text:
Shotgun formation

The shotgun formation is a formation used by the offensive team in gridiron football mainly for passing plays, although some teams use it as their base formation. Instead of the quarterback receiving the snap from center at the line of scrimmage, in the shotgun he stands farther back, often five to seven yards off the line. Sometimes the quarterback will have a back on one or both sides before the snap, while other times he will be the lone player in the backfield with everyone spread out as receivers.

The shotgun formation can offer certain advantages. The offensive linemen have more room to maneuver behind the scrimmage line and form a tighter, more cohesive oval “pocket” in which the quarterback is protected from “blitzing” by the defense. The quarterback also has a better view of the defense from the shotgun formation. If the quarterback has speed, mobility or both, he can use this formation to scramble before his pass; or, to run to an open field position in the defensive secondary or to the sideline, usually gaining first-down yardage.

Although some running plays can be run effectively from the shotgun, the formation also has weaknesses. The defense knows a pass is more than likely coming, particularly from an empty set lacking any running backs, and there is a higher risk of a botched snap than in a simple center/quarterback exchange. If the defense is planning a pass rush, this formation gives fast defensive players more open and exposed targets in the offensive backfield, with less cluttered “blitzing” routes to the quarterback and any other halfback in the offensive backfield.

Shotgun combines elements of the short punt and spread formations — "spread" in that it has receivers spread widely instead of close to or behind the interior line players. The origins of the term are thought to be that it is like a "shotgun" in spraying receivers around the field. (The alignment of the players also suggests the shape of an actual shotgun.) Formations similar or identical to the shotgun used decades previously would be called names such as "spread double wing". Short punt formations (so called because the distance between the snapper and the ostensible punter is shorter than in long punt formation) do not usually have as much emphasis on wide receivers.

History

The shotgun evolved from the single wing and the similar double-wing spread; famed triple threat man Sammy Baugh has claimed that the shotgun was effectively the same as the version of the double-wing he ran at Texas Christian University in the 1930s.

The formation was named by San Francisco 49ers coach Red Hickey, who systematized the modern shotgun offense in 1960. John Brodie was the first National Football League shotgun quarterback, beating out former starter Y. A. Tittle largely because he was mobile enough to effectively run the formation.

The New York Jets briefly experimented with the shotgun during the middle of the Joe Namath era to give the bad-kneed and often immobile quarterback more time to set up plays by placing him deeper in the backfield. Three years before Dallas ushered in the modern era of the shotgun to the NFL, Joe Theismann of the Toronto Argonauts regularly employed the formation north of the border in the Canadian Football League. But the formation was not used on a regular basis in the NFL until the 1975 season, and then only by the Dallas Cowboys, who used the shotgun frequently with Roger Staubach at quarterback. The Cowboy shotgun differed from the 49er shotgun as Staubach generally had a back next to him in the backfield (making runs possible), where Brodie was normally alone in the backfield.

Since no other NFL teams used the formation during this time, some believed it had been invented by Tom Landry. Instead, Landry simply dusted off the old innovation to address a pressing problem: keeping Staubach protected while an unusually young and inexperienced squad (12 rookies made the 1975 Cowboys roster) jelled. The Cowboys ended up in the Super Bowl that season, in no small part due to its new use of the old formation. The shotgun became a "signature" formation for the Cowboys, especially during third down situations.

The shotgun was adopted by more teams throughout the pass-happy late 1980s, and was part of almost every team's offense in the 1990s, eventually becoming a base formation for some teams in the late 2000s.

Recent use
In recent years, the shotgun has become vastly prevalent. Many college quarterbacks—such as Tim Tebow, who almost exclusively used the shotgun at Florida—have difficulty adapting to NFL offenses where about a third of snaps are taken under center. However, with the spread offense increasingly used in the NFL, the shotgun is more popular, since the spread allows for more effective running. The shotgun formation is often run during 2nd-and-long or 3rd-and-long situations to give the quarterback enough time to allow the receivers to run deep routes. However, Peyton Manning, formerly of the Indianapolis Colts and Denver Broncos, often audibled to plays that use this formation in order to better read defenses and to take advantage of fast receivers like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne and gain extended yardage in a single play. In 2007, the New England Patriots used the shotgun with great effectiveness as a base formation for the offense that scored the then-record 587 points in a 16-game season (since broken by the Denver Broncos in 2013); in fact, the 2007 Patriots were the first team in NFL history to use it for the majority of their offensive plays. The Patriots have also used the formation to directly snap the ball away from the quarterback, snapping it instead to a running back (usually Kevin Faulk); the Patriots scored a two-point conversion via such a direct snap to Faulk in Super Bowl XXXVIII and again against the Chargers in the AFC Divisional Playoffs.

Though the shotgun is a pass-dominated formation, a cleverly designed halfback draw play can put defenses off guard and a fast halfback can get good yardage before the defense recovers from their mistake. A further development of the play is a halfback option pass, with the quarterback being one of the eligible receivers. Roger Staubach's backup and successor, Danny White, twice caught such a pass for a touchdown. It was noted at the time that he was only eligible because of the shotgun formation (an NFL quarterback who takes a snap from underneath the center was and still is an ineligible receiver, a rule not found in any amateur level of American football).

The shotgun is also used in college, but running is used more often than in the NFL. Most offenses in college who run in the shotgun have a fast quarterback. They often use a play where the quarterback has an option of handing the ball off to the running back who runs to the side opposite the side he was lined up on. The quarterback can also run the opposite way depending on how the defense reacts. Urban Meyer and the Florida Gators used this effectively from 2006 to 2009 with Tim Tebow.

Related formations
The Nevada Wolf Pack currently employs a formation called the "pistol", in which the running back, instead of lining up next to the quarterback, lines up behind the quarterback, who in turn has lined up two to three yards behind the center.

Coach Urban Meyer has added elements of the option offense to the shotgun offense he employed as coach at Bowling Green State University, the University of Utah, and University of Florida. This "spread option" offense is also used by the Missouri Tigers, Ohio State Buckeyes and other college teams with quarterbacks who can run as well as throw effectively.

Use in Canadian football
At times the formation has been more common in Canadian football, which allows only three downs to move ten yards downfield instead of the American game's four. Canadian teams are therefore more likely to find themselves with long yardage to make on the penultimate down, and therefore more likely to line up in the shotgun to increase their opportunities for a large gain. Canadian teams also have the advantage that backs positioned behind the line of scrimmage can run forward and cross the line running as the ball is snapped.

title: Shotgun formation


text:
Talk:John the Evangelist

John's age
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 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 October 2002 (UTC)

 * 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)

Reworded
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" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm). 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 (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/May/May-08.html). 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)

-- 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. S.

 * 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.82.46.178.25 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Huh?
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
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)

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)

Merge
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)

_______________________________

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 Merger would take the POV that these two are the same person, which is not a universally accepted POV. While all five of the Johannine articles (John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, John the Presbyter, John of Patmos, and Authorship of the Johannine works) need to be coordinated, the only two that it would be proper to consider a merge would be John the Apostle and Authorship of the Johannine works and those two articles are too long IMO to be considered for a merge. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * "...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)

 * 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.  Irish ♣ Pearl  18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Consensus: Oppose 7-4 I have removed the tag. --Ephilei 20:11, 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

Central "John" Page
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)
 * 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! Irish♣Pearl 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Large Comment
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 Repentance...read 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 Zebedee....brother 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)
 * 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! Irish♣Pearl 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ST JOHN the DIVINE
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)
 * Looks like someone has fixed this problem by now. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

confusing topic!
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

This article contradicts itself

 * 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)

 * Fixed. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"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 71.135.119.177 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.119.177 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

John as author
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)
 * 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)
 * The current version is acceptable and I am not going to continue modifying it.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Deleted section on Freemasons due to lack of germane content. 75.166.230.121 (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Sentence
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)
 * 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)

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

The Domenichino painting - do we need this much detail here?
The painting by Domenichino has its own article [] too. Is it really important enough to warrant such an elaborate mention here? Any thoughts? Ddke1811 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Dogmas
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.

"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 gospel...as 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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:John the Evangelist


text:
Al McCoy (sportscaster)

Al McCoy (born April 26, 1933), known as The Voice of the Suns, is a retired American sportscaster who was the play-by-play announcer for the Phoenix Suns of the National Basketball Association from 1972 to 2023. The 2022–23 NBA season was his 51st and final season. He is the longest-tenured broadcaster in NBA history.

Along with Chick Hearn, Hot Rod Hundley and Kevin Calabro, he is among the last of NBA broadcasters to have been simulcast on both television and radio, before league-officials ended the practice in the mid-00's and McCoy's broadcasts became exclusive to radio and online streaming via the Suns Radio Network.

His fast-paced, classical broadcasting style coupled with his colorful use of catchphrase to distinguish plays has proven influential to a generation of sportscasters, such as lead NBA on ABC play-by-play announcer Mike Breen, who remarked of McCoy as "one of my heroes" during live ESPN coverage of the 2021 Western Conference Finals. Steve Albert said "I put him up there with Vin Scully and Ernie Harwell, and all the greats, all the legends."

McCoy is a Curt Gowdy Media Award winner and a member of the Phoenix Suns Ring of Honor. Despite these accolades, The Arizona Republic would later detail the circumstances leading to his forced displacement to the back of the Suns arena upon his final season, after 50 previous seasons on the floor next to the Suns players' bench in a courtside spot once-named "the best seat in the house" in his own Ring of Honor speech. The Arizona Republic also published a photo gallery showing 90-year-old Al McCoy walking up the long flights of concrete steps to the higher arena location Suns personnel moved him to finish his career.

Early life
Born in 1933 in the small town of Williams, Iowa, Al McCoy grew up on a farm outside the area with no electricity or running water throughout his early childhood. To entertain himself as a boy on the farm, he would often read comic books or listen to his family's battery-powered radio.

At an early age, he became enamored with both the local and nationally-syndicated sportscasts picked up through the area's AM radio frequencies. The sounds of golden-age broadcasters like Bert Wilson, Don Dunphy, Bill Stern, along with Pat Flanagan, Jack Brickhouse and Harry Caray, would propel his childhood imagination, provide future inspiration and fuel a lifelong passion for sports and broadcasting. As a growing boy, he would sometimes prop himself on the farm's fence posts and broadcast fantasy play-by-play for a crowd of the family's pigs and cattle, imagining himself at Chicago Stadium, Madison Square Garden or famed Boston Garden. In 1945, he attended the World Series between the Chicago Cubs and Detroit Tigers. In the fall of 1948, he attended his first National Basketball Association (then-known as the National Basketball League) game as the Waterloo Hawks hosted league-MVP Don Otten's Tri-Cities Black Hawks, and would soon witness George Mikan play in-person during another game in Waterloo. He continued to scan the radio dial every night to hear the Joe Louis big boxing fights of the era, Cubs broadcasts, national football, basketball, or any and every other sport he could get tuned through his receiver. Concurrently, as an active youth with a basketball hoop now-propped up in a tree on the farm, he made the starting line-up of his high-school basketball team for three seasons, playing the position of point-guard. His high school Coach Chuck Lovin remembered McCoy as a "good shot" who was "intense" about everything he did in high school, from athletics to school plays.

Around the same span of time, at the age of 14, he began playing jazz piano in a variety of local and touring small-piece and big bands at local area dances in the midwest-territory for extra income, a side-gig he would continue throughout college that would routinely have him home by 2.a.m. for 7 a.m. classes. One memorable night, he played as a sideman to famed jazz trumpeter Roy Eldridge, who remembered and recognized him immediately upon their second meeting many years later, as McCoy attended a concert alongside Al Bianchi & John MacLeod following a Phoenix Suns game.

Education and early career
He attended Drake University, majoring in Drama-Speech and minoring in Broadcast Journalism.

Drake University did not formally offer a radio or broadcast major at the time, so McCoy signed up for as many radio classes as he could. During his first year of classes he begged his professor, the head of the radio department and Drake Relays announcer Jim Duncan to let him borrow a university tape recorder so he could demo his play-by-play during a campus basketball game. Assuring McCoy it could wait until his junior or senior year, Professor Duncan relented after weeks of McCoy's ongoing persistence. Dropping his recording off early the next morning and eager for his professor's critique, he waited another couple weeks until finally being called into Duncan's office, who now demanded to know how long McCoy had been calling basketball games. Impressed by the level of detail in his first play-by-play recording, Duncan became McCoy's early supporter and mentor from that date forward. Also during his freshman year his first job in radio was at KJFJ in Webster City, Iowa, and he was soon hired by WHO in Des Moines, Iowa, working the night shift where was subsequently told by the person who hired him that he did not have a future in broadcasting, demoted from "on-air" talent and moved to production staff.

Shaken by the experience, but undeterred from following his childhood dreams, McCoy left WHO for smaller family-run station KWDM to strengthen his play-by-play for a variety of different sports. Amidst transition, he first encountered Chick Hearn, then-broadcaster for Bradley University, at a Bradley-Drake basketball game. The two would remain friends until Hearn's passing in 2002, buying each other dinner when either were in Phoenix or Los Angeles for their future respective NBA teams, often reminiscing on their early days broadcasting in the midwest. McCoy would later credit Hearn along with Marty Glickman as “blazing the trial” for basketball broadcasters in his Naismith Hall of Fame speech.

In 1954 McCoy graduated from Drake. Testing his luck out west where some of his relatives had relocated, he spent a summer looking for radio work in Phoenix, Arizona and later Denver, Colorado. In both locations he found could not even land a single job interview and played piano to support himself, before applying for a graduate assistantship at the University of Iowa.

During and following the year of graduate school McCoy ran the gamut of employers, bouncing around more local Iowa stations like KXIC where he kept area connections and was still a frequent guest on "Two Guys Named Jim"—a sports-talk show on WHO. He would eventually move from Iowa City, to WJJD in Chicago, to WHLD in Niagara Falls where he commenced broadcasting a “Steve Allen-type” piano-meets-disc jockey show for Buffalo, New York that was rejected by WHO. Three weeks after moving to Niagara Falls, amidst a decade of constant transition and upheaval, he found stability in the form of Georgia Shahinian, born Koharig Shahinian, meeting her at a birthday party for a mutual friend. The two soon found themselves inseparable, and quickly became a daily part of each other's lives.

As his radio contract in Buffalo was set to expire, McCoy got a tip from New York Giants play-by-play broadcaster Russ Hodges that the team would be relocating to San Francisco as their Triple-A farm team moved to Phoenix, Arizona. Both men felt McCoy had a good shot of securing the job. With major life decisions to be made quickly, Georgia & Al McCoy were soon wed, hitching their lives on a trailer attached to his '54 Ford with no air conditioning, headed southwest in the summer of 1958.

Early Phoenix career
After getting married, Al & Georgia McCoy moved to Phoenix, AZ in the summer of 1958. He was soon hired by KOOL, scheduled broadcaster for the Phoenix Giants, and he worked as the host of night-time radio shows for the station until the team completed their own move to the west coast.

With the Phoenix Giants, McCoy broadcast the only baseball game in history to be postponed due to grasshoppers, who collectively gathered around all the surrounding sources of light and placed the ball park in a shroud of darkness. McCoy described exiting the ball park grounds as “like driving around in snow. There'd be a drift of grasshoppers in the street. you'd start sliding around.”

McCoy was occasionally visited during Phoenix Giants broadcasts by then-San Francisco Giants owner Horace Stoneham, who often told McCoy he would become the next “Voice of the Giants” in Major League Baseball. When the job was eventually offered, talk of a potential move of the team away from the west coast caused McCoy to decline, believing it to not be the “right fit.” During another period in time when the Giants job was again presented, McCoy briefly contemplated broadcasting both Suns and Giants games, planning to make a decision later, but was ultimately glad he did not. He would eventually one day fill-in as play-by-play for the San Francisco Giants for one single game, during a night the Suns were not playing.

The Triple-A team would also eventually leave Phoenix for Tacoma, WA due to a dispute over construction of a new ball park, while McCoy remained in Phoenix. Once the park was built, the team returned. In the interim five years without the Phoenix Giants, McCoy became "One of the Good Guys", a DJ on KRUX 1360 AM. While on KRUX in the 1960s he also did play-by-play for ASU Sun Devil's football and basketball. On local television stations KTVK and KTAR-TV, he did ring announcing work for boxing fights held at Phoenix Madison Square Garden, and also some professional wrestling commentary for the regional territory.

McCoy parted ways with the Phoenix Giants three years after their return to Phoenix in 1966. He would eventually return to baseball some 32-years later with the Arizona Diamondbacks during the club's first season in 1998, paired with Joe Garagiola. As the Western Hockey League expanded to Arizona in 1967, McCoy also began broadcasting for the Phoenix Roadrunners during the Giants' off-season. Less experienced with hockey, McCoy served as a color-commentator for two seasons before learning to do play-by-play for the ice on-the-fly after his broadcaster partner Jim Wells fell through a shower door. McCoy found he enjoyed doing hockey play-by-play, and Wells' agreed that it would be a better fit if they switched roles after his recovery.

As his ongoing commitments to the Phoenix Giants, the Phoenix Roadrunners and other radio stations transitioned, he began to observe a “buzz” in the city over a potential new NBA expansion team and quickly made inroads to secure a job with the new franchise as it was officially announced in 1968.

The Voice of the Suns
Al McCoy served as the play-by-play "Voice of the Phoenix Suns" for 51 consecutive seasons, or every season excluding the first four years of franchise existence. He became a fixture of Phoenix media and local pop-culture as the central broadcaster for the Phoenix Suns on both radio and television until 2003, when Suns TV and Suns radio became separate media. McCoy continued to broadcast on the Suns Radio Network through the 2022-23 NBA season.

For 50 consecutive seasons (barring remote broadcasts during the pandemic) his official arena broadcast location had been stationed courtside, adjacent to the Suns players' home bench, as recent as May 2022. He stopped broadcasting road games in 2019 due to difficult vantage points at higher locations in other NBA arenas.

On October 2, 2022, his home broadcast location was moved higher up in the Suns arena, just beneath the skyboxes in the Footprint Center.

The NBA arrives in Phoenix (1966–1972)
In the fall of 1966 McCoy completed his first NBA broadcast during a preseason game at Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum between the St. Louis Hawks and Golden State Warriors. Thrilled by the idea of professional basketball in Phoenix upon announcement of the scheduled game, he phoned the Hawks GM and brokered a deal for his then-employer KOOL-FM to broadcast the game in exchange for free advertising spots, making sure to record his broadcast as a demo for a potential future in basketball.

Two years later in 1968, the city of Phoenix was granted an expansion team that would become the Phoenix Suns. Immediately, prior to the start of the first season, McCoy slipped then-General Manager Jerry Colangelo a recording of that 1966 preseason game. Colangelo was blown away by what he heard and wanted McCoy to handle play-by-play for the team on planned broadcasts on local KTAR-AM and KTAR-TV. Tired of moving around from radio gig to radio gig, and seeking stability for his now-family of a wife and three sons, McCoy suggested Colangelo retain broadcast rights instead of selling them to another station, the routine sportscast policy of the time. McCoy suggested producing everything in-house, which was a new concept for the era. Colangelo liked McCoy's pitch, but after inaugural season tickets were underselling, he ultimately decided to sell the rights to KTAR. Believing it was no longer the right move, McCoy declined working out a separate deal with the station.

Following multiple changes in Suns broadcasters over the next four seasons, GM and head coach Jerry Colangelo would eventually agree with McCoy about the Suns organization producing their own broadcasts, realizing he was often competing with the radio and television stations for Suns advertising. With one year left before the broadcast rights reverted to the organization, McCoy agreed to a contract with the Suns as Vice President of Broadcasting.

The simulcast era (1972-2003)
In 1972, McCoy broadcast his first game with the Suns alongside Hot Rod Hundley during the NBA preseason with the Suns hosted by ABA team the Utah Stars. Initially, McCoy would handle production of both the radio and TV broadcasts by himself. He would hire a television crew in each city for road games after arriving in the destination city. He handled his own audio engineering and would, on an occasion or two, have to broadcast games via telephone due to technical difficulties. He helped sell advertising and would meet with any potential clients alongside Jerry Colangelo. McCoy observed "maybe 8 people in the entire front office" when he was hired, first-hand witnessing the Suns organization's gradual and eventual growth into a company that now employs hundreds.

The first Triple-Overtime game in NBA Finals history, Game 5 of the 1976 NBA Finals at Boston Garden, was memorable in many ways to McCoy, who broadcast the game directly beside a group of rowdy, inebriated Celtics' fans, one of whom passed out on McCoy's lap amidst the frenzy as "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" by Gar Heard sent the game into league-history. McCoy deftly pushed the fan off his lap and onto the floor mid-sentence as he continued his broadcast unabated.

He was also courtside, live on the air for the second Triple-Overtime game in NBA Finals History during Game 3 of the 1993 NBA Finals between the Charles Barkley-led Phoenix Suns and Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls.

The NBA's adoption of the Three-point field goal in 1979 would prove as influential to McCoy's career as it would to modern basketball itself. Upon its integration into the league, McCoy viewed the shot as the equivalent of a home-run in baseball. Noting that every baseball announcers has their own "signature call" for home-runs, he questioned what his NBA call could be. Thinking back to his childhood on the farm, his favorite comic book Captain Marvel and the moment mild-mannered Billy Batson transformed into the mighty Captain Marvel by shouting the words "SHAZAM!" to a flurry of thunder and lightning, McCoy believed this phrase—an acronym for the first-initials of Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles and Mercury—would convey the proper level of enormity and distinction he felt the shot deserved.

In July 2003, after 31 years of being simulcast on both television and radio, the Suns organization relented to growing NBA pressure to end the simulcast format after then-Suns General Manager Bryan Colangelo felt a younger presence would be better suited to TV. McCoy agreed to move to radio-only broadcasts on the previously established Suns Radio Network and was replaced on television play-by-play with Tom Leander, continuing with McCoy's then-color-commentator and broadcast partner Eddie "EJ" Johnson.

Radio days and industry recognition (2003–2022)
Al McCoy continued to broadcast on radio and online web streaming exclusively, paired with former Sun Tim Kempton (See Suns Radio Network).

On the December 30, 2005, game against the Chicago Bulls, McCoy's consecutive broadcasting streak officially ended due to illness when he woke up in Chicago with a hoarse throat. After finishing his pregame show, it was decided to run mostly audio of the TV broadcast with McCoy adding commentary for small moments, fully returning to the airwaves by the next game.

He was honored by the Naismith Hall of Fame on September 5, 2007, when he became the 17th recipient of the Curt Gowdy Media Award for broadcasters at a ceremony in Springfield, Massachusetts. He thanked his college professor, his high school basketball coach and Jerry Colangelo in his induction speech, and also highlighted the work of fellow basketball broadcasters Marty Glickman and Chick Hearn.

The next month, on October 5, 2007, then-team president Rick Welts and Suns managing partner Robert Sarver unveiled the Al McCoy Media Center, its walls and pillars adorned with photos, history, play-by-play quotes, and words of encouragement and respect from fellow NBA broadcasters honoring the life and career of Al McCoy, in the newly renamed arena pressroom.

McCoy returned to television play-by-play for one night on August 22, 2014, broadcasting the WNBA playoff opening game between the Phoenix Mercury hosting the Los Angeles Sparks for NBATV.

On October 26, 2016, during a Suns home game against the Oklahoma City Thunder, he officially became the longest-tenured broadcaster in NBA History, surpassing Chick Hearn of the Los Angeles Lakers previous broadcasting record. At halftime of the record-setting game, the arena ran a video montage before Suns managing partner Robert Sarver announced that McCoy would become the 15th member of the Suns Ring of Honor, as McCoy wiped a tear from his eye.

He was inducted into the Phoenix Suns Ring of Honor on March 3, 2017, the Suns dedicated their game-winning performance to McCoy, a night which included special messages to McCoy from former Suns Steve Nash and Jason Kidd during timeouts, and a halftime honor from the vast majority of fellow Phoenix Suns Ring of Honor members. In his induction speech, McCoy thanked the organization, the fans and emphasized that "every player that has ever put on a Suns uniform... is special to me, always will be," adding that he still very much feels the thrill of the game when the ball goes in the air, concluding,

"If you will continue to accept me, and if God keeps smiling on me, I'm just gonna keep going."

On March 2, 2022, he was again honored by the Suns with "Al McCoy Night" in celebration of his 50th Season with the franchise, during a home game against the Portland Trail Blazers. Video tributes played in the arena, on Suns television and posted on social media featured messages from NBA commissioner Adam Silver, the Inside the NBA crew, and Steve Nash along with former and current Suns players. Longtime Suns TV color-commentator Eddie Johnson shared memories of working together with McCoy in his first years on the job, during the last years of the simulcast. And for one brief moment of a segment, the simulcast was brought back to television for the first time in 19-years as Suns TV ran audio of the live radio broadcast accompanied by live video of McCoy at courtside describing the action. Not interrupting his radio broadcast and during an untelevised timeout, McCoy was given a standing ovation by screaming fans at the Footprint Center as Suns P.A. announced his name to the sold-out arena.

The next month, immediately after the Suns set a new franchise record for the regular season on April 5, 2022, Suns player Devin Booker went to the side, signed his game jersey (writing "To Al, the legend. Franchise record!") and presented it to Al McCoy at his longtime courtside broadcast position (which would end upon his removal from courtside on October 4, 2022), as he shook both of McCoy's hands and congratulated him, saying "50th season, baby! Franchise record. Love you, man. Appreciate you, for real."

Five days later on April 10, 2022, Mayor of Phoenix Kate Gallego issued an official proclamation declaring the date as "Al McCoy Day" in the city of Phoenix, in honor of his 50th season and "to say thank you for guiding us through so many Suns victories and helping us celebrate with a 'Whammo' or 'SHAZAM!' when we needed it the most."

On December 17, 2022, he served as the Grand Marshal of the 2022 Fiesta Bowl Parade.

Removal from Suns courtside (2022-2023)
Al McCoy has been vocal in his opposition of NBA teams and NBA arenas increasingly moving the broadcast locations for radio crews away from the floor and placing them in locations high above courtside where portions of the court are partially obscured. McCoy states in many of these arenas as a result it's difficult to keep track of the three-point field goal. He often highlights a story of broadcaster Joe Tait telling his listening audience during a live play-by-play call that the three-point shot was good "by a player to be named later," due to the angle in TD Garden blocking vantage beyond the three point arc.

McCoy wrote in his autobiography that he prefers broadcasting courtside not only for the complete view of the court, but also because it enables him to keep on top of personnel changes, player and coach interactions, clarification of referee calls, and the general flow of the game for the listening audience.

When fellow broadcasting veteran Hot Rod Hundley's courtside position for the Utah Jazz was moved higher up in the Vivint Arena following the conclusion of the Utah simulcast in 2005, he retired a mere four-years later by 2009 due to the increased strain on his hips and knees. In an essay included in McCoy's autobiography, Hundley described offering fans seated around him his binoculars, writing "It's terrible from upstairs. We make mistakes. On the floor you would never miss a beat."

At the start of the 2010–11 NBA season McCoy began reducing his road games schedule for "select East Coast road trips." By the 2018-19 NBA season he had decided to retire from broadcasting road games altogether. When asked in an interview with ESPN announcer Dave Pasch why he has elected to stop traveling, McCoy stressed the increasingly poor broadcast locations for radio broadcasters and emphasized,

"Over the last couple of years I had decided that I didn't want my career to end when the listeners or the viewers would say 'What's wrong with McCoy, doesn't he know who's shooting three-pointers or what's going on?'"

On October 2, 2022, ahead of the 2022-2023 NBA Season, Al McCoy's Suns home game broadcast location since 1972 and as recent as the 2022 NBA Playoffs in May 2022 was moved from its longtime courtside position on the floor to higher up in the arena, many rows up at the back of the 100s sections, closer to the skybox-area of the Footprint Center.

Video confirming McCoy's new distant broadcast location was posted to the Arizona Sports official YouTube channel on February 24, 2023, recorded during a post-game interview with Ish Wainright.

Catchphrases

 * "SHAZAM!" for 3-point shots. McCoy viewed the NBA's adoption of the three-point field goal in 1979 as "like a home run", and felt this acronym for "Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles and Mercury" from his childhood comic book hero Captain Marvel would be fitting.
 * "Whammo!", "Whammo Time!", or "Wham Bam Slam!" for slam dunks.
 * "Oh, Brother!" after moments of surprise and intensity.
 * "Heartbreak Hotel" when a player narrowly misses a shot or the Suns lose a game.
 * "Do You Believe It?!" when the Suns make a comeback.
 * "Put This One in the 'Ol Deep Freeze" when the game's outcome is imminent.
 * "Swish-a-roo for Two!" when a player easily sinks a two-point field goal.
 * "Zing Go the Strings!"
 * "Twine Time!" referring to the twine of the net swishing.
 * "Great Balls of Fire!" for hockey goals by the Phoenix Roadunners, given to Mike Lange, and for shots made by the Suns.
 * "The Madhouse on McDowell" for original Suns arena Veterans Memorial Coliseum, also attributed to Chick Hearn.
 * "The Purple Palace" for 90's America West Arena.

Player nicknames

 * "The Man with the Velvet Touch" (Walter Davis)
 * "Sir Charles" (Charles Barkley)
 * "Thunder Dan" (Dan Majerle)
 * "The 'O' Show" (Oliver Miller)
 * "The Flying Dutchman" (Dick Van Arsdale)
 * "The Nash Rambler" (Steve Nash)
 * "Captain Kidd" (Jason Kidd)
 * "The Matrix" (Shawn Marion), also attributed to Kenny Smith.

Awards

 * Curt Gowdy Media Award from the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, 2007.
 * Arizona Sports Hall of Fame, 2009.
 * Arizona Music & Entertainment Hall of Fame, 2011.
 * Iowa Hall of Pride, 2015.
 * Phoenix Suns Ring of Honor member, 2017.
 * Rocky Mountain Emmy Awards gold circle member, 2022.
 * Phoenix Magazine - Voted "Best Play-by-Play" announcer in annual "Best of the Valley" readers poll for 24-years-in-a-row, since magazine inception to present date.

Broadcast partners

 * Jack Beveridge
 * Jim Wells
 * Hot Rod Hundley
 * John Shumate
 * Tom Ambrose
 * Joe Gilmartin
 * Dennis Awtrey
 * Chick Hearn
 * Dick Van Arsdale
 * Keith Erickson
 * Vinny Del Negro
 * Cotton Fitzsimmons
 * Tim Kempton
 * Eddie Johnson
 * Joe Garagiola
 * Ann Meyers-Drysdale
 * Jon Bloom
 * Tim Ring
 * Walter Ellis
 * Tom Leander

Suns Radio Network
Locally, until he retired, within Phoenix-Metro city limits, Al McCoy's live broadcasts could be heard during Phoenix Suns home games on flagship station 98.7 KMVP-FM or streamed online at the KMVP-FM website, ArizonaSports.com, with road game play-by-play by Jon Bloom.

Nationally, his broadcasts were available on Sirius-XM in the 48 contiguous states.

Globally, they were available on NBA League Pass Audio, anywhere NBA League Pass is offered.

The Suns Radio Network is also syndicated on various AM and FM stations across the state of Arizona, as well as portions of New Mexico and Southern California.

title: Al McCoy (sportscaster)


text:
Martha

Martha (Aramaic: מָרְתָא) is a biblical figure described in the Gospels of Luke and John. Together with her siblings Lazarus and Mary of Bethany, she is described as living in the village of Bethany near Jerusalem. She was witness to Jesus resurrecting her brother, Lazarus.

Etymology of the name
The name Martha is a Latin transliteration of the Koine Greek Μάρθα, itself a transliteration of the Aramaic מָרְתָא Mârtâ, "the mistress" or "the lady", from מרה "mistress", feminine of מר "master." The Aramaic form occurs in a Nabatean inscription found at Puteoli, and now in the Naples Museum; it is dated AD 5 (Corpus Inscr. Semit., 158); also in a Palmyrene inscription, where the Greek translation has the form Marthein.

Biblical references
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus visits the home of two sisters named Mary and Martha. The two sisters are contrasted: Martha was "encumbered about many things" while Jesus was their guest, while Mary had chosen "the better part", that of listening to the master's discourse. The name of their village is not recorded, nor (unlike in John 11:18) is there any mention of whether Jesus was near Jerusalem. Biblical commentator Heinrich Meyer notes that "Jesus cannot yet be in Bethany, where Martha and Mary dwelt [according to John's Gospel]". But the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges claims that it was "undoubtedly Bethany". "As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, 'Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!'

'Martha, Martha', the Lord answered, 'you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.'" In the Gospel of John, Martha and Mary appear in connection with two incidents: the raising from the dead of their brother Lazarus (John 11) and the anointing of Jesus in Bethany (John 12:3).

In the account of the raising of Lazarus, Jesus meets with the sisters in turn: Martha followed by Mary. Martha goes immediately to meet Jesus as he arrives, while Mary waits until she is called. As one commentator notes, "Martha, the more aggressive sister, went to meet Jesus, while quiet and contemplative Mary stayed home. This portrayal of the sisters agrees with that found in Luke 10:38–42." In speaking with Jesus, both sisters lament that he did not arrive in time to prevent their brother's death: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died". But where Jesus' response to Mary is more emotional, his response to Martha is one of teaching, calling her to hope and faith: "When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. 'Lord', Martha said to Jesus, 'if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.'

Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.'

Martha answered, 'I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.'

Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?'

'Yes, Lord', she told him, 'I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.'"

As the narrative continues, Martha calls her sister Mary to see Jesus. Jesus has Mary bring him to Lazarus' tomb where he commands the stone to be removed from its entrance. Martha here objects, "But, Lord, by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days", to which Jesus replies, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?". They then take away the stone and Jesus prays and calls Lazarus forth alive from the tomb.

Martha appears again in John 12:1–8, where she serves at a meal held in Jesus' honor at which her brother is also a guest. The narrator only mentions that the meal takes place in Bethany, while the apparently parallel accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark specify that it takes place at the home of one Simon the Leper. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "We are surely justified in arguing that, since Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon, St. John must be understood to say the same; it remains to be proven that Martha could not 'serve' in Simon's house." It is at this meal that a woman (Martha's sister Mary, according to John) anoints Jesus with expensive perfume.

Western traditions
In medieval Western Christianity, Martha's sister Mary was often equated with Mary Magdalene. This identification led to additional information being attributed to Martha as well:

"Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are represented by St. John as living at Bethania, but St. Luke would seem to imply that they were, at least at one time, living in Galilee; he does not mention the name of the town, but it may have been Magdala, and we should thus, supposing Mary of Bethania and Mary Magdalene to be the same person, understand the appellative 'Magdalene'. The words of St. John (11:1) seem to imply a change of residence for the family. It is possible, too, that St. Luke has displaced the incident referred to in Chapter 10. The likeness between the pictures of Martha presented by Luke and John is very remarkable. The familiar intercourse between the Saviour of the world and the humble family which St. Luke depicts is dwelt on by St. John when he tells us that 'Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus' (11:5). Again the picture of Martha's anxiety (John 11:20–21, 39) accords with the picture of her who was 'busy about much serving' (Luke 10:40); so also in John 12:2: 'They made him a supper there: and Martha served.' But St. John has given us a glimpse of the other and deeper side of her character when he depicts her growing faith in Christ's Divinity (11:20–27), a faith which was the occasion of the words: 'I am the resurrection and the life.' The Evangelist has beautifully indicated the change that came over Martha after that interview: 'When she had said these things, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The Master is come, and calleth for thee.'"

Eastern Orthodox tradition
In Eastern Orthodox Church tradition, though not specifically named as such in the gospels, Martha and Mary were among the Myrrh-bearing Women. These faithful followers of Jesus stood at Golgotha during the Crucifixion of Jesus and later came to his tomb early on the morning following Sabbath with myrrh (expensive oil), according to the Jewish tradition, to anoint their Lord's body. The Myrrhbearers became the first witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus, finding the empty tomb and hearing the joyful news from an angel.

Orthodox tradition also relates that Martha's brother Lazarus was cast out of Jerusalem in the persecution against the Jerusalem Church following the martyrdom of St. Stephen. His sister Martha fled Judea with him, assisting him in the proclaiming of the Gospel in various lands, while Mary Magdalene remained with John the Apostle and assisted him with the Church of Jerusalem. According to Cyprian tradition, Lazarus and Martha later came to Cyprus, where Lazarus became the first Bishop of Kittim (modern Larnaca). All three died in Cyprus.

Veneration
Martha is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and commemorated by the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Communion. Through time, as the reverence for St. Martha developed, the images of maturity, strength, common sense, and concern for others predominated.

Feast days
The Latin Church celebrates the feast day Martha, Mary of Bethany and her brother Lazarus of 29 July. The feast of Martha, classified as a "semi-double" in the Tridentine calendar, became a "simple" one in the General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII, a "third class feast" in the General Roman Calendar of 1960, and a memorial in the present General Roman Calendar.

The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches commemorate Martha and her sister Mary on 4 June. They also commemorate them collectively among the Myrrh-bearing Women on the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers (the Third Sunday of Pascha – i.e., the second Sunday after Easter Sunday). Martha also figures in the commemorations of Lazarus Saturday (the day before Palm Sunday).

Martha is commemorated on 29 July in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church, together with Mary and Lazarus and in the Calendar of saints of the Episcopal Church.

Martha is remembered (with Mary and Lazarus) in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on 29 July.

Patronages
The Sisters of Saint Martha are a religious congregation founded in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, in 1894.

Churches
A number of churches are dedicated to St. Martha including:
 * Roman Catholic churches The Parish of Saint Martha at Sunrise, Nov. 2020.jpg, Cavite. The only parish in the Diocese of Imus dedicated to Saint Martha.]]
 * Europe:
 * Église Sainte-Marthe de Tarascon in Tarascon, France;
 * United States:
 * St. Martha Catholic Church in Morton Grove, Illinois, and others in East Providence, Rhode Island; Valinda, California; Kingwood, Texas; Harvey, Louisiana; Plainville, Massachusetts; Sarasota, Florida; and Prestonsburg, Kentucky
 * Asia
 * Roman Catholic Diocese of Pasig: Diocesan Shrine of St. Martha and Parish of St. Roch, Pateros, Philippines, and St. Martha Parish of Kalawaan Pasig.
 * Roman Catholic Diocese of Imus: Saint Martha Parish, Greengate Homes, Malagasang II-A, City of Imus, Province of Cavite.
 * Australia:
 * Strathfield, New South Wales
 * Anglican Communion:
 * Canada:
 * St Mary and St Martha in Toronto
 * England:
 * St Martha-on-the-Hill in Surrey
 * Broxtowe, Nottinghamshire
 * United States: St. Martha's Episcopal Church in:
 * Papillion, Nebraska
 * Bethany Beach, Delaware
 * Lexington, Kentucky
 * Saints Martha & Mary, Eagan, Minnesota
 * Saints Mary & Martha, Buford, GA
 * Methodist:
 * St Martha's Methodist Church in Tring, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom
 * Lutheran:
 * St. Mary and St. Martha Lutheran Church, San Francisco, United States

Golden Legend
According to legend, St. Martha left Judea after Jesus' resurrection, around AD 48, and went to Provence with her sister Mary (conflated with Mary Magdalene) and her brother Lazarus. With them, Martha first settled in Avignon (now in France). The Golden Legend, compiled in the 13th century, records the Provençal tradition: "Saint Martha, hostess of our Lord Jesus Christ, was born of a royal kindred. Her father was named Syro and her mother Encharia. The father of her was duke of Syria and places maritime, and Martha with her sister possessed by the heritage of their mother three places, that was, the castle Magdalen, and Bethany and a part of Jerusalem. It is nowhere read that Martha had ever any husband nor fellowship of man, but she as a noble hostess ministered and served our Lord, and would also that her sister should serve him and help her, for she thought that all the world was not sufficient to serve such a guest.

After the ascension of our Lord, when the disciples were departed, she with her brother Lazarus and her sister Mary, also Saint Maximin [ actually a 3rd-century figure ] which baptized them, and to whom they were committed of the Holy Ghost, and many others, were put into a ship without sail, oars, or rudder governail, of the paynims, which by the conduct of our Lord they came all to Marseilles, and after came to the territory of Aquense or Aix, and there converted the people to the faith. Martha was right facound of speech, and courteous and gracious to the sight of the people."

The Golden Legend also records the grand lifestyle imagined for Martha and her siblings in its entry on Mary Magdalene: "Mary Magdalene had her surname of Magdala, a castle, and was born of right noble lineage and parents, which were descended of the lineage of kings. And her father was named Cyrus, and her mother Eucharis. She with her brother Lazarus, and her sister Martha, possessed the castle of Magdala, which is two miles from Nazareth, and Bethany, the castle which is nigh to Jerusalem, and also a great part of Jerusalem, which, all these things they departed among them. In such wise that Mary had the castle Magdala, whereof she had her name Magdalene. And Lazarus had the part of the city of Jerusalem, and Martha had to her part Bethany. And when Mary gave herself to all delights of the body, and Lazarus entended all to knighthood, Martha, which was wise, governed nobly her brother's part and also her sister's, and also her own, and administered to knights, and her servants, and to poor men, such necessities as they needed. Nevertheless, after the ascension of our Lord, they sold all these things."

St. Martha in Tarascon
A further legend relates that Martha then went to Tarascon, France, where a monster, the Tarasque, was a constant threat to the population. The Golden Legend describes it as a beast from Galatia; a great dragon, half beast and half fish, greater than an ox, longer than a horse, having teeth sharp as a sword, and horned on either side, head like a lion, tail like a serpent, that dwelt in a certain wood between Arles and Avignon. Holding a cross in her hand, Martha sprinkled the beast with holy water. Placing her sash around its neck, she led the tamed dragon through the village.

There Martha lived, daily occupied in prayers and in fastings. Martha eventually died in Tarascon, where she was buried. Her tomb is located in the crypt of the local Collegiate Church.

The dedication of the Collegiate Church at Tarascon to St. Martha is believed to date from the 9th century or earlier. Relics found in the church during a reconstruction in 1187 were identified as hers, and reburied in a new shrine at that time. In the Collegiate Church crypt is a late 15th-century cenotaph, also known as the Gothic Tomb of Saint Martha. It is the work of Francesco Laurana, a Croatian sculptor of the Italian School, commissioned by King René. At its base are two openings through which the relics could be touched. It bears three low reliefs separated by fluted pilasters representing: on the left, Saint Martha and the Tarasque; in the center, Saint Mary Magdalene borne aloft by the angels; on the right, Lazarus as Bishop of Marseille with his mitre and staff. There are two figures on either side: on the left, Saint Front, Bishop of Perrigueux, present at the funeral of Saint Martha, and on the right, Saint Marcelle, Martha's servant.

St. Martha and Villajoyosa
The town of Villajoyosa, Spain, honors St. Martha as its patron saint and celebrates The Festival of Moors and Christians annually in her honor. The 250-year-old festival commemorates the attack on Villajoyosa by Berber pirates led by Zalé-Arraez in 1538, when, according to legend, St. Martha came to the rescue of the townsfolk by causing a flash flood which wiped out the enemy fleet, thus preventing the corsairs from reaching the coast.

St. Martha and Pateros

Tradition recounts that in the 1800s, Saint Martha (who legendarily subdued the Tarasque), was invoked by the people of Pateros, a town in Metro Manila, Philippines, to vanquish a crocodile in the Pateros River that ate their ducks. These animals were the main source of the townspeople's livelihood as their eggs are the main ingredient of the delicacy, Balút (fertilised duck egg), which is what the town is known for.

One evening, under a full moon, an unnamed female bayani (hero) went to the river to tame the creature. At the river banks, the crocodile saw a light surrounding the figure, who was actually Saint Martha. At the sight of the glowing figure, the creature disappeared and the local duck industry once again flourished. The people of Pateros attributed this event to Saint Martha and a grand fluvial procession in honor of her has been held yearly since, in remembrance of the event.

Gnostic tradition
Martha appears in the sacred gnostic text Pistis Sophia. She is instructed by the risen Christ on several of the repentances that must be made in order to have salvation. She also makes several prophetic interpretations of different Psalms.

Depictions in art and literature
The subject of Martha is mostly found in art from the Counter-Reformation onwards, especially in the 17th century, when the domestic setting is usually given a realistic depiction. However it appears in some Ottonian cycles of the Life of Christ.

 * Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez), a 1618 oil-on-canvas painting by the Spanish painter Velázquez.
 * Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer), a 1655 painting by Johannes Vermeer.
 * Martha and Mary Magdalene (Caravaggio), a 1598-9 painting by the Italian Baroque master Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio.

Literary works about Martha include:
 * Martha and Mary, a story in Karel Čapek's Apocryphal Tales (1932)
 * "Saint Martha and the Dragon", a poem by Charles Causley in his collected works.
 * The Sons of Martha (1907), a poem by Rudyard Kipling.
 * In The Handmaid's Tale, the dystopian novel of Margaret Atwood, infertile women forced to be servants for the ruling class are called "Marthas", as their service is considered imitating Martha.

title: Martha


text:
Talk:Al McCoy (sportscaster)

Untitled
I removed the following:
 * The phrase The Real McCoy was coined after him.

According to http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010601.html:
 * Where did the expression "the real McCoy" come from?

...
 * Unfortunately, this is one of those puzzling questions without a definitive answer. A number of different theories attempt to explain the origin of the phrase.

 * Two of the most popular theories revolve around alcohol. One suggests that the original saying was "the real MacKay," an advertising slogan that appeared in 1856 for a Scottish whiskey. Eventually, this saying supposedly evolved to "the real McCoy" in the United States. The second alcohol-related theory poses that Bill McCoy was a bootlegger in the U.S. during Prohibition. Hence real booze became known as "the real McCoy."

 * Others claim the saying refers to Elijah McCoy, an engineer born in 1844. He invented the self-regulating lubricator, which revolutionized the industrial machine and railroad industry. Because his product was so reliable and many inferior products were produced, buyers of the lubricator would ask, "Is this the real McCoy?"

 * Yet another explanation centers on welterweight boxer Norman Selby, also known as "Kid McCoy." Reportedly, a blow from the boxer left one victim proclaiming, "It's the real McCoy!"

 * Although these are the most oft-repeated, they are by no means the only possibilities. Chances are we'll never know the origin of this curious expression for certain so pick your favorite story and make your case.

In other words, nobody knows. -- Zoe

 * But what is pretty much certain is that "the real McCoy" did not originate with this McCoy. Rlquall 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al McCoy (announcer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907193814/http://www.whoradio.com/pages/twoguysnamedjim.html to http://whoradio.com/pages/twoguysnamedjim.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907193814/http://www.whoradio.com/pages/twoguysnamedjim.html to http://whoradio.com/pages/twoguysnamedjim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al McCoy (sportscaster)