Talk:John the Apostle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Reference on age

I think this line:

"Though many say he was 95 when he died, sources say he was most likely 104. He died of age."

is in desperate need of a source. "Many say" spurs the question of whom exactly is saying this, and "sources say" is crying out for a mentioning of said source. Thanks. Captain, my captain (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of 'Saint'

I was wondering since John is recognized by the Christian churches of Catholiscism, Methodism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism as Saint John, can we not put that as his name? (User:Tarheelz123) February 25, 2009

Wikipedia has a convention here. ;) In any case, he's recognized as a saint, and "Saint" is not his name. Tb (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed for Non-Neutrality

This article fails to meet the basic principles of Wikipedia. It is contentious, and reflects an anti-biblical POV. It raises false issues which are intended to, and merely serve to, incite and antagonize Christians. It refers to out of mainstream research. It fails to cite the highest authority. It embraces conspiracy theories and anti-Christian sentiments. It is a propaganda tool. There are essential facts about John the Apostle. His life and his works are not disputed by historical authorities as this article would like readers to believe. The article is reflects poor judgment, is factually wrong, lacks original content, and is substantively biased and antagonistic. Most specifically, the introduction and the "Identifications" section are factually incorrect and scandalous.

I am removing the POV tag, pending a clearer statement of your objections. Specifically:

Please identify which statements in the article express an "anti-biblical POV."

Please identify which issues are "false" (or do you mean, that it makes false statements about them? or do you mean that it gives them an inappropriate importance?)

Please identify which "out of mainstream research" you would prefer removed.

Please identify which "highest authority" you would like cited.

Please identify the conspiracy theories which you believe the article embraces.

Please identify the "anti-Christian sentiments" which you believe the article embraces.

Please identify the aspects of John's life and works which you believe are undisputed, but that this article claims are disputed.

Please identify the areas where you believe the article is factually wrong, especially the introduction or the identifications sections.

And, note that "lacks original content" is actually a requirement for Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced authorship claim

The current version contains the following unsourced statement: Saint John is the author of all five Johanine books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the authorship of the gospels is disputed, or at least not as clear-cut as the above statement implies. James the Artist (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess. The earlier part of the article has it right. Can you fix it? Tb (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I cleaned it up a bit. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so hopefully I didn't screw anything up! James the Artist (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Certain Assumptions

I am by no stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar. As a layperson, however, I nonetheless find it bizarre that the entry refers to Roman Catholic tradition as holding various notions as to the place of death of Mary the Virgin, when Roman Catholic belief holds as dogma her Assumption. AtomikWeasel (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that dogma was carefully phrased to express neither the opinion that Mary died, nor the opinion that she did not. That said, I agree that the relevant text in this article could stand to be improved considerably. Tb (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and if you look at Assumption of Mary, you'll see a quite nice and full discussion of this point, together with the indication that the majority view of theologians and church fathers has been that she did in fact die. Tb (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Using freeread.com as a source or link

This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books and no warranty as to accuracy or contents is given for texts and essays he includes. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.—Ash (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)