Talk:Gospel of John

FA candidacy

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gospel of John/archive1}}

Peer review

{{Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_John/archive1}}

Getting sources right

User Silverfish wants to edit the article with some material, but his edit (his words, that is) repeats what is already there, while the page cited by him does not support what he wants to say.
Here is his edit, the original material in square brackets, his addition in quotes: [The author may have drawn on a "signs source" (a collection of miracles) for chapters 1–12, a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, and a "sayings source" for the discourses, but these hypotheses are much debated],Template:Sfn "and recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John."
Clearly, the material sourced from Reddish ("these hypotheses are much debated", meaning the passion source and the sayings source) means exactly the same thing as the material Silverfish wants to add. I'd be fine with replacing Reddish as our source, except that Silverfish's source - page 142 of Chris Keith's 2020 book titled The Gospel as Manuscript - says nothing about John's sources beyond the synoptics. Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My addition reveals a recent trend in scholarship against advocating for hypothetical sources behind John rather than simply claiming that hypotheses are debatable without any information about where the debate is headed. There is a clear trend though, as Chris Keith explains:

Template:Talkquote

In short, scholars are moving away from trying to discover hypothetical sources of John and from treating oral traditions like an onion where you can peel back accretions to find a pristine core. The source supports the claim. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not 'turned against', but 'turned away'. And not 'positing', but 'reconstructing' and 'identifying'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary and again at the head of this thread that the material you wish to add to the article is already there, sourced to Reddish; I also said that the material as you source it, page 142 of Keith's book, is not actually there. These are the issues you need to address. Achar Sva (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wherever this discussion goes, the current source for the change in the debate actually concludes by supporting the Johannine hypothesis. Honestly, my immediate reaction was to not read this article, since the citation doesn't match the text argument. 2603:9004:901:FAFC:C147:4D90:6623:D56E (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Jesus humanity seen

Template:Cait In the council of Chalcedon Jesus dual nature of one person with a fully human and fully divine nature was clarified. The Gospel of John not only speaks to Jesus as divine but as human.

Jesus Died – "Jesus answered, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'" (John 2:19 ) Jesus, though divine, experienced death in his humanity and had the power to raise himself.

Jesus Wept – "Jesus wept." (John 11:35 ) This shows Jesus' deep emotional connection to human suffering and grief.

Jesus Was Tired – "Jesus, wearied as he was from the journey, was sitting beside the well." (John 4:6 ) Jesus' physical exhaustion highlights his humanity.

Jesus Felt Hunger – "I have food to eat that you do not know about." (John 4:32 )

Jesus acknowledges his physical need for food. Jesus Experienced Anger – "In making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple." (John 2:15 )

Jesus displayed righteous anger, showing a range of human emotions. These examples illustrate Jesus' full humanity alongside his divinity.

Jesus Said, 'I Thirst' – "Jesus said, 'I thirst.'" (John 19:28 ) Jesus' physical thirst illustrates his full humanity, experiencing the basic needs of the body.

Jesus Ate a Fish – "They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them." (Luke 24:42-43 ) After his resurrection, Jesus ate to show his physical, bodily nature, confirming he was not a ghost. Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for your interpretation of the texts? Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course. It is a mainline view and a view of both Protestants and Catholics. The theologian Wayne Grudem speaks to the Hyperstatic Union and Jesus' human nature seen in the gospel of John in his Systematic theology book on how the gospel of John's use of Jesus being tired, thirst, hungry and dying supports having a human nature . Grudem does say in the same place that the hyperstatic union also includes two wills, a human and divine will, in one person where the will aspect is more brought up in the gospel of Mark where Jesus in his humanity has limited knowledge of the day or hour of his return. Calvin's Institutes, Chapter 14 discuss the hyperstatic Union as well. Calvin highlights the gospel of John here are showing aspects of both natures "But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once. Numbers of these exist in the Gospel of John." Whirlingmerc (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The Greek term for “temple” carries special significance. Two key words are employed: ἱερόν (hieron) and ναός (naos). The word ἱερόν generally refers to the entire infrastructure, courtyards and all as a whole, while ναός specifically denotes the inner sanctuary where God’s presence dwells. Church scholars widely agree that this usage highlights the profound reality that believers themselves are considered the temple of the Holy Spirit—mirroring the meaning of ναός—and that when Jesus refers to the temple, he underscores God’s abiding presence among his people (see Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon and BDAG for further definitions).

Regarding the hyperstatic union, one dissenting group, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, interprets John 2:19—“tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it”— through their doctrinal lens. They assert that Jesus is not an autonomous divine figure but rather the Angel Michael, and they maintain that the soul does not continue after death except as a concept in God’s mind. They would say Jesus must have 'raise himself" in some other sense and advocate for that sense being building the church. Whirlingmerc (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

John 21

Yes, Chris Keith unambiguously states that the minority is growing. Birjeta01 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Birjeta01 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m glad you appreciate it. Keith provided more citations supporting his claims.

Template:Tq Birjeta01 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The label "fourth gospel"

I'm surprised if this hasn't been raised before. I get the impression that John is referred to as the "fourth gospel" much more than Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the "first gospel", "second gospel" and "third gospel" respectively. I furthermore note that the article uses the phrase twice, before you count the references in which it appears eight times. This is indeed much more than the corresponding labels in the other gospel articles.

I furthermore see that the article makes no comment on the label. Is it used primarily to differentiate John from the synoptic gospels? I would imagine so, and one of the uses of the label in the article suggests this. It feels to me like the article ought to at least say something about the label. — Smjg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)