Talk:Apocryphon of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Two Summaries[edit]

There's two full summaries of the Apocryphon of John in the article, and it's unclear if there's a great reason why -- one is in the Overview section, and the second is in the Summary of the Text and its Cosmology section. I would recommend that the one in the Overview section be removed, though I don't have time right now to fully review and compare both on their merits. JasonAdama (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I went and read through both summaries, and it appears that the first summary (in the Overview section) is not only out of place and inferior, going into unnecessary detail, and also containing original research. I'm removing it, and letting the other summary in "Summary of the Text and its Cosmology" stand. JasonAdama (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Massive amounts of original research[edit]

This article as it stands contains a massive amount of original research, conclusions, speculations, theories and judgements which are not attributed (and furthermore, not written very well). For example: "Therefore, the Gnostics with the Apocryphon of John are trying to state that Moses basically got everything wrong and everyone else (the Christians and Jews) were being duped by the demiurge and not the true Divine Father." I'm going to clean things up a bit, and remove that statement. More to come. JasonAdama (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that perhaps the most offensive amount of original research is under the "Influenece" header. I'm going to have to read it more carefully before making any edits, but it may be that the bulk of that section simply needs to be deleted. It reads as if the author simply wrote stream of consciousness in a conversational manner, and there are no attributions. JasonAdama (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing section on types of Gnosticism[edit]

The paragraph on different types of Gnosticism is poorly placed, even more poorly written, and adds no real information to the article. This article is about the Apocryphon of John, not Gnosticism, so readers wanting to learn about the types should consult the main Gnosticism article. JasonAdama (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Decad[edit]

I have written on the talk page of Decad (Greek philosophy)‎ that this text also presents a decad. Perhaps something about this can be written here and also there. I have already written some about the Valentinian ogdoad in the Ogdoad article. __meco (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What version?[edit]

What version of the apocryphon this article handles? In what amount it relates to the version found in Nag Hammadi, which is also given as a link on the article [1]? Since that text doesn't contain words like "five hundred and fifty days since he had risen from the dead" or "Peter and I gave thanks and sent our hearts upward toward heaven. We heard with our ears [..]", mentioned in the article. The text doesn't even mention Peter at all, but in this article he is an important person. Only the initial text "the teaching of the saviour, and the revelation of the mysteries [..]" seems to match with the Nag Hammadi version. --Tomisti 11:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels[edit]

Are we really using elaine Pagels as a source? --user:MathaytaceChristou

Re: Jung and Voegelin[edit]

I dind't think Jung had access to the Apocryphon of John, he had access to the Jung codex of course, but it didn't contain ApocJn, from what I understand, it only had codex I with lots of Valentinian stuff. His source on the mythology within ApocJn was really Irenaeus, etc., and yes that does contain the underlying story outline, but this part should perhaps be in the section on Sethianism instead? Did Voegelin get into detail with the Apoc John or was he similarly more into Irenaeus, etc? I haven't read Order in History, I do know that in New Science of Politics and in Science, Politics, and Gnosticism, he doesn't mention the ApocJohn nor does he get into details with Irenaeus. SquirleyWurley 03:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)