Wikipedia

Talk:Gospel of John: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 49:
{{Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_John/archive1}}
 
== Baptism of Jesus ==
 
In the ‘Structure and content’ section of the article, it says that Jesus is baptised. This is not the case (despite what the cited source says). Elsewhere in the article, it says that Jesus’s baptism is absent from John, and sources are given that support this.
I removed the statement that Jesus was baptised, but my edit was reverted with the comment, ‘Check the source.’ I’m aware of the source, but I’m also aware of what the gospel actually says and the sources elsewhere in the article that refute the single source that says he was baptised.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Achar Sva}} what do you say? [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the ping. I think [[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] has a point - John refers to the baptism described in Mark, but doesn't describe it. There's a discussion in Barrett, page 52 (the book is in the bibliography). Barrett says that John's refusal to endorse the baptism was theological, in that it implied that Jesus was a man who became the son of God only at that point - for John, he was with God from the beginning, co-eternal. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 06:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 
I’m not sure what the note on the reversion, ‘Those information need to b source,’ means. If it means that I need to cite sources to remove the erroneous information, generally, citations are only added to support what is present rather than what has been removed. Despite that, I did cite sources to support my edit.
 
John 1 mentions the dove alighting on Jesus, which happens after the baptism in other gospels, but doesn’t mention the baptism itself. It can only be inferred that the dove relates to Jesus’s baptism because of the other gospels. If John were the only text we had, we couldn’t conclude that Jesus was baptised.
 
Regardless, elsewhere in the article, it mentions that the baptism is absent from John, and there are sources to substantiate that.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 22:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 
Also, thank you Achar Sva for your input.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 
Additionally, even if John did include the baptism of Jesus, saying that Jesus visited John would still be accurate. In the 'Comparison with other writings' section, it says, 'While John makes no direct mention of Jesus' baptism, he does quote John the Baptist's description of the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove, as happens at Jesus' baptism in the Synoptics.' What do you think {{ping|Veverve}}?—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 16:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
<br>{{ping|Jcvamp}} you can add the information with ref that other scolars think Jesus was not baptised in the gospel of John. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 
:I don't know how well that sits with your last edit. The purpose of that bullet point is to provide a summary of the section of the Gospel of John referred to as the Book of Signs. I don't think discussing debate over whether Jesus was baptised is appropriate. If you think it's vital that people know one scholar thinks Jesus was baptised in the narrative (despite the fact that it doesn't say so in the text of John), you could add it in the 'Comparison with other writings' section. Either way, saying that Jesus visited John would be a more neutral way to write the summary.--[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 17:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
::I took the reference to baptism out, because so far as I can see van der Watt is simply and demonstrably wrong.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Achar Sva|User:Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:Achar Sva|contribs]]) 08:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)</span>
:::If Watt was simply that inaccurate (which would be extraordinary) then the text should be removed; but from the source what he is actually saying is that John includes the (implied) baptism at this point. So I have had a go at reflecting what Watt actually does say. [[User:Springnuts|Springnuts]] ([[User talk:Springnuts|talk]]) 12:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: I did not see this as an accurate statement based on van der Watt's text, so I took the phrase out again. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree, but maybe we can work out a way forward which does not depend on Watt. There is a problem if we don't include what RS say that John does say - and he does say something, including by what he omits. We include elsewhere: (a) that John knows of Jesus' Baptism; (b) that in the reference to the dove John is directly referring to the events of the baptism of Jesus, and (c) that the Baptism itself is - and clearly deliberately - omitted by John. Would you be happy with "After an indirect reference to the baptism of Jesus, located immediately after the Johannine prologue, Jesus then ..."? [[User:Springnuts|Springnuts]] ([[User talk:Springnuts|talk]]) 14:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 
== Papias and Ptolemy (Gnostic) ==
 
The article says that [[Ireneaus]] is was the first to assign the authorship to John. But, this is a mistake.
Papias (~120) was the first, then and the [[Ptolemy (gnostic)]] (140-160) who assigns him to an apostle. I tried to correct this error but a man has eliminated it, he did not like the references, if someone can look for sources that are accepted it would be very kind. it is very necessary.
my sources are the following:
Ptolemy (Gnostic):
http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm
 
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ptolemy.html
 
Papias:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/fragments-of-papias-12534 [Fragment 18]
 
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti_marcionite_prologues.htm
 
http://ardownload.catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-EN/024.anti_marcionite_prologues.html;query=;brand=default [[User:Tuxzos22|Tuxzos22]] ([[User talk:Tuxzos22|talk]]) 20:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 
:I’m not sure these sources are reliable. I’m gonna tag some people. What do you think {{u| Tgeorgescu}} and {{u|Karma1998}}.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 
anyway there are probably more sources. That is why I asked that they be found. [[User:Tuxzos22|Tuxzos22]] ([[User talk:Tuxzos22|talk]]) 21:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
:: {{ping|CycoMa}}{{ping|Tuxzos22}} I don't know, honestly. I knew [[Papias of Hierapolis]] stated that [[John Mark]] had written Mark and that [[Matthew the Apostle]] had "collected the sayings of the Lord" (maybe he's referring to the [[Q source]]?), but I don't know wether he speaks of John.--[[User:Karma1998|Karma1998]] ([[User talk:Karma1998|talk]]) 21:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 
Joseph B. Lightfoot in Essays on the Work Entitled "Supernatural Religion" 1883
 
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18191/pg18191.html
 
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lightfoot/supernatural/index.htm
 
Chapter VI (Call: Papias of Hierapolis II) ¿Page 210? refers to the passage that I speak of the passage that I sent.🤷🏼‍♂️ [[User:Tuxzos22|Tuxzos22]] ([[User talk:Tuxzos22|talk]]) 22:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 
Lightfoot accuses him of anachronism, which I do not doubt, however, it was not Papias who committed it, it was the anonymous author, then he gives the argument that Eusebio's silence invalidates that Papias was a scribe, then he gives the possibility What layers Papias said by chance and that Eusebio didn't realize. However, these last two things are very subjective, in my opinion. I don't know if that invalidates the edition of this article (in which there are doubts). [[User:Tuxzos22|Tuxzos22]] ([[User talk:Tuxzos22|talk]]) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Tuxzos22}} That seems highly unlikely... the authenticity of Papias's works quoted by Eusebius is universally accepted.--[[User:Karma1998|Karma1998]] ([[User talk:Karma1998|talk]]) 15:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 
== Basilides (Gnostic) ==
 
I found this quote from [[Basilides]] (Gnostic) from the Gospel of John that [[Hippolytus of Rome]] reports to us in his book
(book 7 chapter 10, wikisource is wrong and misspell the Roman numerals), what do you think? should be added in the article?
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_V/Hippolytus/The_Refutation_of_All_Heresies/Book_VII/Part_11 [[User:Tuxzos22|Tuxzos22]] ([[User talk:Tuxzos22|talk]]) 00:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
== "[[:Template:Content of John]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel_of_John"