Talk:Mark the Evangelist

Statement
I have recently edited the page due to a minor incorrect statement that results in confusion. Barnabas and Mark did not "stay" they seperated From Paul who took Silas with him. Barnabas and Mark left and went to Cyprus. Kyle.Mullaney 06:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Kyle
 * the exact statement that was edited out was the following "but was left behind (and Barnabas stayed too) for the second, as recorded in the ''Acts of the Apostles."

Article needs cleanup
The article on Mark the Evangelist has numerous errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., and needs to be cleaned up. I don't know how to create this "flag" so I'm noting it here. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.68.4.4 (talk • contribs).
 * It seems to me that the article was rather good until this edit, and since then there's been much reinventing the wheel to get it to the current form. I would normally try to merge the two versions together, but I'm so much so not an expert on this that I'm not comfortable doing that here.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I went back to that version and merged in just the very end of it, mainly the external links and the succession box. I didn't take time to go through all the edits from that version, but I suspect there's more that would be worth merging back in. Wesley 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted that the page had been vandalised, tried to correct the problem, but i can't find all the vandal's edits. at least one reference link is fubar at this time.D.C.Rigate 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Think I got them all now D.C.Rigate 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who was he?
There is no mention of his native tongue, where he was born or his birth name. Was it the Roman Marcus??? Further, the fact box states that he died in AD 68 (which is for anyone who cares, was the year of the four Caesars), but in the text of the article, it states that "In AD 67 they killed him" So did he die in 68 or 67? Naerhu 06:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) he was an amazing ginger named tom worship im as a god!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.180.230 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark is Peter's son?
1 Pet. 5: 13

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

-- Not physical son -- the apostles used this form of address to indicate young men who were converted under their ministry. Paul does the same thing with Timothy and Titus.76.181.166.22 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "Biblical and traditional information" section
I have references for a lot of the "Biblical and traditional information" section, but they are all from Catholic biblical commentary. I suppose this is because they are Catholic traditions in some parts of the world. My sources are The Navarre Bible: St Mark and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Is my footnoting the Catholic traditions using Catholic sources a POV problem? After all they are Catholic traditions. Jason3777 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and putting the references I can find into the Biblical and traditional information section. The traditions I am referencing are Catholic, so I don't think there is a NPOV problem with using Catholic sources to reference Catholic traditions in this section of the article. Also, it says at the top of the page "This article needs additional references or sources for verification." Jason3777 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Authorship Claims
Removed authorship claims in the Biblical and traditional information section because they are discussed in the Epistle articles and to make the sentence more NPOV. I also replaced the semicolons with commas since I removed the parentheses. Jason3777 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Biblical and traditional information 2nd paragraph
I'm going to do a clean up of the second paragraph. I don't intend to do a major edit (although I will save it as such) I want to make it more readable and NPOV (most of the NPOV stuff is already done - see above). Plus I intend to add footnotes. I will do my best to leave the meaning of the paragraph unaltered. If anyone has a problem with this please let me know, because I've got my books stacked around me, and want to get it done as soon as possible. I have done research on this topic before, but don't worry, I have no original information to add, just the references. Jason3777 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Separation from Paul and his Gospel
I've cn tagged the following sentence: "Ironically, this separation helped bring about the creation of the Gospel of Mark."

If it is not cited or explained in some way, I'll deleted it after at least 24h. I can't find a source for this, and fail to see 1) how the causality flowed, or 2) how it would be ironic. 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Am deleting it shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Repairing the Vandalism (Blanking) of the Biblical and traditional information section
User:209.250.183.90 blanked the entire Biblical and traditional information section on 11:38 April 9, 2008. The article requested references and with this blanking went from 6 references to 1. No reason was given for this large removal of content, so I have restored it. Jason3777 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize the references I'm citing are from the same source
I will try to find other references, but the Navarre Bible is very traditional and explains these traditions. I know an article or section of an article should not depend only on one source, so if anyone can find other references to these traditions, please add them. It is the only source I have found so far that documents these traditions, but I will continue searching for additional references in my library. And the Navarre Bible is a legitimate source. I'm just trying to reference what has already been written by others in the article. Jason3777 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

References for Traditions section
I have found all the references I could in my library (it's mainly Catholic). And I found a Coptic web link to the Seventy Apostles, but did not add the link because I'm not Coptic. I thought a member of the Coptic faith should link a legitimate source. I found that the Mark and John traditions were in the brief, original article. The writer is now an administrator. Does anyone have a source for these? If anyone can find legitimate source(s) for the Coptic or The Book of John references, please add them. Thanks.

And just out of curiosity, does anyone read this talk page? I feel like I'm talking to myself and making edits without consensus. Maybe no news is good news.... Sorry it took almost a year to accomplish my objective. I would also like to thank you for letting me learn Wiki markup language here without grief! Jason3777 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We do. And yeah, no news is good news. If no one reverts you, assume you've done well; definitely assume you've done well if no-one replies. Myself anyways, I don't really reply to something unless it's contentious, so that could be why there's been so much silence. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Libyan birth tradition
The story that Mark was born in Libya is found on the Coptic church's website, but not in ancient sources afaict. I'm not sure where it comes from. In the absence of something broader, the claim about Libya should be referenced specifically to that tradition, and not stated as if it were uncontroverted fact. Tb (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Egypt is part of Africa
The article says (correctly) that Mark is traditionally accounted the beginning of Christianity in Africa. This implies, of course, that he was the beginning of Christianity in Egypt, since we was there. But if we say (as an editor wants to, without comment) merely that he was first in Egypt, that leaves unstated the important fact that he was (according to the tradition) the beginning in Africa as a whole, and not just Egypt. I request that the editor who wants to change Africa->Egypt should explain why. Tb (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for Coptic traditions
Many of the Coptic traditions mentioned in the article can be found at *St. Mark's detailed biography by H.H. Pope Shenouda III, which is already in the External Links section of the article. Pope Shenouda III could I think be considered a legitimate Coptic source, being that he's the 117th patriarch of the see of St. Mark.

If you want, perhaps that should be moved to the reference section? I think that most if not all of the 'citation needed' marks about church tradition can probably be sourced from that one alone. Also note that Pope Shenouda III cites many earlier sources. Wesley (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that this is only one hierarch's statements from one church. Generic "it is said" and "there is a tradition that" statements are very curious: they are weak, but documenting them requires more than one such source.  If we had "according to one Coptic tradition", then that reference would surely be sufficient.  Tb (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it used as a reference, it should be done in the reference format, with ref tags around it so it automatically goes in the ref section. Just listing the URL at the end of the ref section wouldn't do readers trying to find the sources of statements much good. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter's companion?
Intro says Mark was Peter's companion but doesn't say when or where. The article does show when he was with Paul but not when he was with Peter. Should it say he was Paul's companion?Nitpyck (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He's recorded as being Paul's companion in the Acts of the Apostles, and traditionally also associated with Peter in Rome. (The tradition that says that Mark wrote the gospel also says he did it under the direction or with the assistance of Peter.) Tb (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the apostel Mark.S711 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no apostle Mark, at least, no Mark in the NT is labelled as such. The tradition in question, which is what the intro is about, is the tradition that the John Mark in Acts is the author of the Gospel, and wrote it as a disciple of Peter and under his direction.  The Mark the article is about is that traditional figure.  Tb (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Page name
An editor recently moved the page without discussion to Saint Mark. Aside from the obvious disambiguation problems, this also broke consistency with John the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and Matthew the Evangelist. In addition, "saint" in article titles is disfavored, though the title is used in the lead. See, for example, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, or James the Less. Tb (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter in the lead
The tradition which says that the Gospel was written by Mark also says that Mark did so as a disciple of Peter, from Rome, under his direction. Apart from this tradition (which also identifies the author as the John Mark of Acts), there is no reason to give the name "Mark" to the author at all. The place for a discussion of the authorship of the Gospel is over at Gospel of Mark, which already has a full discussion. This article instead is about the traditional figure of Mark the Evangelist. A recent editor has altered the "discipile of Peter" language repeatedly to say that this is "an alternative" account of the authorship of the Gospel. If it is, then it's not relevant here, because this article is about the traditional Mark the Evangelist--who may indeed be only a traditional figure with distant and dusty connections to any real people--but it is not about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Tb (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Said editor has said on my talk page that this article is "actually" about one "Mark the Apostle". I am rather unclear who this "Mark the Apostle" is supposed to be, or why an article titled "Mark the Evangelist" should be understood as about "Mark the Apostle". Tb (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Take a look: S711 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Then we could have a Mark the Apostle forward, as we have Luke the Apostle.  Note, however, that the source you refer to establishes what I've been saying: it identifies the author of the Gospel with the John Mark of Acts, and as a disciple of Peter.  Tb (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed a somewhat hard to find and unelaborated reference to Saint Irenaeus' Against Heresies with one that is more detailed and linkable. I believe this is the original source concerning the relationship between Mark and Peter. Jason3777 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also see Acts 12:12 (as mentioned in the article) and 1 Peter 5:13 - "as does Mark, my son," per the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd edition, p. 720 Jason3777 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No it is not Peter but Mark
first of all this bible was written to tell romans about Jesus Christ our lord and it was written with very small details as in "green grass" in chapter 6 and peter charter was a very ken static person that could not catch all this small details. also in chapter 14 he takes about "14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, 14:52 but he ran off naked,74 leaving his linen cloth behind." this young man was thought by the tradition to be mark and that this night peter was not aware with what happing except with Jesus emotionally only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.144.98 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what parts of the article you're addressing. Tb (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving the refimprove flag to cover only the last section
Could we move this to cover the "Fate of his remains" only?

Changing it to read:

The first two sections seem well documented and where they are not (4 statements) there have been added [citation needed] flags. There are 20 citations in the first two sections of the article. I think we should move the banner to above the last section instead of having it at the top and applying to the entire article. We should also consider deleting the statements with older refimprove dates (August and December 2008). Jason3777 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and moved the "needs additional citations for verification" to cover ONLY the last section "Fate of his remains" (keeping the same date), since there were no objections.Jason3777 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing.... Why is the "Fate of his remains" section so long. It is about a half of the entire article, and is unsourced. This section is much too long. Jason3777 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the Biblical and traditional info
I moved the uniquely Coptic traditions to the end and placed the shared traditions in the beginning for better organization. I also removed the unsourced statement: "the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus and into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20)."Jason3777 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I undid the restoration of the above (still) unsourced sentence by User:Lanternix. The date on the citation needed was December 2008. I have no problem including this sentence as long as it has a source. And I have tried, but have not been able to find a source. So before adding it back to article add a citation listed in the reference section. Jason3777 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability. Jason3777 (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The internet is full of references for the statments you deleted, and NOT only from Coptic sources. I am surprised you could not find any. Here are some of the first 20 results I got using google search on "Saint Mark + Pentecost + House":
 * "St. Mark was one of the 70 chosen by our Lord to be His very own Apostle. The Lord also chose St. Mark’s house as the one where they ate the Passover before His crucifixion. In his house the very first Eucharist was held and so St. Marks house is actually considered to be the very first Church! It was in St. Mark's house also where the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost. St. Mark's cousin was St. Barnabas and his fathers cousin was St. Peter." (http://www.stmarkscollege.com/stmark.php)
 * "In his house the very first Eucharist was held and so St. Marks house is actually considered to be the very first Church! It was in St. Mark's house also where the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost." (http://www.coloradocopts.org/SaintMark.html)
 * "When he arrived there, about 58 AD, he noticed that there was a glimpse of light among the darkness. He met many acquaintances, from Libya and Cyrene. [Acts 2 : 10] who were present during the Pentecost at his home when the Holy Spirit filled them." (http://www.stgeorge-sporting.org/mcc/books/7-1.pdf)
 * "No home had more fame than St. Mark's home. It was there where Lord Jesus Christ observed the passover with his pure disciples. There He washed their feet and gave them His Covenant, His Holy Body and Blood. That was where the disciples hid before the resurrection. In it, the Holy Spirit filled the disciples and they spoke in tongues. This great home was the first Christian Church and its most upper room was the famous Zion chamber." (http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/Stmark/)
 * "His Holiness Mar Aghnatius Yacoub, Patriarch of Antioch for the Syrian Orthodox(1) wrote under the title " Beth John Mark, The First Christian Church" : His mother had a house in Jerusalem, through tradition and documented history it is confirmed that in it God gathered His apostles, celebrated the Passover, washed the feet of His disciples and gave them the mystery of His Body and Blood. There He talked to them. The apostles waited in it till the Lord came back to them after His Resurrection, while its doors were closed. There He gave them the ecclesiastics, and the priesthood authority. and filled them by His Holy Spirit. (2) Later the house was consecrated to be a church with the name of Mother of God.... It became the seat of Jerusalem. St. James, became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and stayed there.] At the present time, the place is known as the Monastery of St. Mark, or the house of Mary, mother of Mark. It is not far from the Church of Resurrection and is controlled by the Syrian Orthodox." (http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/Stmark/)
 * "It was at the house of Saint Mark where the Lord met with His Apostles and celebrated the Passover, where the Lord appeared to them after His Resurrection, and where the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost." (http://www.wmatiasart.com/church.php)

--Lanternix (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it just have been easier to have restored the statement (singular) and added the pre-formatted H.H. Pope Shenouda III. The Beholder of God Mark the Evangelist Saint and Martyr as a citation as opposed to collecting the info above? Also, all your sources are Coptic. If you could add legitimate references, it would be helpful. Complaining and doing nothing to rectify the situation is unproductive. How about adding some legitimate sources. As Pope Shenouda III is the head of the Coptic Church, I would consider him a valid source. I intend to add the translators names to the reference to make it kosher, but I just don't understand how you can spend time to find all these passages and restore the statement sans citation. Also, when you restore a statement, you should keep the citation needed flag with the same date if you do not add a citation. Jason3777 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark
I did some reading and wrote the following as a compromise:


 * Mark was said to be the disciple and interpreter of Saint Peter, follower and Apostle of Jesus Christ. According to Church History Mark composed a short gospel embodying what he had heard Peter preach.

Note the Oxford Dictionary Christian Church says there is agreement among scholars that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name. -Ret.Prof (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else see whats wrong with this line in the opening paragraph?
It is believed that on the night when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane Mark had followed him there and the police saw him, he ran away and dropped his loin cloth. Tcla75 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything other than it's poorly written? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see. (1) Loincloth should be one word. (2) The sentence is poorly placed, coming after Mark's death. Anything Mark did during Jesus' life, if significant enough to be in the intro, should come much earlier. (3) It's not clear that this is significant enough to be in the intro. (If it is, then why?) (4) "Police" is an anachronism. Jesus was arrested by "a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" (Mark 14:43). (5) I'm neither a Christian nor a Biblical scholar myself, so I don't know for sure, but I never heard of this before and I doubt whether this is what "is believed". (6) Even if so, "it is believed" is weasel words.


 * Long story short, I suspect vandalism. 2.25.130.78 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My question is "believed by whom?" No source is given. It is not a matter of Catholic faith. It might be a speculation by some commentators. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Body and Blood of Jesus: "Real" or "Spiritual"
Someone had written many followers of Jesus left him because he taught his body and blood were "spiritual" nourishment, in apparent contrast to physical nourishment. The writer cited John 6 as the source. However, this claim is in direct contradiction to Scripture, in which Jesus calls His body "real food" (NIV) and "meat indeed" (King James). Please note that these are Protestant translations; Catholic ones obviously concur. Wfgiuliano (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenging the Neutrality of this Page
I am new to this, but I wish to challenge the Neutrality of this article. How can I do this? Also, the section Biblical and traditional information in particular is written in an non-encyclopedic tone and should be re-written.

''Note: this was placed in the middle of the page by IP 68.146.140.55. I'm moving it to the bottom where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)''

In your opening statement :

According to William Lane (1974), an "unbroken tradition" identifies Mark the Evangelist with John Mark,[3] and John Mark as the cousin of Barnabas.[4] An exception is found in Hippolytus of Rome, who in his work On the Seventy

Mr. Lane is extremely biased for the Gospel being the errant truth from GOD and you should state, In his option he believes that Mark could be John Mark, as stated in the main Article it tends to lead the reader to believe it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess
This article is a mish mash of "tradition" and legend together with some possible nuggets of historical information that are almost impossible to discern. Is this an article about an historic personage or about Christian belief? What it should not do is to present legend as fact, which in my opinion it does in many places. First of all the article should establish whether or not there is actually any evidence that there was such a person as Mark and whether or not he really wrote the Gospel called "Mark". Then go on to consider whether there is any truth to the story that Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, etc. The lead of an article is supposed to summarise the contents, " Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."WP:LEAD None of that stuff about Mark founding the Church of Alexandria and being the first bishop should be in the lead at the moment as it is not discussed in the article. The WP guidelines for the lead also say "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" which this lead to the article is not. It contains too many confusing names of persons and places and presents legend as fact. I have placed a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article, IP 68.146.140.55. above is correct, the article richly deserves it and needs to be re-written from a NPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox says "Died April 25, 68 AD". I do not believe there is any real historical evidence for such a definite statement, once again legend is being presented as fact. The Catholic Encyclopaedia says " The date of Mark's death is uncertain."[]. So I am changing the death date in the info box to "uncertain".Smeat75 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving a note here to give notice that I am working on a re-write of this article in case anyone has any input they would like to give. The lead needs to be completely re-written to follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD,and needs to be much more clear and concise. I plan to state in the lead, using WP:RS of course, that nothing is known for sure about St Mark, it is all "traditional", and then in the body of the article discuss the various traditions. It will take me some days to do this.Smeat75 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (Smeat75, I guess you never got around to it? Then I may give it a shot when I'm done with the mess surrounding John the Evangelist.) And I would suggest (perhaps to myself?), in light of the massive amount of legendary material that tends to accrue around such figures, a few points of editorial guidance. First, detail the reasonably early and reliable patristic evidence—clearly at least Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus. Next, discuss the views of modern scholars—that the attribution to some Mark is authentic, that this was or was not identical to Mark and/or John Mark from the Acts & epistles, what relationship he had to Peter with regard to writing the Gospel, etc. But avoid going into detail about Gospel authorship apart from this facet, and avoid delving into the various Marks of the New Testament, as these have their own articles. Lastly, when you get to "one legend says" kind of stuff, I doubt it's actually worth including at all, unless it can be traced to an early source or has received significant attention in scholarship; at most, lump it all together in a "later legends" section. Lastly, Mark's portrayal in art (of which I know nothing) could be expanded from the infobox (and the alternatives to "lion" addressed).--SlothMcCarty (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did try to fix some of the more egregious issues in this article a year ago, but it is still a mess. There is way too much Coptic "tradition" stated as if it were historical fact. I will try to improve the article bit by bit along the lines suggested above.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. It's clear this is going nowhere. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark the Evangelist → Mark – Neutralizing. Zwanzig 20 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not at all the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, as the disambiguation page indicates. StAnselm (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, strongly This particular nomination is ill-conceived. There is no primary topic for Mark (which is a currency, as well as a given name), and this proposal would dramatically reduce reader recognizability for the given article.  This proposal might be said to suffer from a pro-Christian POV, as it apparently supposes that Mark the Evangelist is the most significant topic at the given name, which he isn't. Xoloz (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Not even close to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No good reason to make this change. Kudos to Zwanzig for making these nominations on Easter Sunday. Doesn't seem pointy at all.  Calidum   16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - see his edits at Talk:Aisha where he is calling Westerners liars, I'm sure he didn't expect this to pass. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this si clearly not the primary topic, or even close to being one -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose this Mark may be well known but not to such a level that he is better known than all other people named Mark combined.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as pointy nonsense. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 02:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gospel of Mark authorship
I'm looking at this addition by and it seems completely inconsistent with the lead. Comments? --Neil N  talk to me 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Bart Ehrman is a top scholar of New Testament, the sources are verifiable, some even in a straightforward fashion (Google Books). Of course, there is a difference between Christian tradition (which says Mark wrote Mark) and mainstream historical views (which say an anonymous author wrote Mark). Nowadays, Mark wrote Mark is a minority view, even among Bible scholars. For more info see WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The majority view is: the NT gospels were written anonymously, and their traditional attributions are unreliable. The minority view (mostly held by fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals) is: the NT gospels were written anonymously, but their traditional attributions are reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I double checked some of the references and I have removed two sources which discussed John instead of Mark and some others which did not make it specifically clear that the academic consensus is that Mark did not write Mark. Nonetheless, they all subscribed to the view that Mark was published anonymously (imho, there is no chance of finding a scholar who claims otherwise). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that while Witherington disagrees with the consensus, he nevertheless states what most scholars think about Mark. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Sanders book I have it as an EPUB, so I cannot check page numbers, but a quote is:

"We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: ‘according to Matthew’, ‘according to Mark’, ‘according to Luke’ and ‘according to John’. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century."

- E.P. Sanders


 * A book Harun Yahya gives Sanders p. 243 as source for this claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Google Books source for the quote: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a significant viewpoint then the lead needs to be modified as what you've added (in Wikipedia's voice, no less) completely contradicts it. --Neil N  talk to me 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Mark the Evangelist (Latin: Mārcus; Greek: Μᾶρκος; Coptic: Μαρκοϲ; Hebrew: מרקוס‎) is the traditionally ascribed author of the Gospel of Mark." remains nevertheless true: he is traditionally ascribed as its author. He isn't its author in mainstream modern Bible scholarship, that's the difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In mainstream Bible scholarship the anonymity of NT gospels isn't a controversial view and it ain't just Ehrman's POV. It is the academic consensus from Ivy Plus to US state universities, including most mainline Protestant and Catholic divinity schools. If you want another source: Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation quantity misleading regarding anonymity
There appears to be a long list of citations relating to Mark's anonymous authorship. But when you look closer you see that four reference the same person, namely Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a giant in New Testament scholarship but he is one giant not four. Sendtoanthony (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just about to make the same objection. Bart Ehrman x 4 is misleading. Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It does not really matter if Ehrman is cited once or ten times, the germane WP:PAG is WP:RS/AC, please read it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It may not matter to Wikipedia, but it matters to the majority of readers out there. Bart is not a reliable scholar and his books are full of assumptions and bias.  His reasoning for the anonymity of Mark is largely due to the secular dating of that Gospel in the first place.


 * Scholars like Bart, date the writing of Mark's Gospel based on statements made by Jesus in Mark 13 and their own biased assumption that Biblical Prophecy that foretells the future is an impossibility. Since Mark died before the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE, these scholars insist that those statements in Mark were written after 70 CE at which point Mark was already dead.  THEREFORE, they assume, Mark could not have been the author.  And this is WHY they attribute anonymity to the Gospel according to Mark as well as the other Gospels.  But WHAT IF their FAITH convictions against the Supernatural were wrong?  What if Jesus really DID predict the future destruction of the Second Temple?  But no, neither Bart Ehrman, EP Sanders, John J Collins, Richard Miller, etc. (your "majority") ever leave any room for such "outlandish notions." And THAT is the reason WHY you should include BETTER citations from scholars of a more evangelical bent (as opposed to the "evangelical" ones that you do use, but are often taken out of context and cited in a way that is only meant to make evangelical scholars look stupid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by D2west26 (talk • contribs)


 * It might surprise you, but the historical method does not allow for the supernatural. See epistemology. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Date format
My change summary on the subject was garbled, but according to WP:ENGVAR and Date_format_by_country, the month-day-year dating that characterizes US English should be retained in the text of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark the Evangelist. 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/20130118174726/http://www.tours-italy.com/venice-about-st_marks_basilica.htm to http://www.tours-italy.com/venice-about-st_marks_basilica.htm

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) 00:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A repeated assertion
What is the significance of the article saying….? “Modern mainstream Bible scholars argue the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author, rather than direct witnesses to the reported events And attributing five citations to it?

The text earlier already establishes that Mark as a travelling companion of Peter’s wrote down Peter’s words to form the Gospel of Mark. Nowhere in the text has it suggested that anyone thinks Mark is an eyewitness to Gospel events

Montalban (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:SlothMcCarty/Mark the Evangelist, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

“Major work: gospel of mark” ?!
Most scholars agree that gospel of mark was not written by mark, the book itself isn’t signed by anyone

That’s from wikipage of gospel of mark: “Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[8] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter – which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure – and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.”

I suggest either we remove the “major work” section from the intro, or we make it “proclaimed work by christian tradition”, i tend to go for the latter Amr.elmowaled (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You have not proven your position, given Wikipedia guidelines clearly state one wikipage may not be used as a source for another. I will add a "contradictory" template, however, on both pages. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the word "attributed" to this, but some other solution may be better.Achar Sva (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we should point that the Evangelists are legendary figures, rather than historical writers. We don't have the foggiest clue about who wrote the gospels. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article should outline the traditions about "Mark" while pointing out that the gospel is actually anonymous. Meanwhile, as the information in the other article (Gospel of Mark) is securely sourced, I'm removing the tag there. Achar Sva (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Confusing Speculation
I will be spending some time fixing this page using a number of the earliest possible sources available. The current sources and statements include 20th and 21st century speculations as well as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.

There is no 'academic consensus' on the authorship of the gospel of Mark, the personal identity of Mark the Evangelist is largely unknown, as is the identity of the writer of the gospel. Because of this, the information we have about the gospel and the Evangelist is almost totally reliant on tradition. Note that an unconfirmed author is different to an anonymous author. Early Coptic tradition as well as references by Paul and Peter to the individual in their writings and any other 1st hand accounts of the Evangelist are the only sources of 'fact' to be found. Indeed, with much of this 1st hand account, the lines between fact and legend are blurred. This is the nature of the spiritual time we are referencing. If you want 100% verifiable 'facts' about Mark the Evangelist, this article will be empty. As Britannica and other objective encyclopedia's have done, the way to correctly phrase this article is by prefixing "much of the life of the evangelist is unknown... or... according to longstanding tradition..." This lack of verifiable fact around Mark the Evangelist does not solicit the inclusion of wild 20th and 21st century speculation from 1 or 2 individuals, passed off as some academic consensus, or the continued mentioning of this 'academic consensus' which seems to only be repeated to deliberately debase or contradict the tradition and stir confusion in the mind of the layman reading this article. Rather, if anything, simply refer to the early 1st and 2nd century sources of the man's life and his credited, but unconfirmable authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Again, this is what Britannica has done. This article must, at multiple points, highlight the unconfirmable nature of it's contents. From this, the reader will be equipped to understand that the earliest sources are the only ones even approaching acceptable for this article, tradition or otherwise. If you are attempting to insert 20th & 21st century sources and pass them off as more reliable than the earliest sources or even tradition, they aren't.

Edits will also be made to the Gospel of Mark Page where the same speculative 21st century sources of 2-3 individuals is referenced solely to contradict tradition, instead of simply highlighting the unconfirmable nature of the gospel if there is no reliance on 1st hand accounts and longstanding tradition. DennisRoddyy (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact. This is simply false. The article does not use the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.
 * Wikipedia relies on modern scholarship. Our sourcing guidelines preclude us from using 1st and 2nd century primary sources. This article must continue to be based on modern, mainstream scholarship, not your personal interpretation of 'tradition'. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article includes a source that openly claims to derive historical fact from the 'Da Vinci Code'. Please read source #8. I can prove that original research has been inserted into this article, meaning the article has broken the sourcing guidelines. The guidelines state, 'Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.'
 * Source #5 of this article has been rephrased to reach a different conclusion from the author of the source. The author, Sanders, concludes that the gospels may or may not have been written by their traditional authors, the 2nd century reference Sanders uses, Papias, states he was personally told that Mark the Evangelist wrote the gospel but the gospel itself remained 'untitled'. This is very different to the blanket statement in the article, 'Modern Bible scholars have concluded that an anonymous author wrote the gospel, rather than Mark', which gives a contrarian tone to the tradition and subtly alters the conclusion made by Sanders because Sanders concludes Mark MAY have indeed been the author.
 * This breaks another guideline,
 * "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research".
 * It also breaks the conditions for Wikipedia's consensus on academic consensus:
 * "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
 * Again, I will spend time on fixing this and related articles because, based on the sources already in the article, the mainstream academic view is that large parts of this topic are inconclusive. This article implies otherwise throughout, breaking multiple guidelines. Please refrain from continuing to break the guidelines by, most egregiously, claiming academic consensus exists on the topic. Our obvious alternative, as provided in the guidelines, is to delete the article entirely, as provided: 'Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.' Another alternative is to follow Britannica's lead and avoid wild speculation altogether, explicitly stating there is a lack of unquestionably reliable information to support or deny the traditions.
 * See Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Mark-the-Evangelist DennisRoddyy (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read source #8. That source does not say what you are claiming it says. You're going to need to get a consensus of other editors to radically rewrite or delete this article. I think it is very unlikely you will be able to do that. - MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the introduction of source #8, you will see the author state his research goal is to separate fact from fiction in the Da Vinci Code. He continues and asks the question "How much truth is in the Da Vinci Code?" using the claims of the Da Vinci Code as a template for his book. In any case, the author of Source #8 makes the explicit prefixing statement, strangely ignored in this article, that "it is difficult for historians to reconstruct what actually happened in the past for the simple reason that events cannot be proven".
 * This article is riddled with guideline breaches, some of them egregious. You are openly supporting the guideline breaches in this article. The guidelines must be followed to form a consensus.
 * Due to these numerous breaches, bringing this article substantively in line with more objective encyclopedic academic publications like Britannica is clearly necessary. DennisRoddyy (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "it is difficult for historians to reconstruct what actually happened in the past for the simple reason that events cannot be proven"&mdash;true, but this is the case for almost everything in Ancient history.
 * It seems that you have never read mainstream Bible scholarship. WP:CHOPSY teach as fact that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Can you please specify where in WP:CHOPSY it teaches what you claim as fact? The sources you have cited in this article actually state that Mark may indeed have been the author, but this, as with much of the history at the time, is unconfirmed, relying heavily on tradition. Contrastingly, what you have done is pass off this unconfirmed authorship as an academic consensus that Mark is confirmed as not being the author. This subtle difference in your paraphrasing is unfortunately not supported in any of your references and constitutes original research according to the guidelines, which state
 * "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research".
 * It also breaches another guideline by claiming an academic consensus. WP:RS/AC
 * "Any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors" "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
 * For those reading, please note that our Wikipedia article on the "reliability of the gospels" mentions in the first sentence a lack of consensus on the issue.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospel
 * Could you please provide this necessary, reliable source that directly says all or most scientists or scholars hold the view Mark is confirmed as not being the author? The subtlety of the wording here is crucial, any source that claims Mark MAY have been the author is contradicting what you've written. DennisRoddyy (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which Ivy League university teaches that the NT gospels aren't fundamentally anonymous?
 * This time not WP:RS/AC, but stated as undisputed historical fact:
 * Hengel as dissenter:
 * The list could go on, but you get the idea.
 * "Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?Matthew: 'the unknown author.' NAB 1008Mark: 'although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark..' (NAB 1064)Luke: 'Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke.' (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.'And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions.' NAB 1091On John: 'Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.' (1136)In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not stating that the gospels were not written anonymously, please read carefully.
 * The article states, "Modern Bible scholars have concluded that the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author rather than by Mark." A statement that directly implies Mark CANNOT be the anonymous author. A conclusion that is reached by none of your sources. Indeed, many of your sources state that he very well could be the author. This article, therefore, needs rephrasing. If necessary, I can provide a separate list of reliable sources that support the undisputed anonymity of the gospel but also support the genuine possibility of Mark's authorship. This distinction is critical.
 * Other Wikipedia articles on religious scripture, including the Quran by Muhammed's companions and the multiple books by Moses which includes Genesis, Exodus, etc do not have their articles riddled with statements about "anonymous author of the text 'rather' than an authorship by Muhammed or Moses". Their anonymity is obvious, as made clear when the articles of both Muhammed's companions and Moses only reference their ascribed authorship of these books according to traditional positions.
 * There is no need to apply a different standard to Mark than to Moses or Muhammed or others, please be consistent. Information on all these people has almost a 100% deferral to religious traditions, lest we have an empty article for lack of acceptable information to include. DennisRoddyy (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In mainstream Bible scholarship is generally agreed that Moses, if he existed, had nothing to do with writing the Bible. The author of the gospel being anonymous means there is no reason to believe that he was Mark. There is of course a remote possibility that the gospel was homonymous, but even that is mere speculation, and not fact. The fact posited by mainstream Bible scholars is that we don't know who wrote the gospel of Mark, but there are reasons to disbelieve the tradition that he was Mark. That's a vanilla claim, if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will highly probably say that. So, you are splitting hairs about an issue which is irrelevant to mainstream Bible scholarship. To draw the line: "the author of the Gospel of Mark could have been Mark" is not a mainstream POV. Your protests in this regard are contrived and futile. Authorship by Mark is dead in the water, and saying otherwise is a pipe dream. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "The author of the Gospel of Mark could have been Mark" is not a mainstream POV.
 * Incorrect. Your own sources contradict you.
 * You are nothing more than an openly schizophrenic individual conditioned with anti-christian ideals that has hijacked biblical wikipedia pages on random biblical figures of your choosing. Unable to discern reality in your own life, you feel capable of discerning the reality of ancient figures.
 * You are "like" a lawyer as you say, I myself am a lawyer. With a deep interest and understanding of these issues. The only thing dead in the water, is your understanding of reality itself, being a self admitting schizophrenic.
 * There are 2 paths forward according to the guidelines, either the article is deleted altogether by failing to reconcile multiple interpretations of scholarship, or you rephrase it to ensure readers can identify that Mark May have been the author of the fundamentally anonymous article. Please let me know which you prefer. DennisRoddyy (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should know that sometimes schizophrenics are more rational and more reality-based than Christian fundamentalists.
 * You might wish to ask the deletion of this article, since it otherwise states clearly that conservative scholars disagree with the mainstream academia.
 * E.g. it is highly unlikely that any of the four evangelists ever traveled through Palestine. Source: Even more clearly stated in  Hengel, cited before as a contrarian, admits that much in
 * And what I write here is anti-christian only for those who consider that liberal Christianity and mainstream Bible scholarship are anti-christian. I.e. for fundamentalists who consider that the only true Christianity is fundamentalist in nature.
 * E.g. it is not my fault that, judging by his book, the author of the Gospel of Mark never visited Palestine. Don't blame me, blame him, blame his book. And, no, calling a spade a spade is not blasphemy. Instead of admitting that your holy book has severe mistakes, you blame those who objectively point out its mistakes. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not my 'holy book'. I am not Christian; I am firmly agnostic, but thank you for now openly removing your mask and showing us your unfiltered, mask-off distain for historical Christianity, which you've singled out as being worthy of inserting your own original research that subtly contradicts the mainstream consensus.
 * You've provided in your given source #5 in the article, E.P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
 * "These men— Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John— really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century."
 * Further, there are multiple passages in the sources you've yourself just given me, one being from Wells, George Albert (2013). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity that state the ascriptions are based on "2nd century guesses".
 * The modern mainstream biblical consensus is that the author may or may not have been Mark, because the texts were originally untitled, and their attribution to these figures is based on 2nd century guesses about the origins of the untitled works. This is not my opinion, or some pipe dream you think I have, this is the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, whether you like it or not.
 * In your paraphrasing, you have, for unknown (perhaps anti-Christian) reasons, removed Mark from the possibility of Authorship, directly contradicting your first listed source, #5 by E.P Sanders, who, I will quote again, as your own given source, stated:
 * "These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century."
 * There is not a single passage of any scholarship you have referenced that removes Mark from the possibility of being the original Author. But you have. This constitutes your own original research. DennisRoddyy (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... no! We know that the authors of the NT gospels could not have been Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. There are many reasons for thinking this, and many WP:RS which can be WP:CITEd to that effect.
 * Bart D. Ehrman (2006:143) The lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: a new look at betrayer and betrayed. Oxford University Press. "The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences."
 * The hint is WP:CIR: you seem to have never read mainstream Bible scholarship in your entire life. I mean so otherworldly are your claims, compared to the books which I have read.
 * For my arguments I have cited two different translations of the Bible with explanations&mdash;is that anti-christian? These are not anti-christian authors, but they are Christian themselves.
 * Your sophism is the argument from silence: just because the Sanders quote does not eliminate Mark as an author you falsely assumed that Sanders did not eliminate Mark as an author.
 * Robert H. Stein argues that the historical method forces historians to conclude that either Mark did not write Mark, or that Mark was a pathological liar. Source: tgeorgescu (talk)  03:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources as well as the sources you've already given on this talk page and in the article, including Erhman, do not confirm your claim that Mark could not be the author. Many of your own sources in fact, clearly state the opposite and make a point of the POSSIBILITY of Mark's authorship. Even if you find new sources that contradict the ones you've provided, You are forcing an appeal to possibility as a measure of undeniable fact.
 * Erhman, who you have just cited, does not validate your claim the author cannot be Mark. You are now shifting the discussion in an attempt to shift the goalposts from the issue at hand.
 * It's possible Mark is the author and has never been to Israel, this is a futile shifting of the goalposts. We are not discussing whether the author has been to Israel or not. We are discussing whether Mark could possibly be the author.
 * If you knew about ancient scribes, you'd understand that bi-linguicism was common in the ancient world, are you claiming that because it is written in Greek, which I agree it was, Mark did not write it? As if Mark could not have been fluent in Greek? Such poor discernment of reality, my schizophrenic friend.
 * If "liar" is clearly on the table from your last reference, Stein, your statements about his certainty as NOT being the author are, by your own source quotes, debunked. DennisRoddyy (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with WP:CIR is that you appear to be largely ignorant of the facts posited by mainstream Bible scholars. Garland and Kostenberger may make valid points, however I would not count them among the mainstream academia.
 * &mdash;if that's your assumption, he surely isn't the subject of this article (have you read it?). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No I have not read the article that I’ve had a continued nuanced discussion with you about. sarcasm.
 * Actually no, on the contrary, I am so well versed in the current mainstream biblical consensus that I’m suprised to be the first person to call you out for inserting your own original research on the matter, although you’ve made it hard pinpoint because it is very subtle.
 * you can choose to keep throwing sources at this discussion hoping something sticks to validate your original research or you can fix the article to reflect the possibility of Marks authorship, in accordance with every scholar you have referenced in this discussion. DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article already WP:CITEd this WP:RS before you had even begun editing the article:
 * So, WP:RS/AC has been satisfied for a long time, and it is still satisfied, you just chose to deny it as perhaps a sophisticated form of trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again you move the goalposts. Not surprised.
 * I am not disputing any of this. I’m saying you’ve added original research to these statements by removing Mark from the possibility of authorship. Something that directly contradicts your own sources. Why did you insert this original research? DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a contradiction between I am not disputing any of this. and I’m saying you’ve added original research to these statements by removing Mark from the possibility of authorship. These cannot be both true at the same time. Why? Because Ehrman's WP:RS/AC claim explicitly denies that Mark wrote Mark.
 * To sum up: scholars who prioritize evidence over faith think that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous (Mark did not write Mark). Scholars who prioritize faith over evidence think it was written by someone called Mark, though they don't agree upon who this Mark was, and many of them think that he was an otherwise unknown Mark. The last group does not posit that the author was Mark, the secretary of Peter, nor John Mark, the assistant of Paul. Stated otherwise, their Mark wrote the gospel, but he is otherwise not the subject of this article, since he does not fit the traditional identity of Mark the Evangelist.
 * What about Ehrman? Isn't he anti-christian? By his own confessions he merrily teaches what he learned at the Princeton Theological Seminary, and would basically still teach the same facts if he remained a Christian.
 * &mdash;despite your protestations, you seem to ignore the claim that Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did no write Mark, and so on, which is one of the most well-known claims of mainstream Bible scholarship. (Even people who disagree with them know that they are saying it.) A quick overview of the matter is available at https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/
 * You seem to engage in a non sequitur, namely that mainstream Bible scholars who were not WP:CITEd to WP:V the claim that Mark did not write Mark, actually believed that is possible that the traditional Mark (Mark, the secretary of Peter, or John Mark, the assistant of Paul) could have been the author of the gospel. And indeed that's what conservative evangelical Bible scholars believe, but it is a tiny minority view among mainstream Bible scholars.
 * As explained by two sources cited in the article, when mainstream Bible scholars say something like "Markan authorship" or "Mark wrote", they do not mean that the gospel was written by Mark the Evangelist, but "Mark" is simply a shortcut for "the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark."
 * About : Reddish (2011) uses such point to deny that the author of the Gospel of Mark was the traditional John Mark. So, there is no trace of WP:OR in my edits. Hatina (2014) makes the same point as Reddish.
 * And do mind that I have cited conservative Christian sources, which testify of the consensus of critical scholars, although these sources themselves have an axe to grind against critical scholars. (Hint: dating the Gospel of Mark between 50 AD and 60 AD is a pretty conservative claim.) tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;despite your protestations, you seem to ignore the claim that Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did no write Mark, and so on, which is one of the most well-known claims of mainstream Bible scholarship. (Even people who disagree with them know that they are saying it.) A quick overview of the matter is available at https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/
 * You seem to engage in a non sequitur, namely that mainstream Bible scholars who were not WP:CITEd to WP:V the claim that Mark did not write Mark, actually believed that is possible that the traditional Mark (Mark, the secretary of Peter, or John Mark, the assistant of Paul) could have been the author of the gospel. And indeed that's what conservative evangelical Bible scholars believe, but it is a tiny minority view among mainstream Bible scholars.
 * As explained by two sources cited in the article, when mainstream Bible scholars say something like "Markan authorship" or "Mark wrote", they do not mean that the gospel was written by Mark the Evangelist, but "Mark" is simply a shortcut for "the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark."
 * About : Reddish (2011) uses such point to deny that the author of the Gospel of Mark was the traditional John Mark. So, there is no trace of WP:OR in my edits. Hatina (2014) makes the same point as Reddish.
 * And do mind that I have cited conservative Christian sources, which testify of the consensus of critical scholars, although these sources themselves have an axe to grind against critical scholars. (Hint: dating the Gospel of Mark between 50 AD and 60 AD is a pretty conservative claim.) tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ""earliest possible sources available." Old sources are useless. We need recent, secular sources by academics, not religious legends and the nonsense of theologians. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "In mainstream Bible scholarship is generally agreed that Moses, if he existed, had nothing to do with writing the Bible. " Captain obvious here. A historical Moses would not have lived in the Hellenistic era, when most of the biblical books were either written or heavily edited to their current form. Mosaic authorship is a crazy idea. Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What can be inferred as highly probable is that he was "a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine", and that he wasn't any Mark or John Mark from the Bible. Otherwise it is not demonstrated that he wasn't called Mark. But being called Mark would be a mere coincidence, his name being Mark isn't knowledge. There were many thousands of Marks in the empire, and it is not impossible that he was one of them.
 * Generally speaking, "Mark the Evangelist" means someone mentioned by name in the Bible. It does not mean an otherwise unknown Mark. So, if an otherwise unknown Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, he is not the subject of this article.
 * According to mainstream Bible scholars, there is no reason to either affirm or deny that he was called Mark. But there are good reasons to deny that he was someone described in the text of the Bible.
 * For the conservative evangelical POV, see https://ehrmanproject.com/did-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-actually-author-the-gospel-accounts (such POV isn't the mainstream academic POV). Ehrman's reply to such arguments: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-called-matthew-mark-luke-and-john/
 * About : if "Mark" means "Mark the Evangelist", i.e. John Mark, the answer is that such claim is false. If "Mark" means "an otherwise unknown Mark", then it's true, but in such a case "Mark" does not mean "Mark the Evangelist". Because the definition of "Mark the Evangelist" was settled before the modern era begun.
 * The rub is that mainstream Bible scholars deny that the gospels were written by apostles and by associates of apostles. It is not a dispute of being called Matthew and Mark vs. being called Joseph and Isaac.
 * Saying that he was an otherwise unknown Mark pays lip service to the tradition, but actually neuters it.
 * Before someone objects, I will grant the point that Foster (2012) does not WP:V that Mark did not write Mark, but it does WP:V that such kind of claims aren't new. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The point is...
Evangelical scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written by someone called Mark, but they cannot agree among themselves who this Mark was. Anyway, evangelical scholars do not belong to. So, yes, the majority view in the mainstream academia is that the canonical gospels are fundamentally anonymous. Denying this only makes things worse. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: Then what is your opinion about this and this source? Potatín5 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As they say, "consensus is not unanimity". User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 is replete with WP:RS/AC claims about the NT gospels being strictly anonymous. So, of course, there is a view that Mark wrote Mark, but it is not the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The four Evangelists are creatures of legend, not of history. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, just added to the list: Remember, this is from Eerdmans, a Christian publishing house, not from a publisher having an axe to grind against Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "as preserved in Eusebius" The same Eusebius who admitted that he uses falsehoods in his historical works: "Eusebius discussed "that it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." He has been described as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a consensus view?
@IP: the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is not a consensus view among mainstream Bible scholars. Hint: fundamentalists and apologists get discarded by default.

And I have WP:CITED 5 (five) WP:RS for such view, ranging from very liberal Bible scholars to conservative evangelicals. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Who gets to decide that? Is anyone you disagree with an "apologist"? There are plenty of apologists who are credible scholars. It could be argued that Ehrman himself is an agnostic apologist. Jbcaptain2 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You do not make the WP:RULES. WP:CHOPSY is not formally part of the WP:RULES, but you have an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear in order to give the lie to CHOPSY.
 * My evidence: User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Fringe
I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:

"r/Academic8iblical @ Search Redditpsstein • 16 days ago Moderator MA I History of Science I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist."

Again: see the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Palestine didnt exist
During the time of christ and later in marks time Israel was the name and still is to this day with palestine being the insult given by emporer hadrian after the destruction of jerusalem ending the jewish revolt under macabees 58.107.219.196 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Mainstream Bible scholars call it Palestine. I don't know why they do it, but they do. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)