Talk:Acts of John

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Unsubstantiated Claims Corrected

At the time of this edit, two other online sources were citing this article as their authority. The statements cited from this article are not supported by the underlying sources. Therefore, I have made the following corrections:

1) The article claimed that most scholars had dated the Acts of John to the Second Century, while Ehrman (the source cited) made the humbler claim, "It is difficult to know when the Acts of John was composed, but many scholars locate it to the second half of the second century." [Ehrman, Bart D. (2003-10-02). Lost Scriptures : Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Kindle Locations 2240-2241). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.] Ehrman himself cites none of these scholars, so it is difficult to dig much deeper.

2) The article claimed that the Second Council of Nicea was in 325. This was the claim that caught my eye. The First Council of Nicea was in 325; the Second was in 787. Ehrman locates the date in the correct century.

3) I deleted the claim that early Christians probably accepted the Acts of John, a claim Ehrman never makes, and replaced it with a claim he does make - that the docetist stuff is probably a later interpolation anyway. I left the contradictory claim that the Latin text has been "purged", which would indicate that the docetist stuff is original, since it was (poorly) sourced to a work I do not (yet) own. LUbunkrman (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]