Talk:Gospel of Mark

Link on Content 'Good News' needs changing

The Link on Content 'Good News' goes to 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel', which really does not discuss the passage from Mark 1:14–15. I could not find a related page, and in trying to edit by clicking the 'edit' link next to the Content section, it took me to a different section, so that link is incorrect as well. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to make those changes. Vic smyth (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight POV issue in the lead

"However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels[1] (c 70),[2] a position known as Markan priority." which is mostly accurate; but then, a few paragraphs later, "The Gospel of Mark is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus" -- the idea that Mark is the original has moved from something held by 'most contemporary scholars' to a simple fact, Mark is *the* primary source. (Even the normal form of Markan priority doesn't really allow for the flat statement that Mark is THE primary source, as most such theories suggest that the other Gospels have independent traditions, e.g. the hypothetical Q document.) 165.91.166.236 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SM

A report from the latest Symposium on the endless controversy known as Secret Mark can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of the "empty tomb" verse.

A previous version of this article claimed that the older manuscripts of Mark ended at 16:8 with a description of the empty tomb "without further explanation."

This is misleading. Even in the seemingly truncated oldest versions of Mark, there are the verses 16:5-7, which feature the figure in white who explains that Jesus is risen and will appear again in Galilee. Thus, the empty tomb is explained even in those oldest versions, albeit briefly. I have edited the article to make the characterization more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.96.83 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Composition and Setting

The article currently reads:

The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship,[13] and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

The citation number 13 asserts that the author uses multiple sources. It does not say that it follows that John Mark could not possibly be the author. I think it would be better to change it to:

The author's use of varied sources[13] tells against[citation needed] the traditional account of authorship, and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

what do you think? 201.253.132.107 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote in the citation explicitly says that heterogeneous source material "tells against" the account of authorship, so what's the problem? Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)