Talk:John the Evangelist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John's age[edit]

Since John was an adult at the time of Jesus' death ca. 30 AD, how could he possibly have lived until 110? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talkcontribs) 23:33, 2 October 2002 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weren't there many figures in the Bible that lived to extraordinary ages? I mean, I don't know the John story to edit its content, but I do know that some figures are decribed as reaching 100s of years, at least in the Old Testament. I mean, you might as well ask how the Virgin Mary got pregnant while still a virgin. Of course, today this could easily be accomplished with artifical insemination. David dePaoli 00:21, 3 October 2002‎
Well he doesn't sound like a Methuselah; living to one's 90s or early 100s is not entirely unheard of either in the ancient world or the modern. I'm curious where the exact year of 110 AD comes from, though, a quick google search or two aren't turning up any support for that figure. (Disclaimer: most of my biblical expertise comes from Andrew Lloyd Webber.) --Brion 04:30 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)


Changed where it was stated simply that Evangleist, Patmos, and Apostle are all the same. This is the only page to say that, and it is still debated. Reworded the entry.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia dates his death at "about 100 A.D. at a great age" ( The Orthodox Church in America says he wrote the Gospel of John in 95 A.D. and died sometime between 98 A.D. and 117 A.D., over 100 years old ( A couple other sources say the date isn't certain, but that he was very old when he died in any case, and for a time was the last living eyewitness of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Perhaps we should go with the broadest date range of between 98 and 117? Wesley
Also tradition holds that he was quite young at the time of Jesus' death

I added "According to the New Testament account" to the beginning of this article. To contributors to articles on Biblical events and persons: There is a great deal of uncritical public acceptance of pop-Christian accounts of history. I feel that it is incumbent on Wikipedia to specify that Biblical accounts are exactly that - "accounts", often supported by no text or evidence other than the Bible itself. This is necessary for reasons of NPOV and simple scholarly honesty. Thanks.

For reasons of NPOV, I have split out this article into two. There is dispute as to whether the author of the fourth Gospel is the same person as the apostle (I for one don't believe that they were the same person). Therefore there are now two articles, one on the "evangelist" and one on the "apostle". Both articles mention that there is a dispute as to whether it is the same person in both cases, but I don't think it is NPOV to assume that they are the same person and to write a single article as if they are. soulpatch

Similar logic has led me to split out John of Patmos, author of the Book of Revelation into a separate article, being sure to mention the dispute and link to both this page and John the Apostle. There are good reasons to think that they may have been three different people, so having them all point to the same page is probably confusing and not NPOV. Alecmconroy 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All four gospels, as they have come to us in the manuscripts, are anonymous. But, traditionally, the first and fourth gospels have been ascribed to Matthew and John, respectively, two disciples of Jesus. This ascription, however, is so difficult to maintain that most critical scholars today reject it.

Except possibly Luke's Gospel?

You mean two supposed disciples of Jesus. Outside the gospels and the acts there is no evidence that Jesus had any disciples; actually there is not much evidence of his historical existence. Even among the four gospels there is not much agreement on the disciples. Each gospel gives its own list of names. So I guess my question is: does it make sense to ask whether the author of "John's gospel" (somebody we know existed but we don't know his or her name) is the same person as the John of the gospels (a fictitious character which we are not sure if it is based on a real person)?

Paul's Epistle to the Galatians testifies to the existance of John as one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church so he clearly existed, even though we know very little about him. However, I don't for a minute think he wrote the Gospel. 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The different lists of names is because of people have different names. For example, Peter the Apostle is known as Simon Peter, Peter, Simon, and Cephas. Those are all variations of "Simon Peter." In John's Gospel, he doesn't refer to his own name in the third person, but rather as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." We need to restrict the content to verifiable sources, not our own opinions.Joshua Friel 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I took this paragraph out: The name John the Evangelist comes from John the Presbyter (i.e., John the Elder or possibly John the Old Man). This name for the author of the books was popularized by Eusebius and stems from the fact that in two of the epistles the author introduces himself as "the elder".

Evangelist and presbyter do not mean the same thing. How can one "come from" the other. Presbyter can mean elder but Evangelist means "brings message". Rmhermen 12:56, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

John the Divine and John the Theologian redirect[edit]

John the Divine and John the Theologian currently redirect to this page. Does anyone know who these names "most" refer to: John the Apostle, John the author of the Gospel, or John the author of Revelation? Alecmconroy 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John the author of revelation. It sounds odd that they're redirecting here, out of the three possibilities.TheologyJohn 14:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Excessive specialization, differentiation, and divergence may be interesting to those who like to count the number of angels on the head of a pin, but its not only preferable to integrate articles about the same person, (leaving any differentiation to the article) but its unholy to not do so. -Ste|vertigo 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I did not wish to disrupt prior organization. I have marked mine off with lines.

The conversation is largely one that places inordinate emphasis upon the commentator's subjective beliefs--and, in some cases, rank intuition. The question is: SHOULD this most excellent work, Wickipedia, merge the sections: JOHN THE EVANGELIST with JOHN THE APOSTLE.There can truly can be no sincere doubt that this is both proper and necessary.

I suspect there are many who following various and sundry rules of construction have somehow deduced that the "one Yeshua loved" is other than he who wrote the work most crucial to our own time: αποκαλυψις. This debate is largely irrelevant to the proposed merger for nowhere in Christendom, or its offshoots, is is vital to salvation that we can attest to non-distinct authorships for the Gospel of John, the Revelation, and the 1-2-3 Letters of John, for the whole of scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, and for setting things straight. All these works are widely BELIEVED BY MANY to be (1) canonized and (2) authored by the very same "one who Yeshua loved." This is WHERE they will look, where they will expect to find information about the Son of Thunder that so deeply understood with his heart.

The reality, in short, turns on where one would expect to find information pertaining to John the Brother of James and son of Zebedee, whether he be called the Divine or the Evangelist or even the Theologian or the Great. This fuss over his age at 96AD is largely to strain for gnats while expecting the researching public to swallow a camel. The year of the writing isn't crucial and the name of the writer is largely beside the point.

If this debate needs to be resolved on any dispositive criteria it ought not be what can be carefully and thoughtfully discussed in the section itself. You do not have to resolve these disputes in order to resolve where you place the body of work.

It remains true that there is and will remain debate on the authorship of all the scriptures. It is a marker of that which is truly "God breathed," for too much emphasis could be put on mankind and not whom the faithful look to as the sole and ultimate source for all inspiration for what most believers do call canonized scriptures today. Various and sundry groups and perspectives have camps, to be sure, and they have within those camps their various and sundry agenda's. If one pauses only slightly it is obvious that each group has its official voice and, surrounding it, dissent--all claiming to be right. No other may speak for THEM. We know this is so from all of canonized scriptures themselves. It is the reality of ancient, contemporary, and--until John's Revelation has seen full fulfillment--future governments turn on the same reality--we shall have all say, no others shall deviate lest they be rebels. All of what John taught, lived, and preached and taught, turned on a greater reality--a greater sovereignty--than mankind's ongoing monkey circus of injustice and petty self worship and cruelty's well documented advances. We miss his point entirely if we quibble over what he was not remotely concerned he be given any credit for. It is not important that we establish John's credentials--he does it well enough on his own, to all who have ears to hear and hear it is JOHN the ONE MESSIAH LOVED. The rest can and should have their SAY in the same section.

There can be no meaningful debate that the two sections at issue should be merged as one and developed. IMHO


  • Oppose as John the Evangelist and John the Apostle are two separate individuals. It goes way beyound a debate around scripture authorship. Like Caerwine states above, POV issues alone should demand they not be merged.--P Todd 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Since the established tradition is that this is the same person, I think the encyclopedically recommended solution is to merge the two articles and examine any issues within this unique article. We can there expose any opinions or controversies without any POV. And the length of an article is not a problem. Let it be long! I also want to point out that my Britannica (CD-ROM of 2002) has only one article about John.--Yannismarou 07:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, as there is not enough evidence that they are the same person. The argument above (between lines) that all the New Testament is cannonical, blessed, and True is very POV. The idea that these two people are one and the same is POV, as is the idea that they are distinct; Though I hold a BA in comparative religion, I have no authority here, except to say that we don't know. And since there is no cut-and-dried reason to thing that the two are the same, why should the Wikpedia take such a strong stance as to identify them? Leave it as it stands. Samfreed 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: right now we have the following articles: John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, John the Presbyter, Disciple whom Jesus loved — only the last two really have a case to be different articles. I think it is a mistake to argue on a division of articles based on whether or not these were the same person. What we ought to be discussing is which organizational structure better presents the material. I think the questions about identity are better done on one article. Otherwise we will end up with five different explinations of the arguemnt about identity on five different pages, and this is sloppy. We may well also end up with much more redundant material. The fissure between these articles forces a disjunction of the common subject: John. It forces five presentations of the traditional view of John which, as we know, will evolve into five different summaries. It makes any changes to this common material difficult to track. In the end, its an organizational thing, and I think we should put theories of identity aside and realize that we are dealing with one common subject, at least for the first three articles. Lostcaesar 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Tradition dating back to very early in the Christian church makes a distinction between the two figures, and it seems somewhat POV to assume that they are the same (although it is nonetheless close-ish to my POV) when that is far from the mainstream opinion. The reason John the evangelist/apostle/divine have aquired different titles is because it's not clear they're the same person (indeed, in the last case, I would say it is clear that they are not - although no doubt some will disagree.) While it does require restating some degree of the content, that's a problem that happens with a number of articles that should not be merged, and it's only NPOV to give individual citations to individuals who mainstream scholarly opinion generally regards as likely to be distinct from one another (in this case, the apostle John - authority figure behind the gospel but not actual author - and evangelist John - writer(s) of the gospel, not necessarily eyewitness or even called John, although tradition does indicate that even when denying the identity of the two.)
  • Oppose They were quite clearly not the same individual and probably not even contemporaris. The merge would be inaccurate. User:Dimadick
  • Oppose - The tradition that distinguishes between John of Zebedee and the author of the fourth Gospel is every bit as large and old as the tradition that identifies them. -- Pastordavid 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - It may be possible to improve the coordination of the various articles: signposting links to each other in a more user-friendly way, and reducing duplication of material to the minimum necessary to establish context. But a merge is too blunt an instrument for resolving any current deficiencies. jnestorius(talk) 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support- They were both traditionally considered to be the same person, and although one could argue that since several modern interpreters are saying they are different people that merging would not be keeping with a NPOV, it's a Catch-22 because not merging would also being giving the bias that they aren't the same person. It's more organized to have them both on the same page, but seperated with a horizontal line. Explain the story behind each name in each section, and mention that some modern scholars claim that they are seperate people. John the Presbyter and John of Patmos should be merged as well (and even at least links to Disciple whom Jesus loved and Authorship of the Johannine works would be extremely helpful). It just makes more sense, since there seems to be so much debate between the four of them, and traditionally they were all identified as the same person, yet they are still all seperated on wikipedia. If they were all merged onto the same page, yes it may be a long page (although John the Evangelist's page could use a lot more information, with or without the merge), but are they not important figures anyway? There isn't enough evidence to confidently state that they were seperate individuals, and tradition states that they were the same person, so they should share a page;(or at least a summary of each of them should, with a link to their full page if length is really an issue) each with their own individual section explaining their different titles and mentioning several modern interpretations view them as seperate people. Simply stating that the character has also been traditionally viewed as the same person as "John ...." with a link, just seems to make each of the articles more confusing, and things more complicated than need be. Irish Pearl 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...or at least a summary of each of them should, with a link to their full page if length is really an issue" That is what exists at present, with Authorship of the Johannine works as the "summary" article. As I said above, some tidying and improving of cross-linking is possible; but a merge is a bad way to attempt this. jnestorius(talk) 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hadn't looked too thoroughly at Authorship of the Johannine works before, and now looking at little more closely at it I can see your point, but I still don't think that was exactly what I meant. The page does do a little bit of what I was referring to (especially with having the links to each of the Johns at the bottom of th page), and maybe if it was cleaned up a lot more I might see it differently, but the reason I support the merge is more for the fact of those who aren't too familiar with any of the Johns and was confused by stumbling onto a page like that, which John was being referred to. That was what I really meant by saying "or at least a summary of each of them should", just to clarify which of them is unarguably known for what, and where/why the lines blur between them at times (such as the summary is for the Johainne works is already on this page). Maybe the Johannine's article does that more than from what I've read of it, but I still think a different page would make it more comprehensible, and a merger of at least these two articles would be the better way to do that, rather than a major rennovation of the one page (which I'm not sure all the Johns link to--least not as clearly as the Authorship of the Johannine works does at the bottom of the page), which could just lead to that article becoming more confusing (and lengthy--that is definately one of the pages that does not need anymore information added without splitting into seperate sections/pages) than it already is. John the Evangelist is not filled to the brink with information as is, and John the Apostle still has room to grow as well. Given the confusion between the two, to the point where historically they are the same person, I still think the merger would help more than hurt either article, and consideration should be given to merging at least the Disciple whom Jesus loved after the merger as well. IrishPearl 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Authorship of the Johannine works or rename the article Authorship of the Gospel of John. This article currently has no unique information and adds to the organizational confusion of John, therefore making this article worthless. It shouldn't be about a person because (unless it's John the Apostle) we know nothing about him. It should be about an idea: the authorship of this gospel. --Ephilei 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus: Oppose 7-4 I have removed the tag. --Ephilei 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After much research on the subject of John the Apostle, I am in a the corner of a centralized location for all of his history and works. The splintered history of the world have caused him and his works to be attributed to many Johns of different names. My conclusion is that they are all of the same origin. John the Apostle had an amazing long-life fraught with oppression and enlightenment. He went from being an endocrine-deprived young man(Beloved Disciple), to being an enlightened and exiled feminine male(St. John of Patmos), and then became the masculine male teacher (St. John the Evangelist). My personal theory is that John the Apostle suffered from a medical condition known as Prolactinoma (, or a Prolactin-secreting pituitary tumor, which eased up later in his life. I believe that is what made him Jesus's Beloved Disciple, because in a sense he was both male and female. He also probably lived an extraordinary long time because of his condition. His life is a remarkable case-study in which faith overcame the adversity that his condition caused and led him to a life of self-enlightenment. John 7:33, 17 March 2007

Central "John" Page[edit]

Is there any page that talks about the debate about his name? Why not have a central page for that with explanations for all sides? If we aren't really sure of anything, it would seem that that is the only fair thing. Have a central page for the John(s) of the New Testament, with subpages to each separate one, and a clear explanation for the arguments for and against such separation. Wrad 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page has actually begun for that (begun towards the end of the lengthy merge debate): Names of John, which a link can be found to in the "'John' of the Bible" template. The goal of the page is to do just what you said, but its still in its stub-phase right now because it's still quite new. You're welcome to contribute though! IrishPearl 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should definitely be merged with John the Apostle. The reasons is that "John the Evangelist" is not a person separate from "John the Apostle". The epithet "Evangelist" is just sometimes added to the end of John's name to indicate speculation that he would have written the fourth Gospel, that is traditionally carrying the name "Gospel of John". There is absolutely no reason for this article to exist separately only for that. The current contents are 100% repetition of John the Apostle, making the two articles very confusing for the reader. --Drieakko (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Technically, John the Apostle and the beloved disciple (author of the fourth gospel) are two different people, at least as far as history is concerned. Historians discount the 2nd-century tradition that John wrote this gospel. With that in mind, the article could be merged with "Beloved Disciple." But that proposal won't fly, and merging this with John the Apostle is the right thing to do. Leadwind (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggesting keeping this article with a short text that John the Evangelist is one of John the Apostle's names in his speculated role as the writer of the fourth gospel, then just copying the rest of the contents to that article's discussion page for someone to merge it with the existing text. --Drieakko (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean toward deleting this article with a redirect to Authorship of the Johannine works, or some section therein. What can we really say about John the Evangelist? We can discuss the theories identifying him with John the Apostle, John the Presbyter, John the Revelator, the Beloved Disciple, the author of the Johannine Epistles, and/or any number of others who may or may not have been named John. These are all questions of authorship, appropriate for the authorship article, and beyond that... I guess there's just the later treatment of the possibly composite figure, as in artistic representation with the eagle (actually, does it more represent the evangelist or the gospel?). I do agree, further, that this is a big mess that needs to be sorted out editorially and explained in detail to readers in some central place. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, I'm not so fond of treating authorship of all the Johannine works in one place. If we break it up, we could once again have authorship of John, but then I would probably have that one redirect here. It may seem prejudicial to speak of "John the Evangelist"—was it really the work of a single author, and was his name really John?—but actually scholarship seems to accept a convention of personifying the author(s) this way. Names of John, BTW, seems to have been written and deleted. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large Comment[edit]

This comment was on the main page. I figured I would move it here to see if it creates discussion.

      • As an anthropogist & christian, it made me very sad to see the New York Times compare Wiki against a son of Phyllis Schafly ( sp?). I think you scored better on 7 out of 8 points...but how could you say that John The Divine Love/ Revelator was John the Evangelist? John the Baptist was the evangelizer: "I must decrease as the Christ/ Enlightenment Increases". He had to be beheaded...i.e.: Our sentient reasoning powers can only bring us to his own words.

True enlightenment is Personal. Read the Companion Bible, written from new information of British archaelogical studies in the late 1800's when excavations were being undertaken in The Holy Land....which led to conflicts between the "traditional" and the "visible"....More on that later.

However, my point is that whoever of you went along with even traditional writers of the Bible: That the Gospel of John is [seemingly ] contradicted by the other three, failed in three ways yourselves: 1. The 4 Gospels define Christ as the 4 animals of Isaiah....Matthew: King; Mark: Servant; Luke: Man: John: GOD.

As sentient beings, we cannot understand Christ as God: "My Kingdom Is Not of This World"..."; He saves others; why can't He save Himself?'...etc. John will always supercede the other 3 gospels....More than that: Read John 20: Jesus Says to Peter: "if I Want him to Remain....what is it to you...?"

But mostly: Even if you didn't get it...and as I've already said...even most writers of the Bible don't....How could you not at least get it correctly about the simple DEFINITION of The Gospel, Epistles * Revelations of "The Other Apostle"/ John of of James...whom Jesus Loved [ most, because he Loved Jesus most] "?

This was added to the article by User:Patlillie. I am Wrad 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • That was so odd...I was just doing the exact same thing (and cut comment from main page) but you beat me to it Wrad! IrishPearl 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ST JOHN the DIVINE[edit]

May I ask why 'John the Divine' redirects to 'John of Patmos', but 'St John the Divine' redirects to John the Evangelist? I believe that both John the Divine and St John the Divine (the precise name given in the King James Version) should redirect to the John of Patmos article — of course, the speculation that both individuals may very well be the selfsame personage is touched upon in the John of Patmos article. Grammaticus VII (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like someone has fixed this problem by now. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

confusing topic![edit]

for the record, I think this page should be subsumed under John the Apostle because there is nowhere a "John the Evangelist" who isn't John the Apostle.

That said, I got a new textbook this week, and now I think I finally understand the authorship issues. Please collaborate with me in getting this straight.

AD 41-44 Herod Agrippa kills James (and likely his brother John too, say historians).

AD 65-75. Someone pens Mark, includes Jesus predicting both James and John dying, as well as his own martyrdom. This prediction gets picked up in Matthew and Luke.

AD 85-90. Someone pens Luke-Acts, and records James dying under Agrippa (but not John, why not?).

AD 90-100. Followers of the Beloved Disciple in Ephesus record the gospel of John, as vouched for by the Beloved Disciple. This anonymous figure is possibly a Jerusalem follower rather than an original disciple, in any event not a major figure on the order of James, John, James the Lord's brother, Peter, or Paul. The gospel is written shortly before the BD's death, perhaps because there's a tradition that the world will end before the BD dies. But then the BD dies, and another editor adds an appendage explaining that Jesus never really said that.

AD 178. Irenaeus reveals hitherto unknown information about the apostle John, that he lived to old age in Ephesus, where he, now revealed as the Beloved Disciple, wrote that strange gospel that doesn't match the other three. Then he was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote Revelation, and then returned to Ephesus and wrote three epistles. Irenaeus came up with the "John the Evangelist" idea, as part of his campaign to base the orthodox church on solid, apostolic ground, and to settle the split within orthodoxy between those who preferred John (Anatolians, and there were a ton of Anatolian Christians) and those who preferred Matthew (most everyone else) or Luke (bleeding hearts). No one bothered much with Mark.

Everyone likes Irenaeus's story, so it becomes official. A few bozos don't get the word, and we still have fragmentary references to James and John both being martyred up until the 9th century.

So is that it? Or am I missing something? Was John associated with Ephesus before Irenaeus declared that the BD of Ephesus was John? Leadwind (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a little more complicated than that.

First, Irenaeus has a certain amount of authority because he was the student of Polycarp, who described himself as the student of the Apostle John in Ephesus. This was the basis for Irenaeus' argument for the authority of episcopal succession. ("There are no secret teachings; everything that has been taught to me I teach to you.") So unless either one of these three--Irenaeus, Polycarp, or John of Ephesus--was lying or mistaken, this may be the truth. Further, although the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis (fl. 130) mentions the Apostle John as living & dying at Ephesus, in one passage quoted by Eusebius he refers to John in an ambiguous manner that Eusebius later interpreted (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.29) as implying the existence of two Johns--the Apostle, who lived in Palestine, & the Evangelist who lived in Ephesus. Add to this the fact the style of Revelation is clearly different from the other NT books attributed to John, & that 2 & 3 John bear the name of "The Presbyter", & one can suspect there are more than one early Christian leader named John.

As for his martyrdom simultaneously with his brother James, I'm unaware of any early tradition of him suffering that fate. At least as early as the 2nd century, it was believed he went to preach in Asia Minor & died in Ephesus; neither Eusebius nor Stevenson's handy compilation A New Eusebius include any account of his martyrdom, although Tertullian repeats the tradition that John was brought to Rome, boiled in oil, yet did not die (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 36). I'm not surprised at this confusion: most of the early Christians are barely more than names to us. And John's history is one of the best known ones, after Peter & Paul: compare what we know about John to, say, Matthew (about whom there are clues he was more important than existing evidence would suggest) or the other disciples. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the death of John with his brother of James, the only such statement I know is Philip of Side saying "Papias in his second book says that John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews." --SlothMcCarty (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article contradicts itself[edit]

Modern scholars do not regard John to have authored any of the texts ascribed to him.[4]
No scholar believes that the Apostle John wrote none of these texts [5].

Wardog (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"We may be permitted here to take as proven the unity of the author of these three writings handed down under the name of John and his identity with the Evangelist." and all similar talk is clearly from Christians and adds to the confusion of the article. Is there a need to say"If we accept that they are the same..." We should go with objective renowned scholars not Christian apologists. Fundamentalist Christians can read the three articles as being about the same person but I'm trying to figure out who these different people or different aspects are. So don't merge and just point to the other article for people who think they are all the same--John (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John as author[edit]

I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that John wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been posting pretty much the same text on every talk page, and I've been responding. Do I need to repeat myself? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current version is acceptable and I am not going to continue modifying it.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deleted section on Freemasons due to lack of germane content. (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomprehensible Sentence[edit]

What does this mean?: "Harris believes that the tradition that John lived to old age in Ephesus developed in the late 2nd century,[5] although the tradition does appear in the last chapter of the gospel, though this debatable tradition assumes that John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, the Beloved Disciple mentioned in John 21 and sometimes also John the Presbyter are the same person."

It looks like too many editors spoiled the soup. All the contrasting clauses with 'although,' 'though,' add up to a big mess. Please, if you understand this, render it readable.

"H believes that x developed, although x appears in gospel, though debatable x assumes something and sometimes something more..." Nope, still don't get it. zadignose (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I worked on that sentence and I think it is clearer now. I also made a small change in the sentence right before it.CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is unclear what way this picture illustrates this article. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Base of a pillar at Sacred Heart Church, Puducherry, India

The Domenichino painting - do we need this much detail here?[edit]

The painting by Domenichino has its own article [[1]] too. Is it really important enough to warrant such an elaborate mention here? Any thoughts? Ddke1811 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've decided to be bold and remove what seems to be excessive, overly specific information on one particular painting, which already has an article of its own with the exact same text. This section is more suited for general information. Ddke1811 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identity, recent addition[edit]


About: Orthodox Roman Catholic scholarship, most Protestant churches, and the entire Eastern Orthodox Church attribute all of the Johannine literature to the same individual, the "Holy Apostle and Evangelist, John the Theologian", whom it identifies with the "Beloved Disciple" in the Gospel of John.

I read a course about the Old Testament written by the Orthodox theology faculty teacher Constantin Oancea stating that the Orthodox Church never made a dogma about the authorship of the books of the Bible: it regards these all as inspired, regardless of who wrote or did not write these. See [2].

Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.

What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

— religio criticus,

Protestant churches who belong to liberal theology don't give the lie to higher criticism.

Conclusion: the phrase is only true for fundamentalist Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]