link the main article. The theory presented here is well sourced, by verifiable and reliable sources. It is presented here as one possible interpretation of the facts, and an interpretation put forward by a number of reliable sources. I may disagree with the interpretation, but that does not make it inappropriate. Indeed, to be silent about a major interpretation of the facts is more disconcerting. -- Pastordavid 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section represents an unduly weighted and very minor interpretation. Wikipedia loses its reliability as a source of information when a small number of fringe authors can place such emphasis on their interpretaion of history.Brian0324 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it does at this point receive undue weight given the length of the article. However, that is not because of the length of the section, but rather the lack of length of the rest of the article. There is a great deal of other information which could and should be added to the article. If and when that information is added, then this section will likely have the amount of relative weight and length that it might now be perceived as having. In short, the better way to address it is to add the other information to the article, not to remove the section. John Carter 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has only one source to rely on, which is based on interpretation and theory. This significantly weakens the section's argument. The most reliable source regarding the Apostle John is the bible, it truthfully recounts the events of his life. There are eyewitnesses to the life of John which can be found in the writings of the gospels. To silence the truths presented in the bible is disconcerting. Maybe the section can be lengthened to show that there is no basis in the bible to substantiate the authors interpretation. That way the reader can distinguish that the theory advanced is not fact but interpretation. This would preserve the objectivity of Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is indeed a secular site then there should be no discussion of the Apostle John and the question of homosexuality.Chronicle2000 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to references. If you would follow the "main article" link, there are 11 in-text citations for 7 sources -- more than in many other articles -- more than in this article.
As to the status of Wikipedia -- yes, it is a secular site. As a gathering of knowledge, the encyclopedia is interested in John as a historical figure, and equally interested in how John has been understood throughout history.
Is the position in question an interpretation? Yes. The verifiable facts of John's life are thin, and interpretation is necessary -- indeed, interpretation is necessary to understand any historical figure. Fact -- Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with his army. Interpretation -- Ceasar was claiming the throne of Rome. Without interpretation, the fact is pretty meaningless. Fact -- John, among the apostles seems to enjoy a unique relationship with Jesus. This is an interpretation of that fact.
Even if it is concluded that this is a false interpration of the facts, it is still notable and worth mentioning in any compendium of knowledge. It is held by enough people that, within the history of thought and biblical interpretion, it deserves note.
No Biblical truths are silenced in this article. Biblical facts are included -- please feel free to add more and expand the article. Other sources are also used (although not sourced at the moment), including extra-biblical tradition about the sainthood and life of John.
Pastordavid 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John in Mormonism

There are a few problems with this section. First, it says "The Roman Catholic Church holds that John was the only one of the twelve Apostles who was not martyred", but goes on to provide a source to the Book of Mormon. This is problematic, but what does Catholic tradition have to do with Mormon belief anyway?

On a related note, it should be mentioned that the tradition of the tarrying apostle apparantly first arose many centuries prior to Mormonism, as evidenced by the mention in John 21:23. This needs to be included, but the actual quote refers to the Beloved Disciple, not directly to John. Later tradition, including the Mormon one, identifes the Beloved with John, but we need to make it clear that was not necessarily the case at the time the Gospel of John was written.--Cúchullain t/c 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In October 2007 this section was removed from the article. Why? Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Homosexual readings"

The section as it is is worded as if its content is the mainstream belief. This is not the case. Someone please rectify the problem. Suggestions include clarifying that this belief is held by the minority as opposed to the majority, noting that the main reason some believe this is because of The disciple whom Jesus loved, and possibly that a different interpretation of this could be that Jesus could have taken on the role of a father figure to the young disciple. If the bias is not removed I will suggest the section's deletion from the article. James Callahan 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the verb used here is conjugated from αγαπάω which means erotic love only most rarely, and is related to αγαπη which is the exclusive word used for Divine love. But it was also used (perhaps even primarily) to mean "fondness" or a kind of brotherly love. The Greeks actually had a different word for parental love.
But I've attempted to neutralize the paragraph. See what you think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if either of you read the "Queer Readings" (which was the former subtitle for this section) debate above, but discussion over this section has been going on for a while. Please don't edit the paragraph or propose deletion without contributing or acknowledging the existing talk section above. Irish♣Pearl 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is held by a minority, and a very small minority at that, then it's not at all POV to say so. I can't imagine why it would be. Furthermore, the word "tradition" in this context has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't apply here, and which grants this opinion undue weight. The assessment given above of this as a fringe theory was absolutely correct. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Csernica, instead of calling it a tradition we could call it a heresy (as they are both accurate I do not think it worth the energy to defend an aspect covered in the main article). Would that be acceptable? Haiduc 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, probably not. This issue is not so much an issue regarding religious belief per se, but rather the conduct of the religious figure. The word "Heresy" is generally only applied to fundamental dogmatic and doctrinal differences, and this question generally isn't thought to rise to that level. John Carter 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Suggest that the word "love" in the beginning of the second sentence be changed to "alleged relationship" or some other term which might make it a bit clearer that what is being discussed seems to be, according to most of the sources used, some sort of variation on what is generally referred to as "sexual conduct." John Carter 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object if the recent addition to the article were to be changed to say "The theory has never received much attention or acceptance" or something similar? John Carter 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would not, hopefully it would discourage passersby from adding material "refuting" the idea, or encourage them to contribute to the dedicated page instead. We would have to come up with something less weasel-worded, though.--Cúchullain t/c 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at that same section, thinking it looked a little awkward. Good idea on the move to the main article. Does anyone else find it interesting that every new user objects to the "absurdity" of such a theory ... yet it is the only referenced paragraph on the whole page? How many times can we say "Just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it is not a real, academic, theory." -- Pastordavid 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Pastor. I think we could still do with a line informing the reader this view has never gained all that much attention, we could use the source I just moved to the other page or one of the others to back it up.--Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe"

That the "queer interpretation" of Jesus and John is non-canonical is already noted. To call it "fringe" is overkill; and in no way could it be seen as a NPOV description. -- Pastordavid 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to John , the DaVici Code is fantasy , there is no historical base, in fact there are 270 historical mistakes . Anthony Teale ,14,March,2007

The fact that its a fringe theory is clear if only due to the fact that the only citation is unlinkable, is only from the book of one man, on one page apparently. This theory is just not credible enough based upon the huge body of mainstream Christian thought, nor is there a historical basis that can be verified in any way. We know almost nothing about the lives of the apostles historically to any great degree of certainty and there is no widespread belief that John the Apostle was gay. This does not mean that the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John shouldn't be listed under internal links. If there is a larger body of thought from credible sources that I'm unaware of the section miight be reasonable. but one man's (Louis Crompton) book that I have to just assume actually exists. with no way to determine this man's credibility. As well this book is entitled "Homosexuality and civilization" but apparently mentions this theory on just one page. I am going to put this under an internal link until there are a few more citations.Colin 8 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not reporting on the liklihood of John and/or Jesus being gay (it's unproveable given the sources, and I think very unlikely), we're reporting on the use of the idea by others. If you look at the main article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John, there are plenty of reliable sources for the idea. That said, I don't like have a whole section with only two sentences in it; this can be fixed by either keeping a link in a "see also" section, or fleshing out the summary to justify giving it its own section (though care should be taken about undue weight were this to happen); a third option would be to create a new section about general interpretations of John where the summary can be placed.--Cúchullain t/c 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, indeed there are significantly more references than just one -- follow the link to the "main article." That they are not included on this page is a compromise reached to keep from giving this theory too much weight on this page. That you cannot link to the resource (i.e., that its print) is not a strike against a reference -- in fact for most of the academic world, being published by a publisher is usually more reputable than being published online. Although, to your point, I will see if the person who listed that ref can get the ISBN for the article, so people have something to click on. -- Pastordavid 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the ISBN number and have added it. John Carter 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, you also need to understand that printed sources are actually more reliable than one that's "clickable". Anyone with Internet access can put up a web page to say anything he wants to. The bar is rather higher for book publishers.
That doesn't mean it's not a fringe theory in the larger context, but it is a significant one in modern liberal theological circles.
This is, indeed, an opinion held in some quarters. I would critize the Homosexual readings of Jesus and John article in this regard though, that to say it's a "longstanding" theory that the two were lovers relative to a two thousand year old religion, when in fact it was only expressed for the first time in the 16th century, is misleading at best. It gives the impression that this was believed by some since antiquity, which cannot be demonstrated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language

What language did John speak? Mostly Hebrew or more Aramaic? I was watching a show yesterday where they, don't blame me, were researching if John of Patmos really could have been John the apostle since the message written in revelation fits in John the apostle's situation. I thought by myself, if John spoke Aramaic like Jesus I wonder if he could make the same references as one can in Hebrew. Since they applied the Hebrew rules to uncode the 666 number into Caesar Nero. But I wondered if John would use that if his mother language was not Hebrew. So, did he speak Aramaic or Hebrew with Jesus? Mallerd 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one spoke Hebrew conversationally. Even at the time, it was a literary and liturgical language. The languages of the street were Aramaic and Koine Greek .
But Aramaic and Hebrew are written with the same alphabet and use the same numerical values for their letters, so the conversion works in both. The procedure you describe sounds invalid to me though, since the Apocalypse was written in Greek for a mostly non-Aramaic-speaking readership. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that they are written in the same alphabet? I see here different letters. Oh sorry I see that Jesus' Aramaic has a different alphabet. I think the same about the encoding procedure, but hey, Revelation is full of strange descriptions. Mallerd 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Eyewitness", Scholarly Consensus, and Quotations

In the section headed "In the Bible", the following is stated without qualification as a matter of fact: "The Gospel of John is considered important because it is a direct eyewitness account of the life and words of Jesus, and it contains direct quotes from Jesus." This is, to say the least, highly debatable. Trivially, with the possible exception of three quotations in the Gospel of Mark (5:41, 7:34, and 15:34) and one in Matthew (27:46), none of the Gospels contain direct quotes from Jesus. This is for the simple reason that Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic and used it in most of his teaching; whereas, with the aforementioned exceptions, all the Gospels are written in Koine Greek. Thus, the most one can say is that the Gospels contain translations or paraphrases of the words of Jesus. True, Jesus probably did speak Koine, too, and some of the quotations may have been from Greek statements of his, but this not likely, and is material for another article.

More importantly, the majority of scholars would argue that none of the Gospels as we now have them are "direct eyewitness accounts". They may contain oral traditons or other sources that originate in eyewitness accounts, but this is not the same thing as a "direct eyewitness account". It is highly likely that, even if Apostolic authorship of John or any other Gospel is accepted, the original autograph was edited, redacted, and finalized by disciples and scribes after the orignal authors' deaths.

It is especially surprising to find a statement that it is the Gospel of John that is particularly important because it is based on "direct eyewitness accounts". Most scholars would argue that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are both earlier than John and more likely to contain primitive and "eyewitness" material. John is obviously the product of extensive development and theologizing, and is almost universally agreed to have been written at least thirty years later than the earliest of the Synoptics.

I am not arguing against the Gospel of John as a valid part of the New Testament of of Divine revelation, nor am I arguing that it does not contain material that is eyewitness or based on eyewitness accounts. What I am suggesting is that the piece as written gives a far too simplistic view of the complicated process by which Scripture came into being and does not give sufficient context regarding scholarly views on various sides of the issues involved in the content of the Gospel of John.

On a lesser note, the quotations from John often lack quotation marks, which I think needs to be fixed, and I think it would be better to use a more contemporary translation than the King James. Yes, it is a great part of our heritage, but for a reference work the first priority should be clarity. Unless there is a specified reason otherwise, Biblical quotations should be from a relatively neutral and widely accepted contemporary translation (RSV, NRSV, NEB, or NIV, just to suggest a few).Turmarion 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author and Apostle Distinction

Needs to be cleaned up badly. From the Harper Collins Study Bible: "the Gospel itself does not make this identification and neither mentions John nor names its author." And from the Oxford World Classics notes:"Modern New Testament scholarship is sceptical [sic];" which seems like an understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.28 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_the_Apostle&oldid=219083162"