Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

How can book with an author be anonymous?

This statement is a contradiction LordAgincourt (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

LordAgincourt, a bit of context would be in order here. I have no idea what you are talking about; your recent edits have been trivial. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The article says the book is anonymous. Trivial edits huh? LordAgincourt (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

By "a book" I assumed you meant a reference. Are you in fact referring to the Gospel of Mark itself? Elizium23 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Um yes is it not a contradiction? LordAgincourt (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, here's the thing. Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions are strong and rooted in deep history. Together, they name authors for many books of Sacred Scripture, and for centuries, these traditions were unassailable. The traditions are not so much about the personal nature of authorship but a spiritual link to the person so named. For example, Paul dictated his letters to a scribe; this is well-known, yet we still impute the epistles to his name, not "anonymous scribe".

But modern scholars of the sort who are tolerated on Wikipedia hate tradition, and wish to erase Popish nonsense from Scripture scholarship, so we have atheists like Bart Ehrman who jump through various hoops in order to decide that nobody who matters, really knows who wrote these books anyway.

Wikipedia editors who patrol these articles insist on using nothing but the freshest modern scholarship, no matter how bad it is, it just has to be new. Therefore as a result, the ancient traditions and teachings underpinning Sacred Scripture are expunged, and Scripture is treated as if read in a vacuum of ignorance, and we get "anonymous authorship for the Gospel of Mark" as a result. </rant>. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Whew! Wow, what to say to this? Yes, we definitely DO value Bart Ehrman more than ancient teachings and if you don't like it you can start your own site elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your writing is very clear unlike this article. After editing a long rambling sentence i lost interest and gave up. So sum it up in one word..politics LordAgincourt (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I barely touch this article! I wouldn't dare inject my POV here! All new editors, and most long-term editors, have been pushed away from editing this topic area due to the WP:OWN or perhaps WP:CABAL features of those who habitually edit and contribute here. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you value Bart Ehrman over other theologians and historians that deal with early Christianity, such as William Rede or Delbert Burket? And why value any of these over the theologians of the early church such as Iranius and Polycarp? All of these show Mark to be the author of the Gospel of Mark. So on what basis do you consider Bart Ehrman above the majority? What is so special about him? (Unless you simply want to undermine Christianity without any basis.... ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.61.123 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. LordAgincourt (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, you have a funny way to state that you prefer religious views over scholarship. I, for one, appreciate the efforts to follow WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. Thanks to our illustrous Enlightenment predecessors, who wrote the first encyclopedia, we have developed an attitude of critical scholarship and autonomous thinking, which has unrooted your cherished tradition and all the inequality and oppression that comes with it. I'm proud to contribute to this critical attitude. That's what Wikipedia is for, to give readers access to scholarship and critical thinking, as a counterweight to those cherished traditions and the suppressive status-quo that comes with it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Johnathan you have a funny way of acting in a NPOV way by your action LordAgincourt (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't have a clue what WP:NPOV is about. Or Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

LordAgincourt: our source (E.P. Sanders) says: "The gospels as we have them were quoted in the first half of the second century, but always anonymously ... Names suddenly appear about the year 180". This is the prevailing assumption among scholars, and you can read the reasons why in various places. There have always been other scholars who have argued that the traditions are reliable, but they haven't convinced the vast bulk of their colleagues. Achar Sva (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva yes i suppose but stating the Gospel of Mark is anonymous is like saying the sky is green! Its an absurd contradiction.it is also inserting a particular POV LordAgincourt (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@LordAgincourt: Most modern seminaries (including the Catholic church) only argue that the Gospel of Mark was from an oral tradition started by Mark but only later recorded by an unknown author. Since we do not have that author's name, they are anonymous. The proper title is the Gospel according to Mark, not the Gospel as written by Mark. Even more properly, the work is the Gospel of Jesus according to Mark and it starts off saying that it the Gospel of Jesus without mentioning Mark -- but we do not attribute its authorship to Jesus. There is nothing anti-Christian in having a nuanced view in how the New Testament came to be, nor does such thinking inherently contradict belief in its divine inspiration; it only contradicts a simplistic legend that only four disciples wrote Gospels as soon as possible and in tandem. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also while you are here could u please explain the HIstoricity section better in plain english terms in a clearer way for the readers. LordAgincourt (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's the "historicity" section:

• Since about 1950 there has been a growing consensus that the primary purpose of the author of Mark was to announce a message rather than to report history.[17] The idea that the gospel could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus suffered two severe blows in the early part of the 20th century, first when William Wrede argued strongly that the "Messianic secret" motif in Mark was a creation of the early church rather than a reflection of the historical Jesus, and in 1919 when Karl Ludwig Schmidt further undermined its historicity with his contention that the links between episodes are the invention of the writer, meaning that it cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the chronology of Jesus' mission: both claims are widely accepted today.[18] The gospel is nevertheless still seen as the most reliable of the four in terms of its overall description of Jesus's life and ministry.[19]

I agree that it's not well-structured, and that this makes it difficult to follow. What it's saying is:

• First sentence: the gospel was written to "announce a message" (i.e., the "good news" that the Messiah had come), not to record history. This is about the genre of the gospel, the type of literature it was - not a simple chronicle of the life of Jesus, but an argument about his nature (as the Messiah).
• Second sentence: This is about why scholars don't think the gospel is a simple historical record (i.e., a report on the historical Jesus). Too much is missing from this sentence. It should begin by saying that in the late 19th century scholars came to accept Mark as the earliest of the gospels, and they therefore thought they could use it reconstruct the real life of Jesus. Then Wrede showed that the "messianic secret" motif is literary rather than factual, and Schmidt showed that the gospel is constructed of units that have been grouped together artificially (its "episodes are the invention of the writer" - not the incidents themselves, but the way they're grouped together).
• Third: "The gospel is nevertheless still seen as the most reliable of the four in terms of its overall description of Jesus's life and ministry." I think that's pretty straightforward.

So no doubt it needs to be re-written. In the meantime, if you're interested in this, read the books being used as sources - they're by reliable scholars, certainly more reliable than Wikipedia editors. Achar Sva (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva thanks 4 the explanation. I already was aware and understood the questioning of the historicity. However when one has to deal with things like “messianic secret motif” etc. it becomes distracting. LordAgincourt (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Dont misunderstand me i am not for or against one side! That is not what i mean. I will make it clear by stating my issue is the way things are said. I did not think i would get much of a response so i wasn’t too clear. The way the section is structured by saying a Seeming contradiction first and then going on to explain. This is not a good way to start a paragraph. The explanation should come first! LordAgincourt (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

For Elizium23:

Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.

What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

— religio criticus, Amazon.com

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Old canard

According to WP:CHOPSY Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark is bunk.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User blocked. Mz7 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to WP:ME "(Personal attack removed) Just ME (talk) }} Quoted by User:ChristianPhilosophy Do you realize that you exemplify everything that is wrong with the Christian Right? Quite unchristian on your behalf. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: while I know WP is not a forum, and I admit the behaviour of ChristianPhilosophy is unacceptable, I find that categorising him into a political group is a bit of a stretch. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC) He has a longer history at this website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrede and the Messianic Secret

The Historicity section contains this line:

"The idea that the gospel could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus suffered two severe blows in the early part of the 20th century, first when William Wrede argued strongly that the "Messianic secret" motif in Mark was a creation of the early church rather than a reflection of the historical Jesus,"

However, the article on the Messianic Secret here on Wikipedia seems to generally disagree that Wrede argued his case "strongly," saying that people generally moved on from the theory in the 70s. Additionally, though I realise this isn't particularly scholarly, a brief google search of "wrede messianic secret" seems to mostly return results pointing out the myriad alternative explanations and, here: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e1244 that the theory is "not acceptable as it stands."

So it seems the wording of this section is overstating things a bit? Especially when it says the claims are "widely accepted today." I admit a google search isn't much of a research expedition but at the very least it seems the tone of the section here is a little overconfident.

Apologies if this is inappropriate or rule-breaking, this is my first comment on wikipedia. --2A00:23C5:7984:2401:691A:3101:779C:5E28 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No, not inappropriate at all. One source used in our article is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, published 2005. The dictionary was originally done by Frank Cross, but this edition has been updated by Elizabeth Livingstone, so our information is recent and reliable. The other is an entry by Marcus Joel in the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible - this is likewise a reliable source, but I can't check it on google books (it's fallen down the google-hole). It's correct to say that there has been a lot of elaboration of Wrede's original theory, but so far as I know no one believes today that Mark's gospel is a simple record of what happened. That's pretty much what the online source you reference is saying, but it isn't what we regard as a reliable source, as it's unsigned (we have no idea who wrote it) and online (can be changed at any time). If you're interested in this question, I suggest you use books by scholars. Achar Sva (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: It is an Oxford source so I believe it is reliable. I do not think your two criteria are enought to consider it not a WP:RS.

Maybe we can add some criticism of Wrede's theory in this article, and add some praises of his theory at Messianic Secret, so that both articles are at the same time more nuanced and not contradictory. Veverve (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of authorship and dating

I'd like to propose that the sections on authorship and dating be split into different sections and expanded to include the discussion of minority positions on the dating and authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Let me explain. Before someone starts accusing me of violating the CHOPSY test, CHOPSY clearly states that minority views are worth including in Wikipedia with the attribution that they are held by a minority. Whereas I agree that the summary up top should probably reflect a broader consensus, the body of the article should have more information on the discussions about these topics for the following reason: these debates are addressed in academic sources. The Perkins source cited as evidence for a 70 AD date discusses the minority position. The Burkett source cited multiple times throughout the article, also discusses the debate over authorship (in which by the way, Burkett holds to the minority position that the evidence for Markan authorship is strong and reliable). On the question of dating, Burkett concedes that a pre-70 AD date is plausible. This is from a book published by Cambridge University. This is no fundamentalist wacko. In fact, most of the sources cited in the Wikipedia article on Mark contain discussions of dating and authorship with an acknowledgment of the minority position. Articles from Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia.com also contain discussions of authorship and date. Although a pre-70 AD date is held to by a minority of scholars, it's still worth addressing and discussing in our Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Mark, as is the authorship of the Gospel (in a more detailed and expanded sense I mean.) It would benefit the community to have separate sections on these interesting topics with details about the debate between scholars on these questions. Rusdo (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස:, what are you on about when you say that "religious believers definitely don't like the dates, but that doesn't mean that their scholarship has been accepted by those outside of their religion"?

We follow mainstream sources indeed, and these say the following:

Telford, W.R. (1999). The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 12: A general consensus would now accept a date not much earlier than 65 CE and not much later than 75, that is, some time before or after the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70. A substantially earlier date is usually dismissed [...]

Crossley, James G. (2004). The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 266. London: T & T Clark, p. 56: The rise of form criticism has provided convenient arguments for the conventional date of Mark's gospel (65-75 CE). (Crossley actually argues for an earlier dating in c. 35–45 CE, and is cited elsewhere as having a respectable argument; this is the actual minority view)

Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, p. 167: Regarding the date, most scholars agree that the eschatological discourse in Mark 13 indicates a proximity to the war in Jerusalem in 66–74 C.E. The main debate concerns whether Mark was written shortly before or shortly after the destruction of the temple in 70.; p. 167, note 43: For scholars who date Mark before 70 C.E., see Hengel 1985, 7–28; and A. Collins 2007, 11–14. Scholars who date Mark after 70 include Theissen 1992, 258–62; Incigneri 2003, 116–55; Head 2004; and Kloppenborg 2005.

Those who argue a pre-70 CE date include luminaries like Martin Hengel ("The Gospel of Mark: Time of Origin and Situation" in: M. Hengel (ed.). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Philadephia: Fortress Press, pp. 1–30) and Adela Yarbro Collins (Collins, A. Yarbro 2007. Mark: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 11–14).

I think you deserve a trout for this:

Plip!

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't think that earlier dates are ones being promoted by Christian apologists? If no, how can we get on the same page. There is obvious motivated reasoning present in these arguments and it doesn't make sense to pretend like there isn't. jps (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that Martin Hengel and Adela Yarbro Collins are Christian apologists? Do you honestly think that mainstream academic sources like Telford 1999 (CHOPSY) or Leander 2013 (Society of Biblical Literature), both of whom confirm that mainstream sources date Mark to c. 65–75 CE, would just include the arguments of Christian apologists as of equal validity to the arguments of top scholars? That's just not serious. Achar Sva, what do you think? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's just say post-70 AD is the majority view and I am non-committal about pre-70 AD being sizeable minority or tiny minority or fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, as you very well know, this is not at all about what you personally commit to. The WP:BESTSOURCES as cited above (all Mark specialists) say the mainstream view is c. 65–75, and there is absolutely no reason for us to say anything else. Please quote us a scholarly source at the same level (i.e., an expert on Mark) which says differently, or just accept that this is a case where you too deserve a minor trouting. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

65-73 AD, according to Dating the Bible#Table IV: New Testament. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 65–75 AD as given by Telford 1999 and Crossley 2004 is clearly an approximation rounding it to multiples of 5; Leander 2013 narrows it down a little to the dates of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 AD or 66–74 AD, depending on whether the Siege of Masada is counted as still a part of that war), and the two sources cited in Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament only round the post quem to 65. I'd like to propose citing Leander 2013, who is a Mark specialist and gives the best references to other authoritative scholars who explicitly discussed the dating (see the quotes above), as follows:

Lead: Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD.

Body: Most scholars date Mark to either slightly after or slightly before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, during the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD).

References

• Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 978-1-58983-889-5.

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep Perkins if she really does say that "most scholars" date Mark closely after 70 - I thought she said a little more, though, mentioning the 66-70 range as minority position. Unfortunately the relevant page has fallen down the google-hole, so could someone with access please check for me? (Incidentally, I hope it's clear that I have no objection to mentioning the 66-70 option as a significant minority position).Achar Sva (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the reason scholars date Mark to around 66-74 or so is that the author of the passage clearly knew that the Romans were either about to take Jerusalem, or have recently done so. To foresee this even before it happened didn't take prophetic powers, just an awareness that the Jews were losing the war. The little bit in brackets, "let the reader understand", is pretty clear evidence that these are not the words of Jesus.Achar Sva (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I too do not have access to Perkins 2007, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, and would like someone to quote her on the pre-70 dating as a minority position. To be honest, I find this very suspicious, for a number of reasons:

• All Mark specialists quoted above very explicitly report c. 65–75 as having a broad scholarly consensus (Telford 1999, p. 12 A general consensus; Crossley 2004 conventional date; Leander 2013 most scholars agree).
• In a different publication (Perkins, Pheme (2012). Reading the New Testament: An Introduction. Paulist Press. ISBN 9780809147861. p. 20), Perkins herself gives the dating for Mark as ca. AD 68–70, without further comment. If the pre-70 dating held by her would really be a minority position, wouldn't she clarify in a footnote or somewhere that most (or at least, other) scholars have a different view?
• There are some respectable and widely cited scholars who argue for a substantially earlier dating, such as Crossley 2004 cited above (c. 35–45 CE), and it seems likely to me that this is the minority position that Perkins 2007 is actually talking about. Of course, it would be great if someone with access to Perkins 2007 could clarify that.

To be honest, I'm quite concerned that upon quoting three independent specialist sources giving a very explicit WP:RS/AC, multiple editors object to this based solely on the fact that it does not align with their personal POV. I suggest that, as long as we're not in the position to know what Perkins 2007 is actually saying and how that weighs up to the sources quoted above, we cite Leander 2013 as in my previous proposal. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I had checked Perkins a few month ago and added the quote thereafter, then removed it for unknown reasons. I have added it back now. Veverve (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: thanks for that. However, I just bought myself access to Perkins 2007, because I was really just too curious about it. Let me quote the relevant paragraph in full:

The Galilee-Jerusalem axis of Mark's narrative is easily established at the level of literary analysis. Whether or not it can be taken to reflect historical moments in early Christian history remains disputed. Most exegetes lean toward a date just after Titus had destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. for the composition of the gospel. In that case, Jesus' words as well as the symbolic destruction of the Temple at his death might be perceived as explanation for the disaster which has struck the city. Other exegetes see the same apocalyptic words about the Temple in Mark 13 as evidence that the Gospel was composed in the region of Syria-Palestine in the mid-60s, after the rebellion had begun but before its final days. The Evangelist has used every means in his power to persuade Christians that they have no stake in the fate of the doomed city. They should abandon it for Galilee and the surrounding Gentile regions.

There are a few things to note about this:

• Perkin's focus here is not on the dating of Mark. Instead, her references to it (Most exegetes [...] just after 70 CE [...] In that case [...] explanation for the disaster which has struck the city [...] Other exegetes [...] the mid-60s [...] to persuade Christians [...] no stake in the fate of the doomed city) serve to structure her own narrative: she is using them to differentiate between different possible meanings of Mark 13 depending on whether it was composed after or before 70 CE The Most here is merely numerical, and is not necessarily meant to convey that this view carries more weight. Remember that establishing due weight is not merely a question of counting heads, a fact of which Perkins too will be well aware (note that Perkins 2012 dates Mark to c. 68–70 CE).
• Probably because of this limited context, Perkins is not citing any sources for her references to Most exegetes [...] and Other exegetes [...]. But WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and we have expert sources who do explicitly discuss the dating of Mark as a subject of its own, and who do refer to sources. An instructive example is Leander 2013 (full citation above), who refers to only two sources for the pre-70 date and to four sources for the post-70 date (For scholars who date Mark before 70 C.E., see Hengel 1985, 7–28; and A. Collins 2007, 11–14. Scholars who date Mark after 70 include Theissen 1992, 258–62; Incigneri 2003, 116–55; Head 2004; and Kloppenborg 2005.), yet in his main text merely writes that Regarding the date, most scholars agree that the eschatological discourse in Mark 13 indicates a proximity to the war in Jerusalem in 66–74 C.E. The main debate concerns whether Mark was written shortly before or shortly after the destruction of the temple in 70. Clearly, the fact that Hengel 1985 and Collins 2007 (both absolute top scholars) constitute a numerical minority does not cause an expert like Leander to infer that their views carry any less weight.
• Even if we were to follow Perkins 2007 (which would be quite undue), only referring to the Most exegetes [...] just after 70 C.E. [...] part, as is done in the article right now, is nothing short of tendentious. Frankly, I'm baffled at how this unsourced and passing reference in Perkins 2007 is abused to convey the utterly misleading impression that only post-70 datings are held by serious scholars. If this arises from the (obviously false) impression that the pre-70 dating is a POV pushed by religious apologists, I really fear for the quality of other religion-related WP articles. We have a duty to carefully evaluate what the scholarly sources are actually saying, and should never favor a position just because religious apologists appear to be taking the opposite position, or because we may think they would be bound by logic to do so. Whenever we allow apologetics and anti-apologetics to influence the editorial process, it will be detrimental to WP. When the mainstream sources (Telford 1999, Crossley 2004, Leander 2013, all quoted above) which directly discuss Mark's dating all report c. 65–75 CE (or 66–74 CE or 65–73 CE, etc., but always a date range starting before 70 and ending after 70), there is absolutely no excuse for us not to do likewise.

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, I apologise for deleting what must have taken you considerable effort to research, but my feeling is that your version of the question of dating amounts to a miniature essay inserted somewhat awkwardly into the body of the article (which, after all, is aimed general readers. However, it all still exists in the "view history" page" and if you were to revise and reinsert it in the Notes section I wouldn't object. Achar Sva (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No, my entry badly needed a copy-edit, and the gist of the research I did was preserved, so thanks for that. I replaced Telford 1999 by Leander 2013 in the lead because Leander 2013 gives better and more recent references to other scholarly sources himself. I also re-added Crossley 2004 because it's important to be clear about the fact that the c. AD 35–45 dating is his. Do you for some reason not like to have multiple sources in one numbered reference for this article? Otherwise we could reduce the clutter of numbered references by putting Crossley 2004 and Telford 1999 in one numbered reference:

"Earlier dates in the range AD 35–45 are sometimes proposed, but are usually dismissed."

rather than:

"Earlier dates in the range AD 35–45 are sometimes proposed, but are usually dismissed."

References

What do you think? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

unnamed man in Jesus's cave?

Should the unnamed man in Jesus's cave have his own article? He is much more important than Naked fugitive considering he is in the cave while Jesus disappears and yet he doesn't have an article. Thoughts?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The "unnamed man" is an angel - you can look this up in the various commentaries. Achar Sva (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

He is never referred to as such in the original manuscripts.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe neither the Naked fugitive nor the man in Jesus's cave should have an article, because not every single person mentioned in the bible deserves an article. Veverve (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. 123453334 - nobody has ever seen the original manuscripts, or at least not since the 1st century. Angels are frequently described as men. Again, you need to read the commentaries, not indulge in your own ideas. Veverve: agreed. Achar Sva (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oldest surviving manuscripts I meant, clearly. At least according to the Bible I own.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The naked fugitive has an article because he is the subject of artwork like that shown in the article and of significant commentary in reliable sources like that referenced in the footnotes of the article. Can you say that of unnamed man in the tomb? The standard for an article in Wikipedia is significant coverage reliable sources. —teb728 t c 06:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. 123453334 - I took the liberty of moving your reply to my comment, as it really shouldn't be attached to mine. If you really want to write about the figure in the tomb in Mark and a possible connection to the young man in the garden, you should add it to the existing article about the latter - we shouldn't needlessly multiply articles. Find decent sources. Achar Sva (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the Naked Fugitive and the young man in the tomb were the same person..both are described as a young man/youth wearing a linen cloth. If the Secret Gospel narrative (as improbable as it is, its being authentic wins occam's razor over its being a fabrication) is taken into consideration, it becomes more obvious. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a big believer in Occam's Razor, but I also think Carl Sagan was right when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (I think that was Sagan, anyway!). There is enough doubt surrounding "Secret Mark" and Morton Smith that I would suggest we not use it as an authoritative source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Messianic secret?

@Joshua Jonathan:, @MPants at work: The article states that William Wrede's Messianic secret theory is "widely accepted" by scholars today. But, in fact, Wrede's theory has received increasing criticism from the 70s and has now been abandoned. Shouldn't we modify the text?-Karma1998 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wording of lede/separating historical facts from belief

I said this in my edit summary, but I want to reiterate here. The lede of this article is a place to briefly describe the contents of the Gospel of Mark and its importance; it is not a place to get into the details of what specific incidents in the life of Jesus that are considered historically accurate. I'm an atheist and I don't find the current version to be POV-pushing at all: I think anyone can understand from context that the list of events here is "a list of things that happen in the Gospel of Mark", not "a list of things that historians agree really happened."

You could, I suppose, change "It tells of the ministry of Jesus from his baptism..." to "It consists of a narrative of the ministry of Jesus that includes his baptism..." and so on. But I honestly think the intended reading is perfectly clear here. --Jfruh (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

- as Wikipedia is based on facts, I feel it is important to distinguish between what scholars say and what is unsubstantiated belief, especially for those unfamiliar with the Gospel or with Christianity, it may not be perfectly clear to them - the transfiguration and the great commandments were added by an editor in June, 2021, so this is new content - the editor said, "I chose two to include in the summary", so these are one editor's opinion of what is important in Mark, not supported by scholarship - I think these edits should be removed and the lead restored to the accepted version - primary sources can be used to affirm what the source contains, so I would be happy with a general qualifier as you suggest, such as, "It consists of a narrative of the ministry of Jesus that includes supernatural events, such as his baptism..." - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jfruh here, I am another non-believer, but I think adding all the "allegeds" just makes it very clunky. I think it's clear we're talking about the Markan narrative and not a factual recounting of anything. I say go for the more streamlined reading. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jfruh too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A couple of editors have reverted the portion in question, including Epinoia who I reminded about this discussion (participated above but may have forgotten it was here, assuming good faith and all). Can someone revert, I'm over my limit. Epinoia did make the important observation that there are no mentions of the Great Commandments in the body of the text, which is pretty ridiculous this being a core subject of this gospel, so that's got to be added (was it at one time and erased? had to be, but miracles-of-omission do happen on Wikipedia). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The main content is organized well and is all relevant to the topic. KenBoy02 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

I can live with Papias, c. 125 AD. But the present version is much too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK Papias talks about a gospel of Matthew and a gospel of Mark, he does not talk about Luke, or John. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Content unique to Mark

This section consists of a lengthy list and is not of interest to the general reader. IMO it should be cut.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:15C5:7A46:D83E:CAA3 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

unsourced claims about "son of man" and "son of god"

The article had this: 'More fundamentally, 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.' There was no source cited for this analysis. I've deleted these sentences. Maybe this is a commonly held hypothesis (although this is the first I've heard of it). If so, a source should be cited, and most likely the wording should be softened to indicate that there can be no certainty.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:15C5:7A46:D83E:CAA3 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I will say that it's a pretty common understanding of the Markan narrative, but that said, you are absolutely correct that it should be cited to something. I'll see if I can't find something that fits the bill. Cheers, and thank you for your efforts. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on the ending of Mark

An editor has recently attempted to expand the section on the ending of Mark; I reverted, he restored his edit, and I reverted again. Before this spirals into an edit war, I'll explain further my reasons for reverting.

Firstly, the article consists of a series of quite brief subsections, as is fitting for an entry level encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a scholarly encyclopedia, despite relying on scholarly sources: our aim is to introduce lay readers to the topic, not to go into details). Expanding this section should therefore only be done if the new material corrects a major absence. The new material does not do this. It largely concerns the ideas of the 5th century Church Father Victor of Antioch; why should we privilege his views? Why should we mention them at all? The section as it stands presents the views of the majority of modern scholars, and unless there are compelling reasons for mentioning Victor I can see no reason to do so. Achar Sva (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The expanded version of this section is probably overlong, and I think framing this is a "debate" with "two sides" is not the way to present it, but I do think we should make clear that for much of the history of Christianity, the so-called "longer ending" was considered canonical and briefly touch on why, in which context we could mention the opinions of the Church fathers. But Mark 16 has its own article where this is all discussed in more depth so we don't want to just end up repeating material from there. --Jfruh (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mark, Gospel of" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mark, Gospel of has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Mark, Gospel of until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Overcite

Hi, Pbritti. Please select two or three references from my edit and cite those. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I selected one very good reference published by OUP, as the quote provided with the citation is perfectly suited to provide reference and demonstrates that this is a crucial detail to mention in the lead summary. I would caution you to consider avoiding similar CITEBOMBs, lest your actions be interpreted as POINTY. Posting them to the talk page and selecting two yourself would have been a better start. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Some people find all those references (plus some other references) not enough, e.g. Jenhawk777 at Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels#Arbitrary break. She says that Ehrman does not count because he is too controversial, Holman bibles do not count because they are too conservative (unscholarly), Witherington because although he is on her side, he actually gives her the lie, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See, @Tgeorgescu: comments like that are fairly good indications of pointy behavior. No reason to ping someone just because they disagreed with you elsewhere. Returning to that above comment repeatedly to further criticize the view of another editor uninvolved in this article is, in my view, uncivil. I'd encourage you to strike the above and to not view the project as a contest of ideas. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Stricken. But for you the citation from Ehrman was enough, in the other article multiple WP:RS/AC claims do not get accepted and she summons me to delete the same claim you have accepted here.

My point: if the claim is bad, it has to be deleted from all Wikipedia articles, not just from only one.

I mean: if it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim, then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim. I can accept that. But then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim everywhere (in every article). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If you are going to run me down all over Wikipedia for daring to question one sentence in one article, then at least do so honestly. My dispute was and is with the quality of the source used to claim "scholarly consensus", a claim that is not made in this article. You are once again focused on the "truth" of authorship, and keep trying to make the discussion about what you want to prove. My focus is, and has been from the beginning, much smaller. I just want a decent source that actually says what is claimed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I had mentioned WP:RS/AC four times, just above your reply. So, I don't understand the charge.

And, generally speaking, Wikipedia does not deal in "true" or "false", but in supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and unsupported by scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)