Talk:Gospel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reversion on eyewitness authorship in lead

Arbitrary break #1

So there you go. I just gave 5+ citations diff, and they would not allow it diff. They don't even allow the statement that some notable scholars disagree with reddish. I submit the sources, and it is big names, like FF Bruce, Richard Bauckham, Dan Wallace etc. I can provide citations too, but they do not allow it here. They literally sit on this article, and disallow ANYTHING, no matter how sourced it is, if it disagrees with Reddish --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting this into a new thread since it deals with a new topic. The subject is whether the gospels are by eyewitnesses: we have Mitchell Reddish, "An Introduction to the Gospels", as the source, saying "we cannot...name the persons responsible" for any of the gospels that and "we must consider the authors as anonymous". I was the one who reverted you, and I'll explain why.

• First, it's a basic principle of Wikipedia that we reflect the dominant academic opinion. If there's no single dominant opinion we note differences; and we ignore minority opinions entirely - this is called Due Weight. The dominant opinion in this case is that the gospels are not by the various people named in the superscriptions, and at no point in the gospels themselves is this claim made, not even in John.
• Second, you haven't done your sourcing properly. You should simply have the name of the author, the year of publication, and the relevant page number - this allows readers to check.
• Your sources don't back you up. For example, John Morris in his commentary on John says that most scholars do NOT hold that the author of that gospel was John (pp.4-5). We could use Morris as a source for the existing statement, but we can't use him for yours.

In short, you need to find where the academic consensus lies, and not pick up the extremist evangelical views you have here. Achar Sva (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please, remember that Wikipedia is based around verifiability and not "truth". I can verify that published scholars of the New Testament disagree with Mitchell Reddish's conclusions. These are not extremists. These are published scholars. Additionally, I don't see your problem. We mention reddish first and imply that his view is the consensus. It seems that you do not want any other views mentioned here, which, of course, borders on original research and censorship. We will not be censoring this information. These are published scholars that disagree with Reddish. I already allowed for the article to give the impression that most critical scholars regard them as not being written by eye witnesses. What you seem to want is complete censorship of the verifiable fact that respectable scholars disagree with Reddish. And I don't see why we should let you censor verifiable facts. Neither should we have you defaming world class, published scholars like Dan Wallace, Mike Licona, FF Bruce, Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham,Michael J Kruger, Leon Morris, Darrell Bock, F. David Farnell etc... These are world class professors with PHDs and published academics of the New Testament, some of these scholars are leading the way in their fields (e.g Dan Wallace's involvement with Papyrus 137). All of them disagree with Reddish, and the idea that this should not even have a mention is laughably insane. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

We have WP:PAGs like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It's not policy, but the WP:ONUS is upon you for why should Wikipedia teach something that WP:CHOPSY cannot teach. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think CHOPSY does not teach this? In my experience it does. Not by everybody, but certainly by some. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's not start calling reputable scholars "Extremist". WP:NPA doesn't just apply to contributors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not say "extremist", but in respect to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP conservative evangelical views are outliers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Good for you, but others did. Even if not mainstream, those scholars certainly represent a significant strand of scholarship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. And thank you for bringing up these policies. Let me make something clear. I am NOT giving undue attention to these disagreements. I am giving them exactly the attention that pretty much any other article on this subject gives them. This article is not special, and should follow the format any other one follows dealing with similar subjects. Secondly, this idea, while not the consensus, is NOT fringe. Fringe theory is something that would significantly undermine the credibility of a New Testament scholar. The idea that the authors of the Gospels are all unknown and not eye witnesses is the consensus among scholars, broadly speaking, and I do note it as such. What you seem to want is to omit any mention of alternative views, held among academically published scholars, because of something that could amount to original research. I have no way to test how much credence Yale divinity school gives to the traditional authorship of Mark or Luke. I have no way to determine that. That would be original research. I can only cite authors that say, broadly speaking, what the consensus is, while also giving verifiable data of notable, published, PHD level scholars that disagree, some in their published works. You know what I think. I think the burden of proof is upon you to tell us why you think this specific Wikipedia article is so special that it should follow a different format than literally ANY OTHER Wikipedia article dealing with the similar topic. Our other Wikipedia articles dealing with similar subjects give the consensus view, and also give other published scholars that disagree. For example, our article on who wrote the Johanine works,Pauline works, Colossians, Peter's works, 1 Peter, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy etc. Notice how these articles, and others like them follow the format of first giving the consensus view, and then giving the view of serious scholars that disagree. Tell us why our article should not follow the same format of noting the consensus and also the scholars that challenge that consensus? Tell me why our article should be one of the only ones censoring the information that is accepted on pretty much every other article dealing with the same subject? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to something like "Traditionally, Christians considered these attributions to be genuine and some scholars still take such view." As long as it is clear that from Ivy Plus to US state universities and from mainline US Protestant divinity schools to US Catholic divinity schools they don't teach it as true, objective historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is original research. I have no way of knowing that. Some of these ivy league schools offer accredited apologetics classes. And I suspect that, at least some of them, would still take the traditional view. Additionally, it would depend on the scholar. For example, the idea that Q source existed is overwhelmingly the consensus, but Mark Goodacre has taught at ivy league universities, and challenged the Q consensus. The Jesus seminar included some of the top ivy league New Testament scholars, and they rejected the view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. Now, Bart Ehrman, is another ivy league professor who teaches almost exclusively, the view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. There is academic freedom, and I have no way to evaluate which courses in which Ivy League university give how much credence to the traditional view. Case in point, JAT Robinson accepted the view that an eyewitness wrote at least some parts of the Gospel of John, and he taught at Trinity College in Cambridge. What I can show is that serious and important New Testament scholars challenge this consensus. And they are NOT extremists. Some of these scholars are literally leading the way for others. Dan Wallace is one example. Also, something like Christ Myth Theory is fringe. I do not know of a single active, relevant New Testament scholar that holds this view. Someone holding this view would be seen as completely fringe within his own discipline. There is NOTHING like that for holding to the traditional view. All 4 gospels carry the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" on manuscripts AS EARLY as we can go. We only go back to the 2nd century, because there are only about 4 or so fragments from the first century. It is entirely possible that these names were written on manuscripts in the 1st century too. There is no early Church father that is not unanimous with others on who wrote these. The only one who does not name them, is Justin Martyr, who nevertheless, calls them "memoirs of the apostles".. again, associating them with an apostolic origin. These are far from fringe arguments. They are NOT the consensus, but they are not fringe at all. And putting all of this aside, my challenge still stands. Why do you think that this article should be written differently than literally ANY OTHER written on this topic. I gave about 6 other articles that deal with a similar topic, and their writing style resembles mine. They first present the consensus view, and then the scholars that challenge the consensus. Why should this be written differently? Isn't that special pleading? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am also not opposed to something like what Tgeorgescu proposes, although I am open to further discussion too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease Yes, I think we all agree that "Christ myth" is fringe. And yes, we need to beware of talking about Ehrman as if he was the definitive source of truth. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am ok with what he proposes. It's just that I do not see how what I inserted is different. We do not need any further clarification. It is clear from the context that the consensus is that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. We need to mention what I put in, because it is verifiable and necessary. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

About Ehrman: nobody claimed that he would be inerrant and infallible. However, he is a reputed scholar, he knows virtually all US full professors from his field, and he wrote trade books seeking to express their consensus. Also, he said, the broad public thinks that it's a conflict between 2 POVs. He stated: more likely among 300 POVs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but what is your point, though? Ehrman clearly is reflected in this article as being in the majority. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a reply to we need to beware of talking about Ehrman as if he was the definitive source of truth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

About accredited apologetics classes: liberal Christians are not bothered that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew and so on. So apologetics for mainline Protestants and Catholics is not centered around biblical inerrancy. The Catholic Church does officially maintain that the Bible is infallible, however they do not mean it in the Sola Scriptura sense and leave open the possibility of historical mistakes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I am TOTALLY opposed to Aschar Sva censoring these changes. It seems that we all agreed on this. I am NOT going to allow this censorship to stand. The fact that some scholars argue for traditional attribution will NOT be censored. I provided reliable references, and I do NOT accept them being totally taken out. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

@GoogleMeNowPlease: instead of edit-warring, you could try to respond to the objections to your additions. And you could try to reduce the amount of text, by using named notes. Take notice that, in my opinion, you're using the lead to build an argument. Maybe you could include this info in the body of the article, but the way you put it in the lead is not okay.
This is what you added (in formatted form):

Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses, although others, notably

• Michael J Kruger,
• J. A. T. Robinson,
• F. F. Bruce,
• Leon Morris, and
• Martin Hengel

disagree.

[Other references and quotes, regarding John:]

• Edwards, R. A. "The Gospel According to St. John" 1954, p 9. One reason he accepts John's authorship is because "the alternative solutions seem far too complicated to be possible in a world where living men met and talked".
• Hunter, A. M. "Interpreting the New Testament" P 86. "After all the conjectures have been heard, the likeliest view is that which identifies the Beloved Disciple with the Apostle John.

[Morris further argues that the view that John's history is substandard "is becoming increasingly hard to sustain."]

Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.

Notes

References

Indeed, poorly formatted, and mixing-up references for two different statements c.q. arguments. Most of this is about John, not all of the four gospels. At the very least, you shouldn't write "although others [...] disagree," but write "some authors have argued that the Gospel of John is not anonymous." And then still you should write if that's scholarly concensus, or a minority view. What makes Kruger or Bruce "most notably"? Not to mention that you should check the sources; I can't access Hengel (2000), but Barnett (2019), Making the Gospels: Mystery or Conspiracy?, p.200, states that Hengel argues that John "the elder," and not the Apostel John, was the author of the Gospel of John. You seem to be very eager to prove a certain point of view, instead of carefylly contributing to building an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

- I removed a list of names and some citations from the lead for the following reasons:

• the lead serves as a summary of the article per MOS:LEAD, and WP:REPCITE, "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every mention."
• as the same names and citations are included in the Composition section there is no need to repeat them in full in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE, "avoid redundant citations in the lead" and WP:OVERCITE "adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode."
• the lead was turning into a bit of a citation farm - see WP:OVERCITE, "In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims...and is an example of the fallacy of proof by assertion: "According to scholars in My School of Thought, Claim 1.[1][2][3][4][5] However, experts at The Other Camp suggest that Claim 2.[6][7][8][9][10]"
• the multiple citations give undue weight to a minority viewpoint per WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
• I left the citation to Reddish because, as I recall from previous talk page discussions (I searched the archive and was unable to find the thread I remember), the Reddish citation is there as a convenient source to point to for edits, largely by IP editors, that regularly changed "almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses" to "almost certainly were by eyewitnesses" without offering any verification to support the change. Most of the references supplied seemed to refer only to the Gospel of John and cannot be used for all the gospels. If a single reference can be found that substantiates the views of other scholars, it could be added to balance the Reddish citation if anyone thinks it is necessary.

- Epinoia (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with the removal of the list of names from the lead. However the current edit has two problems. 1) It leaves the 'other scholars' statement as unreferenced. Removing the names does not mean we have to remove the references. We should put those back. 2) we now have a structure of "<overarching statement>, but other scholars disagree". We need to say who it is who holds to the first statement, and thus who the 'other scholars" are "other" from. May I suggest "Most scholars say <statement>, but other scholars disagree." I'd like to get it more specific than that, but baby steps. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

- I agree with that, but perhaps "Most scholars say <statement>, but others disagree." to avoid the repetition of "scholars" - Epinoia (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The text in the "Composition" part was still a mess, as noted above; I've copy-edited this, and the statement in the lead diff. I've also expanded some of the references; Wiki-editing is more than copy-dumping large chunks of ttexts from one article into another article... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia I think that would be OK. It's a little vague but I don't have a really better suggestion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

- the sentence has been changed (not by me) to "...though some scholars argue for the traditional attribution." with a link to a supporting note - I think that covers it adequately - Epinoia (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the number of scholars arguing for the traditonal ascriptions is almost invisible small - only a tiny minority of ultra-conservative voices. We need to reflect the fact that there's an overwhelming consensus. Achar Sva (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that that is not true. People like JAT Robinson taught their lectures in Cambridge, and these scholars and people like him have argued for the traditional ascriptions. These views will NOT be censored. I refuse to let you have them censored. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Content

The Content section contains surprisingly little of the actual content of the Gospels. It barely mentions parables, the Sermon on the Mount, miracles, conflict with the Pharisees, Jesus' claims to authority or Messiahship, his death or his resurrection. Someone reading this article would go away with almost no knowledge of what was actually written in any of the Gospels. We need to fix this. In an NPOV way of course. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

- if the content section is to be improved it would probably be by removing content and generalizing rather than adding irrelevant content to this article - there are other articles that more fully cover the content, there are individual articles on the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, articles on The gospel, Miracles of Jesus, Ministry of Jesus, Teaching of Jesus about little children, Life of Jesus in the New Testament, Genealogy of Jesus, Nativity of Jesus, Chronology of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, Crucifixion of Jesus, Passion of Jesus, Last Supper, Feeding the multitude, Cleansing of the Temple, etc. - in fact, almost every event in the life of Jesus has an independent article, so trying to fully cover the content of the gospels here is redundant and unnecessarily repetative - Epinoia (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not proposing adding irrelevant content. I would suggest we actually write about the content of the Gospels. Currently everything in the content section is about criticism of the gospels. How about a few paragraphs summarizing the events, teachings and themes that can be found in the gospels? That would be a good starting point. And of course links to the articles you mention. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything at all in the contents section that's criticism of the gospels, except in the sense that it reports the work of scholars. What do you see that's critical in any other sense?Achar Sva (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean "criticism" in the sense of "textual criticism". The section has lots of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Later today I will hopefully get to proposing something to put in a "content" section. But it will have to wait a bit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, it took a few days, but here is my proposal for the start of the "content" section. Note that I am not suggesting remvoing anything that is there (unless we decide that there is redundancy). Feel free to edit this.

The four Gospels tell the story of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. The bear little resemblance to modern biographies. With the exception of the stories of his birth, they tell almost nothing of his early life, beginning the narrative at the start of his teaching ministry. Large amounts of the narrative focus on the last few days of Jesus' life, especially his trial, death and resurrection.

The first three Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - present a similar picture of Jesus' life, and are called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning 'same view'. The Gospel of John presents a different picture - omitting events that the synoptics present, including unique material, and presenting some events in a different order.

Kinds of material found in the gospels includes:

Material	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Genealogy	Yes	No	Yes	No
Birth narrative	Yes	No	Yes	No
Summoning of Disciples	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Public teaching	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Private teaching	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Parables	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Miracles or Signs	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Confrontation with Jewish Leaders	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Arrest, trial and death	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Resurrection	Yes	Added after the first written version	Yes	Yes

Much more we can do, but there's a start. Obviously there will be more links. Let me know what you think. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, these are far too manyposts being made for me to keep up, but I do agree with what you're trying to do here. My problem is, however, that as it stands this is OR (I don't disagree with it, but it's what you or I might come up with, and it needs a source). Achar Sva (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ehrman 2005

There are two books Ehrman 2005. Help us sort them out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

There's still a cleanup tag on the article. Would anyone like to address that, or cxna we delete it? Achar Sva (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus on the authorship of the gospels

Since @GoogleMeNowPlease: seems to think that the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John might be seen as credible by a largish number of scholars, I post this:

• On Mark, "most critical scholars do not accept Papias's claim that the gospel was based on Peter's teaching.
• On Matthew, "most scholars doubt this tradition" (ie, that it was written by the apostle).
• On Luke, "many scholars reject the tradition that the author was Luke"
• On John, "the majority cling to it only in the most tenuous form or abandon it altogether" ("it" being the idea of John's personal authorship).

On this basis, it would be dishonest for us to give the impression in out article that traditional authorship is has any real support in modern scholarship. You've been warned about edit-warring before.Achar Sva (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

AGAIN, we reflect the majority view, while mentioning that there are serious scholars that disagree. Your account personally is new, and you have been warned for trying to stick it to Christians. You previously tried describing the Battle of Jericho as "fictional" even though other Wikipedians disagreed with you. I have cited top verifiable scholars that have disagree with the consensus. These are scholars that have taught at Cambridge and have been involved in some of the most significant disdoveries. Each one of them has a separate Wikipedia page, and more than 10 Wikipedia pages mention the challenge of the consensus by scholars like these on the respective pages. Additionally, I got the consensus of other editors to make these changes. You do not get to sit on these articles. We will not allow you to take control of these articles. The information will stand. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem willing to admit that the majority view is not just a majority but overwhelmingly so. You're pov-pushing, please stop.Achar Sva (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with us mentioning that this is the majority view. But i categorically reject any attempt to completely omit the mention of serious scholars that have challenged the conseus in piblished works. All of our other articles on the authorship of the New Testament first mention the consesus and then give the opposing view. i do not agree that this article shdould be different . We need to mention serious public scholars that challenge the anti-Christian consensus. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not an anti-Christian consensus, more like anti-fundie.

I don't want to be rude, but to be somewhat blunt: a fact remains a fact regardless of whether you understand it or not. If you wish to think that a popular author with no academic the training in the field is an expert because he's popular, then you're wrong. Plain and simple. And that a view is fairly widely held (an unproven claim) is utterly irrelevant. Creationism is a widely held view among both Muslims and Christians, we still do not try to pass it of as credible. All you show in your post above is that you don't understand academia, and Wikipedia policies. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but this is getting somewhat tedious. Your personal beliefs do not trump academic consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

And one more thing: kindly refrain from that old "atheism vs Christianity"-argument. This is about academia vs conspiracy theories. We have countless articles contradicting Christianity, and rightly so. On numerous topics academic consensus clashes with Christian belief and we rightly go for the academic view. That is what we are doing in this article ad well, regardless of whether it's contrary to your beliefs. At least have the honesty to stop using blatantly false arguments to gain sympathy. Jeppiz (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted from Talk:Christ myth theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so I just want to remind everyone reading this, that I am the person that has spent weeks here and several hours researching to try and help this article. I came here respectfully and tried to get consensus. I accepted all corrections and compromised as much as I could. I gave verifiable sources and a direct quote from a scholarly book of Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus chapter 3... that word for word says, that most of the textual variants are insignificant. The reference was removed simply because a user did not feel like allowing it. I try to remind everyone that Wikipedia is about verifiability, and not personal feelings. So I will try again to earnestly put my time into this, and diligently explain everything. I have put work into this. Please, do not splash cold water in my face by ignoring everything I write. So here goes:

Christ Myth Theory is a bad example. As you can see above, Christ Myth Theory is NOT a view that simply isn't held by majority of scholars. It is objectively and verifiably a conspiracy theory. It is NOT taught by published, New Testament academics, it is rejected in all Universities, NOT as a minority view, but as as a conspiracy theory, and people writing about it, are mostly self-published amateurs, like Earl Doherty. NOTHING like this is true for the traditional attributions of the Gospels. You set out a criteria for me and told me that something is fringe if it is not taught in places like Harvard and Cambridge. I met this criteria. JAT Robinson was a Cambridge professor, who taught New Testament scholarship in this "Ivy League" University, and he TAUGHT in Cambridge that the Apostle John, eyewitness actually wrote John. He published his source, and is cited in the references I provided. Leon Morris, a published New Testament scholar has not only published these views, but has, in his published works, written that entire parts of the British Academia have been more receptive to the traditional view of John, at least. You cite sources. And those sources merely say that majority of scholars no longer hold to the traditional view. AND I AM FINE WITH THAT. Let's cite those sources, and then let's cite the most notable scholars that disagree in PUBLISHED, Academic works. I am NOT asking that we cite every Christian apologist that has disagreed. I ask that we include scholars that have taught these views in Ivy League Universities, like Cambridge, that have published these views in scholarship. This is verifiable. I provide verifiable data. How did you decide that it is too fringe to be mentioned? What criteria is there? I have met EVERY SINGLE criteria that was demanded. I showed that it HAS BEEN taught in an Ivy League University, like Cambridge, I have shown that top New Testament scholars have, in their PUBLISHED WORKS disagreed with the majority view, and I have shown that entire parts of British Academia have been receptive to the idea that John wrote John. Additionally, there are other things to consider. For example, the earliest papyri that we can find, begin with ascribing the gospels to the traditional authors. For example, the Bodmer Papyri, all early sources hold to the traditional authorships, see here, here. And finally, EVERY SINGLE other Wikipedia article that we have on New Testament authorship, first mentions the consensus view, and then mentions the notable scholars that challenge the consensus. Why should this one be different?

PLEASE, set out an objective criteria I could meet to have this put back in? I have met the criteria of these views having been taught in an Ivy League University, like Cambridge, I have met the criteria of citing leading NT scholars who have challenged the views in their published Academic works, and I have shown that some parts of entire Academia of Britain have been accepting of these views. WHAT ELSE CAN I DO? What citation could I provide to deserve a mention here? At what point do we realize that you guys are doing original research by censoring these views? How did you decide that these views are "too fringe" to mention here, if they meet every criteria to be mentioned here? Stop doing original research.

I have put time and sweat into this. PLEASE, keep this in mind. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The traditional view is that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on—fine with me. That some scholars still take this view—fine with me. As long as we make clear that besides fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals very few scholars take this view, and they get less and less as time goes by. However, I cannot speak for others, if they feel that this fails WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have NO problem making it clear that this view is in the minority. That's how it was put in there. But denying that reputable scholars do hold this view, is again censorship and original research. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two readings of WP:NPOV: one is that every notable voice has to be represented and another is that only mainstream scholarly majorities are represented.

Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zero^talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is not how we write other articles. I have asked you to give me a criteria which my citations have to meet. You told me that the criteria was, whether the view would be taught at elite universities, and counted down places like Harvard, Cambridge etc. I showed you that scholars like JAT Robinson have taught at Cambridge and have PUBLISHED these views. Then I showed you other published scholars who disagree... so my question is... who are you to reject this verifiable data? I am NOT asking that EVERYTHING be given attention. I am clearly citing sources published by academics. You are doing original research by rejecting them. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading WP:NPOV to state that only scholarly majorities are represented is a bit of a stretch. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. We should mention the consensus, and then mention notable scholars that have challenged the consensus in published works GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Darlig, the applicable policy is due weight - we give the consensus if it exists, otherwise the majority position followed by major minority positions. Achar Sva (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Achar Sva. I was simply stating that I disagreed with Tgeorgescu's statement that minority positions should be ignored. It is important to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The minority position, in this case, is not insignificant, althought it is a minority and should be represented as such. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Last time I viewed this page we had a consensus here. In answer to this discussion, which is basically the same as the last discussion, I also am in favour of describing the majority view (that traditional authorship is incorrect etc.), making it clear that it is the majority view, and also noting that a minority of scholars disagree. I'm even OK with calling those scholars "conservative" if you like (though some of them do not fit most people's idea of a conservative). Their number is substantial, and they are well qualified, so I see no reason to discard them, unless you take the view that disagreeing with the majority is reason enough to ignore someone. DJ Clayworth (talk)

this is exactly my point. Last time we came to a consensus to include it, and properly cited it, but because 1 person did not "feel" like it, we are back here again. At what point, will someone take a note of all this? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not unusual on Wikipedia. A number of people arrive at a consensus and edit the article to suit it, someone new shows up and thinks the article is wrong, makes a post emphatically stating their disagreement, and you have to go through the same thing again. Consensus is great but it ain't quick. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So can you, please, see to it that this isn't taken out anymore? No more censorship. We have come to an agreement. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease, I think I've mentioned this before, but when you give sources they have to be correctly formatted. I have no problem with the thought in this, but it should be in sfn format, and "chapter 3" is simply too vague - you need to give a page number. I'm talking about this: "though, scholars are quick to note, that most of the textual differences are completely immaterial and insignificant and do not impact the theological meanings of the texts in any significant way. - Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, Ch 3, (2005). If you edit this to correct these two things I'll be fairly happy, although it can be (and must be)m stated in far fewer words. (I speak,of course, as a new editor with very little experience, for which I apologise). Achar Sva (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ehrman's work is significant in that he is not only a reputable scholar but he has 6 NY Times bestsellers. I also agree that citations must be detailed and accurate as to the page number(s) of the specific reference as outlined in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So have we FINALLY come to the consensus? I am waiting to hear when it is time to put the censored info about the scholars who still defend the traditional attributions? GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Post your edits and ensure they are in conformity with Wikipedia's content policies. Remember you are adding a minority position. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I posted the edits PER Consensus, as we agreed. You are witnesses that I got agreement before making these changes. I made the changes EXACTLY as agreed. I did not misrepresent the scholarly consensus --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Even Achar Sva agrees that they should stay, but not in the lead and not formatted like this. Also, in Bible scholarship sometimes 20 years is a long time for WP:RS, 53 years is very long ago. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: obciously, your assumption that there is a consensus for reinserting your preferred info is not correct. I also think it's undue for the lead. And Tgeorgescu mentioned the qualification "conservative," with which DJ Clayworth agreed. I've changed

almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission,though some scholars argue for the traditional attribution.

into

almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission, though some conservative Christian scholars have argued for the traditional attribution, or eyewitness-authorship, especially for John.

References

• Conservative Christian, because it's quite obvious that faith can interfere with the approach towards faith-inspired texts, c.q. ancient biography.
• "have argued," because the 1990s is quite some time ago not to mention the 1950s.
• Eye-witness authorship, because Bauckham argues that the "beloved disciple" was an eyewitness, though not John the Apostle. See Stanley E. Porter, Ron C. Fay (2018), The Gospel of John in Modern Interpretation, p.40-41. There's more nuance to this "dissident" scholarship than simply an attribution to John the Apostle; if mentioned in the lead, it should be correct, and not simply satisfy a faith-perspective.

NB: you also removed the following text (in bold):

They are biography, but ancient biographies included propaganda and kerygma (preaching); yet while there is no guarantee that they are historically accurate, careful study can often distinguish Jesus' own views from those of his later followers. Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four, and like them advocating the particular theological views of their authors.

References

Where's the consensus for that removal? NB: "biography" is not the correct term here; I've changed it into "They are ancient biography, which included."Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease:, nobody is trying to suppress you or your views. However, this is the thing: authorship by the traditional authors is so much aminority position that it simply cannot go in the lead, as that would be undue weight. It can go in the body of the article, but even then it has to be properly formatted, which means you use sfn and you have just a single source. (You'll see that elsewhere in the article, when we have more than one source it's because the sentence concerned covers more than one point). Please try again with this in mind. I'm prepared to help you, as it's not my objective to make your life miserable, whatever you may think. And I actually have a lot more experience than you might think.Achar Sva (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I personally am satisfied with the outcome. The way it is included now is very good. I think this is how it should stay. Thanks all GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hurray! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: regarding this edit of yours, edit-summary

These changes in regards to the scholars who defend traditional attributions was made by a consensus. Please, do NOT change this without first consulting the consensus

see your own comment above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: regarding your revert: you're right; my aplogies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@GoogleMeNowPlease: This is a nonsensical quarrel about saying practically the same thing in many words vs. saying it concisely. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's avoid edit wars and just look at the central aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a good encyclopedia.Achar Sva (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What I am frustrated about is that there is a double standard for this. I do not like it that I need to be getting consensus about everything, and Achar Sva can alter even what was hard fought by consensus on a whim one day --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not about consensus, which is valued as a desirable way of resolving disputes, but not when it leads to inferior results. So let me explain why the edit you canvass is inferior: We say, "most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses." That's sourced as the weight of scholarly opinion. You want to add a statement to the effect that some scholars disagree. Leaving aside the question of whether the scholars you want to mention actually do feel that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, we owe it to our readers to keep the scholarly consensus to the fore. And your edit is this: "There is specifically some support by conservative Christian scholars for the traditional attribution of the Gospel of John to the apostle John." Such an idea has next to zero support. Your source is Porter&Fay's Gospel of John in Modern Interpretation, pages 39-42 (which is too wide a page-range, incidentally - try to keep sourcing to one or two pages). Those pages do not actually say that the conservative scholars it mentions support authorship by John the apostle - they're about date of composition, not authorship - with one exception, Richard Bauckham. but Bauckham's theory has had next to zero acceptance in the scholarly community. So if we are to include your edit at all (and as a concession to consensus I'm willing to do that), it needs to be heavily qualified. The way this section of the article currently reads does this in this way: "a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously" (and this, of course, is sourced).

Can I just add, and please don't take this personally, but you seem to me to have a personal preference for ultra-conservative views such as Bauckham's (he was reacting against the "Christ myth" movement and went far to far) and this leads you edits that act against some basic Wikipedia values, most notably due weight. This, as I say, is not meant as a personal attack, just something for you to consider. Achar Sva (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not see myself as someone who has preference for ultra-conservative views. I want to keep Wikipedia a place that presents diverse views whenever possible. I do not want Wikipedia to be just an expression of mainstream views. I realize that it is not always possible to present all sides, since some positions are so fringe, however, whenever possible, I will always show preference for including diverse views, rather than simply going with the mainstream. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes scholars worth their salt have abandoned certain POVs:

The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I realize that it is not always possible to present diverse views, but I prefer it whenever it *is* possible. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Contents

In the Contents, section, this article says that Mark's understanding of Jesus was as an emissary of God. Is it fair for this article to state outright that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not God? --AntoniusFelix (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

- the source cited in the article, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Edward Aune, says that Mark understood Jesus to be an emissary, p. 59 - Epinoia (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool. So this source and this source state that the meaning of the title "Son of Man" (a title used for Jesus in Mark) and to what degree it describes a divine status is still debated. And just for clarity, here is blog post from an eminent NT scholar, Bart Ehrman where he argues that Mark does portray Jesus as divine. Here is a video where he states that in Mark, Jesus himself claims divinity. Now, I realize that a blog post and a YouTube video may be a bit out of line for an Encyclopedia article, but I think they illustrate rather well the kind of diversity of opinion that exists among scholars when discussing Mark's Christology. With all this in mind, why are we presenting only 1 view as if it is a default position, when there is so much diversity of opinion on all sides? --AntoniusFelix (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally would have no objections to inserting those sources. But let's wait for others. --RIPMamba (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

AntoniusFelix, be careful of imposing modern understandings on the world of the New Testament: being divine is not the same thing as being God (angels are divine), and the most that can be said for Mark's picture of Jesus as son of man is that he was the figure from Daniel 7, who was certainly divine (a "son of God") but not identical with God. Achar Sva (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:AntoniusFelix and User:RIPMamba are both new users; what a coincidence they both pop-up here. why are we presenting only 1 view as if it is a default position, when there is so much diversity of opinion on all sides? - sounds familiair, doesn't it? Note also edit by AntoniusFelix at 21:18 (CET) and the revert by RIPMamba at 21:19 (CET). Nice interaction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)