|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Content only found in Mark
The Comment "Significant too is Mark 8:22-26, where Jesus has to try twice to heal a man, his first attempt not being entirely successful". Is Misleading,
Jesus does not Have to Try twice to heal a man, it is recorded that the man was healed on a single occasion using a two step process to do so, i.e if you ever go to an opticians they use several lenses and tests before the Best prescription is used.
The Man was Totally blind! Jesus compassionately uses a slower two stage process to heal him and the comment infers Jesus struggled to heal him at all!
Mark 8:22-26 (NWT) Now they put in at Beth·sa´i·da. Here people brought him a blind man, and they entreated him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, brought him outside the village, and, having spit upon his eyes, he laid his hands upon him and began to ask him: “Do you see anything?” 24 And the man looked up and began saying: “I see men, because I observe what seem to be trees, but they are walking about.” 25 Then he laid his hands again upon the man’s eyes, and the man saw clearly, and he was restored, and he was seeing everything distinctly. 26 So he sent him off home, saying: “But do not enter into the village.”
- I'm pretty sure I read the "2 attempts" interpretation in some book on Matthew; I can try and chase it down if I must; it may have been Davies and Allison (or not). Evercat (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Greek language based argument
Would love to see someone provide the Greek language based argument for Markan priority. I've read it but don't have the scholarship to explain it adequately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 November 2005.
We need a larger article...
The article should be larger so that we can discuss the traditionally held view that Mark's Gospel was written second. The original founders of the Church must have had some clue as to why they felt that way in the early second century...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Band Aide (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 July 2007.
Merger with Two-source article?
I would like to suggest that this article be merged with the two source article. Part of the same evidence used for showing Markan priority is also used for discussion of the two-source hypothesis. The two source hypothesis should first discuss the evidence for Markan priority, and then the evidence for the two-source hypothesis can be placed at the end. And then include discussion of the four-source hypothesis:
- Markan priority
- Two source
- Four source
Having separate articles on these issues seems redundant.188.8.131.52 00:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've just done a lot of work expanding the Two source hypothesis article. It now has a small section on Markan priority. Despite this, I'd like to see this article kept and expanded, so that anyone reading the other article and wanting extra information can come here, without this wealth of information overwhelming the first article. PiCo 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems helpful to clarify here what the scope of this article should be.
There are other articles on the synoptic problem and on the two-source theory (as well as other theories involving Marcan priority). At present, however, there are no articles on Matthaean or Lucan priority.
I do think this article has a place, as in-depth discussion of Marcan priority is well beyond the scope of Synoptic problem and both the two-source and Farrer theories would otherwise end up repeating this common premise on which they both agree.
It's tempting, though, to expand its scope to synoptic priority in general. Priority is just one aspect of the synoptic problem, though very much a key one. Many of the arguments in favor of Marcan priority work against the alternatives, and vice versa. So it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other. But, more generally, it's hard to talk about any aspect of the synoptic problem without talking about all of them.
On the other hand, Marcan priority is most naturally contrasted with Marcan posteriority, which is usually identified with the Griesbach theory (though the seldom-discussed Büsching theory supposes it as well). But between these extremes there are also theories that place Mark in the middle (Augustinian, Jerusalem school).
So, I propose, keep the article focused on Marcan priority. Mention the alternatives, especially Marcan posteriority, by way of contrast. Mention particular theories that embrace Marcan priority, including two-source and Farrer, and briefly point out what divides them, namely, the origin of the double tradition.
There has apparently been some disagreement over whether the term is "Markan" or "Marcan". Currently the language in the article uses "Markan" but the title is "Marcan". We should either do a page move to make the title reflect the article, or change the language to make the article reflect the title. Evercat (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. After a cursory search, it seems that "Marcan" may be preferable. Merriam-Webster has "Marcan" as the primary entry and lists "Markan" as a variant. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marcan) It seems that this may be related to the fact the the adjective in question was derived from Latin (c-spelling) before it would have been derived from English (k-spelling). (http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Marcan) Ebbillings (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marcan priority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rege0695/tuckett.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.