Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reference problem

Reference 7 doesn't link to anything in the Bibliography. Also as an aside the original statement that it was originally anonymous implies to a layman that anonymous copies exist. More accurate would be to say that a majority or consensus* of NT scholars believe that original copies were anonymous

• need to verify which word is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.146.87 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The reference is most likely to: Sanders, E. P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-192822-7.. The same work is cited in Gospel and Gospel of John, and without full bibliographical information in Apostles. Google books doesn't give pages for this book, but there is something to the effect here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. The reference though should link to something in the bibliography though and it doesnt appear to (click on 7 then sanders and it doesnt link to a line in the bibliography) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.146.87 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Son of God Mark 1:1

Hello, miistermagico:

I receive more than 100 unsolicited inquiries each month and usually another dozen requests to read mss. All of that is on top of my regular work, so it is not always possible to reply to all of the inquiries. I can offer a few brief comments.

We do not know the exact dates of the copying of the major codices. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are probably 330-340 AD. They are good candidates as two of the 50 copies of Scripture Emperor Constantine commissioned.

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Beza (c. 400 AD), Alexandrinus (5th cent.), and Washington (5th cent.) have “Son of God.” The words were initially omitted in Sinaiticus, but the original scribe, in his own hand, inserted them between lines 1 and 2. His was an error of omission (homoiteleuton).

The short forms of Mark 1:1 encountered in some of the Fathers’ quotations and in some of the amulets prove very little (and this includes the recently published P.Oxy. 5073). The other Gospel incipits are abbreviated and sometimes are conflated. Papyrus 45 (Chester Beatty Library in Dublin) contains about half of Mark, but not the opening chapters, so it is no help.

That the absence of YUIOU QEOU (“Son of God”) in various manuscripts is due to visual error is supported by the observation that even on into the Middle Ages, when the Majority (or Byzantine) Text dominated, when the long reading of Mark 1:1 was unrivalled, we still find mss where scribes accidentally omitted the last two words of Mark 1:1. The reason? Too many consecutive words ending in the genitive, the letter OY.

For a brilliant discussion of this textual problem, see Tommy Wasserman, “The ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1),” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011) 20–50. Wasserman rightly concludes that the long version was original.

I hope this helps.

C. A. Evans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Evans Houston Baptist University Miistermagico (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It was kind of Craig Evans to reply so generously, but I have to say that everything he says is available in standard textbooks, including those cited in the article bibliography.PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Readers: Tommy Wasserman The "Son of God" was in the Beginning Lecture, 44 min, Q and A 28 min http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.fr/2011/10/mark-11-longish-reading.html Available here. Miistermagico (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I have received further information from another kind Bible scholar which I quote, whose name I have forgotten:

The phrase “sons of God” is found in OT and rabbinic literature. Angels, the nation of Israel,her king, and even the Messiah, are identified, are identified as “son(s) of God”

The Roman emperors were often times identified with the divine, so the concept of them being deity, or a son of the gods, was also commonplace. The question, however, is whether the term “Son of God” was used for the first time on that basis that it was a pagan term that would be familiar with Mark’s Gentile audience (as I understand the question). Since the term also has Jewish theological underpinnings, I cannot definitively say that Mark (who was a Jew) was using a pagan understanding of the term for his Gentile audience in his gospel, even though they might have an idea of what that means.

Also, depending on where one dates Mark (c. early 50’s or late 60-70), it should at least be true that the designation of “Son of God” to Jesus was already introduced into the Church before his gospel was written. Early Pauline epistles such as First Thessalonians and Galatians (c. early 50’s) refer to Jesus as the “Son”. Presumably, therefore, referring to Jesus as the “Son (of God)” can be pushed back even earlier.

In conclusion, I am not confident that we can say that it is probable that “Son of God” (as a pagan concept) was introduced for the first time in the Gospel of Mark knowing that the term was already circulating within the early Church before his gospel was written, and the term had Jewish underpinnings and thus not strictly a pagan idea. Miistermagico (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"The Roman emperors were often times identified with the divine, so the concept of them being deity, or a son of the gods, was also commonplace."

Not that commonplace actually. The term you are looking for in this case is Divi filius ("son of a god"). The title indicates that the father of the emperor has been deified, which was often not the case. (Several emperors had no relationship to their predecessors, and in some cases we do not even know the name of the father.) The first to use the title was Augustus, whose adoptive father Julius Caesar was deified in 42 BC. Other users include Tiberius (adoptive son of Augustus), Nero (adoptive son of Claudius), and Domitian (biological son of Vespasian). Dimadick (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bibleverse macro problem

There seems to be a problem with the bibleverse macro (links to the oremus Bible browser) when more than one verse is included. For example a link to Mark 4:24-25 is interpreted as 4:24-24:25, and a link to Matthew 12:1-8 errors at Oremus, because it is interpreted as 12:1 through 8:1, which is nonsense. I'm not experienced enough to fix it myself (no wikipedia account, even), but I hope someone more capable will look at it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.135.44 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be under consideration at the Template_talk:Bibleverse page (the appropriate place). Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: explain why scholars are skeptical of Mark's authorship

Pico - you have amended the article to say that "most scholars are skeptical of the tradition [Mark's authorship]", and you cite Reddish 2011 page 36 in support. Unfortunately the source is not freely available (at least not here in the UK). Can you please briefly add Reddish's explanation why modern scholars are skeptical? I could go to the library myself and check it out, but since you have the source at hand, it would be great if you could quickly add the information. Thanks! 81.131.171.186 (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a new insight, in fact this is the consensus of critical Bible scholars for at least a century, i.e. almost every scholar except fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. See as a jump-start Bart Ehrman's Forged (book). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No news from Pico on Reddish 2011 yet. Meanwhile, thanks for the Forged (book) link, but that article has the same problem as here; there is no explanation how the scholar arrives at the conclusion that Papias is wrong. If you have Ehrman at hand, could you please provide a quote and I will work it into the "Forged link" article so the reader can understand the scholarly line of reasoning. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Forged is a good way to learn the basics, but I am afraid that popularized science books are not our best sources. Instead, Ehrman's The New Testament - A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings would be more appropriate. I'll look what it is stated therein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus and his apostles, however, appear to have spoken Aramaic, the common language of the Jews in Palestine. Whether they could also have spoken Greek as a second language is something that scholars have long debated, but at the very least it is clear that Greek was not their native tongue. The authors of the Gospels, on the other hand, are absolutely fluent in Greek. Did the apostles go back to school after Jesus died, overcome years of illiteracy by learning how to read and write at a relatively high level, become skilled in foreign composition, and then later pen the Gospels? Most scholars consider it somewhat unlikely. ... Suppose, for example, that Matthew actually was a disciple who accompanied Jesus and witnessed the things he said and did. Why then would he take almost all of his stories, sometimes word for word, from someone else (as we will see in Chapter 6)?

In short, it appears that the Gospels have inherited traditions from both written and oral sources, as Luke himself acknowledges, and that these sources drew from traditions that had been circulating for years, decades even, among Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean world.

— Bart Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, OUP, 1997, pp. 49-51

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TGeorgescu, that is a start. What we need here however is Ehrman's reasoning on Mark (not Matthew or Luke). Papias describes Mark as the interpreter of Peter, which implies that Peter was not fluent in Greek, so I think the statements you quote are not transferable to Mark. And Papias furthermore states that Matthew composed in Hebrew/Aramaic, not in Greek (which would make the current Gospel of Matthew a later translation, contrary to the common view). I am also surprised that Ehrman implies that the Greek in the Gospel of Mark is good (I find it quite a simple style, even an embarrassment, like you would expect from a peasant; only Luke writes refined Greek prose). I am getting the impression that Ehrman is not considering Papias at all. Perhaps for a good reason? Please dig deeper. We will crack this. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The book is available from archive.org, I suggest consulting it (especially the pages mentioned). We cannot render on a short paragraph what it takes three years of college to get a grip on. We will have to do with fulfilling WP:RS/AC and maybe briefly mentioning how scholars came to such conclusions. But we cannot undo such conclusions, see WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is Ehrman is an acknowledged Atheist so has an axe to grind. Is a critic from another faith a relevant and reliable source? If there is a clear divide between say conservative and liberal\non-Christian scholars then wouldn't it be accurate to state what the majority of each believe? 人族 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

81.131.171.186: page 36 of Reddish 2011 says: "Most scholars are content to identify the author [of Mark's gospel] as an unknown first-century Christian who was likely non-Palestinian, of possibly even non-Jewish background. His name may have been Mark, but we have no clues as to the identity of this Mark." This passage supports the statement in the article that "most scholars" (the phrase used by Reddish) "are skeptical of the tradition" (i.e., the tradition that the author was John-Mark the companion of Peter, as established in the preceding sentence). I believe therefore that Reddish is sufficient authority for the sentence. Reddish does give some of the reasons why scholars are skeptical: the gospel gets Palestinian geography wrong, which would be difficult to explain for someone who came from Palestine, he gets Jewish customs wrong, again difficult to square with the tradition, and he gets some details of Palestinian history wrong, details that would have been well-known to someone who lived through these events in the very country where they took place. Personally I don't think we need to go into this sort of detail in the article, as authorship is a comparatively minor factor (far more important is Mark's theology, his understanding of the relationship of Jesus to God, his mission, and so on) and the question of whether this, as the first gospel, can be taken as an accurate or reasonably accurate guide to the life, mission and teachings of Jesus. Can you access page 36 of Reddish? (Not everyone can, of course - such is the nature of google books).PiCo (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, Pico. As I explained, I cannot access Reddish p36 via Google, so I appreciate your help. As to the skepticism, I think the current wording is not satisfactory. The facts are that on the one hand, we have a tradition for Mark's identity first recorded by Papias, and on the other hand we have a non-committal statement (not expicitly "skepticism") by Reddish on Mark's identity, whereby Reddish does not mention Papias and he does not even mention the concept of a tradition (and Papias does not describe John Mark specifically as a Palestinian). So I propose as an immediate fix:

Replace:Church tradition commencing with Papias of Hierapolis ascribes it to John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter,[8][9] and hence its author is often called Mark, but most modern scholars are sceptical of the tradition.[10]

with: Early tradition commencing with Papias of Hierapolis ascribes it to John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter,[8][9] and hence its author is often called Mark, but most modern scholars are non-committal regarding Mark's identity.[10]

The next job is to look at Burkett 2002 in the summary. And the the longer-term fix is to find and cite a source which explains scholarly skepticism of Papias. So a trip to the library for me. Are you in agreement with these three steps? 81.131.171.186 (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus among critical scholars, i.e. Bible scholars who are neither fundamentalist nor conservative evangelical, is that the NT gospels are truly anonymous. So we can't make of it that most scholars are non committal. I mean: by pure chance the Gospel of Mark could be homonymous, but there is no way to know if it so is, so it is not WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You are quite possibly right, but you need a reference from a reliable source which makes such claims ("most scholars, fundamentalists" etc, skeptical rather than non-committal), and write a pertinent referenced sentence in the article - please go ahead. But Reddish is clearly not the right source for a specific Papias critique. The Reddish reference does not match the Wikipedia sentence - that is the problem here.81.131.171.186 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New suggestion - we will simply quote Reddish directly (in bold): Early tradition commencing with Papias of Hierapolis ascribes it to John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter,[8][9] and hence its author is often called Mark, but most scholars are content to identify the author of Mark's gospel as an unknown first-century Christian.[10]

I will BE BOLD and implement the change. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"[M]ost modern scholars are non-committal regarding Mark's identity isn't an accurate reflection of what Reddish says. On page 35 he quotes Papias and identifies him as the source of the tradition. On page 36, after noting a few of the problems scholars have identified with the tradition, he says: "These discrepancies ... raise enough serious questions ... to lead many New Testament scholars to conclude that this answer to the authorship question [i.e., authorship by the John Mark of Acts and the Pauline and Petrine epistles] is highly unlikely."PiCo (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again PiCo. I think we are slowly getting the full picture: 1. Papias mentions John Mark as the Gospel author (no details except that John Mark was Peter's interpreter). 2. Some traditional scholars or church fathers equate Papias's John Mark with the Acts' John Mark (described as being Palestinian/Jewish etc). 3. Reddish & Co then criticise not Papias (stage one) but the bigger picture of stage two (arguing that the Gospel author cannot be a Palestinian/Jew etc). So I suggest what is required now is to fill in the stage two scenario into the Wikipedia article, and then cite Reddish to shoot down the scenario. You have Reddish at hand - can you do this? Perhaps a couple of sentences, slightly expanding on what you wrote above for my benefit? 81.131.171.186 (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Papias does not say that John Mark was the author, nor does he say that his Mark wrote the gospel of Mark. These are assumptions. Since you can't get that page of Reddish, I suggest you look at another book. Try Boring's 2006 commentary, page 9 onward - it's in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. Indeed Papias mentions only the interpreter "Mark" as the author of the Gospel, not specifically "John Mark". So equating this interpreter Mark with the Acts' John Mark is part of the speculation which Reddish criticises. Do you feel like explaining this speculation in a couple of sentences for the article? If not, I will give it a go, and you can edit my edits if you wish. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Pico, I have started reading Boring 2006 page 9/10, but unfortunately Boring has made a chronological mistake. On the one hand Boring dates Papias to AD 60-130 (which is the modern, i.e. Yarbrough 1983 dating, which implies Papias writing AD95-110), but when discussing the identity of Papias's Mark, Boring in his footnote 15 relies on Clifton Black 1993 who uses the traditional (pre-Yarbrough) dating which has Papias write in AD130. The new Yarbrough date would allow Mark to be a contemporary of Peter, whereas the traditional date does not - Boring cannot have it both ways. The fact that Boring is confusing the two distinct datings means we cannot use Boring as a reliable source for Papias/Mark. So let us stick with Reddish for the moment. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Papias

Papias, incidentally, does not say that Mark was the author of the gospel: "Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord." The gospel clearly is in an ordered form (it's a connected narrative), which seems contrary to what Papias is describing.PiCo (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Our edits crossed. Let us discuss this interesting point later, and amend Reddish first, see above.81.131.171.186 (talk)

We are not supposed to theorise here, but let us indulge and hope nobody notices. The context is that Papias describes Mark's Gospel as unordered, and Matthew's Gospel as ordered. It is not clear to me what Papias meant. But some of the most striking differences between Mark and Matthew are the lack of a nativity story, and the lack of post-resurrection events. Perhaps these and other differences amount, in Papias' mind, to a lack of "order" in Mark. Who knows. 81.131.171.186 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me that Luke (1:1-3) has the same concern regarding lack of "order" in Mark's Gospel as does Papias: Many [i.e. Mark and others] have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.81.131.171.133 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Papias certainly says Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. There's no scholars that debate this. Eusebius, which is where these quotes are preserved, and who had access to the writings of Papias he's quoting, is pretty clear that Papias is discussing the Gospels. The fact that Papias may not have gotten something right on the literary ordering of Mark is irrelevant. Papias also says Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, but got wrong that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew. This is because many early church fathers had the same misconception about the Gospel of Matthew -- that it was written in Hebrew.

As for the quote from Reddish, it does not support that most scholars agree Mark is anonymous. It simply says most scholars agree, even if the authors name was Mark, that Mark is unknown (since, even if Papias is right, all we'd know about Mark is that he was a disciple of Peter). In fact, scholars are split on whether or not the author of Mark had the name 'Mark'. See, for example; “Scholarship is sharply divided today on whether or not to accept the connection of Mark to Peter posited by Papias.” (Dewey, Joanna, The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of Mark in Holmén, Tom and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, pg. 1841)

Therefore, I will amend the page to reflect the views of scholarship.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:RS/AC is that the Gospel of Mark is really (truly) anonymous. See e.g. Ehrman's works aimed at rendering the academic consensus for a laymen readership. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: Do you hear quacking? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

All sources agree that Mark is anonymous. I think the OP is merely an inexperienced editor.PiCo (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Genre: Not history, theology, or biography?

This page completely leaves out the majority position on the genre of the Gospel of Mark in favor of less common interpretations. Under the 'composition' section, the page says;

"The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions from the Septuagint.[13] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time."

But the position of modern scholarship is not that Mark "may" have been influenced by Greco-Roman biography, it's that Mark was Greco-Roman biography. The first half of the first sentence and the second sentence need to go completely, and discussion has to be reserved for the scholarly view. Any extra opinions, such as that Mark's Gospel was an apocalyptic-themed document, can be reserved for later discussion -- right now, this minority idea takes up all the space devoted to discussion of this idea, which certainly violates WP:DUE. The majority view, which is approaching consensus position now, is that of Richard Burridge and the monograph he wrote in 1992 What Are the Gospels? I will need to re-write this paragraph.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: Pico, you've completely misrepresented my change to the page. The source I added was not from "1841", the page number was 1841, and the the year of the book, which I added in the ref and you oddly missed, is 2011. See https://brill.com/view/title/17737 Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I misread the square brackets as indicating a date or first publication - that's what square brackets usually mean. Your change contradicts the existing source. As I can't get the source you're using on google books, can you please quote the sentence?PiCo (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OK.

"Scholarship is sharply divided today on whether or not to accept the connection of Mark to Peter posited by Papias." (Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Brill, 2011, pg. 1841) Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't amount to support for Markan authorship.PiCo (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: Nor did I claim it supports Markan authorship, nor did my edit say that. My edit suggested that scholars are "sharply divided" on Markan authorship, and that's precisely what the source says.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I doubt very much that scholars are even slightly divided on Markan authorship, and I'm pretty sure you're misreading your source, since she says elsewhere that she doesn't support Markan authorship herself. Can you quote a few paragraphs?

On genre and Burridge, I wonder if you appreciate that ancient biography isn't the same as the modern version? Ancient biographers felt free to make things up, as they did with the miraculous birth of Augustus Caesar. It's probably best not to get too deeply into that. Also, I wonder if you are aware that Burridge has been pretty heavily criticised, e.g. by Yarbro Collins? Best I think to leave the section as is - it's more nuanced and it won't mislead readers into thinking that the gospel writers were trying to record the genuine details of Jesus's life. PiCo (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, PiCo, I'm not sure you understand the nature of the scholarship here. I'm actually well aware of the differences between modern and ancient biography, and the fact that despite the criticism of a few scholars, Burridge's view makes up a large majority if not a consensus. In fact, there's even been a paper published tracing how Burridge's view became the consensus.

"There have been other attempts to determine the genre of the Gospels, but the overwhelming trend has been towards seeing the Gospel genre as some kind of biography" (‘The Genres of the New Testament’, in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: Brill) 131-65.)

You should read the paper mentioned earlier, since it's pretty thorough and mentions many of the scholars in the new consensus accepting Burridge's work to trace the consensus, including S.E. Porter, Brook Pearson, Graham Stanton, Richard Bauckham, Andrew Lincoln, R.T. France, Robert Stein, Scot McKnight, etc. The paper also mentions that there are a few critics like Yarbro Collins, and then there's Joel Marcus who takes a kind of half-way position between Burridge's view and another, though these views are a clear majority. I can multiply majority/consensus/"this has been established" quotes all day if need be, but the one above should suffice. And the idea that the consensus position on something as important as the Gospels genre should be left out because some people can't read Wikipedia pages is absurd. P.S. Few scholars have been convinced by Yarbro Collins' criticisms, and Burridge himself has partly addressed them.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Typical drive-by quotation which misses the point (sorry, OCR):

Scholarship is sharply divided today on whether or not to accept the

connection of Mark Peter posited by Papias, The somewhat defen- Sive nature Of Papias' tone in the relevant passage cited earlier and the unreliability of much of his other evidence make Papias' views questionable. The very possibility Of connecting the ' 'Mark" associ- ated with the Gospel with the "my Son, Mark" of I Peter 5:13 may have suggesled the Petrine tradition, order to accept the Gospel as authoritative. since "Mark" was not listed among the disciples, the early church needed connect it to apostolic traditinn, and I Peter, almost universally agreed to he late and pseudonymous, provided a way. The evidence overall for a Petrine connection is wrak Black's comment on scholarly opinion on Markan authorship is acerbic: In general, critics have usually settled into ore of two camps. More consenrative researchcrs have perceived some correspondence hetween patristic claims abuut Mark the Evangelist and the Gospel accordirg to Mark, sometimes irterprctirg cohercnce as historical authentica- tion af that Guspcl's portrayal uf Jesus. Morc liberal irvcstigators have disccrncd littlc or such coherence and, rot irfrcquently, have patristic Mark and the Second Gospel as his- turically worthless Christians' pions imaginations, Same may lurk in this characterizatian. hut I think nol much_ As always, scholars' biases play a role in Our interpretations. In any case, a connection to Peter cannot serve as a guarantor of the historic- ity Of Mark's Gospel, 2.3. There is greater agreement amnng scholars as to the dating of Mark— somelime between the mid-sixlies and the early seventies CE and in some connection to the Roman-lewish War of 66-70 CE. Bilt there is debate whether the persecution discussed in Mark reflects the Neronian persecution of Christians in Romell or tensiuns from the war.' 2 Recently, even earlicr dales have heen proposed,n Black, 195 For hls of 'he Issues. see

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wallingfordtoday: Just to make something clear: biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE by our book. So, don't waste your time with pushing inerrantist POVs, you won't succeed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an inerranist by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks for quoting Dewey for me, since that was a long quote to pull out. It's true Dewey doesn't personally consider Papias reliable, nevertheless, no section of that quote contradicts what I gave. In fact, Dewey goes on to clarify that more conservative scholars accept the testimony, and that more liberal scholars (including herself -- she's a member of the Westar Institute) don't. Either way, there's also the issue of Burridge's widely accepted work which you don't dispute.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute that since I don't know enough about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

There's very little to dispute. Instead of nitpicking the details, I think we should just quote a quick summary of a scholar on the topic of genre, perhaps Burridge. Despite Dewey's unambiguous statement, I don't see PiCo being convinced.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dewey does not have to abide by WP:FRINGE, we do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dewey's words show that this isn't fringe at all. Anyways, again, I don't see this unambiguous statement convincing anyone, so let's focus on Burridge's work, which has no dispute in being the major view. I think R.T. France's words should be quoted in this page;

"Fifty years ago we were drilled in the critical orthodoxy of the form-critical school which insisted that the gospels were not to be seen as biographies, but since there has been a massive swing in scholarly opinion on this point, and increasingly sophisticated study of the nature of biographical writing in the ancient world has led to a general recognition that, for all the distinctiveness of its Christian content and orientation, in terms of literary form Mark's book (and those of Matthew, Luke and John) would have seemed to an educated reader in the first century to fall into roughly the same category as the lives of famous men pioneered by Cornelius Nepos and soon to reach their most famous expression in the 'Parallel Lives' of Plutarch." (RT France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 2002, pg. 5) Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mark wrote Mark" is a notable theological view, but it isn't history. At least this is the academic consensus, and we simply take it at face value. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, we're done talking about that. Focus on Burridge and the quote I proposed we use to summarize the genre of the Gospel of Mark.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a few sentences about bios, explaining that this is not biograsphy in the modern sense (which was my concern with your suggestion). PiCo (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

PiCo, you've misread your source. Donahue, on pg. 15, argues for Yarbro's interpretation of Mark, and Yarbro is arguing against Burridge's interpretation, not for it. In other words, the source you give directly contradicts the claim that Mark is Greco-Roman biography. The idea that Mark is an apocalypse is obviously a minority interpretation among scholars like Yarbro, whereas by far the dominant interpretation is that of Burridge's. I've added RT France's description and clarified that there are minority views like Yarbro's. Let me know what you think.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Just to note, I opt for using France's clear summary so we don't have to bicker over wording or details or emphasizing this or that. Just a neutral explanation of the scholarly view.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. In terms of writing Wikipedia articles it's not ideal - there's no need for a large block-quote from RT France, you can just just summarise and state the point without need for attribution other than in a source tag (the{{}} brackets with sfn inside them - sfn means short footnote). You're wrong in what you say about Collins - that view is simply the conssensus view, that the gospels are a subset of bios, but put in a different way. Your edit is not different in substance to the para you replaced, but is not as good in terms of writing for a common audience. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, Collins view is not Burridge's restated. Collins argues against Burridge, actually. Collins' view is more and more fringe as Burridge's becomes more the consensus. If you want me to summarize France, that's OK too.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've summarized France's views but, as of yet, have not changed the part about Collins's addition. This is so that we can at least get that part out of the way instead of having you revert the entire thing, all together, again. Before I actually do go ahead and clarify the minority position of Collins', though, I'll offer you a chance to explain how on Earth Collins's views is "restating" Burridge's biography consensus. That seems amazingly absurd to me and any student of the subject knows that apocalyptic genre (such as the Book of Daniel and Revelation) is totally different from ancient biography. This is confirmed by the fact that Collins explicitly argues against Burridge's biography position, meaning they cannot be the same. So, do you have any credible sources saying that Collins's views is Burridge's restated? Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

- the material about Burridge and France seems to be about the gospels in general and not particular to the Gospel of Mark - perhaps this material is better suited to articles like Gospel or The Gospel and keep this article particular to Mark - Epinoia (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It is particular to Mark - France's commentary is specifically on the Gospel of Mark. He's just mentioning that the other Gospels just so happen to also share this genre. On an article on the Gospel of Mark, you'd usually like to explain its genre.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: PiCo, I'm still waiting for an explanation on how Collins' claim that Mark is apocalyptic genre is in any way "Burridge's view restated" and not an obvious minority position that should be attributed as such. What I wrote earlier: "I'll offer you a chance to explain how on Earth Collins's views is "restating" Burridge's biography consensus. That seems amazingly absurd to me and any student of the subject knows that apocalyptic genre (such as the Book of Daniel and Revelation) is totally different from ancient biography. This is confirmed by the fact that Collins explicitly argues against Burridge's biography position, meaning they cannot be the same. So, do you have any credible sources saying that Collins's views is Burridge's restated?"Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

He means "it is ancient biography" is a view already stated by our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallingfordtoday, your viewpoint is too narrow. I believe all the statements in the article are sourced and reflect whats in the sources accurately. THat's what WIkipedia is about. But by all means, if you think tghe sources aren't reflected accurately, tell us here or edit the article directly.PiCo (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

PiCo, nothing I said is narrow at all. It's just the fact of the matter. When the Wiki page says (to answer your question about the change) "Mark is not biography in the modern sense but an apocalyptic history depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time", it's conflating Collins's view of Mark being apocalyptic in genre with Burridge's view of it being biographical in genre. These are two different genres and your edit clearly conflates the two as if Burridge and Collins were on the same page. In reality, Collins completely rejects Burridge's view and advances her own as an alternative. You, yourself, have pointed out Collins rejects Burridge's views, and have still failed to show that Collins' claims is Burridge's restated. What should happen in the page is that this last sentence should clarify "A small minority of scholars, among them Yarbro Collins, considers the genre of Mark's Gospel apocalyptic."Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

- the difference between apocalyptic and biographical seems rather a fine distinction (and are they mutually exclusive?) and I wonder if it is necessary in a Wikipedia article - is this information important to the general reader? - I think it is rather too specialized, and possibly confusing, for the general reader - see WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." - Epinoia (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant that you're too narrowly focused on the question of genre - you operate under the assumption that a piece of writing has to be one thing and one thing only. The last sentence of that paragraph is noting that Mark has apocalyptic elements - indeed, Aune describes Mark 13 as "the most extensive apocalyptic discourse in the Gospels". We owe it to our readers to mention this.PiCo (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That's because this is a question of genre. The article actually conflates the discussion of Mark's biographical genre with the apocryphal elements. Anyways, whoever did what edit (it looks like PiCo), all the discussion on apocryphal elements was deleted and now it just says "Mark represents Greco-Roman biography". Fine with me. That resolves everything. Next subsection -- purpose of Mark's Gospel.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Mark's Gospel

Now that the question of genre has been resolved, we need to move on to the next problem in the article. From the same section as we were arguing about earlier;

"The Gospels represent a form of Greco-Roman biography,[10] but Mark's purpose was to present a theological message rather than to write history.[11]"

The first part is fine -- the second isn't. The citation is from 1983 and anyone familiar with more recent scholarship knows that scholars have completely fragmented in their opinion on what "purpose" Mark had in writing his Gospel. In fact, before I demonstrate this, I should note that not even the 1983 Williamson quote claims this is the consensus position. To my knowledge, the consensus fragmented and fell apart in the 1970's.

Three recent major examples in scholarship since 1983 to determine the "purpose" of Mark's Gospel will suffice to show that there is no consensus. The first is S.G.F. Brandon's The fall of Jerusalem and the Christian church (Wipf and Stock 2010). Brandon's research concludes that the reason why Mark wrote his Gospel is that, in light of the fall of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, anti-Semitic sentiments were running high in Rome and that Mark wrote his Gospel in order to separate himself the Christian movement from its Jewish roots and paint the movement in a pro-Roman style. The second is H.N. Roskam's The purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its historical and social context (Brill 2004). Roskam places the composition of Mark in Galilee rather than Rome, and Roskam's research concludes that, also in light of the 70 AD war, persecution from Roman and Jewish authorities in Galilee were on the rise and the Christians found themselves in a very dangerous position. Thus, Mark crafted an apology to distance the Christian movement from any political connotations. Thirdly, there's Adam Winn's The purpose of Mark's gospel (Mohr Siebeck 2008), which argues that after the 70 AD war, Roman propaganda was on the rise and included painting Vespasian as the triumphant Messiah of the new world. As this reality sunk in for the Christian community, Mark wrote his Gospel to counteract this propaganda and affirm that Jesus is the true Messiah.

Any suggestion on this Wikipedia page on the "purpose" of Mark's Gospel that isn't two paragraphs long that outlines the fragmented positions in scholarship is incomplete. Therefore, I propose simply removing the bolded part of the quotation above.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

- the 2010 Wipf and Stock edition of S.G.F. Brandon's The fall of Jerusalem and the Christian church is a reprint - originally published in 1951 - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The other two, of course, remain. Scholarly opinion is fragmented.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: Since no one has objected, I would go on and remove it now, but I wanted to ask PiCo if he has any objection to the removal since I find he's most likely to disagree with me and I wouldn't want an immediate revert of my edit again.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How about you put here the paragraph or whatever that you'd like to have?PiCo (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting I should insert an entire paragraph on the scholarly views about the purpose of Mark's Gospel?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If your only suggestion is to remove the clause "Mark's purpose was to present a theological message rather than to write history", I can't accept it. Mark certainly present a theological message, and removing that would tend to suggest that the gospel is just a "true history" biography, which is ridiculous - no piece of writing above the level of a shopping list is so innocent. If you like we could remove the word "purpose" and say that Mark presents a theological message.PiCo (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark clearly had a theological agenda, but that isn't mutually exclusive from a historical agenda. Removing the word "purpose" wouldn't change the actual meaning of the article, it would simply make it less clear. How about this (summarizing all the aforementioned views in one sentence);

The Gospels represent a form of Greco-Roman biography,[10] but interpreters differ when it comes to understanding what purpose Mark had for writing the Gospel. Among some of the proposals include that Mark strictly had a theological agenda,[11] that Mark was written in order to distance Christianity from political connotations in light of the Roman-Jewish War,[12] or that Mark was responding to imperial Flavian propaganda.[13]

Ref 11 would be Williamson, 12 would be Roskam, 13 would be Winn. Sound good?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I separated it out as a new para for structural reasons. You need to go through and add page numbers to the source citations.PiCo (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Done.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Son of God as the Hellenistic divine man?

This page assumes, against the view of majority of scholars involved in the christological discussion, that the phrase "Son of God" is a Hellenistic appellation in the gospel. Under 'Setting';

More fundamentally, some scholars[who?] believe Mark's reason for writing was to counter believers who saw Jesus in a Greek way, as wonder-worker (the Greek term is "divine man"); Mark saw the suffering of the messiah as essential, so that the "Son of God" title (the Hellenistic "divine man") had to be corrected and amplified with the "Son of Man" title, which conveyed Christ's suffering.[25

The fundamental problem is that this fails to capture the view of most scholars on the topic and is from a rather old citation -- a 1987 book -- given the fact that most of the major work in christology has been done in the last 25 years. Larry Hurtado summarizes the scholarly view on the 'Son of God' title in pp. 102-103 of his book Lord Jesus Christ. The phrase is actually not often used in Greek/Roman sources, in fact, it's an abundantly attested title in the OT and Second Temple Judaism. Therefore, this is the information that should be conveyed to the reader. The above can be re-added later if someone finds a way to summarize it in half a sentence, since that is, at best, what it's WP:DUE.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You base this on Hurtado, but Hurtado doesn't say what you claim he says.PiCo (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: He does. I'll provide the entire argument from pp. 102-103. Hurtado writes;

Instead, Bousset was surely correct in seeing Jesus' divine sonship as central in Paul's beliefs. But Bousset seriously erred both in claiming that Paul adopted the category from the pagan religious environment where sons of gods were supposedly a common category of divine beings, and in asserting that Jesus' divine sonship functioned as the means by which Paul communicated Jesus' divine status to his Gentile converts and justified to them the worship of Jesus. Unfortunately, however, Bousset's view was repeated in writings of other very influential scholars such as Bultmann and Schoeps. But, as Nock and Hengel have shown, it is hard to demonstrate the relevance of pagan references to divine sonship. There are references to the human race as offspring of Zeus or other high gods, but this hardly relates to the way Paul attaches special significance to Jesus as God's unique Son. Great figures such as Alexander the Great might be portrayed as a son of a deity, but this was essentially an honorific gesture in recognition of some quality such as wisdom or military prowess, and with the intention of presenting the figure as an exceptionally impressive human being. In fact, the phrase "son of god" was not common in Greco-Roman paganism. The deities of the so-called mystery cults, to which early history-of-religions scholars attached such importance for early Christianity, were not referred to as "son of god." The title does seem to have been promoted in the Roman emperor cult, but any influence of emperor devotion upon early Christianity was probably much later than Paul and likely was considered blasphemous and rejected rather than considered something to be appropriated. The judgment of that master of the Roman period, A. D. Nock, still holds concerning the Pauline attribution of divine sonship to Jesus: "[T]he attempts which have been made to explain it from the larger Hellenistic world fail." Divine sonship was, however, a familiar category in the biblical and Jewish tradition that shaped the religious vocabulary of early-first-century Christian circles. In what appears to be an archaic use of the expression in the Hebrew Scriptures, the heavenly hosts are referred to as "sons of God" (e.g., Gen. 6:2-4; Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6). Though in a number of cases the Greek Old Testament translates the phrase "angel(s) of God" (e.g., Deut. 32:8), this is not done consistently (e.g., Deut. 32:43), meaning that Greek-speaking Jews too would have known this use of "sons of God." The more influential uses of the language of divine sonship, however, are in references to the Davidic king (2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:7; 89:26-27), and still more frequently to righteous individuals (e.g., Wisd. of Sol. 2:18; 5:5; Sir. 4:10; Pss. Sol. 13.9; 18.4) and Israel collectively (e.g., Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 1:10; 11:1; Wisd. of Sol. 12:21; 16:10, 26; 18:4,13) as son(s) and "firstborn" of God. In view of recently published texts from Qumran, it now seems more likely than earlier thought by some scholars that divine sonship was also part of the royal-messianic rhetoric of pre-Christian Judaism, and that biblical passages originally referring to Davidic kings were read as messianic texts. In this messianic usage, divine sonship did not function to connote divinity, but it certainly indicated a special status and relationship to God. The same is true for the uses of divine sonship language in reference to righteous individuals and groups and Israel collectively. So the category of divine sonship lay close to hand in the Jewish matrix of earliest Christianity, and can even be said to have been more prominent there than in the pagan religious environment. (pp. 102-103)

Have you read Hurtado?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing there about what "most scholars" think.PiCo (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If that's what you meant by "Hurtado doesn't say that", why didn't you be more precise in the first place? It would have saved a lot of time rather than wasting hours. The Hellenistic interpretations of Christology has been shoved into the minority for decades now. In any case, Hurtado's view is notable and deserves just as much 'coverage' as the one already mentioned. Therefore, there shouldn't be any problem integrating Hurtado's position as the alternative.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the "setting" section is more nuanced than you allow. It says in I think the second sentence that early Christians (those of the generation that saw the gospels written) relied on concepts drawn from Jewish literature that included, inter alia, both "son of God" and "son of man". That, to my mind, obviates the need to add your original edit in the second para, "most scholars think the "Son of God" title derives from earlier Judaism (Hurtado).

Son of God was certainly a Hellenistic title, used of the emperor. Mark wrote (most scholars think) for a Roman audience, one familiar with Imperial titles, and he wished to promote the idea that Jesus, not a human Roman, was the true imperator of this world and the world to come (the Kingdom of God). Ephrem (c. 350) is explicit about the Gospels' languages: "Matthew the Hebrew wrote this, and behold it was turned into Greek. [...] Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, Mark in Latin from Simon in the city of Rome, Luke in Greek," and this is echoed in many later sources such as Gregory of Nazianzus. Mark writing in Latin may have arisen merely by inference, but it is true that canonical Mark exhibits numerous Latinisms, and some have argued that indeed canonical Mark was translated from a Latin original. Most scholars, however, reject this view and consider the Greek original.}}

The text at Marcan priority#External evidence says

Ephrem (c. 350) is more explicit about the Gospels' languages: "Matthew the Hebrew wrote this, and behold it was turned into Greek. [...] Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, Mark in Latin from Simon in the city of Rome, Luke in Greek," and this is echoed in many later sources such as Gregory of Nazianzus. Mark writing in Latin may have arisen merely by inference, but it is true that canonical Mark exhibits numerous Latinisms, and some have argued that indeed canonical Mark was translated from a Latin original. Most scholars, however, reject this view and consider the Greek original.

References

Undue and selectively chosen to add this. Couchoud is from 1926. And who is David Bruce Gain? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The article on Markan priority needs to be rewritten to reflect the modern scholarly consensus.Achar Sva (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

By moving the last sentence forward, and removing the word "more," the info was considerably altered. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

cock crowed twice

My Bible has an annotation that some manuscripts of Mark do not have "twice" and simply have the cock crowing once. That should be mentioned somewhere, no? --Mr. 123453334 (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Bart D. Ehrman (3 March 2009). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperOne. p. PT17. ISBN 978-0-06-186328-8. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a bit trivial to mention here. Maybe in the Inerrancy article?Achar Sva (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)