Talk:John of Patmos

Note

Please note Rudolf Steiner already mentioned the seer of patmos, see eg http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/EsoCosmo/19060614p01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.250.145 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Others contend that they were at least three separate individuals.

How could they have been more than three separate individuals? john k 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the Gospel may have been written by several individuals over time, rather than just one author. And that's not even to mention John the Presbyter, author of some of the epistles. The point is, it may be a mistake to automatically assume that each work was composed by a single lone individual-- they may be collaborations, redactions, forgeries, etc. (I'm not saying I believe that at all-- but just saying there are many scenarios in which more than one person could be considered the author of a work.)-Alecmconroy 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged this article to Authorship of the Johannine works because:

• This article has no content that is not already discussed more fully on that page
• There is plenty of room on Authorship of the Johannine works that a separate article isn't needed (yet)
• There are so many articles on the the Johannine author(s) that reading is confusing

--Ephilei 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the redirect/merger. John of Patmos has been a motif in western art, and a religious figure for a number of Christian churches. Therefore, someone may be search of John of Patmos and be disappointed when they show up at a discussion on biblical authorship. This article could use some expanding, and it can be confusing that there are a number of names to refer to a number of individuals that may or may not have been the same person. A solution may be to create an article like Johns in the New Testament or John (Christianity) to merge all the John articles. Say at the top of the page that some people think they are all the same, and some people do not, and then have a section on each one (the apostle, the evangelist, the presbyter, patmos, etc). I wouldn't oppose that as long as all the articles were merged, but I do not support merging this article to a discussion on authorship (because of the existence of Patmos in art, and as a distinct person in some traditions).-Andrew c 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I similarly have some hesitancy about a merge. I might be open to it depending on what people said, but my first instinct would be to have the separate article where we can put what is known about each of hte individual figures and them also mentioning that they may all be the same individual. John of Patmos definitely need expanision-- there are whole books on what we can deduce about the author of Revelations, and it seems like "John of Patmos,the author of Revelation" is a wide enough topic that eventually we'd probably need a whole article one way or the other. In any case, it's not a good candidate for speedy merge. --Alecmconroy 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Points well taken. I've proposed a merge to Names of John as Alecmconroy suggested having a central pages to discuss the various identities related to John. Certainly I hope that eventually WP will have so much info on John of Patmos that he does need his own article! But that hasn't happened yet. (I'd love to see someone take up that task!) Until then, let's keep John's identities centralized. --Ephilei 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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 (http://www.endocrine.niddk.nih.gov/pubs/prolact/prolact.htm), 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

I really don't think John of Patmos should be merged into Names of John. The modern scholars I've read (for my current dissertation on Ephesus) are fairly certain he is a distinct person from both John the Apostle and John the Evangelist. There is good evidence (from early Christian texts) that John of Patmos was probably from Ephesus, exiled on nearby Patmos for a time, then returned and died in Ephesus. His tomb was revered there, and later Irenaeus conveniently combined him with John the Evangelist to give the Gospel of John more legitimacy in Asia Minor. All very interesting! And obviously stuff I should add to the article, and I will. :) But all this to say - there seems to be ample reason to have "John of Patmos" as a separate article. HVH 02:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stand with Irenaeus than "modern" scholars. I've changed the word, "most," to "some" for that reason. There are a LOT of people who gag over the idea, and modern scholars are constantly having their fits of revisionism. It's pathetic. Sky 05:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Sky

I'm not saying this to be smart, but wikipedia doesn't work on who you'd rather stand with. We need to represent our sources, and modern scholarship accurately, regardless of personal opinion. That said, since this sentence was unsourced to begin with, I think your changes are fine for the time being. If we find a source that states that most scholars feel this way, then we must say so in the article. We also must present the traditional view, and the view of the early Christians (such as Irenaeus), to present all relevant positions in a neutral manner. Even if we think that modern scholarship is pathetic or revisionism, that is not enough to change what a source says (assuming there is a source that says "most"). I hope you understand. Thanks.-Andrew c 13:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I do understand the NPOV of Wikipedia and agree with it. But "most" is not neutral in most cases. :-) I think Aristotle's dictum applies more directly: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." Sky 07:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Sky

Conflated

It is the use of little used/obscure words like "conflated" that give encylopedias, especially, and scholars, generally, a bad name! Why can't a word in normal use be employed? Have you looked at Strunk and Whyte's "Elements of Style" lately? It is often useful. Student7 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess that is just my personal bias. I am familiar with the word and it's definition and it doesn't seem obscure to me (828,000 google hits is also a good sign). I do not believe the word "confused" is a good substitute. The issue is that there are relevant POVs that these individuals were actually the same person. By saying these sources are simply "confused" we are writing them off as being wrong. The word conflated makes it clear that there are multiple sources being combined into one, without passing judgment on the accuracy. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the word "conflated" if you can come up with a better substitute than "confused".-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Conflated" is not an obscure word. Even if it was, the meaning is clear from context to any reader of moderate intelligence. Besides, it is the word in normal use for the intended meaning. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John of Nazarene

I removed the statement that John is knows as "John of Nazarene". Firstly Nazarene means "of Nazareth" so the title means "John of of Nazareth". One reference was supplied to back this up, but the word "Nazarene" does not appear in the page referenced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A Nazarean or Nazarite can also apply to a very righteous Hebrew like it did to Samson. 2601:580:4:7D7:F08C:4154:4988:B8C1 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dates

At no point in the article does it mention any dates, not even the century that he lived in. When was he born, roughly? 78.105.132.30 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential Error

Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarer are listed as earlier Christian writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.35.142 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Was John of Patmos the Apostle John?

I AM a Bible scholar and we are split about 50-50 on whether the author of The Revelation/Apocalypse of John was the Apostle John. But if you were to tour the Island of Patmos today, your guide would say, "It was the Apostle John who was exiled here and wrote what became the last book of the Bible." 104.190.63.217 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Veneration

St. John is also venerated in Protestant churches, at least those such as Lutheranism and the Anglican Communion who venerate saints. 2600:1004:B179:F58A:0:3:56ED:FD01 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is every profit white just a curious question 2601:6C5:8100:27B0:692B:940E:6204:D1F5 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)