Talk:Gospel of Mark

Dating

Regarding the dating: The prophecy in Mark 13 could be taken as evidence that it was written after 70 AD, but on the other hand, prophecies made up after the fact are usually a bit more accurate; this passage predicts that the Temple would be torn down entirely ("there shall not be left one stone upon another", in the KJV) when it was actually burned, incompletely. E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp. 255-257) has more to say about this section -- he thinks it's an authentic prediction. --MIRV 18:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since someone has debated the burning of the Temple, changing "it was actually destroyed by fire" to "others claim that it was destroyed by fire", I'll clarify: the account comes from Josephus, who was present at the siege of Jerusalem (see [1] and the rest of book 6 of the Jewish War). Is there any reason -- archaeological evidence, perhaps -- to question his version of events? --MIRV 07:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure, one should question everthing, especially things written by religious apologists. Anthony DiPierro 07:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the dating question whether or not the Western Wall is torn down in the future; the point is, prophecies made after the fact (see Daniel, for example) usually don't contain glaring errors. Mark 13 does make a mistake, and the otherwise identical passages in the other Synoptics do not. --MIRV 18:08, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What is the mistake? As to whether prophecies made after the fact contain glaring errors, that's quite possible. Maybe the writer of the prophecy didn't know about the specifics. Ever think of that? This whole section is really quite pointless. You basically go on and on with supposed "facts" which really show absolutely nothing. Anthony DiPierro 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The mistake is in the details of the destruction of the Temple, and the claim is not mine (see the reference to Sanders above), unlike your additions, for which you have not provided any kind of reference. If one version of a prophecy gets the details wrong, and other versions don't make the same mistake, that strongly suggests that something changed between the time that Version 1 (Mark) and Versions 2 and 3 (Matthew and Luke) were written down. --MIRV 18:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And about Josephus: His numbers and dates are sometimes doubtful, yes; he's too ready to make apologies for Judaism and his Roman patrons, yes; but there's no good reason to doubt the factual accuracy of his report on the burning of the Temple, considering that A: he probably saw it happen and B: no historical or archaeological records contradict him. --MIRV 18:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to use statements which are supposedly attributed to him to try to prove something about when something was written, you certainly need to doubt this. Furthermore, adding the reference to where this information is obtained subtracts absolutely nothing, and only adds to the article. You need to think about that before censoring my additions. Anthony DiPierro 18:43, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Show me something that contradicts Josephus. Something like "Philiobiblios of Alexandria, first-century Hellenistic historian, reports that the temple was destroyed by undermining" or "Professor Thomas McGuirk has dug up Roman pickaxes and shovels from under the Temple ruins, but has found no evidence of the fire reported by Josephus"; some kind of reliable reference. Without that kind of evidence, there's no reason to doubt him; and attributing a claim too specifically, when there's only one source available, creates doubt where none exists. Your doubts (and mine, for that matter) are not worthy of inclusion in the article. --MIRV 18:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, according to your own statements, Mark 13 contradicts Josephus. So there's "something" for you. As for attributing a source when only one is available creating doubt, now you're contradicting yourself. If there's no evidence to the contrary, why would the lack of more than one source create doubt? Maybe because one single source is not very trustworthy? Doubts are not being included in the article. They are up to the reader to make or not make. I am simply adding information about the source of the assertion. Anthony DiPierro 19:02, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mark 13 may contradict Josephus, but it's not a first-hand historical account of the war, and it was almost certainly written before the Jewish War (Matthew and Luke don't contradict Josephus in any way, note). Josephus may be the only source for these events, but you have yet to demonstrate that the burning of the Temple is in any way disputed. Also, other evidence (Suetonius, the Arch of Titus) bears out the rest of his reports on the sack of Jerusalem; why do you question this specific part? --MIRV 19:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read NPOV tutorial; Josephus' account is not disputed, except perhaps by you. --MIRV 18:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm adding information. You're subtracting it. You are the one who needs to justify your deletion.

I already have. If you say "Josephus says that X happened" when there is no reason to doubt that X happened, you create the impression that there are other points of view on this issue, which is simply not true. --MIRV 19:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reason to doubt that X happened is that it is only attributed to a single source. A single source should always be doubted. I create no impression that there are other points of view. I merely state a source. Read the newspaper some time, it's done all the time. "People magizine reports that Britney Spears got married Wednesday." Does that express doubt? Sure, to some extent. Does it imply other points of view. No, it doesn't. Anthony DiPierro 19:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But other parts of the source are confirmed by independent accounts. Why is this specific part in doubt? --MIRV 19:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial: "Cite a source of the claim if it is surprising to readers, very specific, or if a source is asked for on the discussion page. I want a source. Case closed. Anthony DiPierro 19:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So there's no contrary evidence; okay, that's what I thought. The source is now cited properly, in a way that does not imply that any other points of view exist. --MIRV 19:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from article

(This looks like some pretty sloppy math! How can 145+60= 406?!! Is anyone awake out there? Watch this one! Let's see 15 Apr 04)

406 with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone; add 51 unique verses, and you get 662. There's no problem. —No-One Jones 19:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Missing text surfaces in Clement's "Mar Saba" letter

I didn't revert the recent Anonymous editing, but I've made numerous edits I hope will be judged individually. Wetman 00:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted these two statements from an anonymous user: "The option that these are "well crafted forged additions" orginating from a later time in the 2nd century is not discussed at all." The lines in question were deleted because they refer to a deleted episode. The result is a well-established lacuna or "hole" in the text, which has been noticed by commentators for centuries. The canonic text is the edited version, with this text deleted. This user has not reread Mark 14. Should the logic of the missing text be more extensively treated in the entry? Or will Christianists with this kind of agenda then remove the whole discussion to a separate entry?
"There is the possibility that texts may have varied in different locales through out the ancient world." This is just sand in our eyes. No information in this statement. Wetman 18:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ending of Mark 'The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses [16:9-20], yet we know they existed.' Is there any explanation for *how* we know this, and perhaps who 'we' are?

I agree with these changes. Also, I have removed the following as unencyclopedic:

Why does the storyteller do this? Must the identity of Jesus come from the listener? If so, the short ending is the perfect hook. Who is Jesus? Is Mark written in present tense for an immediate listening, now reading, audience? Was Mark a woman? Mark's women show wisdom and courage. Only women stayed true in Mark. There has been much discussion about mythology. Have we overlooked the wonder tale?

If there's a way to rewrite this into non-questions and useful info, feel free. Quadell (talk) 12:54, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu

I'm not convinced of this phrase's legitimacy as proper Latin, even as a neologism—Google returns 566 hits for it, but none are especially credible, and the most prominent are posts to listservs questioning someone's misspelling of the phrase (as its initial addition to this article was). Ex eventu, lit. "from an/the event," is essentially "after the fact" with an especially strong implication of the subject's role as the cause; this actually is a popular usage. The other half of the phrase, vaticinium, is where we run into some difficulty.

Simply put, I can find no reason for this word to be. Similar words with sensible meanings exist, such as vaticinatio (3 n., "prophecy") and vaticinum (2 adj., "prophetic"), but none of the Latin word-building rules with which I'm familiar could result in such an odd construction. I admit that it's entirely possible that I've forgotten or am ignorant of some subtelty of Latin that allows this word to exist, but I get the distinct impression that this is at best an ecclesiastical neologism spawned by some dope in the Vatican, or perhaps some elaborate hoax, albeit with no readily discernable intent. Whatever the case, I invite your scholarly illumination.

Austin Hair 23:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Info from Lewis & Short. Adam Bishop 23:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam; I should've thought to check Perseus for L&S. I can rest easy knowing it's precedented, if extremely rare, though I'm still a bit fuzzy on the semantics. Austin Hair 23:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Charateristics

Markan peculiarities.

I have a problem with this phrase: "Jesus is not yet known as the "crucified savior"—that theology is yet to come, courtesy of Paul."

It does not make sense because Paul wrote before GMark. How could this theology therefore not yet have come to pass?

I have a couple of problems with the following text, part of which I have edited out:

Other characteistics unique to Mark:

Only in Mark does Jesus address himself, except for once, as the Son of Man.
The testing of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days contains no discourse between Jesus and Satan.
Jesus heals using his fingers and spit. (7:33)
Jesus must lay his hands on a blind man twice to cure him.(8:22)
There are no favorite disciples.
In Mark Jesus is "killed" on the cross. He is not yet known as the "crucified" savior. This theology is yet to come courtesy of Paul.

The first assertion is clearly completely wrong. Just a glance at the other synoptics demonstrates this (e.g. Mt. 16:27; 17:22-23; Lk. 9:58; 12:40; 18:31-34). The second is correct, but since Mark clearly precedes both Luke and Matthew, surely the question should be "why do Luke and Matthew include discourse between Jesus and Satan?", not why Mark excludes it. The author of Mark cannot exclude it if they are not aware of it!

Points three and four are fine, though in my opinion they would be better set in the context of a sub-discussion about Christ's ministry in Mark. Point five depends on your definition of "favorite" - indeed, is Mark interested in portraying "favorites"? I would contend not: if anything, the author seems content to show Jesus' closest followers as a little dim (e.g. 7:33; 9:18-19, 38-41; 10:13-16; and crucially 14:32-42). This point holds even more if one accepts that Mark finishes at 16:8, with no resolution or concern for any of the twelve disciples!

Finally, and probably most seriously, if one accepts a date of c.70AD for Mark, this postdates Paul. Therefore, the theology of Christ as the "crucified savior" is already knocking around! It is in no way "yet to come". I find it incredibly unlikely that Mark was written in complete ignorance of Paul's thoughts. --MHazell 02:40 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name-dropping

" The later theory was championed on a historical-critical level by J.J. Greisbach in the 19th century, but was dealt a near death blow by H.J. Holzmann immediately prior to the 20th. While not without its own difficulties, the "Two-Document" (Mark and Q) hypothesis proposed by Holzmann and, most famously, B.H. Streeter has held great weight among scholars (liberal to conservative) for nearly 100 years. Attempts by figures such as William Farmer to revive the Greisbach hypothesis have largely failed, as it raises significantly more problems than it solves." --Does the Wikipedia reader get any information out of this inflated name-dropping? --Wetman 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You bring up a good point, but my opinion is that information is good, and that information is often tied to specific individuals. My hope was not incessant name-dropping, but giving the reader "clues," so to speak, about where to look for further information. Perhaps I have gone too far here - I'm in the thick of researching this stuff on the collegiate level right now, so my perspective regarding density and language is probably not too good. Nevertheless, theories have a history, and that history is tied to specific individuals who deserve credit (or cursing :). I won't be offended if these names are removed...but the theories behind them is solid. Best, --Jcdavis 22:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and actually tell the story. Report the developments. Give the reader some telling quotes. Don't just present your favorite conclusions. Let the non-committed reader follow the reasoning and draw her own conclusions. Space and time are available: this is not a paper encyclopedia. Mark is an important text. Try to compensate for your own "earliest possible date" bias: it casts all the rest in an unfavorable light... --Wetman 16:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A raft of further edits by User:Stephen C. Carlson in this inflated style haven't made the entry more accessible: "...despite William R. Farmer's attempt to revive the Griesbach hypothesis in 1964." The suggestion is, that if the reader doesn't know what the "Griesbach hypothesis" is, she shouldn't be reading this entry at all. The contributor would be upset to be informed that this practice is arrogant, I imagine. --Wetman 09:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I cut out most of the names because they were wrong (Griesbach was not Augustinian; Holtzmann's work in 1863 is not "immediately prior to the 20th century."; etc.). My priority is to "get it right" first. Fixing the link to Griesbach hypothesis (the closing brackets were misplaced) should help the confused reader; that's what links are for. --scc 18:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--the result was a deadend link, and "J.J. Griesbach" had been edited to "Griesbach." Opaque to the general reader. Made me quite cross (and much too harsh)... --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Markan priority among the Synoptics

I think this paragraph belongs further down. It is rather complicated and more for the specialists. --Harnack 11:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good thought. Moving from general to specific... --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Audience for Mark

Can someone smarter than me expand this interesting point? "The audience for Mark seems to have experienced some persecution, and would have been expecting more." It needs at least a quote from the text, for the reasoning is not obvious to the average reader. --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mark 13:9-13 and 8:34-38 are the typical passages cited for this opinion. --scc 01:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Shall I edit this into the article? (For the Reader: Two oblique references to Mark are made. One refers to the descriptions of coming persecutions in the approaching "End Times," part of the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of Mark 13, consisting of words put into the mouth of Jesus as prophecy, but actually reflecting the first organized Christian persecutions under Nero, in 65 A.D. The other reference, however, is to a more general passage, which contrasts the worldly and the spiritual life, without any overt reference to persecutions whatsoever: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?..." Such are the references. When texts are quoted simply by "chapter and verse," the cautious listener returns to the text itself. --Wetman 02:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC))

It's up to you if you want to put it into the article. As for the issue in the aside, Wikipedia would probably benefit from having some way to easily link to specific verses in the Bible as well as other ancient literature. --scc 03:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edited the "Audience" section: it didn't seem to give an entirely NPOV, as it previously started off "Mark is a Hellenistic gospel". The section now acknowledges some of the difficulty of establishing from the text a totally Gentile audience for Mark. --MHazell 02:50 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks for improved balance and clarity. Mark, in common with the other synoptic gospels, uses the O.T. in the Greek translation of the Septuagint: referring to "Hebrew Scriptures" while one is downplaying the Hellenism of Mark gives a misimpression. A "totally" Gentile audience for Mark is of course not ever the question. --Wetman 04:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re. "Hebrew Scriptures" - thanks. My bad! --MHazell 08:27 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matthew's priority asserted

I've moved these unwarranted assertion here for discussion:"(Mark is second because Matthew was more popular. The grand teachings in Matthew, especially the sermon on the mount, were thought to be Jesus's words, accurately recorded. Matthew must have been written first. Mark's language and text were thought to be primitive and inferior by the early church). " --Wetman 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wetman. I disagree with you. I think it is of interest to explain the traditional reason why Mark is the second gospel in the popular printed four gospel sequence; and why Matthew is the first. I couldn't think of a better place than here, at the introduction to the Gospel of Mark. What do you do, check every entry to Mark? Why? Your hobby too? How come I don't see any entries by wikipedian professional biblical scholars? Do they see this stuff as incredulous? If you're a smooth talker, which I ain't, nobody questions you're validity, motives or sources? Charlie charlesturek@comcast.net 15 Feb 2005

I believe the early church saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew, hence the canonical ordering. The assertion "Matthew must have been written first" is very POV. At any rate, the considered evidence clearly points to Markan priority as opposed to Matthean priority. I agree that the early church's opinion is interesting, and certainly the question "why was Matthew seen as more interesting?" needs to be asked, but I'm unsure it belongs in the Gospel of Mark entry - what about the Markan priority entry? --MHazell 02:17 17 Feb 2005

If certain figures in early Christianity saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew, then one of them would have said so. That would be the only reason for crediting this interpretation. A note based on a quotation would be worth entering in Wikipedia. I wouldn't spend much time looking for one however. The question "why was Matthew seen as more interesting?" does not actually need to be asked, until some early writer can be seen to have actually found Matthew more "interesting, and to have said so." Then we may well ask why, not in our terms of what's interesting to us, but in his terms. The rest is crackerbarrel theology, based on idle speculation without any historical basis. MHazell's suggestion that Markan priority is the best place for these speculations, if they could be made more concrete, is a very sensible one.--Wetman 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guess you got me, guys. My stuff would be better under the entry of "Gospels". The explanation for the order (8 of them) etc. can be found in The New Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "Gospel and Gospels". This certainly fits in with my knowledge of the ancient church writers. Trust me on this one, Catholic Bible Scholars are pretty sharp. And why not: they copied all those ancient documents by hand for centuries. I've learned a lot by reading a few things here and there. Thanks for your kind replies and interest. I have a tendency to wander off in different directions. It's just my way. Oh yeah,info is from 1909, probably a bit dated. New Encyclopedia??? Charlie. 17 Feb 2005

The intellectual context of the Catholic Encyclopedia is very lightly touched on at Modernism (Roman Catholicism): worth considering the atmosphere of 1908-10 in which it was compiled. Charlie, I hot-linked your reference. The official RC view is that, of the eight early variations on the order of Gospels, Jerome got the right one! (More astonishing if they said he didn't eh?) At any rate MML&J has that order because it's Jerome's order in the Vulgate—and of course in selected earlier codices of the complete gospels, though not in others. (Log in Charlie: you'll get a Watchlist!) --Wetman 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Wetman for the info on RC modernism. I never knew much about the pioneers. Too long ago one of my neighborhood priests lent me a pair of books by Marie-Joseph Lagrange and told me they had to be smuggled into the USA. I was surprised they were so conservative. I've had some wonderful teachers. It is too bad a new idea is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Charlie 17 Feb 2005

Charlie, I've redlinked Lagrange as a reproach to you, that you should Google him and, from what you already know and what you can find out, do a bio on Lagrange. --Wetman 00:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New edits

I've made a bunch of edits that I hope will be judged one at a time. They are meant to distinguish Mark from Mark, to identify, disambiguate and link offhand references, to more fairly characterize the scholarship and its bases, to apply logic more explicitly etc. I have deleted a couple of bits that offered no concrete information but posturing. Please continue to edit not revert in the collegial atmosphere that has, generally speaking, been built up at this entry. --Wetman 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. I was tweaking the characteristics at the same time as you were making your edits, so merged the (small) changes I made. The only major thing I removed from 'Characteristics' was Only in Mark does Jesus address himself, except for once, as the Son of Man, which was added back in by 68.41.141.167 a few hours ago. I wouldn't mind, except for the fact that, as I have previously demonstrated above, it's completely wrong! --MHazell 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title: "according to"

The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.)Portress 03:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel According to Mark is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shared verses don't seem to add up

It says in the article:

Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to a common concordance.

Unless I misunderstand the way these are counted, this cannot be correct. The number of verses common with Matthew alone and with Luke alone should be equal or less than the number in common with both. Junes 13:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I get it now. I was reading 'alone' as 'when compared only with'. Obviously, in this context, it means 'it is in this gospel but not in the other one'. D'oh! The wording is fine. Junes 14:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clever implication

Notice, in this text: "There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later." how smoothly the reader gets the impression that that's all over now. The instinct for dishonesty runs perilously close to the marrow in this field. --Wetman 20:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Instinct for dishonesty"??? Stephen C. Carlson 00:27, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Stephen C. Carlson's supercilious query here might have seemed disingenuous to those of us who recognize the recent author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark—a book that, if it proves to be accurate, essentially demolishes the intellectual reputation of Morton Smith, and if not... well, truth will out. I must be mistaken to sense that there so often seems to be an unspoken subtext or a covert agenda, Mr Carlson, if that is indeed you: perhaps you would you like to expand on my phrase "instinct for dishonesty" and show us how wholesome and authentic your query was? And how rare hoaxes and inventions really are in this field... --Wetman 16:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark and Midrash

Can someone expand or clarify this?Mackm 21:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A needed subsection: Latinisms of Mark

"The Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. It is argued that the Latinisms in the Greek of Mark —once seen as an indication of Roman provenance—could have stemmed from many places throughout the Western Roman empire." The wiser readers note the tell-tale "passive of non-attribution" employed in this piece of transparent special pleading. Latin literature was simply not being produced in Syria or in Alexandria in the late first/early second century, quite simply because it would have found few hearers. Official inscriptions are not literature. A couple of concise attributed quotes might clear this unintended obfuscation.

The average Wikipedia reader asks these straightforward questions: "What kind of grammar or vocabulary reveals itself as a 'Latinism'? Why do Latinisms identify the source of texts? What regions would Latinisms in any text indicate? On what, specifically, are counter-arguments based?" Straightforward answers would be a courtesy to the reader. --Wetman 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

Does anyone know why User:Satanael put the NPOV Tag on the page, but no discussion on the talk page? Can we remove the tag, or is someone going to make a case for POV? --Andrew c 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag removed. If someone disagrees with this action, please explain the POV here on the talk page. --Andrew c 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st century manuscripts?

For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Half of the discovered texts before the 2nd century contain the phrase "Son of God", while half do not.

Posters at Internet Infidels Board find this statement dubious: there are no complete manuscripts of Mark's gospel from before the 4th century, fragments were quoted by church fathers in the 2nd century (and the earliest fragments do not cover Mark 1:1), and we have no references from the 1st century ("before the 2nd century"). - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could re-edit the text and remove the tag. --Wetman 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either somebody got the century wrong, or the passage is completely incorrect. Since I am not an expert on Biblical criticism, I'll leave it for others to correct. - Mike Rosoft 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three manuscripts lack "son of God" in Mark 1:1. They are: Codex Sinaiticus 01 (4th cen.), Codex Koridethi 037 (9th cen.), and Minuscule 28 (11th cen.). The "half" statistic is only correct for the 4th cen., since the other 4th cen. manuscript of Mark, Codex Vaticanus has the text. (P45 is 3rd century, but its portion containing Mark 1:1 has not survived the ravages of time.) It is possible to correct the statement to read before the 5th century, but, though technically correct, the revised statistic is misleading because it accords a much greater relevance to the age of a witness than is normal in the textual criticism of the New Testament. I would favor something like: "Most manuscripts contain the phrase "Son of God," but a couple of important ones do not." Stephen C. Carlson 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't pay attention to those dusty old manuscripts: listen to what Mother Church teaches. --Wetman 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]