Talk:Gospel of John/2019/February

Archives

Misuse of source?

To editor PiCo: I made an edit noting that some scholars aren't convinced of the several editions of John. This was backed by a citation, but PiCo, you've reverted on the basis that I "misused" my source. This was my edit;

Some scholars have rejected this conclusion and have argued for the literary unity of John. (ref: Kellum, L. Scott, and Leonard Scott Kellum. The unity of the Farewell Discourse: The literary integrity of John 13:31-16:33. Vol. 256. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004.)

I'm wondering where the source misuse actually plays in. I'd appreciate an explanation. Is it the lack of page numbers?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unity of 13-16 is hardly a comment on the unity of the entire gospel. So far as I'm aware, the scholarly consensus is that John has had two and maybe three bouts of heavy revision - do you have a different reading?PiCo (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of mainstream scholarly arguments on revisions outside of chapters 13-16. Can you source them?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The line "The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110" (the section "Composition") is sourced to the Introduction to Edwards' book (2015) and Lincoln's (2005). Edwards says in his Introduction that von Whlde argues for 3 editions, others 2, "while a minority continue to hold unity of composition." That's left out of our article because it's a minority (we favour majority views). I can't quite see the relevance of Lincoln.PiCo (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV. Minority views are included in pages so long as they're not given undue space. Adding a short addendum to the current page ("A minority of scholars favor the unity of the Gospel") should work.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is actually that minority views are included if they're significant minority views - do you have evidence that this is a significant minority view?PiCo (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a survey of these views. I read it in a chapter by Kostenberger in [this book] and decided to add it in. I don't feel like re-reading the chapter to find the ref, so I'll return here if I ever come across it again.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]