Talk:Gospel of Mark

Edit warring

I can live with Papias, c. 125 AD. But the present version is much too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK Papias talks about a gospel of Matthew and a gospel of Mark, he does not talk about Luke, or John. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

unsourced claims about "son of man" and "son of god"

The article had this: 'More fundamentally, Mark's reason for writing was to counter believers who saw Jesus in a Greek way, as wonder-worker (the Greek term is "divine man"); Mark saw the suffering of the messiah as essential, so that the "Son of God" title (the Hellenistic "divine man") had to be corrected and amplified with the "Son of Man" title, which conveyed Christ's suffering.' There was no source cited for this analysis. I've deleted these sentences. Maybe this is a commonly held hypothesis (although this is the first I've heard of it). If so, a source should be cited, and most likely the wording should be softened to indicate that there can be no certainty.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:15C5:7A46:D83E:CAA3 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I will say that it's a pretty common understanding of the Markan narrative, but that said, you are absolutely correct that it should be cited to something. I'll see if I can't find something that fits the bill. Cheers, and thank you for your efforts. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Content unique to Mark

This section consists of a lengthy list and is not of interest to the general reader. IMO it should be cut.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:15C5:7A46:D83E:CAA3 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on the ending of Mark

An editor has recently attempted to expand the section on the ending of Mark; I reverted, he restored his edit, and I reverted again. Before this spirals into an edit war, I'll explain further my reasons for reverting.

Firstly, the article consists of a series of quite brief subsections, as is fitting for an entry level encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a scholarly encyclopedia, despite relying on scholarly sources: our aim is to introduce lay readers to the topic, not to go into details). Expanding this section should therefore only be done if the new material corrects a major absence. The new material does not do this. It largely concerns the ideas of the 5th century Church Father Victor of Antioch; why should we privilege his views? Why should we mention them at all? The section as it stands presents the views of the majority of modern scholars, and unless there are compelling reasons for mentioning Victor I can see no reason to do so. Achar Sva (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The expanded version of this section is probably overlong, and I think framing this is a "debate" with "two sides" is not the way to present it, but I do think we should make clear that for much of the history of Christianity, the so-called "longer ending" was considered canonical and briefly touch on why, in which context we could mention the opinions of the Church fathers. But Mark 16 has its own article where this is all discussed in more depth so we don't want to just end up repeating material from there. --Jfruh (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mark, Gospel of" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mark, Gospel of has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Mark, Gospel of until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Overcite

Hi, Pbritti. Please select two or three references from my edit and cite those. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I selected one very good reference published by OUP, as the quote provided with the citation is perfectly suited to provide reference and demonstrates that this is a crucial detail to mention in the lead summary. I would caution you to consider avoiding similar CITEBOMBs, lest your actions be interpreted as POINTY. Posting them to the talk page and selecting two yourself would have been a better start. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Some people find all those references (plus some other references) not enough, e.g. Jenhawk777 at Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels#Arbitrary break. She says that Ehrman does not count because he is too controversial, Holman bibles do not count because they are too conservative (unscholarly), Witherington because although he is on her side, he actually gives her the lie, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See, @Tgeorgescu: comments like that are fairly good indications of pointy behavior. No reason to ping someone just because they disagreed with you elsewhere. Returning to that above comment repeatedly to further criticize the view of another editor uninvolved in this article is, in my view, uncivil. I'd encourage you to strike the above and to not view the project as a contest of ideas. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Stricken. But for you the citation from Ehrman was enough, in the other article multiple WP:RS/AC claims do not get accepted and she summons me to delete the same claim you have accepted here.

My point: if the claim is bad, it has to be deleted from all Wikipedia articles, not just from only one.

I mean: if it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim, then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim. I can accept that. But then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim everywhere (in every article). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If you are going to run me down all over Wikipedia for daring to question one sentence in one article, then at least do so honestly. My dispute was and is with the quality of the source used to claim "scholarly consensus", a claim that is not made in this article. You are once again focused on the "truth" of authorship, and keep trying to make the discussion about what you want to prove. My focus is, and has been from the beginning, much smaller. I just want a decent source that actually says what is claimed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I had mentioned [[WP:RS/AC] four times, just above your reply. So, I don't understand the charge. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)