Jump to content

Talk:Gospel of Mark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

concerning recent revisions

[edit]

I recently edited the titles for all four of the gospels of the New Testament, seeing as I thought it fit to input one of the four gospels of the New Testament as not so much longer, as the maximum character limit is 90 characters, but as to improve readability and to improve the description so as to give a more ample overview of what the article was, as these are seen as teasers of the article Ai777 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ai777: See WP:SD40. With a topic so prominent as a canonical gospel, a very brief description like "Book in the New Testament" is enough to alert readers that they are on the right article. Additionally, specifying "One of the four", while normative, could be seen as not in keeping with NPOV: there are those who hold/held other gospels as also canonical. In this case, shorter=better. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indeed Ai777 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic consensus

[edit]

@Dr Christopher Bryan: You have to obey WP:RS/AC, just like everybody else. If you have been published at OUP, you certainly have read WP:SOURCES such as those listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. These sources tell a different story than your WP:POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's incorrect. See your talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why do you say that? I selected it because you cited it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3: not everything therein is WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Erroneous Definition of Gospel

[edit]

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)[reply]

"False Balance"

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removal of RS Material

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]Achar Sva (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.[4][5] 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.[6]"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ Edwards 2002, p. 2.
  2. ^ Koester 2000, pp. 44–46.
  3. ^ Edwards 2002, pp. 1–3.
  4. ^ Perkins 2007, p. 241.
  5. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 157.
  6. ^ Williams, Rowan (2014). Meeting God in Mark. p. 17.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Mark&oldid=1264671942"