Talk:Gospel of Mark

Tendentious editing

@Pbritti: Rejecting WP:RS/AC on the ground that there are too many sources is WP:TE. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Struck since you agree with me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bullet point is my comment preceding you striking your comment, but I think it's important to include it.

• @Tgeorgescu: No, I agree with you! What you did was drop a REFBOMB that featured such highlights as a note that reads [bolding original] Hint: it only concerns the Gospel of John and at least two references only about Matthew. That is disruptive. I am about to restore a couple sources that appropriately reference the "most scholars" claim.

I will use a couple of the sources you added, probably the The New Oxford Annotated Bible and one of the redundant Holman sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I replied at my talk page, my understanding is that REFBOMB is against many references (footnotes), not against many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. See your talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the source you have WP:CITED is highly prestigious, but... not a WP:RS/AC kind of source. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I selected it because you cited it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3: not everything therein is WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not a reliable source. Also, perhaps linking to your copypasta is imprudent. This is not a big deal. You've already struck your aspersion and allowed your REFBOMB to be replaced by a highly reliable source that does appropriately aggregate other sources. We're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous Definition of Gospel

Christianity is so influenced by Paul's use of "gospel" in reference to Jesus that it too frequently forgets that, in the synoptics, Jesus is the messenger of it not the subject of it. In Mark, Jesus indicates that the "good news" is the impending arrival of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Apologists want to project their modern theology onto that and claim it's about crucifixion and resurrection, but that's simply not what the text says. Here, "gospel" is not about Jesus himself; it's just announced by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:A123:A51D:6D83:92DE (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"False Balance"

@RemsenseHi, I'd like to understand why my edit constituted as false balance, and if so, I'd like to know how to add the content within better accomodation to the guidelines. The edits I made were well-sourced (albeit probably too long), and by reputable scholars, in contrast to the first version which had only one citation from over 20 years ago. Divus303 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, starting off the paragraph with It is contended that is a comparatively poor choice of words we are careful using when describing viewpoints. Secondly, your revision appears to present scholarly positions in a way where the apologetic minority position is weighed equally to that of the critical majority position. This is the core of the issue. Remsense ‥ 论 23:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my poor choice of words, so I will bare that in mind. For your main issue, however, would it be preferable to include reference to the Jesus Seminar too? I would also suggest being careful using the word "apologetic" since at least two of the sources I cited are by scholars quite influential in New Testament studies. Divus303 (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of RS Material

@Achar Sva Please stop removing reliably sourced material about the Gospels. Tucker Ferda and Larry Hurtado are both highly respected and prominent members of the scholarly community and have published with renowned publishers. Silverfish2024 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That material be reliably sourced is essential, but not sufficient. What I want you to do is explain here why you think your edits improve the quality of the article. Here is the material I took out from the section on the composition of Mark: I find it incomprehensible; please explain what it means, and why it fills out what's already there (existing material in square brackets, addition in quotes).

• [It is widely accepted that this was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.] "This does not necessarily show a linear approach of continual development and addition only, as some of what Paul the Apostle writes in his letters is more similar to details found in Matthew rather than Mark."Achar Sva (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people think that the Gospel tradition grew from a shorter, simpler core in Mark to more theologized and ahistorical material in Matthew, and Luke, who used the former. My edit shows that this simple linear development is untrue since Paul, who most scholars believe preceded Mark, says more detailed things more similar to what can be found in Matthew than in Mark. This of course improves the understanding of how the relationship between the Gospels should be interpreted when connecting them to history. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As you've explained your edit, it amounts to OR, since this is what you deduce. Moreover, on Wikipedia we set out the consensus of current scholarship, or if there isn't one we set out the major viewpoint and important others - meaning that what "some people" might think isn't what we're after. 04:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) (Forgot to sign - doing so now Achar Sva (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC))

I did not deduce anything but rephrased what Ferda and Hurtado said. We at Wikipedia seek out reliable sources whether they are the majority or not, not necessarily the academic consensus (a very strong claim that is hard to achieve, especially in a field like Biblical studies) WP:RS. I already set out a significant viewpoint (Allison hailed Ferda's book as one of the best and most important ones about Jesus in the last 25 years). There is every reason to think these sources are true and reliable and no reason to think the POV is held by few. Do you have sources that claim the overwhelming majority of scholars espouse a linear development model for the Gospel traditions? I personally doubt this. I do not think most sources on Wiki are checked to see if they represent the majority of scholars anyways; in fact I know many things here are not consensus. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact try to prioritize the consensus view if one exists, and otherwise to give majority and significant minority views if those exist. Finding the consensus and identifying majority and significant minority views is difficult, but not impossible. The existing para on the development of the gospel tradition, and Mark's place in it, is given in this para, and I invite you to tell us what you object to:

Up until the 19th century, the gospel of Mark was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, and was believed to be an abridgement of Matthew. The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark. However, in the 19th century, a theory was developed known as Marcan priority, which held that Mark was the first of the four gospels written. In this view, Mark was a source used by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark. The hypothesis of Marcan priority is held by the majority of scholars today, and there is a new recognition of the author as an artist and theologian using a range of literary devices to convey his conception of Jesus as the authoritative yet suffering Son of God.Achar Sva (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you can find a consensus in this particular case. The point though is that Paul is more similar to Matthew than Mark in places, and Ferda and Hurtado are enough to show importance. Ferda's book is among the most important published in the past 25 years and represents a significant viewpoint on his own already. Adding Hurtado and Paul Foster (not cited) only seals the significance.

On the other hand, this article has contained nonconsensus material for a good while, not to mention other articles, as is plain here.

"The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience, and probably in Rome, although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have also been suggested. Theologian and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams proposed that Libya was a possible setting, as it was the location of Cyrene and there is a long-held Arabic tradition of Mark's residence there."

The article also definitively states that Mark used a passion narrative and collections of sayings. There is no consensus or possibly even majority saying these hypothetical sources existed. A better statement would say that Mark is the first example of a written Gospel instead; the evidence for this is far stronger. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the quote you posted. I don't see how it is relevant to the talk though. Instead, you need to show that denial of linear tradition development and any similarities between Paul and Matthew are not just the minority, but insignificant and fringe views, for your removal to be justified. There is material on this article solely from Rowan Williams, who I don't think is a New Testament scholar (not that this should be removed). Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Pov-pushing

@Joshua Jonathan Thank you for conceding that there was no editorialization and that the Holman Bible is not a reliable source. I would like to say there is no 'Pov-pushing' in my edit. It is hard to believe that Adela Yarbro Collins's Hermeneia commentary is anything less than top-notch scholarship and a balanced treatment of the subject. The second possibility listed is plausible i.e. could reasonably be correct, but is not likely. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan You reverted my edit again, this time by claiming cherrypicking, misrepresentation of the source, and undue weight (no further explanations provided). WP:NPOV states that all significant views published by RS on a topic should be represented fairly, and a Hermeneia commentary by a Yale professor should meet this easily. There is no undue weight provided here, especially since Collins has already been cited in other places on this page. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I certainly did not misrepresent Collins either @Joshua Jonathan; she says that a later attribution of the Gospel to Mark is not likely and that traditional authorship cannot be ruled out.

(2) The Gospel of Mark at first circulated anonymously; at some point, someone gave it the title “(The) Gospel according to Mark,” taking the name from Philemon 24 in order to give the Gospel the apostolic authority of Paul...(3) The second and third Gospels were written by the men named Mark and Luke who are mentioned in Philemon; the titles may have been added somewhat later than the time of composition, but they reflect accurate tradition concerning authorship. The second possibility is unlikely, as argued earlier, because of the unanimity of the attribution of these Gospels to Mark and Luke by the middle of the second century. Many scholars would argue against the third possibility because of the significant differences between the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the letters of Paul in linguistic usage, tradition-history, and theology. But if they were young men when they had contact with Paul and wrote fifteen or more years later, after exercising their own leadership in the movement and experiencing individual and communal change and development, such differences would be not only explicable but expected. Although the possibility of coincidence must be taken into account, the third option cannot be ruled out either. - Collins, Adela (2007). Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Fortress Press. p. 5. ISBN ‎ 9780800660789. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that you have kept Collins' work. It is good that you have recognized its worth, but your rendition, not mine, appears to misrepresent her work.

"Adela Yarbro Collins...notes that it is theoretical possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by the Mark mentioned in Paul's letter...but that many scholars argue against this possibility, given the contradictions"

This ignores that Collins argues against these scholars' views and finds the idea that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to authority an unlikely scenario. In addition, the current version of the article claims that most scholars believe Mark was attached later, but the supposed source does not make such a claim. Burkett does mention that most scholars reject an association with Peter's direct testimony and that the Gospel was considered anonymous, but he never mentions the attribution to Mark. This should be fixed.

@Joshua Jonathan Silverfish2024 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You should read the source more carefully; Collins asks if the Mark of the Gospel could be the Mark mentioned in the Epistle to Philemon. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, I already noticed that Collins mentioned the possibility that Mark is a different Mark from the one in Philemon, 1 Peter, etc. I will put that back with her argument about the naming. Silverfish2024 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's already there - in the note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Adela Yarbro Collins, a Biblical scholar at Yale Divinity School, notes that Paul's letter to Philemon also mentions a Mark. While it is theoretically possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by this Mark, many scholars argue against this possibility, given the contradictions between Paul and Mark's theology and literary aspects.

Not really. The note does not mention the possibility at all. Silverfish2024 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"While it is theoretically possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by this Mark" - please, again, try to read texts carefully. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Collins never uses words like 'theoretically'; in fact given that she says the later attribution is unlikely, the other two scenarios she posits are collectively the most likely event. It is more than just a distant theoretical possibility. I do not think merely stating that many scholars disagree without giving Collins's argument is fair to the source. Your quote did not delineate between the possibility that Mark is a different Mark and that the name was a completely new attribution.

The claim that most scholars view the name of Mark as a later addition is not supported by Burkett, the cited source of the line. Please do not keep this content without verification. I read the section of his book.

And please do not accuse me of incompetence other personal slights. This makes for a healthier conversation. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Do pay attention: you wrote Collins argues that the attribution of Mark to the second Gospel cannot be ruled out; Collins writes about the possibility that the Mark mentioned in Philemon is the author of the Gospel. Omitting this is a misrepresentation of the source. Collins also notes that this possibility is unlikely, and not supported by (most) scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Collins says that John Mark (the same Mark) is mentioned by Papias, 1 Peter, Acts, and Philemon. I had Philemon in my edit, so I actually did as you seemingly want.

Collins...notes the possibility that Mark refers to a different figure from the one mentioned in writings like the Epistle to Philemon

The only possibility Collins says is unlikely is the one where Mark is a later attribution. And neither she nor Burkett say anything about 'most scholars' (not) supporting the possibility; in fact, Burkett does not say anything about how the name of Mark came to be, so the claim that

Most scholars argue that...the name of Mark was attached to it to link it to an authoritative figure.

References

is unverified and must be removed. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Burkett p.156: "Such a claim probably arose out of the church's desire to link their writing to some authoritative figure close to Jesus, such as Peter."

Collins p.5 (emphasis mine): "A man named Mark is mentioned in Paul's letter to Philemon" - Collins the explores the possibility that this Mark wrote the Gospel, in contrazt to the tradition that the John Mark of the Acts wrote it.

attribution of Mark to the second Gospel makes no sense; that should be 'attribution of the second Gospel to Mark'.

Likewise, the possibility that Mark refers to a different figure from the one mentioned in writings like the Epistle to Philemon should be 'the possibility that Mark refers to a figure different from the one mentioned in Acts, for example the Mark mentioned in the Epistle to Philemon, a possibility which can't be ruled out but is deemed unlikely by many authors'.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"A man named Mark is mentioned also in Paul’s letter to Philemon".

(emphasis mine)

Collins is talking about Mark in Philemon as a continuation of her discussion about Mark in various sources, and as far as I can tell she never claims the one in Philemon is different from the one in Acts. If you feel strongly about this I can add that the author of the Gospel could have been Mark from Philemon though. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)