Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 4

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)
 * Leadwind continues his march towards edit warring. Another editor restored the edit I made (which Leadwind had reverted) and Leadwind reverted this here. Also note the comment of that editor whom Leadwind reverted "I don't think any of these edits are actually legit, but I'm willing to continue to be patient." It is obvious that Leadwind has a view on what "truth" is and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of views that don't agree with his version of "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of hostility, but not much accuracy. Leadwind simply has the consensus behind them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus=Leadwind+Dylan.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that Leadwind and I edit in favor of the consensus. We would like you to join us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing
I have noticed that here and elsewhere, some editors are pushing a POV. Leadwind above is a good example. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined as "mainstream" by editors like Leadwind, but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, the article is badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of what RH is citing isn't exactly fringe, it's just a sectarian minority view and should be treated as such. Leadwind  (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar doesn't make you look a lot more convincing. There's a serious WP:WEIGHT issue with this article, and it seems you're on opposite ends of the see-saw without being particularly interested in the middle ground where the academic consensus lies.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, yet again, risking an edit war
Leadwind has made a lot of recent edits which have pushed a major POV into this article. He has done this on Gospel of Luke, and there is a discussion under way on this. This article shouldn't be skewed by him until we resolve the issue in Gospel of Luke.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to RS's, shall we? It's policy. Leadwind  (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know, what else do you want to delete and what other liberal views do you want to insert?RomanHistorian (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been closely following the developments on this article, but I think this latest dust-up could benefit from the perspective of a mediator. We have a mediation in progress on the Ebionites article over similar issues here.  It's almost the same argument, whether it's better to present a "mainstream" view via tertiary sources or take a comparison and contrast approach using reliable secondary sources to present diverse views. Ovadyah (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to remember that if you add content to an article, the burden is on you to back it up with reliable sources, including detailed references with page numbers and, if called upon, quotations on the talk page. Primary sources are not considered reliable sources.  They have no "weight" whatsoever.  They may be used as inline quotations, but only to the extent that they are quoted by reliable secondary or tertiary sources.  Hope this helps.  Ovadyah (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Link on Content 'Good News' needs changing
The Link on Content 'Good News' goes to 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel', which really does not discuss the passage from Mark 1:14–15. I could not find a related page, and in trying to edit by clicking the 'edit' link next to the Content section, it took me to a different section, so that link is incorrect as well. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to make those changes. Vic smyth (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight POV issue in the lead
"However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels[1] (c 70),[2]  a position known as Markan priority." which is mostly accurate; but then, a few paragraphs later, "The Gospel of Mark is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus" -- the idea that Mark is the original has moved from something held by 'most contemporary scholars' to a simple fact, Mark is *the* primary source. (Even the normal form of Markan priority doesn't really allow for the flat statement that Mark is THE primary source, as most such theories suggest that the other Gospels have independent traditions, e.g. the hypothetical Q document.) 165.91.166.236 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SM
A report from the latest Symposium on the endless controversy known as Secret Mark can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of the "empty tomb" verse.
A previous version of this article claimed that the older manuscripts of Mark ended at 16:8 with a description of the empty tomb "without further explanation."

This is misleading. Even in the seemingly truncated oldest versions of Mark, there are the verses 16:5-7, which feature the figure in white who explains that Jesus is risen and will appear again in Galilee. Thus, the empty tomb is explained even in those oldest versions, albeit briefly. I have edited the article to make the characterization more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.96.83 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Composition and Setting
The article currently reads:
 * The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship,[13] and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

The citation number 13 asserts that the author uses multiple sources. It does not say that it follows that John Mark could not possibly be the author. I think it would be better to change it to:


 * The author's use of varied sources[13] tells against[citation needed] the traditional account of authorship, and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

what do you think? 201.253.132.107 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote in the citation explicitly says that heterogeneous source material "tells against" the account of authorship, so what's the problem? Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gospels vocabulary and distinct words
''The gospel's vocabulary embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty words, (exclusive of proper names), are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. About one quarter of these are non-classical.'' Which version of the gospel is taken as example? --  Bojan   Talk   01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark and zodiac
According to Bill Darlison (The Gospel and the Zodiac), the Gospel of Mark is refering to the zodiac signs and represents the spiritual evolution of a human being. In the first three chapters, Jesus is baptized and begins his ministry as Aries, the spring sign, begins the year. Jesus takes on the Pharisees with vigor and courage and John the Baptist is enthusiast (all Aries qualities).

In chapter 4, the parable of the sower stress two Taurus qualities: steadfastness and stability.

In chapter 5, the cure of the demoniac man is a reference to split personalities and to Gemini. There is also two miracles in one story (Jaïros daughter). In chapter 6, Jesus is sending the apostle two by two and the hesitation of Herod to kill John is also a reference to Gemini.

In chapter 7, Jesus is making a tortuous journey, it shows a crab-like movement, a reference to the cancer and the passage of the summer solstice.

The chapter 9 shows the transfiguration and the glory of Jesus, a reference to Leo.

The Virgo sign is symbolic of harvest and rebirth and in chapter 10 Jesus say: « anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter. »

In chapter 10, Jesus speaks of two themes related to Libra: divorce and wealth. In chapter 11, the fig tree is a tree which gives fruits in September and October.

In chapter 12, the parables of the wicked husbandmen and the resurrection of the dead are a reference to Scorpio (mentioned in Luc 11:12).

In chapter 11, Jesus enters Jerusalem on a colt, a reference to Sagittarius.

In chapter 13, there is the winter, it’s a reference to Capricorn and the winter solstice.

In 14:13, Mark wrote: « a man carrying a jar of water », a reference to Aquarius.

The last chapters are a reference to Pisces, in 24:42-43, Luke wrote that Jesus ate a fish.86.198.14.15 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph in lede, terrible writing, what is this stuff about Paul? Very very poor article
Third para in lede currently reads:

"According to tradition and some early church writers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.[4] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[5] Of course, the autograph does not base its content on Paul's preaching alone [6] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the breadth of its basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.[7]"

"  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching." "sources..., form...theology..and which tells" is ungrammatical. I can't tell if it means to say the fact that the gospel appears to rely on several underlying sources tells against the tradition or that the sources, form and theology tell against the tradition.

"Of course, the autograph does not base its content on Paul's preaching alone" What? How does Paul suddenly make an appearance here? Is this a typo and "Peter" is meant? That is what I thought at first but then the next sentence starts talking about Paul again, so I am not sure. It shouldn't just introduce "Paul" into the discussion anyway without even saying who Paul is, it cannot be assumed that every reader of wikipedia is going to know already. Also I don't think it should say "autograph" as there is no autograph in existence and no one knows what it might have said, better to say "text".

"but on a compilation of eye witness accounts, known apostolic preachings, and pre-existing written records that do not exist today verifiable from 2nd century commentators and an understanding of 1st century Greco-Roman culture regarding oral tradition. Badly written and confusing but you can just about make out what it is trying to say, however there are some statements there that are too dogmatic in my opinion - Gospel of Mark may include some eye witness accounts although that cannot be proven. I don't think "pre-existing written accounts that do not exist today" are verifiable, that is too strong a word. "Confirmed" might be better. No one is going to come to a better "understanding of 1st century Greco-Roman culture regarding oral tradition" by reading this article, that's for sure, since this is the only appearance of "1st century Greco-Roman culture" in the article. I thought the lede was supposed to summarise the contents of the rest of the article, that certainly does not.

"Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the breadth of its basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul." This comes close to being gobbledegook. "Breadth of its basic theology" is pretty meaningless without further explication. Then we are confronted with the mention of the still unexplained person, "Paul",but in the form of "pre-Pauline beliefs". Does that mean beliefs that are the same as Paul's only the author of Mark got there first, or beliefs that come before Paul and are therefore different from Paul's beliefs? What are these beliefs that were developed further "independent of Paul"? The only mention in the article of any "Pauline beliefs" is "Joel Marcus notes that the other Evangelists "attenuate" Mark's emphasis on Jesus' suffering and death, and sees Mark as more strongly influenced than they are by Paul's "theology of the cross"  in the "Meaning of Jesus' death" section.

That paragraph is very badly written, quite atrocious in fact. I would try to fix it but I honestly cannot make out what it is trying to say.Smeat75 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter / Paul confusion in this article
In the "Composition and Setting" section, we read "The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[8] on whose memories it is supposedly based." OK. So far, so good. Two sentences later, in the "Authorship and sources" section, we are confronted with "According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Paul in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it." So this "John Mark" was the "companion of Peter" and "the companion of Paul in Rome"? No explanation of how or why he was such an in demand companion to leading early apostles. And the full quote from Papias is ""Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order." Peter, not Paul, as the article would lead one to think. Was "John Mark" a "companion of Saint Paul in Rome?" That's the first I've heard of it. I think whoever wrote this is confused between Peter and Paul, and whoever reads it is likely to become confused also. Gospel of Mark is a very important part of the New Testament, it deserves a better article than this one.Smeat75 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our Mark the Evangelist and John Mark articles covers this to some degree. The basic idea is that there are two names by which one person may have been known (alternatively, they could have been two different people). In the case of Mark the Evangelist, the preponderance of the writings on him identify him as having been a personal friend of Peter, but then accompanying Paul to Collosae and, later, to Rome. I have tidied up the lead and fixed what was definitely a confusion of Peter and Paul. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the lead is a little less confusing now, thanks for replacing "Paul" with Peter there, however there are still quite a few problems in my opinion, the lead should not suddenly introduce the idea of "pre-Pauline beliefs" which were developed "independent of Paul" without any explanation of who Paul was or what those "pre-Pauline" beliefs were. It is quite possible that people from other cultures or religions may be trying to learn about Christianity by reading encyclopaedia articles and have no previous knowledge of such matters.
 * That quote from Papias is definitely referring to Peter, not Paul, though. I think it is very wrong to make it look like "Mark" didn't want to leave out anything he had heard from Paul. I won't try to change it right now but wait to see if there are any other comments, but I am going to tweak some of the other matters I mentioned in my first post. Smeat75 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So I have looked up "John Mark" in the Bible and Mark the Evangelist and John Mark here. It is not well established at all that John Mark was "the companion of Saint Paul in Rome", this notion appears to be based around 2 Timothy 4:11 which just says "Take Mark and bring him with thee", and may refer to a completely different person.The article should not just state flatly without any citation or source that John Mark was the companion of Saint Paul in Rome. In any case, that quote from Papias is not referring to Paul at all, but to Peter. Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, the cite given in the article, says "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."[] This becomes in the article "According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Paul in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it." It is making the assumption that "John Mark" is the same person as the "Mark" referred to in the Papias quote, not a certainty at all, it is stating that John Mark was the companion of Paul in Rome, highly dubious, and making it appear that "John Mark" didn't want to leave out anything he had heard from Paul, not what the quote says at all.The source is being used to support a statement which is not in the source. This is very very wrong. I am changing it.Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead of article
According to WP:LEAD,"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This article's lead does not follow those guidelines. The lead should refer to the accepted theory that Mark was used as a source of both Matthew and Luke and briefly discuss the very "prominent controversy" surrounding the end of the Gospel. It should not refer to "an understanding of 1st century Greco-Roman culture regarding oral tradition" or " pre-Pauline beliefs" because those concepts are not covered in the remainder of the article. The guidelines also state "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style" which the last paragraph is not. Once again I will leave this for a day or so to see if anyone comments before I try to change anything.Smeat75 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As no one has responded I have re-written the lead as outlined above, adding the information that Mark is widely believed to be a source for both Luke and Matthew, that the original ending seems to come to an abrupt halt before the resurrection appearances, and removing from the third paragraph all concepts that are not discussed in the main body of the article, per WP:LEAD. This includes "an understanding of 1st century Greco-Roman culture regarding oral tradition","the authority of Peter", "the breadth of its ( the gospel of Mark's) basic theology" and "pre-Pauline beliefs". If anyone wants those ideas mentioned in the lead, they need to be discussed in the body of the article, which they are not.Smeat75 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Son of St. Peter
It is said in 1 Peter 5:13 that Mark is his son. Does that qualify for an edit where it presently states, "Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter" ? Twillisjr (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, on both counts. Most of the commentaries either maintain that it was not the same Mark or that Son was meant as a term of endearment rather than relation (comp. with 1 Timothy 1:2).  The Pulpit commentary, Gill's exposition, and the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary support this.  Even without this, it is original research to say that that Mark is indeed the Disciple Mark (and questionable research, as that raises some issues of chronology, either Peter was especially old by Paul's time or the Disciple Mark was a noteworthily young disciple whose childhood was left unmentioned for some reason). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am deleting the section "Homeric tradition hypothesis" as it is not cited to a reliable source
The only source given for the section "Homeric tradition hypothesis" is [], which is from a non-academic website run by blogger Richard Carrier. Neither the website "Secular Web" nor Richard Carrier, who as the WP article about him says "is an American blogger" are reliable sources, please look at WP:USERG and you will see "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated". WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which the source cited is not. If there were an academic review of "Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" that could be quoted in the article somewhere, but a review on a self-published blog by a non-academic writer is not WP:RS. Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have preserved the deleted paragraph on the published work of Dennis MacDonald for discussion here, and added a link to two SBL reviews of the book which are available here. Also relevant are the publications of Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr. (e.g., see Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem) and F. Gerald Downing on ancient compositional methods and their application to the synoptic gospels.  All of these authors are important contributors to the field of Narrative criticism. Imo, this material could have been retained and improved, per WP:PRESERVE. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Apostles

 * The Greek names of the Apostles in the Gospel of Mark should obviously be included in the article "Gospel of Mark". If you also think it should be in the article "Apostle (Christian)", then knock yourself out and copy it over there. If you are somehow troubled that the same content can be in two articles at the same time, then just think of it as Wikipedia miracle. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) and copyedit 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think if anything a link is all that's appropriate. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you believe any content from the work entitled "Gospel of Mark" is appropriate for this article? If so, then why?
 * 2) Do you believe any content from the work entitled "Gospel of Mark" section 3:13-19 is appropriate for this article? If not, then why?
 * 74.136.159.171 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proponents/Opponents of Jesus and other notable characters
In Mark, the Jewish leaders, and not the Jewish people, are the opponents of Jesus.


 * A list of Proponents/Opponents of Jesus and other notable characters from the Gospel of Mark should obviously be included in the article "Gospel of Mark". 74.136.159.171 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious at all - why? PiCo (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
 * Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
 * The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
 * Ipso facto ~obvious~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
 * - Yes.
 * Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
 * - No, merely being found in a reliable source doesn't make it notable.
 * The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
 * - No, this isn't common practice at all.
 * Can you give us any solid arguments for including it? PiCo (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your objections are specious.
 * Per point.2, I cited a specific book that supports a given conclusion, yet you do not object to that conclusion, but rather make a specious objection.
 * Per point.3, Your objection is specious.
 * adhuc stat ~obvious~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not objecting to anything, I'm asking you for arguments for including a "list of characters" in the article. I agreed that the books you cited are reliable sources. I didn't agree that being fond in a reliable source makes material notable. I pointed out that articles on the other books of the bible don't have these lists. I'm asking you for reasons why you feel the list should be included. PiCo (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have given reason why the proposed content should be included, namely that the proposed additional content is obviously suitable for inclusion in the article, with proof given and still standing. Whereas you have offered only Spurious Reasoning. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't given any reasons at all. You've simply stated that the list is "obviously suitable", full stop. That and accusing me of "spurious reasoning", but without saying why. One more time, why do you think the article needs a list of characters? PiCo (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasoning of why the proposed content should be included in the article is derived from the following 3 points;
 * The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
 * Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
 * The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
 * Ipso facto ~The proposed content should be included~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're just repeating yourself. I've already said: (a) I agree that the characters in the gospel of Mark is germane to the gospel of Mark; (b) merely appearing in a reliable source doesn't make for notability; and (c) no other article on any book of the bible has such a list. What I'm asking for are arguments. PiCo (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A new proof means all before is moot.

So lets take this one step by step.

I will try to guess you response for points 1 & 2.

The reasoning of why the proposed content should be included in the article is derived from the following 3 points; Ipso facto ~The proposed content should be included~
 * 1) The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
 * 2) Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
 * 3) The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
 * Per point.1, Do you concur, object, or concede. If you object, then why ?
 * Your response: I concur.


 * Per point.2, Do you concur, object, or concede. If you object, then why ?
 * Your response: I object, "merely appearing in a reliable source doesn't make for notability."


 * Per point.3,
 * Your response: I defer until previous point is resolved to avoid "spurious reasoning".


 * my response: Per point.2, Your objection is specious, I cited a specific book that supports a given conclusion, yet you do not object to that conclusion, but rather make a specious objection. adhuc stat ~the proposed content should be included~

OK, now your on your own, you have to make a new objection to my point.2 that is not guilty of "spurious reasoning", or else declare my argument illegitimate and let the jury of public opinion decide or you could say I concur or I concede point.2 and move on to the next point. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Page 195 of Malbon's book isn't a list of the characters in Mark, it's a brief discussion of the Jewish opposition to Jesus. Why do you think our article needs a list of characters? PiCo (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I never said the content of Malbon's book was presented in a list. Your objection is specious. adhuc stat ~the proposed content should be included~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So tell us why you think the article needs a list of characters - no other article on Biblical books has one.PiCo (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the topic at hand, point.2, Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
 * Your response is off-topic, therefore I decline to respond. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) & spelling 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Therefore you'd better start an RfC. PiCo (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed list, seems not only to be pointless, but to be advocating a proponents/opponents logic, that seems simplistic and uninformative. Articles are written in sentences and paragraphs, not everythin is suited to a list or a chart. Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rfc - Include Greek names of the twelve Apostles
Should a list of the Greek names of the twelve Apostles from the work, "Gospel of Mark" section 3:13-19 be included in this article ? 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not relevant. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this should never have gone to an RFC since it didn't even have a prior discussion or dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No - way overweight for this article, belongs on article ApostlesPiCo (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No It doesn't belong here and it probably doesn't belong anywhere in Greek. But that is a separate discussion. --Adam in MO Talk 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No Not relevant to this article. Jschnur (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No summoned by bot Why? What would it add? Each individual name legitimately belongs on individual pages, but what would be added to this article. It seems list-for-lists-sake. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No This is a clear-cut case of "belongs in the main article". Do the relevant MOS guidelines not specifically address this? With Japan-related articles we don't give the Japanese names as long as the subjects have their own articles. And why would we give the Greek names of specifically the apostles in this article? Why no other figures? In this case I would say that maybe the Greek names should also be included the list as well as their own individual articles, but including them here is random and silly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed "most modern scholars" to "some modern scholars".
Under "composition", I changed "most modern scholars" to "some modern scholars", as the veracity of "most" is subjective at best. If a definitive study of modern scholarship proves a prevailing trend towards the rejection Mark the Evangelist's authorship, then my change should be reversed and an appropriate citation should be added.

Jscheel (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverted, you should read WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps I do not clearly understand WP:RS/AC, Tgeorgescu. The referenced work does nothing to prove its claim of academic consensus and therefore seems to be subjective. Because it is a published work, does referencing its claim fulfill the guidelines for stating academic consensus? Jscheel (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the work not claim that most modern scholars hold that view? We don't play turtles all the way down with sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the work claims consensus. However, it does nothing to prove that consensus. It seems odd that we would be willing to accept the statement of a source that does not thing to prove its veracity. Especially when the claim lends additional weight to one side of the debate regarding the authorship of the Gospel in question. Could I not publish any number of unverifiable claims of consensus to garner support for one hypothesis over another, in any field of study? I'm not willing to fall on my sword over this, but it does feel odd. Jscheel (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this or any other article says there is a consensus on this issue, only a majority - they are not the same thing at all. StAnselm (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were not only a professor of Biblical studies, but the editor to the Wiley's Blackwell Companion to Jesus, and your book was published by Cambridge University Press (as was all the case with the citation currently in question), then sure, because then it's highly unlikely that you're just making it up (as it would destroy your career). If you self-published the book, then no, we're not going to use it.  Please see WP:Identifying reliable sources for more information.
 * The citation isn't just from some guy who could've made something up, it's from someone who knows what they're talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can see that point. Thanks for working it out with me. Jscheel (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion on the side of at least presenting some more modern scholarship. The paper in question is NOT "high scholarship," it is a textbook published in 2002. Within the WP:RS/AC there are two sections that this publication fails to uphold: though a minor point, because it is a (1) textbook, it is a tertiary source. I am bringing some personal knowledge into the discussion here, but within NT Studies, textbooks are bottom of the barrel—little is cutting edge, most is a compilation, most people in the business of Bib Scholarship publish a book like this for money and it wouldn't be considered "scholarship" at all. Furthermore, arguments around gospel origins, genre, form criticism, and motifs have very short half-life. Therefore, a textbook (not original scholarship, surface deep compilation) written thirteen years ago (in a field with quick half-life) is not a good source. Second, (2) "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." If one does not perceive source gospel sources as an extraordinary claims than they have missed the discussion. Synoptic source discussion is one of the deepest and most fought over discussions within Biblical Criticism. With a pluthera of resources being poured into such a field, the time span a theory holds together is short. I am not asking for us to use unproven material for the sake of being cutting edge. But I suppose that a claim such as this requires the source to fulfill at least a few criteria: 1) Monograph or Article focused level research. A monograph or article that isn't arguing this as a thesis simply will not do. This is an import claim within the discipline and deserves "high scholarship" on a subject. 2) Modern, with time for reviews and interaction (especially if the source is a monograph). We should look for a modern and time proven monograph that has had a second wave of high-middle level of scholarship that has interacted with it positively. Positive reviews bolster the argument, but simply are not enough. Often reviews are written before release and do not include the entire monograph. 3) Reputable Publication. All articles within biblical scholarship should be published through SBL or be found within an Edited Volume by a Senior Scholar. All Monographs and Editorials should be published by established and reputable publishers with heavy peer review process. Examples include but are not limited to: Brill, T&T Clark, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Eerdmans, or Zondervan. Translated pieces ought to be judged by their original language's publishers, however, 90% of good scholarship published by good publishers in the 20th century in German is published by good publishers today. Exceptions exist but are easily deciphered and dealt with as they appear (EX:New Testament Theology-Rudolf Bultman-E.T. Baylor University Press)(This isn't modern scholarship so using this specific piece would require a more thorough investigation into those working on it).

My Suggestion: "but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim." to "though most modern scholars have not accepted Papias' claim since 1983 [cit:Antioch and Rome by Raymond E Brown; John P Meier], Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness has recently given Papias' theory modern credibility."

This edit provides a reputable anti-Papian view of Petrine origins to Mark, while showing the most modern consensus.

Applying My Criteria to My Source: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006). 1) The Monograph is focused upon the source of Mark, Papias' claims, and Petrine origins. Perhaps the chapters that focus in on the argument might be more appropriate, but it is passim therefore a full book citation is the most pragmatic approach. 2) The Monograph is at the prime of its existence. Two scholarly responses: (1) Park, Yoon-Man. Mark's Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1-3:6) An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. (Leiden: Brill, 2010). A positive response. Divulges into the ancient practice of eyewitness as sources for historians and provides suitable socio-historical backgrounds for the practice. (2) REDMAN, JUDITH C. S. ''How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research'' JBL. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27821012. Unfavorable response. Questions the accuracy of cognitive recall of an eyewitness. However, this paper does not hurt Papias' claim. It might make an eyewitness unreliable, but it doesn't seek to overthrow Papias. It would just argue Peter is unreliable. (I think the piece has some solid points to make but is overall a bit poor, but that is just me).

Reviews: Generally Positive- Marius Nel- http://www.jstor.org/stable/43049260 Mixed/Slightly Positive (probably the best review out there for questioning Bauckham's Name Usage Theories and Petrine Material Inclusio, still doesn't discredit Papias)- Dean Bechard- http://www.jstor.org/stable/42614886 Generally Positive (sometimes unclear)- Thomas A. Wayment http://www.jstor.org/stable/43044700

3)Published by Eerdmans

I will leave this discussion up for approx. a week to allow for people to discuss and leave feedback, then we can make the edit.

BTS.ACU.MCM (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted to the existing version. Burkett (source for the existing version) is a leading scholar, the book cannot be dismissed as a "textbook"; and Baukham's thesis has yet to win acceptance. Hence, in this case, Burkett is the reliable source we follow. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Composition and Date: inappropriate inclusion of a tiny minority viewpoint
Surely devoting the vast bulk of a very brief discussion of date to the tiny minority view of Crossley is inappropriate. This might just qualify for a footnote, but does not belong to the main text. On a related matter, 65-75 is a more appropriate date range when it comes to reflecting scholarly opinion. --Sineaste (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Mark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227161053/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Veracity of Burkett and a Moderate Alternative Opinion
I have merely quoted Burkett as he himself states it in the work cited i.e. not most "modern scholars," but, "most critical scholars...." Although I would note that Burkett himself makes no attempt to list who these critical scholars are which is sloppy at best. In light of this I have also provided, quite legitimately, a moderate alternative opinion from Drane (a respected biblical scholar with one of the best selling books on biblical scholarship). Drane's logic is sound, and I believe in the interests of honesty, accuracy and balance the edits should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynotrushed (talk • contribs)


 * I am more or less neutral regarding your edit (I'm fairly currently feeling apathetic to anything that isn't fried chicken), but I do have a few concerns:
 * Regarding your edit summary: Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them.  We're not going to have another Essjay controversy, no matter the topic or credentials.  Also, looking at the article history, it was not Loadmaster but 121.127.210.195 that reverted your addition.
 * As for "modern" vs "critical": While I'd normally be happy to see Burkett's quote in full restored, his use of "critical" is, in context, properly understood to refer to scholars who engage in textual criticism (rather than those who are simply dismissive). This difference might be missed by the casual reader.  Thus the summary of the position "modern" works as it is contrasting those who favor textual criticism over tradition.
 * As for John Drane: While he could well be worth including, I'm a bit concerned about the possibility that there's WP:UNDUE weight on his understanding. Burkett's position is in line with the other sources, while Drane's is, as implied in your writing, in contrast to scholarship that engages in textual criticism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What? You mean I worked like a dog for four years at a Russell Group University, one that has produced eight nobel prize winners, and that counts for nothing?? I wrote an 80,000 word thesis in the field of theology and religion and successfully defended it in a viva voce, and that gives my opinions no extra weight on an open source encyclopedia?? Oh...I feel depressed. Come, my fried-chicken-loving brother, let us try to reason together. Wikipedia ought not to be a byword for unreliability. What do the sources say?
 * · Firstly, Burkett has not even attempted to cite his assertion. Maybe he is right, but if there is any WP:UNDUE weight being given then it is being given to Burkett.
 * · Secondly, Drane is a textual critic. He has engaged in textual criticism. He is a best selling author on biblical scholarship. His books are set texts at some universities (such as the University of Nottingham and the University of York St John).
 * ·Thirdly, Drane is not being dismissive. I'm sure Drane would be quite willing to admit that the Markan source theory is wrong should the evidence prove overwhelming. He merely leaves room for doubt.
 * · Fourthly, the Markan source theory is traditional, but that alone is not evidence of it being incorrect. Lots of traditions are based on truth.
 * · Fifthly, sorry Loadmaster. --DrJUsher (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * DrJUsher, good afternoon. I think the problem is that you haven't made the crossover from academic writing to Wikipediaworld. In the academic world, scholars consider arguments, hence if you (and I mean you, but it might be me, or anyone) finds Drane convincing, that's enough. Not so i Wikiworld. Wiki is a popular encyclopedia, and it aims to inform John Public where the weight of scholarly opinion lies. Quite often we tell the reader why the bulk of scholars believe such-and-such, but it's not essential - the essential thing is to get that opinion down. In this case we have Burkett saying that most scholars believe something or other. Burkett is a big-name scholar, a "reliable source" in Wikispeak, and therefore he doesn't need to tell us why says this. To say it is enough. Drane is also a reliable source, but all he's saying is that he has an opinion which is at odds with what most scholars think. He might be right and they might be wrong, but Wikipedia doesn't care, because we're just here to inform readers what the bulk of scholars think. We have no idea how many scholars share Drane's view. We do have an idea that the majority have the view in Burkett's book. And so we use Burkett and don't mention Drane. PiCo (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (I suspect that the reason Drane's view is a minority one is that his arguments are so poor: "Many stories are told with such vivid details that it is natural to regard them as first-hand accounts..." He should read the Satyricon, it's also full of vivid details, as indeed are the Harry Potter books).PiCo (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delbert Burkett got his Ph.D. at Duke University. It's not even in the Ivy League. By contrast, John Drane got his Ph.D from a Russell Group university, and he is now a fellow in one of the best institutions in the country for theology and religion (Durham University). As I have already said, Drane's books are set texts in various universities. I think Jimmy Wales would have a minor stroke if he heard you contrasting the wikipedia world with the academic world as if the same rules do not apply. Unsubstantiated claims have no place in wikipedia. The bigger the claim, the more evidence is needed. Burkett simply does not have the authority to assert that most modern (or critical) scholars do not accept Papias' claim without significant substantiation. When I write that Drane's view is "in contrast," I don't mean to say that it is in contrast to most scholars only that it is in contrast to Burkett. Drane's view is by no means a minority view. You may not agree with Drane, but that doesn't give you the right to censor his view. If there is anything that is against the spirit of Wikipedia then it is censoring the legitimate views of internationally recognised scholars. DrJUsher (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encycopedia. That means that it's not a forum for ideas, it's a source of information. Burkett says (implies, actually) that Drane's view is indeed a minority view (he says that the view he outlines is the majority). For Wikipedia, Drane and Burkett are equal - both are reliable sources. Drane's view is therefore not in contrast to Burkett's but to that of most scholars - Burkett says this is the view of "most critical scholars", Drane makes no such claim. The claim that "most critical scholars" hold a certain view is therefore substantiated, in Wiki's terms, by the fact that Burkett says it is - he's our source. Drane is a source only for what Drane says, not for any claim that a certain value/quantity of scholars hold it. The fact that personally find Drane's arguments subjective and unconvincing is neither here nor there. PiCo (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * PiCo Burkett does not claim that the anti-Markan source view is the majority view! He merely claims the anti-Markan source view is the view of most "critical scholars." He could be referring to a tiny number of scholars who think like him, and are we to have it that the view of critical scholars is the only valid view?? If anything, the anti-Markan source group are in the minority. Anyway, critical and anti-Markan source should not by synonymous. No one would claim that Drane is not a critical scholar, yet his views do not conform to Burkett's hypothesis (for a hypothesis is all that it is). I have provided, therefore, evidence to suggest that Burkett's views are incorrect. Any intellectually honest person would accept that. Wikipedia is not a place where editors are supposed to uncritically regurgitate (or misquote, as is the case with Burkett in this article) the views of any scholar who claims to represent the correct view. Do you seriously think that's what Wikipedia should be? I think this needs some arbitration because you seem determined to censor Drane, who probably holds the majority view, but for no rational reasons whatsoever. DrJUsher (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See Bart Ehrman's point about what most scholars think of Papias at (pp. 6-10). This is an WP:RS/AC claim according to WP:PAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Critical scholars are those who investigate the origins of biblical texts, including authorship and related matters, as opposed to, say theological implications. So, yes, when Burkett says "most critical scholars" he means simply most scholars. There's an overview here - but really, if you actually do have a doctorate from a good university, you should know this. PiCo (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that one cannot be a critical scholar and explore theological implications. That is utter nonsense, the two are rarely divorced, and the summary you have linked says nothing of the sort. How you then conclude that when Burkett says "most critical scholars" it follows that he must be referring to most scholars doesn't even make sense. I will give you this, PiCo, I have approached this like an academic and, contrary to my previous protestation, the rules of academia and wikipedia are not the same. I am, however, still extremely concerned that you are determined to censor Drane for all the wrong reasons. The traditional view still has its defenders in modern scholarship, and I think that any intellectually honest person would accept that this ought to be reflected in the article (even if it happens to be a view that you disagree with). DrJUsher (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not pleading for censoring the traditional view, but it should be clear that it isn't the majority view. See WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read the article from Oxford Biblical Studies Online carefully once more. It's an outline of the historical-critical method (what Burkett means by "critical scholars"). As it says, this a toll-kit of methods that biblical scholars employ when they wish to explore the origins and subsequent development of texts. Not just Biblical texts - it's applied to all texts and all periods, from the Odyssey through Shakespeare's plays to Eliot's The Waste Land. It's quite distinct from the theological investigation of texts - in non-religious terms, a historical-critical examination of Hamlet would look at what the play meant to an Elizabethan audience, while a modern theatre company might chose to present it as a critique of contemporary concerns. With respect to the Gospel of Mark, Burkett is saying that the majority of scholars have concluded, through the use of the historical-critical toolset, that this gospel is not connected with any companion of Peter. Drane says nothing beyond stating that he personally has reached a different conclusion. In terms of Wikipedia's policies, Burkett is useful to us because he states where the balance of opinion lies, Drane is not useful because he does not - in other words, the "due weight" policy would exclude Drane.PiCo (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, in order to establish WP:RS/AC claims we need WP:SOURCES making the claim for us. We cannot establish consensus claims by fiat (i.e. without verifying them in WP:SOURCES). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really have time for this, but if you insist that Burkett's "critical scholars" can simply be equated with "most scholars" then why bother changing it? Why not put "most critical scholars"? If your respect for Burkett's pronouncement is really that great then why insist on misquoting the man? DrJUsher (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A valid point. Most readers of Wikipedia have never heard of the historical-critical method, and would immediately jump to the conclusion that Burkett means scholars who are "critical" in the sense of disparaging. As (a) the historical-critical method is simply the bundle of critical tools used for examining the origin and development of texts (source criticism, redaction criticism, etc), and (b) as these tools and this method developed only in the last 200 years, it therefore seems more fruitful to say simply "modern scholars". PiCo (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is both patronising and presumptuous to say that readers cannot correctly interpret a direct quote for themselves. DrJUsher (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What was this doctorate of yours in? I'm just curious, as I don't see how anyone could do a higher degree in biblical studies without coming across the terminology.PiCo (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable information
Verifiable information should not be removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"(2) Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not present Jesus as the offspring of a virgin mother and a divine Father. As far as we know from Mark, Jesus was a normal human being with a birth like that of everyone else."

- Burkett (2002: 158)

This is what I mean by verifiable information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but in this case, the verifiable information is not cited, so other editors might not know that it's factual. Would you add the citation to that statement in the article? Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Mark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608014638/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Charges of Magic"
[Comment by probable sockpuppet evading block removed]


 * I agree with Miistermagico, the section is well-sourced and should stay. Lalvia, can you explain more fully how Horsely's book (the Conclusion in particular) undercuts our paragraph, which I'll give here in italics? Mark contains twenty accounts of miracles and healings, accounting for almost a third of the gospel and half the first ten chapters, more, proportionally, than in any other gospel.[42] In the gospels as a whole, Jesus' miracles, prophecies, etc., are presented as evidence of God's rule, but Mark's descriptions of Jesus' healings are a partial exception to this, as his methods, using spittle to heal blindness (Mark 8:22–26) and magic formulae ("Talitha cumi," 5:41, "Ephphatha," 7:34), were those of a magician.[43][44] This is the charge the Jewish religious leaders bring against Jesus: they say he is performing exorcisms with the aid of an evil spirit (Mark 3:22) and calling up the spirit of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14).[43] "There was ... no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.[45] All the gospels defend Jesus against the charge, which, if true, would contradict their ultimate claims for him.[46] The point of the Beelzebub incident in Mark (Mark 3:20–30) is to set forth Jesus' claims to be an instrument of God, not Satan.[46] PiCo (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

use of Mark by the Church
"The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark." This is not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph, and sounds like an idea someone thought up. As does much of the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * At least the part with Matthew is there, read pages 1-3 of the cited work. Have you checked the other sources in the article as thoroughly as it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Synoptic Problem ...
Last paragraph of this section is wrong, as this Wikipedia entry from Sayings of Jesus on the cross explains:

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It is the only saying that appears in more than one Gospel,[13] and is a quote from Psalms 22:2. This saying is taken by some as an abandonment of the Son by the Father. Other theologians understand the cry as that of one who was truly human and who felt forsaken. Put to death by his foes, very largely deserted by his friends, he may have felt also deserted by God.[20]

Others point to this as the first words of Psalm 22 and suggest that Jesus recited these words, perhaps even the whole psalm, "that he might show himself to be the very Being to whom the words refer; so that the Jewish scribes and people might examine and see the cause why he would not descend from the cross; namely, because this very psalm showed that it was appointed that he should suffer these things."[21]

Theologian Frank Stagg points to what he calls "a mystery of Jesus' incarnation: "...he who died at Golgotha (Calvary) is one with the Father, that God was in Christ, and that at the same time he cried out to the Father".[22]

In Aramaic, the phrase was/is rendered, "אלי אלי למה סואחטאני".[citation needed][dubious – discuss] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.2.143 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you tell us why is it wrong? See also WP:CIRCULAR and WP:NOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One of our own Wikipedia articles says it is wrong. Christ on the cross recited the first line of Psalms 22:2.  Can you read?  This article however claims that this is some cry of desperation by Christ to his father, which of course is absolute anti-christite nonsense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.2.143 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One view is theological the other is historical. Thus: not really a contradiction, just different academic fields, see WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The gospels are not records of what Christ said on the cross - these words were written by the author of Mark, and represent his idea of what Christ ought to have said. All this is beside the point, though - we follow reliable sources, and our article at this point is sourced.PiCo (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)