Talk:Gospel of Mark

Mark as author

I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that Mark wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained elsewhere, you are using a pair of fringe sources but pushing the idea that they're mainstream. I do not agree with this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight this one anymore.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's WP policy to report the academic consensus, and the academic consensus is that Mark didn't write Mark. Leadwind (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As we have discussed elsewhere, there is no "consensus", especially on Mark. Claiming one in the article is misleading and goes against a great number of sources.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, there's certainly a great deal of doubt about the veracity of the traditional claim of authorship, so let's use that word. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I modified it again. I agree there is much doubt among different scholars but there are also many mainstream scholars who accept the account. The version before only mentioned the doubting scholars, so I added that this is not the only prominent view.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If Mark is seriously considered as the author, then we should be able to find mainstream, nonsectarian sources for that claim. Relying on non-mainstream, sectarian sources is bad form. I've gone back to my books and indeed some of them acknowledge that some scholars (notably Martin Hengel) consider Mark's authorship to be essentially credible. It's all complicated by the detail that there's no historical evidence that Peter ever went to Rome for Mark to record his preaching there. Leadwind (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the sources I used. I didn't restore them, but tried to add some balance. The issue is debated, and not just "sectarian" scholars accept the traditional view. The version before implied that most scholars doubt the traditional view, although my sources dispute this claim directly (not just their view but what they say the view of "most" scholars is). Show me where in your sources it says that most doubt the traditional view.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The EBO says that the author is probably unknown. Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty solidly in the mainstream. Theissen & Merz say that the heterogeneous material that Mark uses (a written passion narrative, a collection of miracle stories, apocalyptic traditions, and disputations & didactics) tells against the idea that the gospel comes from one person's preaching. T&M survey all the early Christian sources about Jesus and review the scholarship associated with each one. They mention Hengel as an exception. You'll note that I cited T&M to support the traditional view (citing Hengel) even though T&M conclude that the gospel was compiled from disparate sources. I was trying to strike a balance instead of using each of my sources just to support my own POV. As for the sources I deleted, they were all sectarian sources. We could use them, but only to represent an admittedly sectarian viewpoint. We could say, "In Christian scholarship...." That's what IVP and Baker Academic represent, sectarian Christian scholarship. Now that I've cited a mainstream source to say that the author is probably unknown, can you cite a nonsectarian source that says there's an active debate on the issue? I haven't found any such reference in Harris, Theissen, EBO, ODCC, or my Oxford Annotated Bible. Leadwind (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you elected to change what the EBO says. The EBO doesn't say "some scholars doubt Mark was the author," which is what you say it says. The EBO says the author is probably unknown. The whole point of citing sources is so that we say what they say, not so that we say what we wish they said. Leadwind (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The EBO says who thinks the author is unknown? And what does that mean? Does it mean that the author was probably not Mark (many scholars would dispute this claim) or that we can't know for sure (many scholars would accept this claim). There is a difference between 'the author is probably not Mark' and 'we can't be sure who the author is'. In any case, Wikipedia policy prefers the direct work of scholars to encyclopedia articles.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That's exactly the case here. We have any number of contradictory individual scholars opining on the topic, so a tertiary source is a good place to look for an overview of the general state of affairs. As for the author being probably unknown, if you think that the author can be probably unknown and probably Mark at the same time, you parse English grammar differently from how I do it. Leadwind (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

When an editor cits a reference he gives the date of the edition he is using. Please don't change that as it will cause problems. What is appropriate is to add (First published 1881) That will deal with the issue you have raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

original research and primary sources

I deleted all this hard work that someone put into the lead. The problem with it is that it's original research that relies on the gospel itself as a primary source. It might seem natural to cite the gospel itself, but the problem is that we editors aren't supposed to be the ones who decide what's important about the gospel. Experts do that, and we cite them. If we editors want to say something about how Mark refers the Jesus, then we should find out what the experts say and cite them. In this particular case, Mark refers to Jesus as the "son of Mary." Why isn't that included in this list? Because an editor has decided which parts of Mark are important to summarize and which aren't. That's not our job. Cite reliable sources, not scripture.

It calls him the [[Son of Man]],<ref>{{bibleverse-nb||Mark|2:10}} (Jesus; to teachers of the law), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|2:28}} (Jesus; to Pharisees), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|8:31}} (Jesus via Mark, to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|8:38}} (Jesus; to disciples and Caesarean crowd), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|9:9,12}} (Jesus via Mark; to Peter, James, and John), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|9:31}} (Jesus; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|10:33}} (Jesus; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|10:45}} (Jesus; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|13:26}} (Jesus; to Peter, James, John, and Andrew), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|14:21}} (Jesus; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|14:41}} (Jesus; to Peter, James, and John), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|14:62}} (Jesus; to high priest w/ chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law)</ref> the [[Son of God]],<ref>verbatim in {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|3:11}} (evil spirits; to Jesus), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|5:7}} ("Legion" i.e. evil spirits; to Jesus), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|15:39}} (centurion at crucifixion; to undefined audience); contextually implied in {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|1:11}} (voice from heaven; to John the Baptist), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|8:38}} (Jesus as eschatology; to disciples and crowd), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|9:7}} (voice from cloud; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|12:6}} (Jesus as parable; to chief priests, scribes, and elders), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|13:32}} (Jesus as eschatology; to disciples), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|14:61}} (Jesus; to chief priest); included in some manuscripts of {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|1:1}} (Markan author as character introduction; to audience)</ref> and the [[Messiah]] or [[Christ]].<ref>{{bibleverse-nb||Mark|1:1}} (Markan author; to audience), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|8:29}} (Peter; to Jesus), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|9:41}} (Jesus; to John), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|12:35}} (Jesus; to a large crowd), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|13:21}} (Jesus; to Peter, James, John, and Andrew (v. 33)), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|14:61-62}} (Jesus; to high priest), {{bibleverse-nb||Mark|15:31}} (chief priests, teachers of the law; (mockingly) to each other)</ref>

Leadwind (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All scholars can do is offer an opinion. They can't "know" that Mark was wrong here or there. I don't object per se to the changes you made, although I think they probably should not have been removed because wikipedia policy prefers primary sources to secondary sources. Just look, for example, at the sources listed for Julius Caesar. Many of the sources cited are primary sources written by near-contemporaries of his, like Plutarch. Maybe I am wrong, but I am guessing you view the gospel writers to be unreliable because you think the supernatural events they record didn't happen and thus they wrote fake-history. One of the axoims of historical scholarship is to presume that ancient sources are reliable unless they can be proven to be unreliable, or a qualification is explicitly necessary. All sources, ancient and modern, are biased. We still, however, use (and prefer) those primary sources although qualify them where necessary with modern scholarly views. Especially on an article like this, which discusses the primary source itself.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"wikipedia policy prefers primary sources to secondary sources." Really? That's what lots of pro-Bible editors want to believe, but if it's true, it's news to me. Please cite a WP guideline or policy to back you up. Last time I looked, WP:RS said "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources... Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Where's your evidence that WP prefers primary sources? Leadwind (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. But EBO is an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source, and secondary sources (like the ones I had which you removed) are prefered to tertiary sources. (see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources). This policy also discusses the validity of primary sources, which are not to be dismissed.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, tertiary sources are precisely what we need to settle issues such as scholarly consensus. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I know that minority-view editors hate tertiary sources, but that's because tertiary sources support the majority view. For topics like these, with large numbers of individual scholars opining on them, tertiary sources tell us what the majority view is. Otherwise we'd have to figure out what the majority view is by totting up individual scholars, and that's not our job. We're not the experts. It's not our opinions that count. Tertiary sources are the bane of minority-view editors because they can't counter with tertiary sources of their own. But that's the value of a tertiary source, to show which view is in the majority. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

critical view

I've stated in the lead and in the authorship section a concise summary of the contemporary, non-Mark-author view. I primarily used a university-level textbook from 1998 by a leader in the historical Jesus field. He reviews the scholarship on every ancient source about Jesus, including all four canonical gospels. Good, scholarly information was stripped out of this page and others in defense of a minority view, and it's time to put that information back in. The majority shouldn't keep the minority from including their opinions (given due weight), and neither should the minority keep the majority from stating the majority view. This goes for all the gospel articles that recent editors have undermined with their campaign against the majority view of current scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind continues his march towards edit warring. Another editor restored the edit I made (which Leadwind had reverted) and Leadwind reverted this here. Also note the comment of that editor whom Leadwind reverted "I don't think any of these edits are actually legit, but I'm willing to continue to be patient." It is obvious that Leadwind has a view on what "truth" is and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of views that don't agree with his version of "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of hostility, but not much accuracy. Leadwind simply has the consensus behind them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus=Leadwind+Dylan.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that Leadwind and I edit in favor of the consensus. We would like you to join us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

I have noticed that here and elsewhere, some editors are pushing a POV. Leadwind above is a good example. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined as "mainstream" by editors like Leadwind, but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, the article is badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of what RH is citing isn't exactly fringe, it's just a sectarian minority view and should be treated as such. Leadwind (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar doesn't make you look a lot more convincing. There's a serious WP:WEIGHT issue with this article, and it seems you're on opposite ends of the see-saw without being particularly interested in the middle ground where the academic consensus lies.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, yet again, risking an edit war

Leadwind has made a lot of recent edits which have pushed a major POV into this article. He has done this on Gospel of Luke, and there is a discussion under way on this. This article shouldn't be skewed by him until we resolve the issue in Gospel of Luke.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to RS's, shall we? It's policy. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me know, what else do you want to delete and what other liberal views do you want to insert?RomanHistorian (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been closely following the developments on this article, but I think this latest dust-up could benefit from the perspective of a mediator. We have a mediation in progress on the Ebionites article over similar issues here. It's almost the same argument, whether it's better to present a "mainstream" view via tertiary sources or take a comparison and contrast approach using reliable secondary sources to present diverse views. Ovadyah (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to remember that if you add content to an article, the burden is on you to back it up with reliable sources, including detailed references with page numbers and, if called upon, quotations on the talk page. Primary sources are not considered reliable sources. They have no "weight" whatsoever. They may be used as inline quotations, but only to the extent that they are quoted by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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)