Talk:Gospel of John/2015/December

Authorship and historical reliability

Editor Jonathankempus2 wishes to insert passages in the sections on authorship and historical reliability which have been reverted by myself and I think two other editors. I don't want to see an edit war starting here and I do want all editors to feel we're working together, so I'll explain why I feel his edits don't belong. (I'll leave a message on his Talk page to alert him to this discussion).

The two sections are these - first on authorship:

• Nevertheless, a significant minority consider the Gospel of John to be genuine. Multiple scholars have argued that the stylistic unity of John is a significant barrier to theories of multiple stages of editing, with Carson and Moo arguing that "stylistically it is cut from one cloth".[13] Vern Poythress, through an analysis of the propositions used throughout John, has argued for the unity of John and the Johannine epistles.[14] In addition, the external attestation of authorship of John is strong and consistent, with Blomberg noting that "No orthodox writer ever proposes any other alternative for the author of the Fourth Gospel and the book is accepted in all of the early canonical lists, which is all the more significant given the frequent heterodox misinterpretations of it".[15] Early external attestation to authorship includes Irenaeus,[16] who learned from Polycarp, a disciple of John,[17] Tatian (as Blomberg argues),[18] Tertullian,[19] Clement of Alexandria,[20] Origen,[21] Theophilus of Antioch[22] and the Muratorian Canon.[23] In addition, Justin Martyr, writing in the very early 2nd century, implies apostolic authorship.[24]

Second on historical reliability: −

• Again, the scholarly consensus of demoting the historical worth of John has been repeatedly challenged with great effect. Notably, B.F. Westcott's work to establish the authorship of John based upon its internal evidences is convincing to many as to the reliability of John. Westcott establishes this through a cumulative case (summarised briefly)- firstly, Westcott argues that through the intimate familiarity with contemporary Jewish practices, such as "the unexplained references to “the prophet” (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15) in John 1:21, 6:14 ff, 7:40 ff"[34] and many others, and a heavy reliance on the Old Testament with a high regard therein for the OT, the author must have been a Jew. Next, Westcott establishes that the author was a Jew of Palestine, with their familiarity with Palestinian geography and Palestinian monuments e.g. the Pool at Bethesda (John 5:2), which has been excavated archaeologically[35]. Next, the numerous incidental details that the author is aware of "about persons (John 6:5, 7 (contrast Matthew 14:14 ff), 12:21; 14:5, 8, 22), numbers (two disciples in 1:35; six waterpots, each holding twenty to thirty gallons in 2:6; forty-six years in 2:20; five husbands in 4:18; thirty-eight years of sickness in 5:5; twenty-five furlongs [or three and a half miles] in 6:19; four soldiers in 19:23; two hundred cubits [or a hundred yards] in 21:8; a hundred fifty three fish in 21:11), and times (Passover in John 2:13, 23; the New Year in 5:1; a second Passover in 6:4; the feast of Tabernacles in 7:2; the Feast of Dedication in 10:22;"[36], establish that the author is an eyewitness. Finally, through process of elimination, and the author's familiarity with numerous enormously intimate scenes, such as the upper room discourse and the epilogue, establish the author as John. Equally, Richard Bauckham has established the reliability of John's Gospel (as well as the other three) in relating Palestinian names, both in correct proportion and in correct usage (for example distinguishing between common names)[37]. Given the reliability of these names, this would then justify the reliability of the stories as a whole, since the names seem more difficult to remember and report accurately than the stories themselves. Finally, the argument from undesigned coincidences, wherein the Gospel narratives interlock so as to mutually reinforce their authenticity, has been applied to great effect[38] [39].

I see the following problems with these edits:

1. They represent the minority position among scholars in each case. The majority of scholars reject the traditional authorship, and this is stated in the section. The majority also feel that John is not historical, and again this is stated. In both cases the statements are sourced.
2. They are immensely long, so long, in fact, as to violate the policy of due weight.
3. The edit for authorship states that a "significant minority" of scholars consider John "to be genuine" (presumably meaning that the traditional attribution of authorship is correct). No source is given for the adjective "significant". If it could be shown that the minority view is a significant one then perhaps the reasons could be expanded on, but in that case the reasons for the rejection of the tradition would have to be expanded even more, to preserve due weight.
4. Similarly, the edit on historical reliability speaks of challenges to the rejection of John's reliability having had "great effect". A value judgement like that needs a source. The edit then goes on to summarise the arguments of certain scholars, but what is needed is not argument (Wikipedia doesn't try to convince anyone of a given point of view) but the views of scholarship as a whole, the consensus if one exists, majority and minority positions in proportionate weight if one does not.
5. Despite that last point, Jonathankempus2 seems to be correct in that there has been a swing towards regarding John as preserving some historically accurate traditions not found in the synoptics. In my own editing I'm trying to present this, but it's difficult - finding contemporary sources, and presenting them fairly. So this will be an ongoing editing job, and I look forward to Jonathankempus2's cooperation. PiCo (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the use of reliable sources. All sources have to be reliable ones, which means in essence scholarly publications. In a subject like this, where scholarly views are in a state of flux (and they are), they need to be pretty recent as well. In addition, we have to watch out for scholars advancing their own views, and scholars expressing collegiate views - Bauckham, for example, although very recent and undeniably a reliable source, has not convinced the majority of scholars that his views on an eyewitness tradition to John are correct. PiCo (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

PiCo, while I accept your reservations about edits that are overlong, unbalanced and less than rigorously sourced; nevetheless, in my view, Jonathankempus2 makes a sound point that the article as it stands; is skewed towards a particular position on questions of authorship and historical reliability; and tend to treat contrary positions argumentatively. If we take Stephen Smalley's article on the Gospel of John in the Oxford Companion to the Bible as representing mainstream scholarship of ca. 1993 (which given the status of that work, its editors and contributors, is reasonable) then it would seem that much of Smalley's scholarly approach is largely unrepresented in the article:

1. that the finished Gospel represents a "carefully constructed literary whole" (albeit one that may have been composed in edited stages);
2. that where the Gospel covers events also described in the Synoptics; the account in John commonly recounts unique historical and circumstantial detail which have the character of historical reliability, and are unrelated to any form of theological agenda;
3. that style and expression of the teachings of Jesus in John, while clearly differing in quality from those recounted in the Synoptics; nevertheless are much closer to surviving contemporary Palestinian Jewish modes of expression, as found especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls;
4. that archeological discoveries confirm that places described in John, but otherwise unknown in the historical record, do indeed represent sites with the characterstics that the gospel writer ascribes to them;
5. That the issue of authorship may be suggested as resolvable by supposing three stages of composition; firstly an oral traditon of eye-witness reminiscences from the 'beloved disciple; secondly a formal assemblage of these traditons into written form by the 'beloved disciple' and his followers, also including that disciple's distinctive theological reflections; thirdly. following the death of the 'beloved disciple' these written accounts being edited into a finalised literary work with a strong unity of construction. Smalley regards it as likely - though not defintively stated - that the 'beloved disciple'was indeed John, son of Zebedee.
6. Overalll 'there is good reason to regard the sources that were used in the final composition of John's Gospel as early and historically reliable".. "The work may be regarded as apostolic in character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from the hand of John the apostle himself."

As a general principle, Wikipedia is about opinions, not facts; and those opinions are better weighed than counted. So claims such as 'the majority of scholars say' have only a limited value; when the contrary opinion is one maintained by many leading authorities in the field (and Smalley's critical commentaries on the Johannine literature are very highly esteemed) . In that respect, I would suggest that the view that the Gospel of John should be regarded as of no lesser historical value than the Synoptics - whether in its narrative of events or its recounting of the content of the Early Christian gospel - should be given equal billing with that view that continues the early 20th century view that the synoptics were more 'historical'; and John more 'theological'. Equally, the view that parts at least of the Gospel are sourced from the 'beloved disciple' are more widely and strongly held in current scholarship than is admitted in the article as it stands. TomHennell (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

TomHennell, overall I wouldn't disagree with anything you say here. I'd prefer to find more recent sources than 1993, though - scholarly fashions tend to change rather rapidly in this are. If people are still saying today what Smalley was saying back then, that's actually a plus, a sign of stability. PiCo (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Smalley's position on these matters is essentially contiued in his most recent work - he is still writing on the subject. I note, for example, that Stanley Porter repeatedly cross-refers to Smalley's views in the course of his 2015 study. Moreover, Smalley's perception is also that of many other leading critical authorities on the Gospels in the early church; such as Christopher Rowland, who may not (unlike Smalley), be specialists in the Johannine literature. The perspectives represented in the article as it is currently, represent (to my reading) one particular strand of the 'redaction critical' approach. Broadly, this approach shares with Smalley/Rowland, a decreased tendency to regard the Synoptic Gospels as transmitting an unmediated 'historical' source. But the corollary for these other scholars is to treat both the gospel-as-genre; and much of the characteristic gospel narrative; as a theological construct - specifically due to the author of Mark. But if Mark 'invented' (for example) the feedings in the wilderness as a theological construct, then the presence of the same story in John shows dependence. But this view of Mark is not by any means a consensus; many leading critical scholars (like Smalley and Rowland) would still maintain that there were indeed independent 'historical' accounts of Jesus's ministry and gospel message, circulating prior to both 'Mark' and 'John', and providing the basis for their common narrative material. This perspective is not reflected in the article at present. Two features of external evidence are quoted to support the historicity of this common material; firstly, in so far as the testimony of Josephus is accepted as capable of being reconstructed, what he presents coheres closely with this common core - Jesus is a wonder-worker, who gathered followers among Jews and Greeks and was executed by the Roman authorities at the instigation of the Jewish leadership; secondly, the earliest material evidence for the Christian church consists of manuscripts of the Gospel of John (this is the case, however the papyri are dated, the material evidence for John is earlier, fuller and textually 'better'). If John was written later (as almost everyone accepts) then existing churches appear rapidly to have recognised his account as equally valid. TomHennell (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi PiCo,

I think it's unfair to have the article as it is, given the critiques of the view that are placed. Happy to try and edit down the reliability of John stuff, since I understand that is a) probably too long and b) mainly referenced from a blog (though I'd note the blog is one by a professor with an exhaustive knowledge of the area.) I'm surprised that Bauckham is being rejected here- I'd have thought that Bauckham would be exactly the kind of source that Wikipedia would like to see? On this particular quotation of Bauckham, it should be noted that Bauckham's results, to my knowledge, are not really disputed here- the entailments may be, but his comments on the proportionality of names are not (to my knowledge). I think it's wrong to have Wikipedia saying "The Gospel is anonymous" when that's not known. There are substantive critiques of such a view, and therefore allowing the evidence to speak for itself is a good thing. I'd also note that the genuineness addition had far more references (to primary evidences) than the previous two paragraphs, and ones which clearly convey the meaning of the references. I'm less convinced that Wikipedia is about conveying the views of the majority of scholarship- I see it as conveying truth, and the majority of scholarship is not always the best tracker thereof. I also don't think it's fair toI'm not calling for a wholesale revision of the article- hence my leaving in the other two paragraphs. But as it is, I see the article as enormously biased against the Gospel of John, and without due consideration for strong opposing arguments. I was also discouraged that both times the revisions were taken down wholesale, rather than edited. Jonathankempus2 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)JonathanJonathankempus2 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason I took down your edits because of unreliable sources like Youtube and the blog which is not allowed per WP:NOTBLOG. Also, you can't use/mirror Wikipedia as a source for adding content to Wikipedia per WP:CIRC. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, blogs of reputable scholars are allowed when it is certain who wrote the article, but definitely do not trump peer-reviewed academic sources and books from reputable academic presses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathankempus2, I also removed one of the paragraphs. I echo mostly what JudeccaXIII wrote. Instead of inserting the whole paragraph and trimming from there, I would add properly sourced parts. Carson and Blomberg would be good sources if they add to the article and do not create an imbalance for a view. They were sourced in one paragraph, but I think could be written better. I would encourage you to go this route and dialog with people here, though I may not participate much. Basileias (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathankempus2, thanks for coming to the Talk page. Let me explain what I'm doing. I've been editing this article for about a week I think, trying to bring the overall format and quality into line with the articles on the other three gospels. Those three have the major headings I've introduced here.

I've found it difficult to separate authorship from historicity in this article - not difficult i the other three, but difficult here. That's because in this case, authorship is a genuine question. Only the most conservative of scholars think that Mark wrote Mark or Matthew wrote Matthew, but the question of the tradition behind John is open to active debate (so we have Bauckham's book, and he's neither fringe nor ultra-conservative).

So I'm thinking now to combine those two subsections and have a single subsection called "Origins". It will deal with matters of authorship, date, community, and intention, and will try to get across the uncertainty that surrounds these. It will also deal with historicity.

I'll try to fit it into about four paragraphs, because my view is that Wikipedia provides an introduction-level treatment - people come here and get an overview plus a list of books so that they can start reading the experts for themselves.

Anyway, I'll try to do this over the next few days. But remember that you too are an editor - everyone is. This means that you're very welcome to try your own version (and of course you don't have to accept my idea of a single subsection). I just ask, if you do, that you use the kind of referencing system I do - every single sentence sourced, and, wherever possible, reflecting the weight of current scholarship.

The sfn footnote system isn't obligatory, in fact a lot of editors hate it, but it does make editing easier because it doesn't clutter up the text.

As for your complaints about your edits being taken down rather than edited - I think others have answered that. Wiki really is about opinion (the opinion of scholars), not truth (because we don't know "truth"). The evidence you gave from Bauckham - Palestinian names - is unnecessary, all we need is conclusions, at least in most cases. Sometimes we need to tell readers why scholars hold the conclusions, especially when it seems counter-intuitive or contrary to popular opinion, but mostly long lists of evidence and argument simply clutter the article. Anyway, I invite you again to have a try at editing yourself, and I'll do no more than comment on how you do it. I think you have a lot of knowledge of the NT and have a lot to offer. PiCo (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent progress. I have suggested a rephrase on the synoptic point; it is clearly wrong to say that the synoptics record no teaching at all corresponding to the Johannine material. On this you may well get references from Craig Blomberg in 'Jesus in the Johannine Tradition' Fortna and Thatcher eds 2001. Otherwise D. Moody Smith - in 'The Fourth Gospel in four dimensions' 2008 provides a useful listing of the range of points where the historical narrative in John appears stronger than that in the Synoptics. There is a lot more of them than is stated in article than at present; whether you want to list them all is a moot point.

Might I suggest a discussion at this pont of what Don Carson has called 'interlocking tradition', which much recent scholarship also picks up on? This relates to those passages in the synoptics (e.g Mark 14:49)which only make good sense when supplemented by historical details or thematic material uniquely recorded in John; and vice versa. Again this is discussed in Moody Smith ('John among the Gospels'); the point for the purpose of the article, is that this scholarly approach implies the existence of a common pool of prior historical and thematic materials that both John and the synoptics are selecting from, and which both John and the synoptics are witnesses too. TomHennell (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)