Talk:Mystery: Was John a Samaritan

Sorry, I just noticed these arguments below. My responses are interspersed for clarity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

First off, there are good indications that Apostle John was a Jew. [1][2][3] And to reply to most of the points made:

• "the universality of the Gospel of John"—it's clear that John the Apostle, the youngest and the "disciple whom Jesus loved," understood Christ's teachings well, and therefore him grasping that Christianity is for both Jews and Gentiles alike simply means that he understood the emphasis well while early Jewish Christians may have viewed down on the Gentiles until Peter's vision in Acts

This does not seem to rebut any of the reasons, totaling 20 now, for why the author of the Gospel of John was probably a Samaritan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

All your "reasons" are purely speculative with no sound evidence. You live in a Marcionite echo chamber. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 11:58, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

• "his harsh language against Jewish leaders"—now, initially as I pondered this, it seemed to make some sense, as Apostle John frequently describes Jesus's opponents vaguely as "the Jews," though it's important to keep in mind that many individuals throughout history with integrity are most vocal in denouncing the issues in the heritage they were brought up in

the language is harsher than that, and more plausibly from an ethnic rival as the Samaritans were.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Wow, I had no idea everything was a race war. What fascinating "insights" you have. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:17, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

• "John had a rivalry with Peter, suggesting they may have had different ethnicities"—is there any substantiation for this? Wouldn't such a rivalry have been more motivated by age differences? It's important to remember that Peter, the oldest (since he was married) of the Apostles, promised prestigious leadership in the church by Jesus, was most openly prone to slips throughout his life (rebuking Jesus, denying Him three times, and being hypocritical between Jews and Gentiles); meanwhile, John, being the youngest, clearly understood Christ's teachings best, since he was ultimately entrusted at the end of his life to write the last book of the Bible. It's natural for children who understand life's lessons better than their older counterparts to develop eager zealousness and an inclination for competition, especially when they are denied certain prestigious privileges despite their merit due to their age.

Age rivalries are not as common as ethnic ones.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

• "the name "John" is Aramaic rather than Hebrew"—another person named John, John the Baptist, was Jewish, so I don't think the linguistic origins of the name provide adequate indications that Apostle John was a Gentile.

Do we know that much about the ethnicity of John the Baptist?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

Andy, have you read the Bible? If you're so devoted to conserving the "true meaning" of the Scriptures, you might want to understand what it says. Per the first chapter of Luke (I'm even going out of my way to quote from your preferred ESV):

"priest named Zechariah" IOWs, he was a Levite. And Elisheva, being of the "daughters of Aaron," was also from the tribe of Levi. The name "Yehochanan" in Hebrew (translated in Greek as "Ioannes"—since the NT was originally in Koine Greek, that is why it is translated from the Greek as the more anglicized "John") means "the LORD [Jehovah] is gracious," and that is why John the Baptist was named as such. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 22:33, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

Perhaps you are confusing the Hebrew name "Yochanan" with the pagan deity "Janus." After all, the insider initiates of the Roman church-state so dearly emphasizes its beloved "St. John the Divine" not to venerate the Apostle, but in obedience to its dualistic double-headed master. After all, Rev. 1:1 says the revelation is of Jesus Christ and given to John the Apostle. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 22:37, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Sunday, 18:54, February 5, 2023 (EST)

Currently, the page states: "John's father's name, translated as "Zebedee", appears nowhere in the Old Testament and is most common today in Nigeria, Africa, which is half Muslim and half Christian".

However, some quick research indicates:

"There's nothing in the Greek language that looks like the name Zebedee (or rather Zebedaios) and Zebedee is most probably a transliteration of the very popular Hebrew name Zebadiah, says Spiros Zodhiates (The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary), or rather, the truncated version Zabdi, says BDB Theological Dictionary.

The name Zebadiah consists of two elements, the final one being יה (Yah) = יהו (Yahu) = יו (Yu), which in turn are abbreviated forms of the Tetragrammaton; the name of the Lord: YHWH.

The first part of the name Zebedee or Zebadiah comes from the verb זבד (zabad), meaning to give".[4]

"Zebedee is a boy's name of Hebrew origin. Meaning “gift of God,” it garners its religious interpretations from Zebedee of the Christian New Testament, a humble fisherman and the father of the apostles James and John."[5] Conservative (talk) 10:21, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

I've researched and saw those claims on the internet that "Zebedee" is of Hebrew origin. The same is claimed implausibly about "John" also. For whatever reasons, there are assertions on the internet that try to fit everything about the New Testament into the Old Testament somehow. Many of the attempts just don't work. "Zebedee" is not "Zebadiah", and Zebedee has never been a Hebrew name. Sorry to disappoint, but diversity strengthens the New Testament.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:12, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

The principles of falsification, due diligence, openness and intellectual humility are very important tools when it comes to finding the truth of a matter. I am not convinced that you did your due diligence as far as your assertion that John was a Samaritan. My initial research in this matter, some of which I presented above, tells me that this is the case.

Christianity is a 2,000 year old religion with about 2.4 billion self-described adherents. I couldn't find any Christians on the internet who take your view. While you can certainly hold your view in this matter and I don't begrudge you of taking this view, your view appears to be wrong. I wish User: AugustO was more active because I know that he would doggedly take you to task over this matter. I used to enjoy the Andy Schlafly vs. User: AugustO debates on talk pages. Conservative (talk) 17:55, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

Online analysis of the New Testament is surprisingly narrow. There are dozens of obvious points that are difficult to find anyone saying on the internet. University scholars are, of course, constrained by political correctness. Liberals promote their falsehoods. Political conservatives almost never analyze the Bible, perhaps due to concern it may cause a loss in supporters for a political cause (it won't).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:17, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

Wait till you find out that the Bible never contains the word "conservative" once, yet mentions "liberal." —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:58, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Christianity is a 2,000+ year old religion. It predates the political ideology of liberalism and "political correctness" by a huge amount of time. And yet, I could not find any Christians in the history of Christendom taking your view. Your Johnny came lately theological speculation isn't compelling. At the same time, I did find evidence and arguments that Saint John was a Jew. Conservative (talk) 19:37, June 6, 2024 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing any of that "evidence". "John" is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament. The Paschal Lamb emphasized in the Gospel of John is a Samaritan tradition.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:21, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Jehohanan/Yochanan is translated in Koine Greek as Ioannes, in turn translated into English as John. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 11:55, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Saint Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic Church makes some good arguments at: Were all the twelve Apostles Jews?.

And two of the reasons I am suspicious of Johnny come lately "insights" that no Christian has had for the 2,000 years that are not based on new evidence is that they have a terrible track record in terms of their biblical/theological validity (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Restorationists, Calvinists, lazy nondenominational churches that do not celebrate the eucharist weekly, women "pastors", etc.). Secondly, most people are terrible when it comes to their knowledge of: the basic rules of Bible exegesis (See:Basic Rules for New Testament Exegesis), church history and Ancient Near East culture. Conservative (talk) 12:04, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

The apostolic churches in Asia Minor observed the Lord's Supper on Nisan 14 annually, not as a weekly pagan-syncretist "Eucharist." —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 13:02, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

LT, I need actual evidence of your claim via a source before I would entertain it. This thread is about having evidence/sourcing. Conservative (talk) 13:50, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

If you're such a church history expert, you should understand what Quartodecimanism is. For starters, read the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 14:22, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

While my knowledge of church history is above average, that is not saying a lot since most people are ignorant about church history. With that being said, my knowledge related to doing internet research is above average given my knowledge concerning the search engines. I was also blessed with a professor who gave me an assignment that required me to learn how to do library research better. So if there is a question I have related to what the early church believed, I am able to do the requisite research better than most people.

In addition, both in college and on my own, I have studied logic, critical thinking, cognitive biases, abnormal psychology and statistical analysis, so I am able to better adequately weigh evidence. These skills related to thinking are important because many people engage in illogical thinking and lack intellectual humility. Most importantly and specifically, one reason why these skills are super helpful is because they reign in fallen men's inclination to engage in poor reasoning and spout self-important opinions (such as opinions about "St. Putin", etc.) As the esteemed Dr. Dirty Harry said, "A man has got to know his limitations". Wise King Solomon wrote: "This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." (Ecclesiastes 9:3). Conservative (talk) 16:38, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

That has nothing to do with Quartodecimanism. You are now plastering a conglomerate chunk of expired spam to pivot the topic due to your inability to debunk my argument; IOWs, the same fallacious tactic used by SOBert "nobs" Smith. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:16, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

I am on topic. You tried to derail the thread to talk about Easter. Conservative (talk) 18:25, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance. I was referring to the antitypical, 2nd-century apostolic Christian commemoration of Passover on Nisan 14, which is completely separate from the pagan feast of Ishtar. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:53, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

James, the name of John's brother, is likewise not a Hebrew name and is mentioned nowhere in the entire Old Testament. Moreover, the sometimes cited possible Hebrew sources for the names of James and John (each only 1 syllable in English) sound nothing like them, and have many syllables in purported Hebrew origins. Generally Greek is not based on Hebrew.

As to the above link to a short article at Saint Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic Church, it is nothing but conjecture with no evidence to support it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:29, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Andy, you're a total moron. "James" is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew name Jacob. Clearly that Princeton BSE and Harvard JD didn't raise your IQ, eh? —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:52, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

I plan on going to church twice a week and 50% of the time it will be to Catholic churches.

Andy is a Catholic although he doesn't share a small percentage of beliefs that most conservative Catholics believe such as that the Apostles were Jewish. With Catholics, I presently generally focus on our shared beliefs as Christians and not focus on our differences since I probably agree with conservative Catholics about 95-99% of the time. I am going to bow out of this conversation. I believe that the conservative Protestant/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox all have some good things to offer. Spending too much time on theological differences that are not related to major doctrines is not the most productive thing to do. Conservative (talk) 18:34, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

"he doesn't share a small percentage of beliefs that most conservative Catholics believe such as that the Apostles were Jewish" Conservative, I recommend doing better church history research. The Catholic Church was influenced by pagan and Gnostic syncretism, namely in its incorporation of sexual asceticism as a clear indicator of Gnostic corruption. Catholicism at its highest and most reactionary "traditionalist" levels have always been virulently anti-Jewish. Why? Because Catholicism is Marcionism, and 2nd-century Gnosticism despised the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah) and everything associated with Judaism.

Long story short, Andy's denial of the Jewish origin of Christianity is a reflection of Satanic, dualistic Vatican insider ideology that serves as nothing more than a continuation of the Knights Templars' Johannism. Ever wonder why the Catholic Church loves its "St. John"? —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 18:49, June 7, 2024 (EDT)

Complete Schlaflyite-Marcionite rubbish. The Hebrew name Yehochanan (shortened to "Yochanan" and spelled "Jehohanan" in the KJV), which translates to "Ioannes" in the Koine Greek text of the New Testament, is multiple times in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Also, in Acts 4:6, there is a Sadducaic figure named "John," which means that it's definitely a Jewish name.

The author of this ridiculous "Mystery" page needs to learn to shut up on topics he doesn't understand, especially when it comes to the Bible. This entire "Conservative Bible Project" is a Gnostic propaganda apparatus trying to sever the New Testament from its Mosaic Jewish foundation. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 12:24, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Good point about Acts 4:6 . Of course, the author of that was a Greek-speaker so it could be a translation issue. Regardless, there are 30 additional reasons in this entry why John was probably a Samaritan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:03, November 26, 2024 (EST)

His snobbish language against Andy, there is no need for this cocky swipes at anyone

Re LT snobbish language against Andy, there is no need for this cocky swipes at anyone.Telling (talk) 04:52, November 27, 2024 (EST)

I like this one better: "Andy, you're a total moron. "James" is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew name Jacob. Clearly that Princeton BSE and Harvard JD didn't raise your IQ, eh? —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 18:52, June 7, 2024 (EDT)" - it all started 13 years ago when User:Conservative called me "a pawn and useful idiot of an atheist website" and was rewarded with me being desysoped for being the victim of a personal attack and not responding. The situation has only compounded itself ever since. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 05:44, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Oh, LT is "knowledgeable" of the Bible? His misinterpreting of:

Genesis 21:10 Genesis 21:12 Genesis 26, 3. And so weird at that. He also is a fan of / citing Islamists Qatar or Iran linked sites (including M.E.E). Or militant socialists rewriting history's nonsense. Some "conservative" alright. But the main point is about an exceptional arrogance and personal attacks.Telling (talk) 12:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Well, that's my point. Personal attacks are okay, per policy now. And you can't just ignore them either, as I tried to. You must respond. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 12:45, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Indeed. One can debate with mutual respect.Telling (talk) 23:49, November 28, 2024 (EST)

Comment:

1. Actually, there was a Jew 'James son of Zebedee' יעקב בן זבדי in the Talmudic time. 1, 2

A thought: Zebulun was named from the root of ZEVED which means dowry/gift. https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0130.htm 2. The name John in Hebrew is Yochanan (Johanan).

First you have in the OT: Yohanan, son of King Josiah of Judah in: 1 Chronicles 3:15. And at Prophet Jeremiah's era: Johanan Ben Kareah: General of the Israelites at the time of Nebuchadnezzar (c. 586 B.C.). Jeremiah 42; 2 Kings 25:23–26.

Very famous Talmud sage by that name [6] and by the Maccabees (Hanukkah story) too: Mattityahu [Mattathias] the son of Yochanan [7] - he is known as John Hyrcanus

Mattathias' son Juda (i.e. Johanan's grandson) died 161 years pre Jesus era. [8] BTW, re the 'Maccabees': The name MACABI, according to a famous explanation [9], was an abbreviation of the verse in Exodus 15:11

"Who is like unto Thee, O LORD, among the mighty? " https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0215.htm . Telling (talk) 16:22, November 24, 2024 (EST)

The above names seem potentially similar to John but are also quite different. Yohanan יוֹחָנָן‎ (Yôḥānān) has three syllables, while John has only one. As far as I know, John is not a traditional Jewish name today.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:00, November 26, 2024 (EST)

I understand what you're saying. However, today in Hebrew, John is translated into YOCHANAN. And so was called the late John Paul. Point is, Avraham and Abraham, Yaakov and Jacob, Moses and Moshe , Joseph and Yosef (for example: Christian Arab activist), Benjamin and Binyamin (- Bibi Netanyahu for instance) are all the same.

(As to syllables, from Johanan, it became Johan - still in Germanic languages Johann, and in English from Johan it became John, and in Spanish Juan).

Yochanan was always John: From Flavius Josephus (b.37 AD) Printed in 1741 John Hyrcanus, or Encyclopedias, like: J. encyclopedia 1901 Hyrcanus John, (Johanan). And "new Encyclopedia" in 1907 "JOHN (Heb., Johanan)."

_

PS, just an observation, it is very possible that the root of the name Yochanan is grace, per Genesis 43:29.Telling (talk) 23:48, November 28, 2024 (EST)

Point #32 states: "John emphasized that Jesus "came to what was his own, but his own people [i.e., Jewish people] did not accept him," while others [i.e., Samaritans, such as John, and other ethnicities] did accept him.[15]".

When you say "Samaritans such as John", this is using circular reasoning as far as whether John was a Samaritan which is also known as begging the question.

The burden of proof is always upon the claimant. For example, if one claims, "Conservatives don't believe in the theory of relativity", you have to be able to provide a reasonable amount of conservatives indicating disbelief in the theory of relativity for others to accept your claim that conservatives reject the theory of relativity.

Also, Ancient Near East culture was not super precise when making statements (It was a pre-science culture). Like if a small percentage of Jews accepted Jesus at the time John wrote his gospel, but most of the early followers were Jewish, that would still be a case of his own people rejecting him. Conservative (talk) 17:35, December 30, 2024 (EST)

I'll reword it better, even though I think the point is obvious. It's not circular. "Jesus came for group A, but group A rejected Him while different groups B, C, and D accepted him. John accepted Him. Therefore John is not in group A, but in groups B, C, or D."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:15, December 30, 2024 (EST)

OK. Reword it. Your version above is better.

Next time we have a theological discussion, lets talk about Ancient Near East (ANE) culture and their degree of precision. And lets talk about Romans 11: 25-27. I recently spoke with User: NishantXavier and a fellow friend via a 3-way call (and previous calls) about what the Bible says about the Jewish people and we had very productive conversations. We all learned something about this matter given our various pieces of knowledge about this matter. Conservative (talk) 21:31, December 30, 2024 (EST)

P.S. As far as ANE culture and precision, please see the articles Value of pi and Value of the number pi and Are Mustard Seeds the Smallest or Was Jesus Wrong?. Conservative (talk) 21:44, December 30, 2024 (EST)

Paul never mentioned "Samaritans", not even once. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with them, or simply considered them to be Gentiles. Did Paul know of John? Romans 11:25-27 is interesting in implying that Gentiles would help save Israel.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:21, December 30, 2024 (EST)

Luke 9:51-56: John and James ask Jesus to rain down fire on the Samaritans.

2,000 years of Christians failing to say John was a Samaritan was obviously right-minded.

Behold, even a soulless machine knows John was most certainly not a Samaritan!

"No, Apostle John was not a Samaritan. He was a Galilean fisherman who became one of Jesus's twelve apostles. While John and his brother James are depicted as reacting with fiery zeal when Samaritans rejected Jesus, this was corrected by Jesus himself. Apostle John's actions later in his life, particularly regarding the early church and the conversion of St. Paul, demonstrate a shift towards more compassionate and loving leadership." - Google AI Overview.[10] Conservative (talk) 22:20, April 17, 2025 (EDT)

Arguments that the Apostle John was Jewish:

• Give me as many legitimate arguments that you can the Apostle John was Jewish and rate their strength on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is the most strong that it could be. What is the probability that the Apostle John was Jewish? Are there any legitimate arguments that he was not Jewish.

Critiques of the weaknesses of the essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan?". Also, a ranking of its arguments by strength:

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of this essay: https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan

• What is the probability that the essay at https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan engages in the argumentation type commonly known as elephant hurling? If it does engage in elephant hurling, why is that? How much weaker is the essay due to it not tackling the strongest arguments that John was not a Samaritan and please explain why if this is the case? Conservative (talk) 18:39, October 11, 2025 (EDT)

• Is this a fair analogy: The essay https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan has a humber of Lilliputian arguments or invalid arguments that endeavor to overcome the Gulliver amount of evidence that the Apostle John was Jewish? In other words, does it engage in "elephant hurling" and a lack of attempt to falsify its main thesis that the Apostle John was a Samaritan? So it lacks attempts at falsification rigour which is sound basis to make judgments. Furthermore, does the essay commit the fallacy of exclusion logical fallacy?

• • About Jesus as asuppsed "Samaritan".1. The Samaritans who are a mixed, and claimed to be Jews and never accepted Jerusalem and its Temple. But chose mount Gerizim. While Jesus only visited Jerusalem. 2. Joseph and Mary were not in Samaria. But in Judea. No one doubts Joseph or James (Jacob/Yakov) being ordinary Jews. 3. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship. 4In general, one should go to the original conversion: Y into J [Jacob, Jesus, John, etc ] in English pronunciation while in original Germanic it is still pronounced as in Y in English. There is no "J" in the original Bible, of course. - Telling talk) 20:16, October 11, 2025 (EDT)

Good points, but the primary hypothesis is that John (not Jesus) was a Samaritan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:35, October 11, 2025 (EDT)

Thank you Andy. Then my humble point#4... - Telling.

"The traditional scholarly and biblical consensus—drawn from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the Book of Acts, and early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Eusebius—overwhelmingly identifies John as a Jewish Galilean fisherman from Bethsaida or near Capernaum, son of Zebedee and Salome (possibly a relative of Mary, Jesus' mother), and brother of James. This view is supported by details such as his family's involvement in Jewish fishing trade on the Sea of Galilee, his attendance at synagogues, his participation in Jewish festivals like Passover, and his role in key Jewish messianic events (e.g., the Transfiguration, Agony in the Garden). Galilee was predominantly Jewish territory during Jesus' time, distinct from Samaria, and John's actions in the Gospels—such as wanting to call down fire on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:51–56)—reflect typical Jewish-Samaritan tensions rather than insider sympathy."[11]

"Biblical Evidence Against: John’s Galilean origin (Mark 1:19-20), Jewish name, and participation in Jewish practices (Acts 3:1) strongly suggest he was Jewish. No text identifies him as Samaritan, unlike other Samaritan figures (John 4:9).

Historical Context: Samaritans were a distinct group, worshipping at Mount Gerizim (John 4:20) and rejecting Jerusalem’s temple. John’s association with Jerusalem (Acts 3–4) contradicts Samaritan identity. The essay’s claim of 1 million Samaritans (Point 0) is unsupported, as estimates suggest a much smaller population (Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 2013)."[12]

"Biblical Context: Named as a Disciple of Jesus (Strength: 95/100)

"Argument: The New Testament identifies John as one of Jesus’ twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:17, Luke 6:14). Jesus, a Jew, primarily chose Jewish disciples to align with his mission to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). John’s inclusion in this group strongly suggests he was Jewish.

Evidence: The Gospels consistently present Jesus’ inner circle as Jewish, with John explicitly named as a son of Zebedee and a fisherman from Galilee (Mark 1:19–20), a region predominantly Jewish in the 1st century.

Strength Reasoning: The consistency of the Gospel accounts and the cultural context make this a near-certain indicator of John’s Jewish identity. The slight reduction from 100 accounts for the lack of an explicit statement like “John was a Jew.”

Jewish Cultural Practices in John’s Family (Strength: 90/100)

Argument: John’s family, including his father Zebedee and brother James, operated a fishing business in Galilee (Mark 1:19–20, Luke 5:10). This occupation was common among Jews in the region, and their adherence to Jewish customs, such as observing the Sabbath, is implied by their context.

Evidence: The family’s location in Galilee, a Jewish stronghold, and their interactions with Jesus, who taught in synagogues (Luke 4:15), suggest adherence to Jewish practices. The name “John” (Hebrew: Yochanan) was common among Jews.

Strength Reasoning: The cultural and occupational context strongly supports Jewish identity, but the absence of direct references to John’s family observing specific Jewish rituals slightly lowers the score."[13]

"The essay's 34 points are largely Lilliputian in nature: speculative, circumstantial, or based on misinterpretations that strain to fit the thesis without rigorous evidence. For instance:

Claims like Zebedee's name not appearing in the Old Testament ignore that it's the Greek form of the Hebrew "Zabdi" or "Zebediah," which does appear (e.g., 1 Chronicles 27:27).

References to "the Jews" as outsiders or sympathy for Samaritans are better explained by the Gospel of John's theological style and intended audience (likely mixed Jewish-Gentile communities in Ephesus), not ethnicity. Omissions (e.g., no parables, fewer Old Testament quotes) align with John's unique narrative focus, not Samaritan Pentateuch-only views.

These arguments often rely on absence of evidence or cherry-picked details, lacking empirical support from archaeology, textual criticism, or patristic sources, making them collectively weak against the "Gulliver" scale of established evidence for John's Jewish identity."[14] Conservative (talk) 04:52, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

Now Andy may claim that he addressed the arguments that I provided via Grok, but did he? He did not truly engage the arguments. Conservative (talk) 05:22, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

"Regarding "elephant hurling" (a tactic of overwhelming with a barrage of claims to obscure weak substantiation), the essay fits this by amassing 34 points without critically evaluating their validity, interconnections, or alternative explanations. It presents them as a cumulative "mystery" but avoids addressing how they might be refuted, such as by noting Galilee's Jewish demographics or John's integration into the Jerusalem-based early church leadership (Acts 3–4, Galatians 2)."[15]

"The essay also shows a clear lack of falsification rigor, a key principle in sound inquiry (e.g., as emphasized by Karl Popper). It builds a one-sided case without testing the thesis against counter-evidence, such as:

John's Galilean roots in Jewish communities.

His family's observance of Jewish customs (e.g., fishing laws, temple visits).

No ancient sources (e.g., Josephus on Samaritans) linking apostles to Samaria ethnically.

Direct contradictions, like John's hostility toward Samaritans in Luke.

This absence of self-challenge undermines its credibility as a basis for judgment."[16] Conservative (talk) 05:00, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence.'"

"Finally, it commits the fallacy of exclusion by selectively highlighting details that could vaguely support the Samaritan thesis while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence (e.g., no mention of John's Jewish upbringing or the apostles' overall Jewish composition). This creates a distorted picture, excluding the broader context that reinforces the consensus view."[17] Conservative (talk) 05:08, October 12, 2025 (EDT)