Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 2

Dating
I some of the statements on dating of Gospel. My source clearly says that 60's-slightly post 70 is position held by large majority of scholars who study issue. If anyone has a reliable source that says different, then let's talk about it here. We can easily include other hypotheses but unless the source for them says they are majority view they need to be labeled as minority position. Note that a minority position doesn't make it any less valid, but we need to accurately relay state of scholarship on an issue, and I have four sources that say majority view is not pre 60 or 80 or after and have cited from Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, which is a generally reliable mainstream source. Roy Brumback 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My only comment is that we should use more than one source, even when characterizing the ever moving "view of most scholars" (wording I like to avoid when possible). See my changes on Paul's epistles. Lostcaesar 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but is there another source that says the majority view is different? Views on Bible among scholars don't change much over decade, usually takes several decades to swing majority views.  And why do you object to simply stating what the majority view of scholars is on the issue.  This doesn't endorse the view, just tells you the state of the scholarship. Roy Brumback 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, there was a previous discussion concerning this exact topic back in May. We decided that a more inclusive range 60-80 was a good compromise. It covers the extreme early date of 60 that not many scholars push, and the extreme late date of 80, that not many scholars push. However, because the range is so broad, it can cover virtually every scholarly view, except the very fringe skeptics who argue for ridiculously late dates, and the fringe apologists who argue for a ridiculously early date. The current wording is misleading because saying "60" and "slightly" seem to weigh the range towards a more conservative date. It also ignores Brown, who specifically gives the range 68-73. The connotations of saying "dated in the 60s to slightly after the year 70" vs. "68-73" is extreme, and as I said, biased towards the conservative view. If we do not want the more general range 60-80 (which was previously agreed upon, and which has support from Lostcaesar), I wouldn't mind with the more specific dates given in Brown "68-73", but I strongly feel the current wording is misleading, if not a downright misquote of Brown. (Furthermore, more contemporary scholarship, which may have a liberal bias, gives later dates. I can dig up more specific references if necessary later tonight, but for now look at this: "the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.") --Andrew c 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is as follows. If we want to describe something like a concensus, or more reasonably a majority, then 60-80 is broad enough to capture this. If we want the plurality view of scholars today, 65-75 is in my understanding fair. Personally I prefer indulging the years of 60-65 because it includes the possibility that the text was written before Peter died, which is represented by at least one ancient tradition, but as long as we properly describe the material then I will sign off. For that reason, I don’t think the wording “60s to 70 or slightly after” is representative of a majority view of scholarship, and so such wording is better avoided. The year 70 happens to be quite significant concerning dating, and such ambiguity on that year is problematic here. My personal view, just to state where I am, would think 63-68, but of course this article is not about describing my view. So, I would prefer 60-80, but could agree to 65-75 in the right wording. I am not in support of 60s - 70 or slightly after. Lostcaesar 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys seem to be missing the point. It is not up to us to decide what the majority view on the issue is.  It is simply the statement of a fact.  According to my book by Brown, the majority view, by a wide margin, is somewhere in the 60's to the early 70's.  Does anyone have a source that says the majority view is sometime before the 60's or up to 80?  We can not compromise a fact, like what the majority of scholars believe.  It simply is true or isn't.  It isn't misleading if it is true.  It doesn't "weight" anything one way or the other.  I have quoted my source by Brown very accurately.  That is what is says on those pages.  Check it out for yourself it you don't believe me.  The book is in several local libraries.


 * You guys keep bringing up other points of view and then trying to split the difference among them yourselves. That does not tell you what the majority of scholars actually think.  Like I have repeatedly said, we can easily put in other points of view but to label them as part of the majority view, without documentation, is fallacious.  Andrew for instance gave the view of that web site, but it's just that, the view of that web site, not necessarily the majority view.  I say again, saying what the majority view is does not endorse it.  It simply tells you accurately what the state of the scholarship is on the issue.  According to not just that source but others I have, the majority view is somewhere in the 60's to slightly after 70, basically slightly before or during the time of the Roman Jewish war, and not much after, and it needs to be labeled as such.  I have found no source that says the majority of scholars on the subject think it might have been written as late as 80. In fact, they say that the majority rejects that and says 75 is the last date at which it could have been composed.  We need to try to be accurate here and not try to split the difference ourselves about competing views.  60-80 was agreed upon by some editors on this site, not the actual scholars on the issue.  Andrew himself admits 60 and 80 view are not held by many, so I don't see what the problem is.  Label 60's -few years after 70 as the majority view and then include minority views, like pre 60 and 80 or after, but label them as minority, unless someone has a contradictory source stating majority view is something different.  Does anyone have such a source?  I'm not trying to upset a consensus among editors, just striving for accuracy.  Roy Brumback 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I didn't pull the numbers out of thin air, and it wasn't a matter of expanding the Brown range equally in both directions.
 * "Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to sometime between 60 AD and 80 AD."
 * "the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE."
 * "The majority of contemporary scholars date the composition of the Gospel somewhere between 65-80 CE."
 * And here is an apologist page that claims the Jesus seminar date the "Gospel of Mark: 70-80" I know these aren't the most reliable sources in the world. All that said, in my search, I found this good article Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 441-462 . It says things like "...the composition of the Gospel is either slightly before or slightly after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70" and "Contemporary critics are about evenly split between those who think that Mark was composed shortly before the destrution of the Temple (e.g., Guelich, Mark, 1. xxxi-xxxii) and those who think it was composed shortly after that event (e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 14)." Thessian, Borg, Crossan (and most likely Koester, who focuses less on exact dates, and more on the absolute earliest and absolute latest, giving a terminus ad quem of ~125) all date Mark after 70 (and not just "slightly"). For all this, I would support 65-75, or 68-73, or 60-80 or anything similar, but still strongly oppose "In the 60s, or slightly after 70".--Andrew c 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The early christian writing site is only giving its opinion, not stating the majority view. The ibiblio is a blog and therefore highly suspect.  The religion facts cite does say that but then later contradicts itself and says, in a quoted cited statement, "there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE" and labels the Q hypothesis as a theory, which it is not, making this cite somewhat suspect.  I think we need to use books over web sites and articles, as books are usually more accurate.  My book by the Jesus Seminar, The Complete Gospels ISBN 0060655879, gives a date of 66-70, but does not label that as a majority view.  I couldn't take a look at the Marcus article from my computer as access was denied but it dates earlier than Brown's book, so the book is more current.  The exact wording Brown uses is "common scholarly view somewhere in the 60's or just after 70" on page 7 and then on page 164 says "there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60's or just after 70" so I will change it to late 60's. Roy Brumback 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you so opposed to using a range of dates? And why are so focused on one citation (if our goal is to give scholarly agreement, we should take into consideration a number of sources)? Furthermore, Brown, in his college level NT textbook states "Mark, a Gospel commonly dated to the 68-73 period." I still feel strongly that using words such as "late" and "slightly" are imprecise and possibly weighs the view to the pre-70 side (when we have a number of sources claiming the scholars are split over whether it was before or after the temple siege). How about we simply say c. 70? If we don't want to give a range, why not give one central number and say circa?--Andrew c 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "if our goal is to give scholarly agreement, we should take into consideration a number of sources"... That I concur with completly. I will say, however, that the textbook you mention, Andrew, is not as good a source for the thoughts of Brown as the other book; textbooks are written more by editorial boards than by authors (which is partly why the cost so much, and a good reason not to read them). Lostcaesar 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, Roy and myself are both citing the same Brown book. He's on page 7, and I'm on pages 127 and 217. And I agree that books aren't necessarily the best source, which is why I spent some time searching through scholarly journals (which I quoted 3 posts up).--Andrew c 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I would take that as evidence of editorial changes that resulted in the inconsistency - hence my advice is to not write text books. Lostcaesar 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep saying I'm not opposed to other views, but what I am opposed to is deciding on our own an average of scholars views. In my opinion and according to most sources I have read the book is dated by most scholars around the year 70. I'm not opposed to certain wording, but when you cite something cite it accurately and on those cited pages that is what is says. On page 127 Brown does say that, but that is his analysis, not him saying what the majority opinion is. On page 217 it says dated to the 68-73 period, not exactly those years. On page 164 he says there is wide scholarly agreement with late 60's to just after 70, and that's what I cited. Roy Brumback 10:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So can we agree on c. 70 then?--Andrew c 12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the source doesn't say circa. It actually seems to weight it more to 60's then approaching 75.  How about late 60's to early 70's? Roy Brumback 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the source I posted from a scholarly journal says slightly before or slightly after 70. I don't think going by a single source is the best thing to do. What I believe we did last time to get 60-80 was gather a large number of sources and choose an inclusive range that we could say was a consensus range. If we ignore the 60-65 part, we are ignoring the traditional view that Mark was written around the time of Peter's death. If we ignore the post 70 range, we ignore basically every single liberal scholar who believes Mark was written with the knowledge of the events during the Jewish war. I still favor a more broad range because then we can say a consensus of virtually every scholar (minus Robinson and Wells). If we focus in the range, then we are limited to the majority of mainstream scholarship (which is ok, however I think Mark is a special case because the conservative and liberal views can be grouped in a range (60-80). In contrast, for Matthew there is a seperation in the ranges, like 50-65 for the traditional view, and 80-90 for the modern view.) All that said, what is the differences between "c. 70" and "late 60's to early 70's"? The latter wording isn't my first choice, but it basically expresses some of the ranges I proposed earlier, so I wouldn't mind it's use.--Andrew c 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a wording that includes the sources of antiquity which discuss authorship in the context of Peter's death (just before or after) - these are sources that many scholars are not willing to dismiss, and I think the article would do well to inculde this in its summary of relevant scholarship. Lostcaesar 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you keep trying on your own to determine what the scholarly consensus is. You said yourself "What I believe we did last time to get 60-80 was gather a large number of sources and choose an inclusive range that we could say was a consensus range." That is us on our own deciding what the consensus is, not citing a source telling us what the majority of scholars hold. According to the article and Brown's book the opinion of the majority of scholars is late 60's to early 70's. We can easily include the traditional view and the late view, but according to all very reliable sources I have checked, those are not the majority views. If the majority of scholars do not agree with early and late dates, so be it. Put them in but label them as minority positions. Are you opposed to, instead of trying to group them all together, simply labeling one as the majority view and others as minority views.

The Jewish war began before 70, so him having knowledge of it does not mean it was written after 70. According to another book specifically on Mark I have, A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, ISBN 0809130599, most scholars reject dates much after 70 since if one thinks the discourse refers to the war it is far less accurate then Matthew or Luke and was probably written before the war ended. Circa is vague, late and early are more precise, although not as precise as what the cite says. And I dislike the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" for scholars, as they are political terms, not scholarly ones, unless liberal simply means dating it late and conservative means dating it early, in which case just say those who date it late and those who date it early. One could date it early and still be politically liberal or vise versa. Roy Brumback 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Traditional vs. critical, conservative vs. liberal, regardless how sloppy these terms may be (althought I do not agree that they are political terms, because someone can dress conservatively, and drink liberally), we have to realize that there are 'scholars' with a strong and dominant POV who date all the books early, and usually accept Matthean priority. Of course "real" scholars do not give this position much weight, just as "real" scholars generally reject the extreme skepticism of the Wells/Mack (or even worse, the Doherty/Freke crowd). Like I said, we are more than welcome to just focus in on the mainstream scholarly POV. However, I have stated before that I prefer a more inclusive range that covers the traditional view and the more skeptical view (60-80). I have also said that I'd not contest the "late 60s, early 70s" either. So I apologize if I still sound argumentative, when we may have settled this matter.--Andrew c 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy I will say I agree that terms like liberal, conservative, critical, traditional, and the like are words I think we, in the perfect world, could do without, since they are basically tautological and thus not especially informative. The solution is to cite specific authors and books by name. For example, in a reference we could say X, X, X, and X argued for Y, while Z, Z, Z, and Z, argued for W. But that takes a lot of work. The broad terms mentioned above are better than nothing.Lostcaesar 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So are we agreed on "late 60's to early 70's" as the majority view? I agree noting all views takes more work, but Wikipedia has enough time, even if individual editors don't.  Personally I think, as I have said, that we should state the majority opinion, which is this, and then state "a minority date it early for x reason and another minority date it  late for y reason" or something like that.  It just seems to me that is more accurate then lumping early and late dates together under "consensus". Roy Brumback 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I think in my mind there is a difference between majority and consensus. A majority can be 51%, while a consensus generally means nearly everyone can agree. As stated previously, I prefer the latter in an general overview statement. However, your proposal sounds good. I'm glad we could clear this up, and sorry if I was nitpicky and edgy with this issue.--Andrew c 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the old Gospel of Mark page? Where did all the comments from Carlson etc go? -Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.116.55.72 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006.


 * Maybe try Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 1.-Andrew c 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!163.17.7.193 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Michael

Based on the recent question asked of me, I neither agree or disagree with Brown's belief that the majority of scholars support dates from 68 to 73 as Brown does not back up his assertion. If he's quoting a Gallop poll or something of that nature and discussing concrete results, then that's something to sink the teeth into. Merely stating it's the case, shouldn't equate to fact. I am bothered by the idea that we seem to compose the entire dating section based upon 1 page from a book. That doesn't seem that we are doing our scholarly duty. Bbagot 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree that it could have a cite or two more. But the fact is that this has been well discussed and is now cited.  I don't think we should change it unless someone has some useful references to add. --Rtrev 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics unique to Mark
Both passages recently deleted by Lostcaesar contain attributes unique to Mark, as stated clearly in the descriptions. Only Mark has Jesus explicitly admit that "the Son" does not know when the end of the world will be, and only Mark allows that Jesus was not able to perform miracles in his own country: Matthew's alternate wording suggests that Jesus chose not to perform miracles because of the lack of faith. Grover cleveland 07:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on elements unique to Mark is a mess. There are significant elements, such as the Messiah Secret. There are petty elements, such as whether the possessed swine are counted. I propose splitting these uniquenesses up among significant and petty lists so that the reader can quickly assess what is special about Mark as what merely happens to be "unique." Jonathan Tweet 07:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you decide what is "significant" and what is "petty" without introducing POV problems? Grover cleveland 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV doesn't mean we can't use common sense. I would find a sensible Christian editor and agree on what's major and what's minor. Most cases are pretty clear. Or I would take a crack at it and just see how difficult it really is. Someone stop me if they don't want me even to try. Jonathan Tweet 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark 6
Mark chapter 6:4-6 reads as:
 * Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

Matthew chapter 13:57-58 reads as:
 * And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

The article here contained the following passage:
 * Mark is the only gospel that definitively states that Jesus' ability to perform miracles was not unlimited. Mark relates that on one occasion when Jesus visited his own "country" or "hometown" that he "was not able to do any mighty work" (KJV, NIV has "miracles") (Mark|6:5) (although he immediately adds as an exception that he healed some sick people by laying hands on them). The equivalent verse in Matthew says that Jesus "did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief" (Matthew), leaving open the possibility that Jesus chose not to perform miracles there, rather than that he was unable to do them.

Mark does not definitively state that Jesus' ability to perform miracles was not unlimited. One reason why Jesus perhaps could not work miracles except healings is that he chose not to. The only way this becomes remotely like a passage unique to Mark is if we accept the hypothesis that Mark wrote first, that Matthew edited Mark, that Matthew was "beefing up Mark" and then also the interpretation that Mark was definitively stating Jesus' miraculous limitations. Whatever the case, I think this, as an encyclopedia and not and argumentative article, should merely state obvious and uncontroversial uniqueness, which do not require either an interpretation or the acceptance of an hypothesis. wanting to You at the least need a source to support the notion that the passage in Mark should be understood as unique. When I read the passages, they say the exact same thing. Jesus was upset at X people because they had no faith and thus worked no major miracles. Lostcaesar 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One reason why Jesus perhaps could not work miracles except healings is that he chose not to.
 * This sentence seems to contradict the plain meaning of the English word "could", (or of the Greek verb "dunamai" in the original, usually translated as "to be able").  Grover cleveland 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "John was such a bad guy that I just couldn't go to the fair with him again." Perfectly standard use of "to be able" with a volition. Lostcaesar 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you are determined to eradicate the distinction between "can" and "will" (and their Greek equivalents). Given your position, what language could Mark (or anyone) have used to indicate that Jesus was unable to perform miracles?
 * Take a look at Mark 6:19: "Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him [John the Baptist], and would have killed him; but she could not:" : the Greek words used to say that Herodias "could not" kill John the Baptist ("ouk edunato") are identical to those used to say that Jesus "could not" do any miracles in his home town (except for healing a few people). Herodias wanted to kill John, Mark says, but was unable to do so.  Jesus may or may not have wanted to perform miracles in his own country (Mark doesn't explicitly tell us), but he was unable to do so, except for healing a few sick folk.  It is crystal clear that "ouk edunato" refers to an inability to do something rather than an unwillingness to do it. Grover cleveland 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And for the record, "I couldn't go to the fair with John" implies that some force outside my control prevents me from going. Maybe he drives me nuts and I am unable to prevent myself from strangling him when he's around. Grover cleveland 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Grover, you're giving your own exegesis based on one reading of the passage, actually one word. That's not going to fly.  This is not an argumentative thesis, its an encyclopedia.  If someone wants an argumentative analysis of Greek verbs and exegetical implications on textual interdependant between Matthew and Mark, then he can go read those kinds of books.  Here we just list unique elements of Mark.  That this is a unique element is not entierly clear.  Provide a source if you wish, but I am not letting such a messy and argumentative passage through.  Lostcaesar 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although it is a viewpoint shared by a large portion of the scholarly community (I don't have the time or energy to find citations now). Perhaps we could list this as a disputed "characteristic unique to Mark", describing each side's position according to WP:NPOV, without getting too involved in the Markan/Matthean priority dispute. Grover cleveland 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I think you can say is, once you have a source, that X scholar argued .... That would seem fitting.  Lostcaesar 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unique to Mark -- among the synoptics?
I removed Mark not having the Lord's Prayer as a "characteristic unique to Mark". John also does not have the Lord's Prayer. If we allow a list of things uniquely missing in Mark among the synoptics, then we could have separate items for the entire postulated content of the Q document (e.g. the Beatitudes, the Lost Sheep, the Mustard Seed, etc. etc. etc.).

For the same reason I removed the claim about Mark having the smallest number of parables among the synoptics. Grover cleveland 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template: sourcetext
The problem with sourcetext is that it requires the selection of a particular version, and for the most part only the KJV is offered, which is seriously outdated. The advantage of Template: bibleverse is that it allows the reader to select from a large number, including modern, translations. Maybe one day sourcetext will be as useful and as npov as bibleverse, but currently it has a long way to go. 75.0.15.230 19:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list of versions supported by bibleverse: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php#srcref

As far as I know, the only complete bible at sourcetext is KJV. The people behind sourcetext have been promising great things for some time now, however, nothing as of yet has changed. 75.0.15.230 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bibleverse also supports the Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonicals and Catholic translations such as NAB. 75.0.15.230 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, if we are going to crate external links for every cited bible verse, I would prefer bibleverse over sourcetext.--Andrew c 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I would like to know why sometimes with bibleverse (and when http's are cited also) strange spacing will appear in the text. It will look something like "Matthew ....._23:44" (where "."'s are spaces) for apperantly no reason.  Lostcaesar 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unique to Mark
Every two weeks or so I come back here and check this section, and sure enough there are additions of material that is not unique to Mark. Does anyone have a solution to solve this problem other than routine maintenance? Lostcaesar 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Midrash
Speaking of things removed, I have removed my name from the entry. I am not scholar, just an educated reader.163.17.7.193 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Turton

I do plan to put up a section here on Midrash and Mark. But not for another couple of months.

Mark 16:8-20
The section contains this passage: "The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel" - it is referenced but w/o a page number. I think this statement is misleading because it is too vague. In my understanding, the passage does not appear on the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus, and these are the oldest manuscripts, so it is correct. However, it is only two manuscripts, and the Sinaiticus's leaf containing this section is not original. Saying "the oldest manuscripts" makes it sound as if there is this horde of first-second century manuscripts without it. Why not be more specific about the two manuscripts? (p.s., I will have a reference for the "gar" sentence as soon as I get back to the library, probably tomorrow - ty for the patience). Lostcaesar 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look up this section in NA27 when I get home (and if necessary, check out commentary in any of my other books). I understand that there are probably some people who think the long version is original, and their reasoning is probably important, but every scholar I have read has always said the long ending is surely a later addition. I tagged the 'gar' sentence, because it wasn't sourced so it seemed like OR (or at least wasn't WP:V) and I'm concered about undue weight. But I'llbe patient and see how things look in a few days, and I'll check up on the manuscript issue.--Andrew c 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been busy with other things and haven't been up to the library - I appreciate the time. The "gar" thing might be undue weight if it were merely arguing that the long version is original, because that is a small position.  But it also applies to those who think that the original ending has been lost, or even those who think that Mark was cut short in his wirting by some event (like his death?).  Thus it applies to everyone except those who think that Mark actually wanted to end where he did.  I agree that almost every scholar thinks that the longer version is a latter addition, but were not just talking about a "addition / non-addition" split.  That's why I think the sentence in question is also important.  Its one thing to say that the long ending is not in the autograph - its another to say that Mark intentionally ended his gospel at 16:8.  Lostcaesar 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, here is a crappy website link to show that the "gar" statement is not OR. I want to get a better source than this, of course, but it should suffice to show OR is not a problem. Lostcaesar 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are some sourced. Online Critical Textual commentary, CAN A BOOK END WITH AP? A NOTE ON MARK XVI. 8, The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8. I don't have online access to the Oxford Journal, but there is a summary of that article in a footnote of the JBL article that seems to suggest that the answer to the questions is "yes". That's all I could find in online journals that I have access to, but maybe I'm not searching enough. Also, the first link has a list of the MSS evidence for no ending, just the short ending, just the long ending, and both endings.--Andrew c 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A book can end in gar - the argument is that it is very unusual (and it is), and paralleled with the thematic irregularity it makes the likely solution that 16:8 was not the intended ending - the work was either incomplete or the actual ending was lost very early on. I added a couple refs and tried to explain this better.  I also placed a link to the article above that you mentioned.  Laslty, I stuck the website in there for good mesure.  There were other arguments that it would be strange for Mark to end with a mention of the resurrection but no resurrection account, but I felt this was overkill / undue weight and figured to leave it at the one breif sentence.  Hope this works for you. Lostcaesar 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - Irenaeus mentioned the ending as if it were part of Mark - why do we talk about origen, Jerome, and Eusebius but not mention this early reference? Lostcaesar 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read Metzger's commentary on Greek UBS4 dealing with the ending of Mark. He says that the committee concludes that neither the short, the long, or the very long ending are likely to be original. The oldest (and 'best') copies stop at 16:8, so it is believed that this is the best we have (in regards to reconstructing the autograph), though it is also probable that the original ending (probably on a single leaf) was lost, instead of simplying ending at 16:8. As for your specific edits, they are fine, and that section sure is referenced now. Good work all around.--Andrew c 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx =)
 * Personally, I agree that the ending is lost, though about the long ending I guess we can not be certain, and speculation will likely continue without much profit. I think we can junk the short ending straightaway.  But I am no expert. Lostcaesar 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Metzger suggested that because the short ending was preserved by multiple sources that it most likely dates back fairly early and was at least respected by the scribes, but it is also telling that the short ending is only found by itself in a single manuscript, where the others always include both the short and the long endings. Metzger also suggested that the longer ending most likely comes from another (now lost) early Christian work, and was simply copied from that source and tact onto the end (to make up for a possible early loss of the original ending). It's all rather fascinating (to me at least). I'll have to check some other books, but I think more liberal scholars such as the JS and Ehrman are more inclinded to believe that no ending is original (I think it helps with their theories that orthodox Christianity ended up going through some major theological development, and thus doesn't accurately represent the 'Christianity' of Jesus nor the earliest Gospel writers, Mk, Q, signs source, etc.)--Andrew c 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had not heard that about the short ending. Both the long and short just contain a summary of material avaliable in the other gospels and acts, so it seems reasonable that scribes would have every reason to respect the content.  If Metzger is right that it actually comes from another work, now lost, we may wonder why such a text was not preserved.  I think it also depends on how early the endings are.  There are reasons to support the hypothesis that Justin quoted the long ending, which would have made its acceptance very early indeed.  As for more liberal scholars, I am quite sure they make much ado about Mark's ending.  Lostcaesar 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There's more at Mark_16, if you want to get into it. 75.14.223.78 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

just as an aside, someone, or the article mentioned that if Mark originally ended at 16:8, that doesn't appear to be "good news", however, "euaggelion" in the Septuagint always has an ironic twist, see : "v1: George Aichele (2003) writes: "In the Old Testament, euaggelion appears only in 2 Samuel (LXX 2 Kings) 4:10, where David kills the messenger who brings the “good news” of Saul’s death. In addition, the plural form, euaggelia.appears four times in 2 Samuel 18:20, 22, 25, and 27, where it is used in the description of David’s reception of the “tidings” of Absalom’s death, and in 2 Kings (LXX 4 Kings) 7:9, where lepers discover the abandoned camp of the Syrian army. With the exception of this last instance, the message that is brought is not clearly a good one. None of these texts throws much light on the gospel of Mark’s use of the term, unless one wishes to argue that Mark is using the term ironically."" 75.14.223.78 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The following may be helpful:
 * The Gospel of Mark ends at 16.8 in the two oldest Uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, Codex B (Vaticanus) and א (Sinaiticus), both of the 4th century. In the former the subscription KATA MARKON "according to Mark" follows v. 8, but the next column is left blank, suggesting that the copyist of B knew of an ending but did not have it in the manuscript he was copying; in the latter the subscription EUAGGELION KATA MARKON "Gospel according to Mark" follows v. 8, after which the Gospel of Luke begins in the next column. The Gospel ends at 16.8 also in the oldest Syriac version of the Gospels, the Sinaitic Syriac (4th or 5th century): at the end of v. 8 there is written in red ink, "Here ends the Gospel of Mark," followed immediately by the beginning of the Gospel of Luke; and in important codices of the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions . . . In the Minuscule Greek manuscript 22 (12th century) at the end of 16.8 there is written TELOS "End," followed by a note: "In some of the copies the Evangelist finishes at this point; in many, however, these (words) are current," after which come vv. 9–20 (the "Longer Ending"), followed again by TELOS "End" . . . The Shorter Ending stands alone in the Old Latin manuscript k (4th or 5th century); it is followed by the Longer Ending in the following: the Greek Uncial manuscript of the Gospels L (Codex Regius, 8th century), which has a line after v. 8, with the note, "there also are current in some places," followed by the Shorter Ending, and then, without a break, the words "but these also are current after 'for they were afraid,'" followed by the Longer Ending in full, after which comes the subscription "According to Mark." In the Greek Uncial manuscript [psi] (8th or 9th century) the Shorter Ending is added to v. 8 without a break or note, after which comes the usual note "but there also are current after 'for they were afraid,'" followed by the Longer Ending, and the subscription. The same is true of the Greek Uncial fragments 099 (7th century) and 0112 (7th century). The Shorter Ending is also found (before the Longer Ending, as usual) in the margin of the Greek Minuscule manuscript 274 (10th century) and in 579 (13th century); in the margin of the Harclean Syriac version (7th century), and in several important codices of the Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic versions. (Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators [New York: United Bible Societies, 1993; c1961], 517–18.) &mdash;Wayward Talk 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of some changes in the list section
There is a section that gives a list of material unique to Mark. I made the following changes. I moved the section on “literary cycles” to the top, the seemingly most logical place. I removed a footnote commentary that did not pertain to the uniqueness of a Markan passage (it seemed to be an interpretation of the event) – not the proper place for this. I removed one instance of comparison with “Thomas”, presumably the text known as the “Gospel of Thomas”, an apocryphal and non-narrative text. I assume that this section is material unique to Mark when compared with the canonical gospels (or perhaps synpotics). If we compare Mark with apocryphal texts then we will expand the subject greatly, and will reduce the material “unique to Mark”, since other texts (e.g. Gospel of Peter) mention things also in Mark, thereby undoing the usefulness of the section. I removed a passage about a “disputed translation”, since it is not pertinent to the uniqueness of the passage in regards to Mark (a different translation doesn’t make the passage un-unique). I rephrased the seemingly interpretive “in the other gospels the cock crows only once” to the more detached, descriptive, and neutral articulation “the other gospels simply say ‘the cock crew’”, since the words “only once” are unnecessarily interpretive. I hope these edits improve the section. Lastly, I removed the part about Mark’s ending, since its already covered with a dedicated section. Lostcaesar 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good explanation, Lostcaesar. StAnselm 11:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is listed by text order, thus literary cycles does not go to the top, the footnote you removed was a referenced explanation of a particular text, there is no reason to exclude Thomas when it is relevant to parallels, the fact that a passage is also a disputed translation is very relevant information, the cock crew is awkward, and Mark's ending is very relevant, the fact that it is covered in more detail elsewhere, which it should be, does not preclude it being listed in this section. Your edits are steps backward and a removal of information, thus not useful to wikipedia. 64.149.82.181 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clear that we're going to need to talk about this. I don't see why the Thomas parallel is relevant - could you explain please? John's Gospel also has a lengthy disputed passage - so I don't see why that makes Mark different just because Mark's disputed passage is at the end. And I definitely support Lostcaesar regarding the cock corwing - the other gospels do not say the cock crows "only" once. Finally, while the disputed translation is interesting, it doesn't belong in this section. StAnselm 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the text were in order, then the cycles would be divided up by passages, e.g. the comment on 7:3-4 would interrupt the list of cycles; but, if you want it there, then that’s fine by me. The footnote is an “explanation”, or some sort of commentary (exegesis?), which, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the uniqueness of the passage to Mark.  No other passage comes with a commentary in this section (and why should it?).  As for the section about Mark 16:8-20, as I said, there is a whole section for this.  What, precisely, is “unique to Mark” about this phenomenon, anyway?  Maybe if this could be explained I would understand.  More importantly, the issue of the “cock crow” seems indefensible, since the text in this article currently reads in words (“only once”) that are nonexistent in the passage.  My points about “Thomas” have not been adequately addressed, as far as I can tell – you said there is “no reason to exclude it”, but had nothing to say about the reasons I gave to exclude it.  Keep in mind, I am not against this material being in the article, I just think it needs to be handled differently - in proper sections, rather than this one, sourced when necessary, and whatnot. Lostcaesar 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we need a section on Structure. The literary cycles belong there, along with a note about the two halves of the gospel. Obviously, in one sense the whole article will be about things unique to Mark - the "other characteristics" section needs to be pruned (and we do already have plenty of mention of the ending) so I believe we need to accept Lostcaesar's changes. I think we should wait a couple of days to see if anyone else joins the discussion, though - and it would be nice if we could reach a consensus. StAnselm 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote for rolling back these major edits by "Lostcaesar" so they can be posted here and discussed. This is too major an article for someone to simply go in and "clean up" the way they feel necessary! Certainly if someone is adding references and technical things of that nature that's fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisbak (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This is an open source encyclopedia - people are "allowed" to make good faith edits. Do you have anything specific about each difference to add? Lostcaesar 07:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A Major Edit is defined as a "version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word." I would argue that deleting references etc. meets the definition of a Major Edit, in which case a "good faith" effort must be made to meet the guidelines the Wikipedia organization has set down for a major edit. When an editor writes something like "Well, it's clear that we're going to need to talk about this" it means you have NOT made that "good faith" effort as far as they are concerned. I would concur - I don't see a "good faith" effort here either. Chrisbak 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it was I who said we should talk about this, I need to clarify: I do believe Lostcaesar's edits were made in good faith, and I support them. Now that they have been challenged, we need to discuss them, but I haven't seen any arguments made to suggest that they're inappropriate. StAnselm 08:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By way of history, Lostcaesar's changes were reverted by someone, but then LostCaesar added them back, the start of a reversion war. For example Lostcaesar deleted, I believe, references to two translations The Scholar's Edition and Gaus' Unvarnished NT, as well as possibly to a Jewish reference. Now someone just added in a reference to the Scholars Edition at the end of the article, apparently unaware of Lostcaesar's POV Agenda related to Mark. Also Lostcaesar deleted a reference to Thomas, which might have been qualified instead. Lostcaesar is apparently not too interested in grammar either - for example in a previous edit they added in the phrase ", contrary to the traditional view," in the last sentence of the introduction, dealing with contemporary views on Markan Priority. The tradtional view was discussed in the previous sentence, so that sentence was contrasting. Also I believe they left an incomplete sentence trying to get rid of a reference to the Scholar's Edition. Chrisbak 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it suck when someone deletes information in defense of POV? Sometimes that's how I tell when I'm on the right track, when the deletions hit. On the other hand, LC has a good eye. He deleted reference to a "disputed" translation, and this reference was a little bogus. The translation isn't disputed; there's simply more than one way to translate the sentence (while meaning basically the same thing). As for the reference to Thomas, what was it? Jonathan Tweet 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I feel I am justified in asking two things - one, what is the pov I am being accused of; two, would anyone care to actually discuss the points made and supported by Anselm. I could be just as juvenile and accuse my opponents as having a pov and so on, but I'd prefer to use reason and look at arguments.  As I said, I wish to remove irrelevant information, and gave numerous reasons, to which Anselm agreed.  I am going to restore my edits so that it will further the discussion here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

"Other characteristics unique to Mark" section
IMHO, the above discussion is going nowhere pretty fast. Let's decide on the five proposed changes to the "Other characteristics unique to Mark" section. Please consider each one separately. The words in bold are the ones under particular discussion.

Mark 4:24-25
Current text:
 * Mark is the only gospel with the combination Mark 4:24-25, the other gospels split them up: Mark 4:24 being found in Luke 6:38 and Matthew 7:2; Mark 4:25 being found in Matthew 13:12 and 25:29, Luke 8:18 and 19:26, and Thomas 41.


 * Proposal: Delete words in bold.
 * Reason: Thomas is not a canonical gospel. StAnselm 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary cycles
Current text:
 * Mark's literary cycles:
 * 6:30–44 - Feeding of the five thousand;
 * 6:45–56 - Crossing of the lake;
 * 7:1–13 - Dispute with the Pharisees;
 * 7:14–23 - Discourse about food defilement.
 * Then:
 * 8:1–9 - Feeding of the four thousand;
 * 8:10 - Crossing of the lake;
 * 8:11–13 - Dispute with the Pharisees;
 * 8:14–21 - Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.


 * Proposal: Move to a section called "Structure" StAnselm 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark 7:19
Current text:
 * "Thus he declared all foods clean."[37] 7:19 NRSV, not found in the Matthean parallel Matthew 15:15-20 and also a disputed translation: .


 * Proposal: Delete words in bold.
 * Reason: Having a disputed translation is not a characteristic unique to Mark. StAnselm 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark 14:72
Current text:
 * The cock crows "twice" as predicted (Mark 14:72). See also Fayyum Fragment. In the other gospels the cock only crows once.


 * Proposal: Delete words in bold.
 * Reason: The other gospels talk about the cock crowing, but don't say that the cock crowed twice. However, neither do they say that the cock crowed "only" once. StAnselm 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark 16
Current text:
 * Mark is the only canonical gospel with significant various alternate endings (see Mark 16, Possible Scenarios); however, most of the contents of the traditional "Longer Ending" (Mark 16:9-20) are found in other New Testament texts and are not unique to Mark, see Mark 16#The Longer Ending. The one significant exception is 16:18b "and if they drink any deadly thing", it will not harm those who believe.


 * Proposal: Delete.
 * Reason: Other gospels have significant textual variants, though they are not at the end. For example, John 7:53 - 8:11. The content of this paragraph is found in the Mark 16 article. StAnselm 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies the issue(s). StAnselm 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Mark is the only canonical gospel with significant various alternate endings", that's pretty straightforward. Not "textual variants", but "significant various alternate endings". Also, 16:18b "and if they drink any deadly thing", it will not harm those who believe, is unique to Mark. 75.15.205.97 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point on 16:18b. Lostcaesar 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Theology
As it stands, this is appalling:
 * Christians consider Mark to be divinely inspired ... Scholars of the historical-critical method, however, analyze the gospel as if it were any other ancient text. Some of them see Mark as presenting a theology at odds with common Christian theology.

This clearly draws a false dichotomy between Christians and scholars. It needs to cleaned up, or deleted. StAnselm 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed it now, but this still needs expansion. What is the theology of Mark? What are the distinctives? How might it be at odds with Christian theology? We have adoptionism as a suggestion - any others? StAnselm 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the adoptionism section, the cite of Ehrman is wrong. He doesn't make the case in Misquoting Jesus that Mark 1:1 necessitates adoptionism. He probably makes it in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1996) but I have not confirmed it. I am going to remove it and add for cite request.--Ari (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the Ehrman citation, but still not sure about its inclusion. Anyone have an Intro to the NT or something that dedicates time for adoptionism as a legitimate Christology in Mark (without Ehrman's conjectural text variant choices to support it)?--Ari (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

critics of Ehrman
I deleted this material. Like a good editor, I'm putting it here.

Ehrman’s view that this textual variant is of theological significance has been rejected by Bruce Metzger, and the theory has been called “simply a myth” and “simply false” by Ben Witherington III.

All this tells us is that two people disagree with Ehrman. So what? I can find two people to disagree with just about anyone. What this information needs is some reason that Ehrman's conclusion is false. Is it because Mark's theology just exudes trinitarianism? Is it because adoptionism is contradicted elsewhere in the gospel? Is it because adoptionism is wrong and the Bible is never wrong? If you can't give us actual information, don't give us driveby rejections. Jonathan Tweet 06:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I would say the section needs more info, the above seems no reason to exclude the objections. I'll look into more specifics when I get the chance.  Lostcaesar 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be patient while you look for specifics. With one specific reason per critic we'd have some actual information instead of the needless assertion that not everyone agrees with Ehrman. Jonathan Tweet 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Instead of saying "Metzger disagrees with Ehrman" a negative statement, try to find a positive statement of what Metzger actually thinks. Ehrman says X, while Metzger says Y instead of Ehrman says X, Metzger disagrees. I also have a feeling that Metzger has not written anything specifically in response to Ehrman, but instead, published something with a different opinion than Ehrman (and most likely years, if not decades before Ehrman), but that is just my speculation. -Andrew c 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears Lostcaesar has quit over a dispute about purgatory. 75.0.7.37 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you wrote just what I wanted say. Jonathan Tweet 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see LC retire. He knows a lot and taught me a lot. If we can find Metzger's and the evangelical guy's take on Mark's Christology, let's put that in.

Also, LC said that his explanation for Ehrman's evidence was uncertain and from memory. I think the reason that LC cites as the only reason is just one. (Other evidence is Marks' story line, which fits adoptionism a heck of a lot better than it fits Chalcedonism.) So can we cut the explanation of Ehrman's evidence until we get confirmation? Jonathan Tweet 02:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not worthy
So the last change by anon diff completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Both the original and the edit are unsourced. So what is it? Did Jesus teach in parables to obscure his teaching from the unworthy, or to make the teaching them accessible to everyone? I imagine both views are valid. It's probably an issue of "some say X, while others say Y". So can we source these statements and include both? Or does anyone have any ideas?-Andrew c 01:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section
I removed this newly added section:

Extensive use of literary allusion ''The Gospel of Mark makes extensive use of literary allusion to the Jewish scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament. In some cases these allusions exist in the other gospels as well, but this is generally due to their having been copied from the Gospel of Mark. In several cases literary allusion in the Gospel of Mark were lost when the scenes were copied by the other gospel writers. The most famous case of literary allusion in the Gospel of Mark comes from the crucifixion scene, which is crafted from literary allusions to Psalm 22 and Amos 8, as shown below.''

Mark 15:

24 And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take.

25 It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The inscription of the charge against him read, 'The King of the Jews.' 27 And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left. 29 Those who passed by mocked him, shaking their heads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!' 31 In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.' Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.

33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

The lines in bold are based on the texts from Psalm 22 and Amos 8, as shown below.

Psalm 22:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest. ... 6 But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads; 8 'Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver— let him rescue the one in whom he delights!' ... 16 For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; 17 I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.

Amos 8:

2 He said, 'Amos, what do you see?' And I said, 'A basket of summer fruit.' Then the Lord said to me, 'The end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass them by. 3 The songs of the temple shall become wailings on that day,' says the Lord God; 'the dead bodies shall be many, cast out in every place. Be silent!' ... 9 On that day, says the Lord God,  I will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. 10 I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.

''Some Christians consider these to be cases of prophecy fulfillment. Scholars, however, consider these to be cases of literary allusion, where the author used existing passages from the Jewish scritpures to craft the details of the scene and provide sub-textual meaning to the events. The passage from Amos 8 would be relevant after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is when it is believed that this work was written, and implies that the meaning of the crucifixion according to the author is a justification for the destruction of the Jewish people by the Romans during the Jewish war of 67-72 CE.''

To a large extent, the narrative of the Gospel of Mark is a running series of literary allusions to the Jewish scritpures.

The analysis needs to be attributed to verifiable, reliable sources, and I do not believe it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to have so much verbatim quoting of primary sources. -Andrew c [talk] 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the merit of the reasoning for removing this section. The quoted primary source material is not extensive and helps to demonstrate the point. What is the foundation for your "belief" that it is not appropriate?

Also, why was the link in the related articles section removed? These removals are unreasonable. - Malachi151 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The merit in removing the section is that none of it was verifiable. Any content on wikipedia that is not sourced can be removed at any time. It seems like it was in a rough draft state and not ready to go live, so I moved it to the talk page so it can be worked on further. The foundation for my "belief" is wikipedia policy and guidelines. Have you had a chance to look at my messages to you on your talk page and read through some of our policies and guidelines? Anyway, I have not removed the text, but instead, edited it some to be more neutral, and added tags to show you where you need to find citations and specify scholars. Also, I saw no reason to include the quoted text. We can easily link to biblical passages, so if the reader wants to learn more than can a) click on the biblical passages to read them and b) research the source where this claim is made (although the source has yet to be provided). Anyway, if you need help with wikipedia policy, or just have any questions, I'd really like to help. I know it can sometimes be shocking to see that your contributions have been edited by other users, but I am acting in good faith, and I'd like your introduction to wikipedia to be as smooth as possible.-Andrew c [talk] 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review
This is a well-sourced and well-written article. Is anyone else willing to spend some time cleaning up citations and taking it to Peer Review and then on to GAC? Ovadyah (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I temporarily added a citation tag to the article to encourage editors to contribute to finding the missing citations. I'm trying to get some folks from various WikiProjects to chip in and make this a quick and relatively painless task. Ovadyah (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Late date for Mark
This is not a fringe theory. It is a minority view. I have seen it discussed in several scholarly publications before. Therefore, I am recovering the deleted section until the appropriate references can be located. The hypothesis is supported in part by Clement of Alexandria's description of GMark as the last gospel written. The order of the gospels in the Western textual tradition exactly matches Clement's order (Matthew -> John -> Luke -> Mark). Ovadyah (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's common courtesy to give editors a week to track down their sources before removing unsourced content. Immediate reverts, except in cases of obvious vandalism, could be seen as a violation of WP:AGF and as WP:OWN. Ovadyah (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While you may feel it is a common courtesy to give editors a week to track down sources, I feel it is completely unprofessional to place rough drafts, especially ones that violate WP:V, into live articles which our audience will be reading for research or personal knowledge. You are welcome to use a sandbox, or take as much time as you want to get your sources in order. But please, find your sources before you add content. (and I'm struggling to figure out how one contributes to wikipedia without a book, or at least a webpage, in hand. Was all that added text taken from personal memory of stuff read, but no longer access to?) All that said, I'll apologize that my revert was a bit bold. Next, I'd be glad to discuss fringe vs. minority view once you get your sources together. I'm pretty sure I've never come across this theory mentioned in the overview texts of Brown, Harris or Ehrman, but that isn't always the best indicator of notability. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.-Andrew c [talk] 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This material was added by a new user. I'm just an interested 3rd party.  While it may be your personal preference to source all content before adding it to the article (mine too), proper Wikiquette is to request sources and then wait a few days before reverting.  This is particularly true for new users who may not understand the process.  I ran across this hypothesis myself a few days ago, but I can't recall just where (maybe Wieland's e-list).  I'll check it out and see what I can find.  Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Thanks for finding sources Epikouros. It would be nice, now, if we could state from what sources the listed parallels came. I'll look up the sources and see to which ones I have access. I think the section might actually be better if we don't go into that much detail. I think saying the theory exists, mentioning who holds the theory, and briefly stating what and why that theory is is enough detail for an encyclopedia article. Finally, if it is true that "This opinion has been rejected by the vast majority of scholars." it would be nice if we could cite some scholars in a footnote that critically discuss the theory, (and it would help make sure that our readers could verify it's been rejected, if it has).-Andrew c [talk] 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The theory is supported by some scholars who argue for Markan Priority based on an early proto-Mark but a late canonical Mark. I see Epikouros has taken care of it. Ovadyah (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reorganized the dating section to first state the traditional viewpoint - and therefore it wasn't necessary to keep the mention of the comparison of the Olivet Discourse there - adding the link to the Introduction to the New Testament by McNeile which has the exhaustive list of references to the Patristic Father's opinions about the dating of Mark. I then separated out each hypothesis in chronological order, and I more or less tried to state each hypothesis in a neutral manner, and not give it "votes" by how many academics do or don't agree with it. There was no reason to keep the section on the alternative ideas including "Jesus prophesied correctly". If someone agrees with that literalist perspective, that puts an end to all textual analysis and actually gives a "timeless/eternal" date to the Gospel ("it was fortold") and makes a section on dating moot (as well as negating any textual comparisons of the various Gospels).

If this gets too complex we can always create a new more detailed subsidiary article on the dating of Mark, since that of course is critical for dating the Synoptics in general. 7Q5 has it's own article, so all that needed to be said was that O'Callahagan and Theide didn't get a scholarly consensus about their find. I'm not at all convinced that this postage-stamp sized piece of papyrus can be said to definitively come from a scroll and not a codex, so that argument may have to be taken out entirely.

Of course, a post-70 date has important implications for the dating of all the Synoptics given the popularity of the Two-source hypothesis. It seems that many people are just not aware of the three separate references to the destruction of the Temple / exile of the Jews in Mark that have been used date it past 70. (No, the Temple wasn't "finished" being destroyed in 73, it was fully destroyed in 70. Masada alone held out till 73.) I don't see that the use of the Little Apocalypse for dating is "controversial". Controversial for who? Those who don't think there are any "ex eventu" prophetic texts? That's why I put in a short explanation and link to Higher Criticism. It's almost impossible for the Little Apocalypse to be an interpolation since it's found in all three synoptics. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is also found in all the Synoptics, as well as the (Sayings) Gospel of Thomas, so this argument for the post-70 dating of Mark doesn't just rely on the Little Apocalypse alone.

The parallels with the Second Jewish Revolt seem to be even less well-known to the general public. Again, this causes even more problems with an early date for the Synoptics, but the evidence usually goes something like "we know that Matthew is early because of his Christology and therefore Mark must be even earlier." An interesting idea is the Marcion hypothesis, (an article that I'm working on now) which theorizes that Marcion is a kind of "proto-Mark" who is the source for all three synoptics, and not an edited version of Luke. (Marcion basically is Luke without Q.) There are actually some "minor agreements" between Marcion and Matthew and not Luke and Mark. Interestingly, Luke, who is closest to Marcions's Gospel (or vica versa) has a Little Apocalypse that doesn't mention the "abomination of desolation" but does mention exile and captivity. Mark and especially Matthew emphasize the utter destruction at this time, and in particular Matthew makes reference to a false Messiah "in the wilderness", which is an even closer parallel to Bar Kokhba, since his final headquarters was in the Judean Desert fortress of Herodium. This does rather reverse the order of the Two-source hyptothesis. It may be that Matthew derives from the "Gospel of the Hebrews", and these Ebionites of course were the ones most threatened by the Jewish alleigiance to Bar Kokhba as the Messiah, as opposed to Gentile Christians of Rome, which would have been the audience of Luke (or Marcion, who didn't see a relationship at all to Judaism).

There are lots more sources out there, but I hope that with the few references I added people will be able to start finding many more of them.

Epikouros (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Latinisms Passage is Problematic
I find this passage in the article, "Critics argue that the Latinisms in the Greek of Mark could have stemmed from many places throughout the Western Roman empire.", which has no citation, to be problematic for two reasons. The first is the use of the term "critics argue", which is one of those dubious phrases on par with "some claim" and "it is widely believed"; effectively a POV worded to be NPOV. Further, if "critics argue" something, you'd think there would be several available sources to cite that fact. The second problem I have with this passage is that the only sources I could find to cite for it were other free wikis that had effectively copy-pasted this article. One thing that I did find was this, which claims that the use of latinisms did not have to do with where the gospel was written so much as it pertained to who the intended audience was (See section 2.1.3. of the document).

I suggest that if we cannot find good, solid evidence needed for a citation of a claim in this article, than we delete the claim.

Basilides/&quot;ούκ ών θεός&quot; (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--C.Logan (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wanted to get a consensus on this, not step on toes or start a minor edit war. I came over here from the Wikiproject:Religion page wherein a link suggested we find citations where need be. However, like I said, sometimes it's better to delete the statement rather than dredge up a dubious "source" for it. Basilides/&quot;ούκ ών θεός&quot; (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gundry gives an extensive list of Latinisms in: Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pages 1043-1044, which is copied verbatim in Ben Smith's textexcavation link below. Gundry concludes the gospel was most likely written in Rome. Ovadyah (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Long ending
Some of the unsourced content on the long ending of Mark was lifted verbatim from this website:

http://www.gospelparallels.com/gospelparallels.html

Opinions please. Should we include this as a reliable source? Ovadyah (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so at first glance. It's hosted as a blog, and is run by a self-funded ministry. It may relay scholarly theories/opinions, but it makes no citations, so I question its reliability as a source here.--C.Logan (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That website look awfully new. My first thought is that they are using our content against our licensing. This merits more research to find out who is copying who.-Andrew c [talk] 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, the domain name was registered on 2007-03-15. However, if you look at the article history, part of the text has existed in the article for over 3 years, and you can see how bits and pieces have been altered and expanded over the years, leading me to be convinced that the text is ours. Maybe we should contact the website and tell them that "free" does not mean the same thing as "public domain" when we license our content under the GFDL. -Andrew c [talk] 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrific resource
For those of you who are textual criticism buffs (like me), here is a terrific resource that can be mined to improve the article:

http://www.textexcavation.com/gospelmark.html

and a separate page on the evidence for the short and long endings:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html

I also want to add a section on chiasms in Mark based on the work of Dart and Turton:

http://www.textexcavation.com/turtonchiasms.html

Enjoy! Ovadyah (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Closet drama
Unfortuately, I only have an abstract of Stephen Smith's article on Mark as a closet drama. I know he claims that Mark has a structure typical of Roman closet dramas of the time. This could be expanded into a separate section on the narrative structure of Mark if someone can come up with the complete article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Title
Isn't it the Gospel according to St Mark, not the Gospel of Mark?217.43.226.218 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The oldest Greek gospels simply have kata Markon, where kata translates as "according to". Somewhat newer texts have Euaggelion kata Markon .  Gospel of Mark is the way this is usually translated. Ovadyah (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this suggest that the early greeks felt that this was not divinely inspired but an opinion or memory of mark like another person recounting a conversation with mark. would someone please comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.103.253 (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed?
Why is this article tagged citations needed? A quick glance through seems to show a large number of existing citations. Do we really need the tag at the top of the article? With the number of existing citations, it seems like a few fact tags placed in key locations would be much more helpful than the banner at the top of the article.-Andrew c [talk] 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag seems to date from January 18th, by Ovadyah, with the intention of being temporary, and for reasons s/he gives above in section "Toward Peer Review". (That seems to be the "Why" from the tagger's viewpoint.  Whether others agree with that view and reasoning is a different matter, in which I am too inexperienced to comment.)  Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it seems that all the cn tags are in the subsection "Extensive use of literary allusion", why don't we move the tag there? Overall, the article seems rather well-sourced. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrew, feel free to move/remove the tag as you see fit. I applied it in the hope that the remaining citation requests could be found more quickly with community involvement from several Wiki projects.  The article as it stands is very close to being ready for Peer Review, a necessary step before submission for GAC.  Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

About See Also
Can we work to minimize or eliminate the See Also section? The links do not seem directly relevant to the article.

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb:
 * 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body
 * 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore
 * 3) "perfect" articles may have no See also sections.

Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Those links are not appropriate and not within the guidelines of what a "See also" section should link to.-Andrew c [talk] 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I will be bold and remove it. The section can always be added back if there is a good reason. Ovadyah (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Losses and early editing
The "Losses and early editing" section quotes Metzger "Since the combination of B D W all in support of ...". What are these B, D, and W entities? (Or did I miss something?) Could some sort of explanation or reference or wikilink be given, please? (Incidentally, this quotation lacks direct citation of Metzger's book, although other parts of the article do give the book's details.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * B = Codex Vaticanus, D = Codex Bezae, W = Codex Washingtonianus. Also see the List of New Testament Uncials.  Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've adjusted them in the article to be wikilinks. (Please check for accuracy.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark and Pauline Theology
Please see the following excerpt from an article by R.G Price:
 * "In analyzing the Gospel of Mark we also find that the Gospel of Mark is the most in line with Pauline theology of all Gospels. In fact, it is the only Gospel that is really in line with Pauline theology."

The online article can be found here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm. Ovadyah (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Joel Marcus, 'Mark - Interpreter of Paul' New Testament Studies 46/4 (2000): pp. 473-487 shown in part here.

For an opposing view, see The Earliest Gospel by Frederick C. Grant, Chapter 9: Was Mark a Pauline Gospel? Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * R. G. Price's work seems to be entirely self-published and to fail the reliable sources guideline, so I included a reference to Joel Marcus's article instead. EALacey (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No question that Marcus is a more reliable source. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whose nephew?
A recent edit in the article's lead boldly states that Mark was the nephew of Barnabas. The "Authorship" section similarly boldly states that he was the nephew of Peter. Is either of these possibilities generally accepted? Are they both generally accepted? (I've never heard of either hypothesis before, but I have no qualifications in biblical scholarship.) Could this be clarified, please? (My own feeling is that such details should not be in the lead, but rather in a separate subsection, with an indication of reliability, and with good quality citations... preferably more than one, because it is surprising to the casual reader.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We could ask Rbreen to give us a quote of the relevant page from the referenced text. I am also not a biblical scholar, but in my meagre resources I could find nothing more specific than to say that he was a kinsman/cousin of Barnabas, and an associate of Peter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your message on my talk page - yes, the quoted source does indeed say Mark was a nephew of Barnabas. It's not a highly scholarly source, but the point seems to be widely cited. On looking closer however, the original reference is Colossians 4:10 - "My fellow-prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas." The article on Barnabas says his aunt was the mother of John Mark - which would definitely be a cousin, not a nephew. I can find no other reference that says Mark was a cousin of Peter so I'm pretty sure that's a mistake. --Rbreen (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Since your ref cites Col 4:10, I suggest we change it to either "relative" or "cousin" of Barnabas. My Butler's sites the same verse and says kinsman, and all of my English translations of the verse give "cousin", and my Spanish translation has "primo". But I think the best thing to do is go with kinsman/relative, and cite Butler's, since we prefer secondary to primary sources. And I'll tag the Peter thing with cn and won't wait too long before cutting it, as none of us have heard that before. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok well does Kollmann say cousin or nephew? My only concern is that even if it's a scholarly source, I'm not really comfy with "nephew" unless the source gives a discussion on why he was actually newphew; I don't think saying nephew in passing, without an explanation, is going to be good enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kollmann says 'cousin or nephew'. There are many sources which say 'nephew' but the modern ones mainly say 'cousin'. So do the NT versions (The KJV says, "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas") It must be a function of the Greek translation, because Luther says 'nephew' while modern German translations say 'cousin'. I only supported retaining 'nephew' because Kollmann does, and I assumed he had some special knowledge - but on closer examination, I think 'cousin' is the appropriate one. --Rbreen (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will change to cousin, then. I'll cite a handful of translations. If anyone comes up with a source taht really gives a reason for 'nephew', we can change it back. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Post-70 Dating and Prophecy
The first paragraph of the Post-70 section is not NPOV. A post-70 dating does not require a disbelief in the possibility of future prophecy. What drives the post-70 dating is the idea that written documents should make sense to their intended audience (reflected in the parenthetical phrase, "Let the reader understand," in Mark 13:14). In other words, it's not whether Jesus could have predicted the Temple's demise, but whether the readers of the gospel would have understood the prediction. Here are two posts from New Testamement scholar Mark Goodacre's blog explaining the difference. I've tried to reword the paragraph to give a more accurate reflection of the post-70 view. Aardvark92 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ched Myers
I cut the following:
 * An alternative theory, championed by Christian activist, philosopher and author Ched Myers in Binding the Strong Man, is that Mark was writing for a primarily agrarian, economically-distressed northern Palestinian audience rather than to an urban Hellenistic one. Myers interprets the Hellenistic language and usage present in Mark's writing as indicative of the progress of the Roman colonial project, given that administrative and economic terminology account for most of the Hellenistic idiom .  Further, he criticises the argument for a Hellenistic Mark which centres on the explanations of Jewish practices, that Mark's explanations are not as systemic as they would need to be for an urban Hellenistic reader.  Myers attributes the explanations of Jewish custom instead to Mark's address of an audience of mixed Jewish-Gentile audience, not all of whom (even economically-distressed rural Jews) would have been familiar with certain specific Pharisaic customs such as κορβαν.

Who is Ched Myers, why does his opinion matter, is this view notable? Maybe we could reduce this down to a sentence or two max? Or maybe it isn't even needed at all? Anyway, it concerns me as is, so I have moved it here for discussion, what do others think?-Andrew c [talk] 03:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The book is available on Amazon. Based on the reviews, it appears to be a religious manifesto that draws scriptural support from Mark to advocate Liberation Theology.  The purpose is theological exegesis rather than a historical-critical analysis of Mark.  I would leave it out. Ovadyah (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to back up Crossan's view that Jesus' message is fully understood only in the context of Roman colonization of Jewish homeland. But I'd leave it out as not notable. Leadwind (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Literary allusion
Whoever added this section, kindly supply references where requested. Don't expect other editors to do all the work for you. Thank you. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I placed a tag on this section requesting the missing citations. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the editor that created this section, Malachi151, to provide the missing citations. This has been an issue since the section was created in January 2008. If the request is not addressed in the next few weeks, I propose that the section be copied over to the talk page and deleted from the article. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I copied the section on "Extensive use of literary allusion" to the talk page to allow more time for comments and one more chance to supply the requested citations before the section is removed from the article. In all fairness to the contributing editor, it seems that a critical editor went citation happy by literally requesting a citation for every sentence (axe to grind?), when it is probable that the whole section derives from the secondary sources that are already cited. Perhaps all that is needed are page numbers from these sources to answer the requests for citations. I don't have access to the sources, or I would supply them myself. Comments (and page numbers) are most welcome. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain my revert a bit more
I think it is quite odd to change a statement that scholars accept a date after 70 which is supported by 7 citations and change it out for a single citation that says a pre-62 date. So which one is it? What I would normally do in this situation is crack open one of 3 college level introductory texts and start seeing if they agree on their dates. From what I've read, the pre-62 view is in the minority, and we clearly already have sources to support the previous version. On top of that, the addition of James Moffat's 1911 work seem a bit odd. I can't say something that old would be necessarily representative of contemporary scholarship. We'd need a really good reason, IMO, to cite something so out of date... like perhaps a contemporary scholar claiming Moffat is still relevant. Also, a lot of undue weight was given to Robinson... who did have a notable work redating the NT. But he is arguing a new position, and it hasn't been accepted by most scholars. Thus, I think the changes that I reverted changed the scope of that section, inaccurately described the scholarly consensus, and thus gave undue weight to minority views. -Andrew c [talk] 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at my edit - I do agree with you that it could easily be read that I was presenting pre-62 as a majority position but it was by no means what I meant. My statement was that first century authorship is where the majority stand. --Ari89 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thinking about this... I think the post-135 view is almost fringe, and perhaps we give it too much weight as is. I'm glad Leadwind cut down that section. I'll review it myself and see if it needs more pruning. Feel free to jump right in and edit as well. I don't mean to discourage you by my one revert.-Andrew c [talk] 15:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-135 (After the Bar Kokhba Revolt)
Perhaps this section is overweighted. However, Leadwind should not have deleted the sourced content without discussion, and a 1972 reference is hardly "dated". This smacks of POV editing where an editor just "knows" what is right. Please use less gnosis and more well-sourced content. --Ovadyah (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the subheading for this section. It is idiosyncratic to leave it in after the other two (Pre-70 and Post-70) subheadings were removed. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored the reference to the 1972 journal article supporting this view. A brief summary is fine, but it was POV censorship to remove the source. --Ovadyah (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

John is the first Gospel?
The Gospel of Mark (Gk. Κατὰ Μᾶρκον) is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and was probably the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written. Wouldn't it be just as correct and a bit simpler if it said- The Gospel of Mark (Gk. Κατὰ Μᾶρκον) is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and was probably the first of the gospels to be written. Nitpyck (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reworked the first sentence so that it's clearer. Not only first synoptic but fir gospel in general. Leadwind (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you - Ive just started in Wiki-World and am bit frightened to mess with the articles. - I mean edit not mess with Nitpyck (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

missing footnotes? hardly
This article is replete with footnotes, so I'm removing the label saying it's missing citations. If a few scattered individual statements require sourcing, these could be marked individually, or if there are broader issues of verification, some discussion would be helpful. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the article tag with a section tag for the section missing most of the requested citations. Rather than just dropping by to remove the tag, and claiming that is your contribution, please work on improving the article by supplying some of the missing citations. --Ovadyah (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citation in section on Mark's language?
The section which states "The phrase "and immediately" occurs nearly forty times in Mark; while in Luke, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.[61] The word Greek: νομος law ([7]) is never used, while it appears 8 times in Matthew, 9 times in Luke, 15 times in John, 19 times in Acts, many times in Romans" cites Easton's Bible Dictionary and gives a link, but nowhere on that page could I find a reference to the number of times the word "immediately" is used in Mark, or the other gospels mentioned for that matter. Additionally, I'm not sure those numbers are correct, which is why I was checking the reference in the first place. For example, I counted 10 uses in Luke of the Greek words euthys or eutheos which are translated "immediately" depending on which English translation one is using. If this section is going to mention word usage, it should really reference the original language anyway. --Aubee91 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Audience
Specifically on genre, there is a large quote from Dennis MacDonald on his fringe hypothesis on the Gospels, whereas the standard approach by guys like Graham Stanton and Richard A Burridge is totally ignored.--Ari (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret Mark
I'm usually reluctant to apply these disputed tags, but this latest addition to the Secret Mark section is just POV baloney. Several authors have alleged that Morton Smith's homosexuality was a motive for fabricating Secret Mark. That is quite different from stating that Morton Smith himself claimed that an authentic Secret Mark portrays a homosexual Jesus. Prove it with a verifiable source including page numbers and a quotation from Morton Smith supporting your assertion here on the talk page. --Ovadyah (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this section for a lack of reliable sources. Proper Wikiquette is to wait about a week after requesting sources, and I waited two weeks. The disputed content can come back if reliable sources are included. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Late date for Mark (again)
I copied the disputed section to the talk page. I have no problem removing content for the right reasons, ie. if content is not supported by reliable secondary sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. When there are conflicting viewpoints, articles are usually improved by including them to make the article more NPOV. In any case, there are procedures to deal with content disputes. Please follow them. --Ovadyah (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the misinformation of your edit summary, it was not an appeal to scripture. It was an appeal to the fact that we have citations and allusions of Mark (along with Matt and Luke which rely on Mark) in Patristic works as well as even a discussion on its composition by Papias before and contemporary to when Deterrinng postulates composition (Llewelyn (1994) New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Vol. 7). 261.) And for this (among many other reasons) his view which seems to only be voiced on his website is rejected by contemporary scholarship. --Ari (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ari, I don't have a dog in this fight other than what I stated from the beginning - to get this article ready for peer review. I mistakenly referred to your edit summary as an appeal to scripture because it was cut short and I couldn't understand the entire context.  Now that I see your argument in full, allow me to clarify my response.  What the Gospels and the Church Fathers have to say doesn't directly matter from a Wiki perspective.  They are primary sources which can be used as inline quotations if they are cited by reliable secondary sources.  Your argument that Detering is rejected by contemporary scholarship is a sweeping generalization and POV.  I see three reliable sources cited in the disputed section that can't just be waved away with generalizations.  It would be far better for the article to say they represent a minority view.  I also noticed in previous Talk Page discussions that you appear to be pushing a POV for a very early date for Mark.  Following your logic, maybe we should also delete that section as being fringe POV.  My preference, however, is to avoid forcing conformity on the article.  I believe the article is improved by including both minority views with the proper weighting of content and citations of verifiable sources. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * POV Pushing????
 * The reason I brought up the patristic citations is because scholars use it to determine the terminus ante quem, and this is raised in most works dealing with the dating of Mark. The reason why we won't have explicit statements on Deterring who attempts to place the Terminus post quem after the accepted (and evidenced) ante quem is because no one knows who he is, or that this argument is being made despite the solid primary evidence.
 * Regarding the claim about reliable sources - they are not relevant and they do not backup the dating. The reference to the Ten Martyrs and related citation has nothing to do with the Gospel of Mark, even the provided quote in the citation is on the Ten Martyrs and their presentation in the redacted Talmudic tradition. Similarly, with Herr - he doesn't argue for a later date for Mark, and such dating of Mark is outside the scope of his article. It seems to be nothing other than original research by an editor, slapping on irrelevent citations by people who do not in fact make the argument.
 * Finally, to put your false rumours behind (you have a habit of this it seems), I push no minority view point regarding the date of Mark. I am within the consensus of 65-70 so don't try and personalise what you have no clue about.--Ari (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this incivility is out of hand. The easiest way to resolve a content dispute is community consensus.  There are many regular contributors to this article, and I think they should weigh in with an opinion.  Meanwhile, I will put a Disputed Neutral Point of View tag on this section.  Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

After re-evaluating the sources, I am now in favor of deleting this sub-section. Despite my wish to maintain NPOV for the article, it seems to be based on unreliable sources or misattributions to reliable sources that don't say what is claimed. I have posted a notice on the talk page of the contributing editor to back up this content with better sources. If we don't see any progress after a week, I think it should go. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am engaged in a short-term project to remove citations to Wikipedia mirrors and forks that don't count as reliable sources (e.g. Indopedia), and my edit of last night has no connection to this dispute, but I agree that the Detering material is only weakly sourced - and if strongly sourced, is still only one person's opinion, without evidence of that opinion's importance. Unless that material is greatly improved, it should go. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, it has been two weeks and no one has provided more reliable sources for this disputed sub-section. I will take the initiative and resolve the content dispute by removing it.  The material can come back if and when it is supported by reliable sources. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Secret Mark (redux)
You took issue with the following ref Early Christian Writings. Please explain. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. When Peter wrote much of this web content, I think he was still a college student.  While I greatly respect his opinion, his musings on whether something is authentic or not are no more a reliable source than lifting comments from someone's blog.  If he quotes verbatim from a published source that is a different matter, but then it is better to just cite directly from that secondary source.  My larger issue with this section is that it gives the impression that the controversy is all but settled.  That is patently untrue.  Smith had the superior skills, depth of knowledge, opportunity, and motive to perpetrate the hoax.  We will never know for sure barring the appearance of the original manuscript or some unknown evidence that resolves the issue.  See an excellent summary of a recent panel discussion on this topic here.  Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time. The issue is not settled and I agree that the wording should reflect this fact. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See the latest update on Secret Mark with many published references, including two new ones, for and against authenticity here. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoptionism
The article gives the impression that Bart Erhman advocates that the Gospel of Mark has an Adoptionist christology. This is not accurate. In "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Ehrman argues that the Gospel of Mark was favored by some Gnostic groups because it could be used as a proof text for a "Separationist" christology. In Separationist christologies, the human Jesus is distinct from the divine Christ, which entered into him at his baptism. A Separationist christology always requires an aspect of divinity, whereas Adoptionism does not. It is also not accurate to state that the Gospel of the Hebrews had an Adoptionist christology. We know based on quotations by the Church Fathers that the GH depicted God as Jesus' father and the Holy Spirit as his real mother, so that Jesus only seemed (docetic) to be human. Interestingly, while adoptionism was condemned as a heresy by the end of the 2nd century, the GH continued to be regarded as a disputed (but not heretical) text even up to the time of Eusebius in the early 4th century. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in miracles, parables, etc.
Help will be appreciated from those who are well versed in Gospel episodes. Please see:


 * Talk:Miracles_of_Jesus
 * Talk:Parables_of_Jesus
 * List_of_key_episodes_in_the_Canonical_Gospels

The 3rd item includes a list of key episodes in the 4 Canonical Gospels. Suggestions about possible errors or omissions will be appreciated. Please leave messages on one of those 3 talk pages, and not here, in order to focus the discussion. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Gospel according to Mark
As the start of this article rightly says this is The Gospel according to Mark. Gospel comes from Godspell which is the English translation of the word ευαγγελιου. ευαγγελιου means good news, and the English translated this into Gospel since there is only the one good news of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ's news is from God. Alan347 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark 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 Mark 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) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've explained elsewhere, you are using a pair of fringe sources but pushing the idea that they're mainstream. I do not agree with this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fight this one anymore.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's WP policy to report the academic consensus, and the academic consensus is that Mark didn't write Mark. Leadwind  (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed elsewhere, there is no "consensus", especially on Mark. Claiming one in the article is misleading and goes against a great number of sources.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus or not, there's certainly a great deal of doubt about the veracity of the traditional claim of authorship, so let's use that word. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I modified it again. I agree there is much doubt among different scholars but there are also many mainstream scholars who accept the account. The version before only mentioned the doubting scholars, so I added that this is not the only prominent view.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If Mark is seriously considered as the author, then we should be able to find mainstream, nonsectarian sources for that claim. Relying on non-mainstream, sectarian sources is bad form. I've gone back to my books and indeed some of them acknowledge that some scholars (notably Martin Hengel) consider Mark's authorship to be essentially credible. It's all complicated by the detail that there's no historical evidence that Peter ever went to Rome for Mark to record his preaching there. Leadwind (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you deleted the sources I used. I didn't restore them, but tried to add some balance. The issue is debated, and not just "sectarian" scholars accept the traditional view. The version before implied that most scholars doubt the traditional view, although my sources dispute this claim directly (not just their view but what they say the view of "most" scholars is). Show me where in your sources it says that most doubt the traditional view.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The EBO says that the author is probably unknown. Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty solidly in the mainstream. Theissen & Merz say that the heterogeneous material that Mark uses (a written passion narrative, a collection of miracle stories, apocalyptic traditions, and disputations & didactics) tells against the idea that the gospel comes from one person's preaching. T&M survey all the early Christian sources about Jesus and review the scholarship associated with each one. They mention Hengel as an exception. You'll note that I cited T&M to support the traditional view (citing Hengel) even though T&M conclude that the gospel was compiled from disparate sources. I was trying to strike a balance instead of using each of my sources just to support my own POV. As for the sources I deleted, they were all sectarian sources. We could use them, but only to represent an admittedly sectarian viewpoint. We could say, "In Christian scholarship...." That's what IVP and Baker Academic represent, sectarian Christian scholarship. Now that I've cited a mainstream source to say that the author is probably unknown, can you cite a nonsectarian source that says there's an active debate on the issue? I haven't found any such reference in Harris, Theissen, EBO, ODCC, or my Oxford Annotated Bible. Leadwind  (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you elected to change what the EBO says. The EBO doesn't say "some scholars doubt Mark was the author," which is what you say it says. The EBO says the author is probably unknown. The whole point of citing sources is so that we say what they say, not so that we say what we wish they said. Leadwind  (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The EBO says who thinks the author is unknown? And what does that mean? Does it mean that the author was probably not Mark (many scholars would dispute this claim) or that we can't know for sure (many scholars would accept this claim). There is a difference between 'the author is probably not Mark' and 'we can't be sure who the author is'. In any case, Wikipedia policy prefers the direct work of scholars to encyclopedia articles.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That's exactly the case here. We have any number of contradictory individual scholars opining on the topic, so a tertiary source is a good place to look for an overview of the general state of affairs. As for the author being probably unknown, if you think that the author can be probably unknown and probably Mark at the same time, you parse English grammar differently from how I do it. Leadwind  (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
When an editor cits a reference he gives the date of the edition he is using. Please don't change that as it will cause problems. What is appropriate is to add (First published 1881) That will deal with the issue you have raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

original research and primary sources
I deleted all this hard work that someone put into the lead. The problem with it is that it's original research that relies on the gospel itself as a primary source. It might seem natural to cite the gospel itself, but the problem is that we editors aren't supposed to be the ones who decide what's important about the gospel. Experts do that, and we cite them. If we editors want to say something about how Mark refers the Jesus, then we should find out what the experts say and cite them. In this particular case, Mark refers to Jesus as the "son of Mary." Why isn't that included in this list? Because an editor has decided which parts of Mark are important to summarize and which aren't. That's not our job. Cite reliable sources, not scripture.

It calls him the Son of Man, the Son of God, and the Messiah or Christ.

Leadwind (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All scholars can do is offer an opinion. They can't "know" that Mark was wrong here or there. I don't object per se to the changes you made, although I think they probably should not have been removed because wikipedia policy prefers primary sources to secondary sources. Just look, for example, at the sources listed for Julius Caesar. Many of the sources cited are primary sources written by near-contemporaries of his, like Plutarch. Maybe I am wrong, but I am guessing you view the gospel writers to be unreliable because you think the supernatural events they record didn't happen and thus they wrote fake-history. One of the axoims of historical scholarship is to presume that ancient sources are reliable unless they can be proven to be unreliable, or a qualification is explicitly necessary. All sources, ancient and modern, are biased. We still, however, use (and prefer) those primary sources although qualify them where necessary with modern scholarly views. Especially on an article like this, which discusses the primary source itself.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "wikipedia policy prefers primary sources to secondary sources." Really? That's what lots of pro-Bible editors want to believe, but if it's true, it's news to me. Please cite a WP guideline or policy to back you up. Last time I looked, WP:RS said "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources... Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Where's your evidence that WP prefers primary sources? Leadwind  (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. But EBO is an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source, and secondary sources (like the ones I had which you removed) are prefered to tertiary sources. (see No_original_research). This policy also discusses the validity of primary sources, which are not to be dismissed.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, tertiary sources are precisely what we need to settle issues such as scholarly consensus. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I know that minority-view editors hate tertiary sources, but that's because tertiary sources support the majority view. For topics like these, with large numbers of individual scholars opining on them, tertiary sources tell us what the majority view is. Otherwise we'd have to figure out what the majority view is by totting up individual scholars, and that's not our job. We're not the experts. It's not our opinions that count. Tertiary sources are the bane of minority-view editors because they can't counter with tertiary sources of their own. But that's the value of a tertiary source, to show which view is in the majority. Leadwind  (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

critical view
I've stated in the lead and in the authorship section a concise summary of the contemporary, non-Mark-author view. I primarily used a university-level textbook from 1998 by a leader in the historical Jesus field. He reviews the scholarship on every ancient source about Jesus, including all four canonical gospels. Good, scholarly information was stripped out of this page and others in defense of a minority view, and it's time to put that information back in. The majority shouldn't keep the minority from including their opinions (given due weight), and neither should the minority keep the majority from stating the majority view. This goes for all the gospel articles that recent editors have undermined with their campaign against the majority view of current scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)