Talk:Gospel of Mark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rfc - Include Greek names of the twelve Apostles[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus against including the Greek names of the twelve Apostles. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a list of the Greek names of the twelve Apostles from the work, "Gospel of Mark"[Mk 3:13–19] section 3:13-19 be included in this article ? 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope, it's not relevant. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this should never have gone to an RFC since it didn't even have a prior discussion or dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No - way overweight for this article, belongs on article ApostlesPiCo (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No It doesn't belong here and it probably doesn't belong anywhere in Greek. But that is a separate discussion. --Adam in MO Talk 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Not relevant to this article. Jschnur (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No summoned by bot Why? What would it add? Each individual name legitimately belongs on individual pages, but what would be added to this article. It seems list-for-lists-sake. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No This is a clear-cut case of "belongs in the main article". Do the relevant MOS guidelines not specifically address this? With Japan-related articles we don't give the Japanese names as long as the subjects have their own articles. And why would we give the Greek names of specifically the apostles in this article? Why no other figures? In this case I would say that maybe the Greek names should also be included the list as well as their own individual articles, but including them here is random and silly. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proponents/Opponents of Jesus and other notable characters[edit]

In Mark, the Jewish leaders , and not the Jewish people, are the opponents of Jesus.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers (2000). In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-664-22255-0. 

  • Proponents of Jesus
    • John the Baptist
    • Mary, his mother
    • Mary, mother of James the younger
  • Opponents of Jesus
    • Barabbas
    • Herodians
    • Pharisees
    • Sadducees
    • Pontius Pilate
  • A list of Proponents/Opponents of Jesus and other notable characters from the Gospel of Mark should obviously be included in the article "Gospel of Mark". 74.136.159.171 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not obvious at all - why? PiCo (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
  2. Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
  3. The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
Ipso facto ~obvious~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
- Yes.
  • Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
- No, merely being found in a reliable source doesn't make it notable.
  • The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
- No, this isn't common practice at all.
Can you give us any solid arguments for including it? PiCo (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Your objections are specious.
Per point.2, I cited a specific book that supports a given conclusion, yet you do not object to that conclusion, but rather make a specious objection.
Per point.3, Your objection is specious.
adhuc stat ~obvious~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to anything, I'm asking you for arguments for including a "list of characters" in the article. I agreed that the books you cited are reliable sources. I didn't agree that being fond in a reliable source makes material notable. I pointed out that articles on the other books of the bible don't have these lists. I'm asking you for reasons why you feel the list should be included. PiCo (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have given reason why the proposed content should be included, namely that the proposed additional content is obviously suitable for inclusion in the article, with proof given and still standing. Whereas you have offered only Spurious Reasoning. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't given any reasons at all. You've simply stated that the list is "obviously suitable", full stop. That and accusing me of "spurious reasoning", but without saying why. One more time, why do you think the article needs a list of characters? PiCo (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The reasoning of why the proposed content should be included in the article is derived from the following 3 points;
  1. The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
  2. Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
  3. The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.
Ipso facto ~The proposed content should be included~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You're just repeating yourself. I've already said: (a) I agree that the characters in the gospel of Mark is germane to the gospel of Mark; (b) merely appearing in a reliable source doesn't make for notability; and (c) no other article on any book of the bible has such a list. What I'm asking for are arguments. PiCo (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A new proof means all before is moot.
So lets take this one step by step.
I will try to guess you response for points 1 & 2.
The reasoning of why the proposed content should be included in the article is derived from the following 3 points;

  1. The proposed additional content is germane to the topic of the article.
  2. Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
  3. The presentation of an article's content in lists is a common practice on Wikipedia.

Ipso facto ~The proposed content should be included~

  • Per point.1, Do you concur, object, or concede. If you object, then why ?
Your response: I concur.
  • Per point.2, Do you concur, object, or concede. If you object, then why ?
Your response: I object, "merely appearing in a reliable source doesn't make for notability."
  • Per point.3,
Your response: I defer until previous point is resolved to avoid "spurious reasoning".
my response: Per point.2, Your objection is specious, I cited a specific book that supports a given conclusion, yet you do not object to that conclusion, but rather make a specious objection. adhuc stat ~the proposed content should be included~

OK, now your on your own, you have to make a new objection to my point.2 that is not guilty of "spurious reasoning", or else declare my argument illegitimate and let the jury of public opinion decide or you could say I concur or I concede point.2 and move on to the next point. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Page 195 of Malbon's book isn't a list of the characters in Mark, it's a brief discussion of the Jewish opposition to Jesus. Why do you think our article needs a list of characters? PiCo (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I never said the content of Malbon's book was presented in a list. Your objection is specious. adhuc stat ~the proposed content should be included~ 74.136.159.171 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So tell us why you think the article needs a list of characters - no other article on Biblical books has one.PiCo (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Per the topic at hand, point.2, Books such as In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark's Gospel support the conclusion that the proposed additional content is notable.
Your response is off-topic, therefore I decline to respond. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) & spelling 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Therefore you'd better start an RfC. PiCo (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed list, seems not only to be pointless, but to be advocating a proponents/opponents logic, that seems simplistic and uninformative. Articles are written in sentences and paragraphs, not everythin is suited to a list or a chart. Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed "most modern scholars" to "some modern scholars".[edit]

Under "composition", I changed "most modern scholars" to "some modern scholars", as the veracity of "most" is subjective at best. If a definitive study of modern scholarship proves a prevailing trend towards the rejection Mark the Evangelist's authorship, then my change should be reversed and an appropriate citation should be added.

Jscheel (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted, you should read WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps I do not clearly understand WP:RS/AC, Tgeorgescu. The referenced work does nothing to prove its claim of academic consensus and therefore seems to be subjective. Because it is a published work, does referencing its claim fulfill the guidelines for stating academic consensus? Jscheel (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the work not claim that most modern scholars hold that view? We don't play turtles all the way down with sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the work claims consensus. However, it does nothing to prove that consensus. It seems odd that we would be willing to accept the statement of a source that does not thing to prove its veracity. Especially when the claim lends additional weight to one side of the debate regarding the authorship of the Gospel in question. Could I not publish any number of unverifiable claims of consensus to garner support for one hypothesis over another, in any field of study? I'm not willing to fall on my sword over this, but it does feel odd. Jscheel (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this or any other article says there is a consensus on this issue, only a majority - they are not the same thing at all. StAnselm (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If you were not only a professor of Biblical studies, but the editor to the Wiley's Blackwell Companion to Jesus, and your book was published by Cambridge University Press (as was all the case with the citation currently in question), then sure, because then it's highly unlikely that you're just making it up (as it would destroy your career). If you self-published the book, then no, we're not going to use it. Please see WP:Identifying reliable sources for more information.
The citation isn't just from some guy who could've made something up, it's from someone who knows what they're talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can see that point. Thanks for working it out with me. Jscheel (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion on the side of at least presenting some more modern scholarship. The paper in question is NOT "high scholarship," it is a textbook published in 2002. Within the WP:RS/AC there are two sections that this publication fails to uphold: though a minor point, because it is a (1) textbook, it is a tertiary source. I am bringing some personal knowledge into the discussion here, but within NT Studies, textbooks are bottom of the barrel—little is cutting edge, most is a compilation, most people in the business of Bib Scholarship publish a book like this for money and it wouldn't be considered "scholarship" at all. Furthermore, arguments around gospel origins, genre, form criticism, and motifs have very short half-life. Therefore, a textbook (not original scholarship, surface deep compilation) written thirteen years ago (in a field with quick half-life) is not a good source. Second, (2) "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." If one does not perceive source gospel sources as an extraordinary claims than they have missed the discussion. Synoptic source discussion is one of the deepest and most fought over discussions within Biblical Criticism. With a pluthera of resources being poured into such a field, the time span a theory holds together is short. I am not asking for us to use unproven material for the sake of being cutting edge. But I suppose that a claim such as this requires the source to fulfill at least a few criteria: 1) Monograph or Article focused level research. A monograph or article that isn't arguing this as a thesis simply will not do. This is an import claim within the discipline and deserves "high scholarship" on a subject. 2) Modern, with time for reviews and interaction (especially if the source is a monograph). We should look for a modern and time proven monograph that has had a second wave of high-middle level of scholarship that has interacted with it positively. Positive reviews bolster the argument, but simply are not enough. Often reviews are written before release and do not include the entire monograph. 3) Reputable Publication. All articles within biblical scholarship should be published through SBL or be found within an Edited Volume by a Senior Scholar. All Monographs and Editorials should be published by established and reputable publishers with heavy peer review process. Examples include but are not limited to: Brill, T&T Clark, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Eerdmans, or Zondervan. Translated pieces ought to be judged by their original language's publishers, however, 90% of good scholarship published by good publishers in the 20th century in German is published by good publishers today. Exceptions exist but are easily deciphered and dealt with as they appear (EX:New Testament Theology-Rudolf Bultman-E.T. Baylor University Press)(This isn't modern scholarship so using this specific piece would require a more thorough investigation into those working on it).

My Suggestion: "but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim." to "though most modern scholars have not accepted Papias' claim since 1983 [cit:Antioch and Rome by Raymond E Brown; John P Meier], Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness has recently given Papias' theory modern credibility."

This edit provides a reputable anti-Papian view of Petrine origins to Mark, while showing the most modern consensus.

Applying My Criteria to My Source: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006). 1) The Monograph is focused upon the source of Mark, Papias' claims, and Petrine origins. Perhaps the chapters that focus in on the argument might be more appropriate, but it is passim therefore a full book citation is the most pragmatic approach. 2) The Monograph is at the prime of its existence. Two scholarly responses: (1) Park, Yoon-Man. Mark's Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1-3:6) An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. (Leiden: Brill, 2010). A positive response. Divulges into the ancient practice of eyewitness as sources for historians and provides suitable socio-historical backgrounds for the practice. (2) REDMAN, JUDITH C. S. How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research JBL. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27821012. Unfavorable response. Questions the accuracy of cognitive recall of an eyewitness. However, this paper does not hurt Papias' claim. It might make an eyewitness unreliable, but it doesn't seek to overthrow Papias. It would just argue Peter is unreliable. (I think the piece has some solid points to make but is overall a bit poor, but that is just me).

Reviews: Generally Positive- Marius Nel- http://www.jstor.org/stable/43049260 Mixed/Slightly Positive (probably the best review out there for questioning Bauckham's Name Usage Theories and Petrine Material Inclusio, still doesn't discredit Papias)- Dean Bechard- http://www.jstor.org/stable/42614886 Generally Positive (sometimes unclear)- Thomas A. Wayment http://www.jstor.org/stable/43044700

3)Published by Eerdmans

I will leave this discussion up for approx. a week to allow for people to discuss and leave feedback, then we can make the edit.

BTS.ACU.MCM (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the existing version. Burkett (source for the existing version) is a leading scholar, the book cannot be dismissed as a "textbook"; and Baukham's thesis has yet to win acceptance. Hence, in this case, Burkett is the reliable source we follow. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Composition and Date: inappropriate inclusion of a tiny minority viewpoint[edit]

Surely devoting the vast bulk of a very brief discussion of date to the tiny minority view of Crossley is inappropriate. This might just qualify for a footnote, but does not belong to the main text. On a related matter, 65-75 is a more appropriate date range when it comes to reflecting scholarly opinion. --Sineaste (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Veracity of Burkett and a Moderate Alternative Opinion[edit]

I have merely quoted Burkett as he himself states it in the work cited i.e. not most "modern scholars," but, "most critical scholars...." Although I would note that Burkett himself makes no attempt to list who these critical scholars are which is sloppy at best. In light of this I have also provided, quite legitimately, a moderate alternative opinion from Drane (a respected biblical scholar with one of the best selling books on biblical scholarship). Drane's logic is sound, and I believe in the interests of honesty, accuracy and balance the edits should remain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynotrushed (talkcontribs)

I am more or less neutral regarding your edit (I'm fairly currently feeling apathetic to anything that isn't fried chicken), but I do have a few concerns:
Regarding your edit summary: Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them. We're not going to have another Essjay controversy, no matter the topic or credentials. Also, looking at the article history, it was not Loadmaster but 121.127.210.195 that reverted your addition.
As for "modern" vs "critical": While I'd normally be happy to see Burkett's quote in full restored, his use of "critical" is, in context, properly understood to refer to scholars who engage in textual criticism (rather than those who are simply dismissive). This difference might be missed by the casual reader. Thus the summary of the position "modern" works as it is contrasting those who favor textual criticism over tradition.
As for John Drane: While he could well be worth including, I'm a bit concerned about the possibility that there's WP:UNDUE weight on his understanding. Burkett's position is in line with the other sources, while Drane's is, as implied in your writing, in contrast to scholarship that engages in textual criticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? You mean I worked like a dog for four years at a Russell Group University, one that has produced eight nobel prize winners, and that counts for nothing?? I wrote an 80,000 word thesis in the field of theology and religion and successfully defended it in a viva voce, and that gives my opinions no extra weight on an open source encyclopedia?? Oh...I feel depressed. Come, my fried-chicken-loving brother, let us try to reason together. Wikipedia ought not to be a byword for unreliability. What do the sources say?
· Firstly, Burkett has not even attempted to cite his assertion. Maybe he is right, but if there is any WP:UNDUE weight being given then it is being given to Burkett.
· Secondly, Drane is a textual critic. He has engaged in textual criticism. He is a best selling author on biblical scholarship. His books are set texts at some universities (such as the University of Nottingham and the University of York St John).
·Thirdly, Drane is not being dismissive. I'm sure Drane would be quite willing to admit that the Markan source theory is wrong should the evidence prove overwhelming. He merely leaves room for doubt.
· Fourthly, the Markan source theory is traditional, but that alone is not evidence of it being incorrect. Lots of traditions are based on truth.
· Fifthly, sorry Loadmaster. --DrJUsher (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
DrJUsher, good afternoon. I think the problem is that you haven't made the crossover from academic writing to Wikipediaworld. In the academic world, scholars consider arguments, hence if you (and I mean you, but it might be me, or anyone) finds Drane convincing, that's enough. Not so i Wikiworld. Wiki is a popular encyclopedia, and it aims to inform John Public where the weight of scholarly opinion lies. Quite often we tell the reader why the bulk of scholars believe such-and-such, but it's not essential - the essential thing is to get that opinion down. In this case we have Burkett saying that most scholars believe something or other. Burkett is a big-name scholar, a "reliable source" in Wikispeak, and therefore he doesn't need to tell us why says this. To say it is enough. Drane is also a reliable source, but all he's saying is that he has an opinion which is at odds with what most scholars think. He might be right and they might be wrong, but Wikipedia doesn't care, because we're just here to inform readers what the bulk of scholars think. We have no idea how many scholars share Drane's view. We do have an idea that the majority have the view in Burkett's book. And so we use Burkett and don't mention Drane. PiCo (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
(I suspect that the reason Drane's view is a minority one is that his arguments are so poor: "Many stories are told with such vivid details that it is natural to regard them as first-hand accounts..." He should read the Satyricon, it's also full of vivid details, as indeed are the Harry Potter books).PiCo (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Delbert Burkett got his Ph.D. at Duke University. It's not even in the Ivy League. By contrast, John Drane got his Ph.D from a Russell Group university, and he is now a fellow in one of the best institutions in the country for theology and religion (Durham University). As I have already said, Drane's books are set texts in various universities. I think Jimmy Wales would have a minor stroke if he heard you contrasting the wikipedia world with the academic world as if the same rules do not apply. Unsubstantiated claims have no place in wikipedia. The bigger the claim, the more evidence is needed. Burkett simply does not have the authority to assert that most modern (or critical) scholars do not accept Papias' claim without significant substantiation. When I write that Drane's view is "in contrast," I don't mean to say that it is in contrast to most scholars only that it is in contrast to Burkett. Drane's view is by no means a minority view. You may not agree with Drane, but that doesn't give you the right to censor his view. If there is anything that is against the spirit of Wikipedia then it is censoring the legitimate views of internationally recognised scholars. DrJUsher (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encycopedia. That means that it's not a forum for ideas, it's a source of information. Burkett says (implies, actually) that Drane's view is indeed a minority view (he says that the view he outlines is the majority). For Wikipedia, Drane and Burkett are equal - both are reliable sources. Drane's view is therefore not in contrast to Burkett's but to that of most scholars - Burkett says this is the view of "most critical scholars", Drane makes no such claim. The claim that "most critical scholars" hold a certain view is therefore substantiated, in Wiki's terms, by the fact that Burkett says it is - he's our source. Drane is a source only for what Drane says, not for any claim that a certain value/quantity of scholars hold it. The fact that personally find Drane's arguments subjective and unconvincing is neither here nor there. PiCo (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
PiCo Burkett does not claim that the anti-Markan source view is the majority view! He merely claims the anti-Markan source view is the view of most "critical scholars." He could be referring to a tiny number of scholars who think like him, and are we to have it that the view of critical scholars is the only valid view?? If anything, the anti-Markan source group are in the minority. Anyway, critical and anti-Markan source should not by synonymous. No one would claim that Drane is not a critical scholar, yet his views do not conform to Burkett's hypothesis (for a hypothesis is all that it is). I have provided, therefore, evidence to suggest that Burkett's views are incorrect. Any intellectually honest person would accept that. Wikipedia is not a place where editors are supposed to uncritically regurgitate (or misquote, as is the case with Burkett in this article) the views of any scholar who claims to represent the correct view. Do you seriously think that's what Wikipedia should be? I think this needs some arbitration because you seem determined to censor Drane, who probably holds the majority view, but for no rational reasons whatsoever. DrJUsher (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
See Bart Ehrman's point about what most scholars think of Papias at [1] (pp. 6-10). This is an WP:RS/AC claim according to WP:PAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Critical scholars are those who investigate the origins of biblical texts, including authorship and related matters, as opposed to, say theological implications. So, yes, when Burkett says "most critical scholars" he means simply most scholars. There's an overview here - but really, if you actually do have a doctorate from a good university, you should know this. PiCo (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that one cannot be a critical scholar and explore theological implications. That is utter nonsense, the two are rarely divorced, and the summary you have linked says nothing of the sort. How you then conclude that when Burkett says "most critical scholars" it follows that he must be referring to most scholars doesn't even make sense. I will give you this, PiCo, I have approached this like an academic and, contrary to my previous protestation, the rules of academia and wikipedia are not the same. I am, however, still extremely concerned that you are determined to censor Drane for all the wrong reasons. The traditional view still has its defenders in modern scholarship, and I think that any intellectually honest person would accept that this ought to be reflected in the article (even if it happens to be a view that you disagree with). DrJUsher (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not pleading for censoring the traditional view, but it should be clear that it isn't the majority view. See WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read the article from Oxford Biblical Studies Online carefully once more. It's an outline of the historical-critical method (what Burkett means by "critical scholars"). As it says, this a toll-kit of methods that biblical scholars employ when they wish to explore the origins and subsequent development of texts. Not just Biblical texts - it's applied to all texts and all periods, from the Odyssey through Shakespeare's plays to Eliot's The Waste Land. It's quite distinct from the theological investigation of texts - in non-religious terms, a historical-critical examination of Hamlet would look at what the play meant to an Elizabethan audience, while a modern theatre company might chose to present it as a critique of contemporary concerns. With respect to the Gospel of Mark, Burkett is saying that the majority of scholars have concluded, through the use of the historical-critical toolset, that this gospel is not connected with any companion of Peter. Drane says nothing beyond stating that he personally has reached a different conclusion. In terms of Wikipedia's policies, Burkett is useful to us because he states where the balance of opinion lies, Drane is not useful because he does not - in other words, the "due weight" policy would exclude Drane.PiCo (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, in order to establish WP:RS/AC claims we need WP:SOURCES making the claim for us. We cannot establish consensus claims by fiat (i.e. without verifying them in WP:SOURCES). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have time for this, but if you insist that Burkett's "critical scholars" can simply be equated with "most scholars" then why bother changing it? Why not put "most critical scholars"? If your respect for Burkett's pronouncement is really that great then why insist on misquoting the man? DrJUsher (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
A valid point. Most readers of Wikipedia have never heard of the historical-critical method, and would immediately jump to the conclusion that Burkett means scholars who are "critical" in the sense of disparaging. As (a) the historical-critical method is simply the bundle of critical tools used for examining the origin and development of texts (source criticism, redaction criticism, etc), and (b) as these tools and this method developed only in the last 200 years, it therefore seems more fruitful to say simply "modern scholars". PiCo (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It is both patronising and presumptuous to say that readers cannot correctly interpret a direct quote for themselves. DrJUsher (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
What was this doctorate of yours in? I'm just curious, as I don't see how anyone could do a higher degree in biblical studies without coming across the terminology.PiCo (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)