Talk:Gospel of Mark

Removal of verifiable information

Verifiable information should not be removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(2) Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not present Jesus as the offspring of a virgin mother and a divine Father. As far as we know from Mark, Jesus was a normal human being with a birth like that of everyone else.

— Burkett (2002: 158)

This is what I mean by verifiable information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, but in this case, the verifiable information is not cited, so other editors might not know that it's factual. Would you add the citation to that statement in the article? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Mark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608014638/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Son of God Mark 1:1

Hello, miistermagico:

I receive more than 100 unsolicited inquiries each month and usually another dozen requests to read mss. All of that is on top of my regular work, so it is not always possible to reply to all of the inquiries. I can offer a few brief comments.

We do not know the exact dates of the copying of the major codices. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are probably 330-340 AD. They are good candidates as two of the 50 copies of Scripture Emperor Constantine commissioned.

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Beza (c. 400 AD), Alexandrinus (5th cent.), and Washington (5th cent.) have “Son of God.” The words were initially omitted in Sinaiticus, but the original scribe, in his own hand, inserted them between lines 1 and 2. His was an error of omission (homoiteleuton).

The short forms of Mark 1:1 encountered in some of the Fathers’ quotations and in some of the amulets prove very little (and this includes the recently published P.Oxy. 5073). The other Gospel incipits are abbreviated and sometimes are conflated. Papyrus 45 (Chester Beatty Library in Dublin) contains about half of Mark, but not the opening chapters, so it is no help.

That the absence of YUIOU QEOU (“Son of God”) in various manuscripts is due to visual error is supported by the observation that even on into the Middle Ages, when the Majority (or Byzantine) Text dominated, when the long reading of Mark 1:1 was unrivalled, we still find mss where scribes accidentally omitted the last two words of Mark 1:1. The reason? Too many consecutive words ending in the genitive, the letter OY.

For a brilliant discussion of this textual problem, see Tommy Wasserman, “The ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1),” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011) 20–50. Wasserman rightly concludes that the long version was original.

I hope this helps.

C. A. Evans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Evans Houston Baptist University Miistermagico (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It was kind of Craig Evans to reply so generously, but I have to say that everything he says is available in standard textbooks, including those cited in the article bibliography.PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Readers: Tommy Wasserman The "Son of God" was in the Beginning Lecture, 44 min, Q and A 28 min http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.fr/2011/10/mark-11-longish-reading.html Available here. Miistermagico (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Magic"

The section on magic has a lot of issues, it's clearly presenting a non-neutral point of view, furthermore, Jesus using "magic formulas" for miracles has long been refuted and dismissed by serious New Testament scholars, please see "Jesus and Magic: Freeing the Gospel Stories from Modern Misconceptions", By Richard A. Horsley. He addresses some of the very "points" laid out in the section in question. Now I say we either heavily revise the section, or we get rid of it altogether. Lalvia (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Charges of Magic"

I disagree with you Lalvia, The Gospel of Mark states there were charges of magic raised by Jesus'critics and these were disavowed. What else is there in the text? Miistermagico (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Miistermagico, the section is well-sourced and should stay. Lalvia, can you explain more fully how Horsely's book (the Conclusion in particular) undercuts our paragraph, which I'll give here in italics? Mark contains twenty accounts of miracles and healings, accounting for almost a third of the gospel and half the first ten chapters, more, proportionally, than in any other gospel.[42] In the gospels as a whole, Jesus' miracles, prophecies, etc., are presented as evidence of God's rule, but Mark's descriptions of Jesus' healings are a partial exception to this, as his methods, using spittle to heal blindness (Mark 8:22–26) and magic formulae ("Talitha cumi," 5:41, "Ephphatha," 7:34), were those of a magician.[43][44] This is the charge the Jewish religious leaders bring against Jesus: they say he is performing exorcisms with the aid of an evil spirit (Mark 3:22) and calling up the spirit of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14).[43] "There was ... no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.[45] All the gospels defend Jesus against the charge, which, if true, would contradict their ultimate claims for him.[46] The point of the Beelzebub incident in Mark (Mark 3:20–30) is to set forth Jesus' claims to be an instrument of God, not Satan.[46] PiCo (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

use of Mark by the Church

"The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark." This is not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph, and sounds like an idea someone thought up. As does much of the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

At least the part with Matthew is there, read pages 1-3 of the cited work. Have you checked the other sources in the article as thoroughly as it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Synoptic Problem ...

Last paragraph of this section is wrong, as this Wikipedia entry from "Sayings of Jesus on the cross" explains: 4. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?[edit] "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" redirects here. For the film, see My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? (film). Matthew 27:46

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It is the only saying that appears in more than one Gospel,[13] and is a quote from Psalms 22:2. This saying is taken by some as an abandonment of the Son by the Father. Other theologians understand the cry as that of one who was truly human and who felt forsaken. Put to death by his foes, very largely deserted by his friends, he may have felt also deserted by God.[20]

Others point to this as the first words of Psalm 22 and suggest that Jesus recited these words, perhaps even the whole psalm, "that he might show himself to be the very Being to whom the words refer; so that the Jewish scribes and people might examine and see the cause why he would not descend from the cross; namely, because this very psalm showed that it was appointed that he should suffer these things."[21]

Theologian Frank Stagg points to what he calls "a mystery of Jesus' incarnation: "...he who died at Golgotha (Calvary) is one with the Father, that God was in Christ, and that at the same time he cried out to the Father".[22]

In Aramaic, the phrase was/is rendered, "אלי אלי למה סואחטאני".[citation needed][dubious – discuss]