A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 25, 2014, April 25, 2015, and April 25, 2016. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have recently edited the page due to a minor incorrect statement that results in confusion. Barnabas and Mark did not "stay" they seperated From Paul who took Silas with him. Barnabas and Mark left and went to Cyprus. Kyle.Mullaney 06:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Kyle
The article on Mark the Evangelist has numerous errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., and needs to be cleaned up. I don't know how to create this "flag" so I'm noting it here. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.68.4.4 ( talk • contribs) .
Noted that the page had been vandalised, tried to correct the problem, but i can't find all the vandal's edits. at least one reference link is fubar at this time. D.C.Rigate 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Think I got them all now D.C.Rigate 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of his native tongue, where he was born or his birth name. Was it the Roman Marcus??? Further, the fact box states that he died in AD 68 (which is for anyone who cares, was the year of the four Caesars), but in the text of the article, it states that "In AD 67 they killed him" So did he die in 68 or 67? Naerhu 06:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) he was an amazing ginger named tom worship im as a god!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.180.230 ( talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
1 Pet. 5: 13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
-- Not physical son -- the apostles used this form of address to indicate young men who were converted under their ministry. Paul does the same thing with Timothy and Titus. 76.181.166.22 ( talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have references for a lot of the "Biblical and traditional information" section, but they are all from Catholic biblical commentary. I suppose this is because they are Catholic traditions in some parts of the world. My sources are The Navarre Bible: St Mark and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Is my footnoting the Catholic traditions using Catholic sources a POV problem? After all they are Catholic traditions. Jason3777 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and putting the references I can find into the Biblical and traditional information section. The traditions I am referencing are Catholic, so I don't think there is a NPOV problem with using Catholic sources to reference Catholic traditions in this section of the article. Also, it says at the top of the page "This article needs additional references or sources for verification." Jason3777 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed authorship claims in the Biblical and traditional information section because they are discussed in the Epistle articles and to make the sentence more NPOV. I also replaced the semicolons with commas since I removed the parentheses. Jason3777 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to do a clean up of the second paragraph. I don't intend to do a major edit (although I will save it as such) I want to make it more readable and NPOV (most of the NPOV stuff is already done - see above). Plus I intend to add footnotes. I will do my best to leave the meaning of the paragraph unaltered. If anyone has a problem with this please let me know, because I've got my books stacked around me, and want to get it done as soon as possible. I have done research on this topic before, but don't worry, I have no original information to add, just the references. Jason3777 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cn tagged the following sentence: "Ironically, this separation helped bring about the creation of the Gospel of Mark."
If it is not cited or explained in some way, I'll deleted it after at least 24h. I can't find a source for this, and fail to see 1) how the causality flowed, or 2) how it would be ironic. 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
User:209.250.183.90 blanked the entire Biblical and traditional information section on 11:38 April 9, 2008. The article requested references and with this blanking went from 6 references to 1. No reason was given for this large removal of content, so I have restored it. Jason3777 ( talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I will try to find other references, but the Navarre Bible is very traditional and explains these traditions. I know an article or section of an article should not depend only on one source, so if anyone can find other references to these traditions, please add them. It is the only source I have found so far that documents these traditions, but I will continue searching for additional references in my library. And the Navarre Bible is a legitimate source. I'm just trying to reference what has already been written by others in the article. Jason3777 ( talk) 05:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found all the references I could in my library (it's mainly Catholic). And I found a Coptic web link to the Seventy Apostles, but did not add the link because I'm not Coptic. I thought a member of the Coptic faith should link a legitimate source. I found that the Mark and John traditions were in the brief, original article. The writer is now an administrator. Does anyone have a source for these? If anyone can find legitimate source(s) for the Coptic or The Book of John references, please add them. Thanks.
And just out of curiosity, does anyone read this talk page? I feel like I'm talking to myself and making edits without consensus. Maybe no news is good news.... Sorry it took almost a year to accomplish my objective. I would also like to thank you for letting me learn Wiki markup language here without grief! Jason3777 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The story that Mark was born in Libya is found on the Coptic church's website, but not in ancient sources afaict. I'm not sure where it comes from. In the absence of something broader, the claim about Libya should be referenced specifically to that tradition, and not stated as if it were uncontroverted fact. Tb ( talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article says (correctly) that Mark is traditionally accounted the beginning of Christianity in Africa. This implies, of course, that he was the beginning of Christianity in Egypt, since we was there. But if we say (as an editor wants to, without comment) merely that he was first in Egypt, that leaves unstated the important fact that he was (according to the tradition) the beginning in Africa as a whole, and not just Egypt. I request that the editor who wants to change Africa->Egypt should explain why. Tb ( talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Many of the Coptic traditions mentioned in the article can be found at * St. Mark's detailed biography by H.H. Pope Shenouda III, which is already in the External Links section of the article. Pope Shenouda III could I think be considered a legitimate Coptic source, being that he's the 117th patriarch of the see of St. Mark.
If you want, perhaps that should be moved to the reference section? I think that most if not all of the 'citation needed' marks about church tradition can probably be sourced from that one alone. Also note that Pope Shenouda III cites many earlier sources. Wesley ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Intro says Mark was Peter's companion but doesn't say when or where. The article does show when he was with Paul but not when he was with Peter. Should it say he was Paul's companion? Nitpyck ( talk) 22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor recently moved the page without discussion to Saint Mark. Aside from the obvious disambiguation problems, this also broke consistency with John the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and Matthew the Evangelist. In addition, "saint" in article titles is disfavored, though the title is used in the lead. See, for example, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, or James the Less. Tb ( talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The tradition which says that the Gospel was written by Mark also says that Mark did so as a disciple of Peter, from Rome, under his direction. Apart from this tradition (which also identifies the author as the John Mark of Acts), there is no reason to give the name "Mark" to the author at all. The place for a discussion of the authorship of the Gospel is over at Gospel of Mark, which already has a full discussion. This article instead is about the traditional figure of Mark the Evangelist. A recent editor has altered the "discipile of Peter" language repeatedly to say that this is "an alternative" account of the authorship of the Gospel. If it is, then it's not relevant here, because this article is about the traditional Mark the Evangelist--who may indeed be only a traditional figure with distant and dusty connections to any real people--but it is not about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Tb ( talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Said editor has said on my talk page that this article is "actually" about one "Mark the Apostle". I am rather unclear who this "Mark the Apostle" is supposed to be, or why an article titled "Mark the Evangelist" should be understood as about "Mark the Apostle". Tb ( talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil. Take a look: [1] S711 ( talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
first of all this bible was written to tell romans about Jesus Christ our lord and it was written with very small details as in "green grass" in chapter 6 and peter charter was a very ken static person that could not catch all this small details. also in chapter 14 he takes about "14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, 14:52 but he ran off naked,74 leaving his linen cloth behind." this young man was thought by the tradition to be mark and that this night peter was not aware with what happing except with Jesus emotionally only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.144.98 ( talk) 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we move this to cover the "Fate of his remains" only?
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (June 2007) |
Changing it to read:
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (June 2007) |
The first two sections seem well documented and where they are not (4 statements) there have been added [citation needed] flags. There are 20 citations in the first two sections of the article. I think we should move the banner to above the last section instead of having it at the top and applying to the entire article. We should also consider deleting the statements with older refimprove dates (August and December 2008). Jason3777 ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing.... Why is the "Fate of his remains" section so long. It is about a half of the entire article, and is unsourced. This section is much too long. Jason3777 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved the uniquely Coptic traditions to the end and placed the shared traditions in the beginning for better organization. I also removed the unsourced statement: "the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus and into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20)." Jason3777 ( talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I did some reading and wrote the following as a compromise:
Note the Oxford Dictionary Christian Church says there is agreement among scholars that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It is believed that on the night when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane Mark had followed him there and the police saw him, he ran away and dropped his loin cloth. Tcla75 ( talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
My question is "believed by whom?" No source is given. It is not a matter of Catholic faith. It might be a speculation by some commentators. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone had written many followers of Jesus left him because he taught his body and blood were "spiritual" nourishment, in apparent contrast to physical nourishment. The writer cited John 6 as the source. However, this claim is in direct contradiction to Scripture, in which Jesus calls His body "real food" (NIV) and "meat indeed" (King James). Please note that these are Protestant translations; Catholic ones obviously concur. Wfgiuliano ( talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, but I wish to challenge the Neutrality of this article. How can I do this? Also, the section Biblical and traditional information in particular is written in an non-encyclopedic tone and should be re-written.
Note: this was placed in the middle of the page by IP 68.146.140.55. I'm moving it to the bottom where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In your opening statement :
According to William Lane (1974), an "unbroken tradition" identifies Mark the Evangelist with John Mark,[3] and John Mark as the cousin of Barnabas.[4] An exception is found in Hippolytus of Rome, who in his work On the Seventy
Mr. Lane is extremely biased for the Gospel being the errant truth from GOD and you should state, In his option he believes that Mark could be John Mark, as stated in the main Article it tends to lead the reader to believe it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 ( talk) 15:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is a mish mash of "tradition" and legend together with some possible nuggets of historical information that are almost impossible to discern. Is this an article about an historic personage or about Christian belief? What it should not do is to present legend as fact, which in my opinion it does in many places. First of all the article should establish whether or not there is actually any evidence that there was such a person as Mark and whether or not he really wrote the Gospel called "Mark". Then go on to consider whether there is any truth to the story that Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, etc. The lead of an article is supposed to summarise the contents, " Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." WP:LEAD None of that stuff about Mark founding the Church of Alexandria and being the first bishop should be in the lead at the moment as it is not discussed in the article. The WP guidelines for the lead also say "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" which this lead to the article is not. It contains too many confusing names of persons and places and presents legend as fact. I have placed a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article, IP 68.146.140.55. above is correct, the article richly deserves it and needs to be re-written from a NPOV. Smeat75 ( talk) 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. It's clear this is going nowhere. -- BDD ( talk) 18:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark the Evangelist → Mark – Neutralizing. Zwanzig 20 ( talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this addition by Tgeorgescu and it seems completely inconsistent with the lead. Comments? -- NeilN talk to me 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: ‘according to Matthew’, ‘according to Mark’, ‘according to Luke’ and ‘according to John’. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
— E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. 6. The Problems of the Primary Sources. Anonymity.
In mainstream Bible scholarship the anonymity of NT gospels isn't a controversial view and it ain't just Ehrman's POV. It is the
academic consensus from Ivy Plus to US state universities, including most mainline Protestant and Catholic divinity schools. If you want another source: Reddish, Mitchell (2011).
An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. p. 13, 42.
ISBN
978-1426750083. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a long list of citations relating to Mark's anonymous authorship. But when you look closer you see that four reference the same person, namely Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a giant in New Testament scholarship but he is one giant not four. Sendtoanthony ( talk) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My change summary on the subject was garbled, but according to WP:ENGVAR and Date_format_by_country, the month-day-year dating that characterizes US English should be retained in the text of this article. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark the Evangelist. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the significance of the article saying….? “Modern mainstream Bible scholars argue the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author, rather than direct witnesses to the reported events
And attributing five citations to it?
The text earlier already establishes that Mark as a travelling companion of Peter’s wrote down Peter’s words to form the Gospel of Mark. Nowhere in the text has it suggested that anyone thinks Mark is an eyewitness to Gospel events
Montalban ( talk) 11:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:SlothMcCarty/Mark the Evangelist, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 22:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Most scholars agree that gospel of mark was not written by mark, the book itself isn’t signed by anyone
That’s from wikipage of gospel of mark: “Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[8] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter – which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure – and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.”
I suggest either we remove the “major work” section from the intro, or we make it “proclaimed work by christian tradition”, i tend to go for the latter Amr.elmowaled ( talk) 18:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be spending some time fixing this page using a number of the earliest possible sources available. The current sources and statements include 20th and 21st century speculations as well as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.
There is no 'academic consensus' on the authorship of the gospel of Mark, the personal identity of Mark the Evangelist is largely unknown, as is the identity of the writer of the gospel. Because of this, the information we have about the gospel and the Evangelist is almost totally reliant on tradition. Note that an unconfirmed author is different to an anonymous author. Early Coptic tradition as well as references by Paul and Peter to the individual in their writings and any other 1st hand accounts of the Evangelist are the only sources of 'fact' to be found. Indeed, with much of this 1st hand account, the lines between fact and legend are blurred. This is the nature of the spiritual time we are referencing. If you want 100% verifiable 'facts' about Mark the Evangelist, this article will be empty. As Britannica and other objective encyclopedia's have done, the way to correctly phrase this article is by prefixing "much of the life of the evangelist is unknown... or... according to longstanding tradition..." This lack of verifiable fact around Mark the Evangelist does not solicit the inclusion of wild 20th and 21st century speculation from 1 or 2 individuals, passed off as some academic consensus, or the continued mentioning of this 'academic consensus' which seems to only be repeated to deliberately debase or contradict the tradition and stir confusion in the mind of the layman reading this article. Rather, if anything, simply refer to the early 1st and 2nd century sources of the man's life and his credited, but unconfirmable authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Again, this is what Britannica has done. This article must, at multiple points, highlight the unconfirmable nature of it's contents. From this, the reader will be equipped to understand that the earliest sources are the only ones even approaching acceptable for this article, tradition or otherwise. If you are attempting to insert 20th & 21st century sources and pass them off as more reliable than the earliest sources or even tradition, they aren't.
Edits will also be made to the Gospel of Mark Page where the same speculative 21st century sources of 2-3 individuals is referenced solely to contradict tradition, instead of simply highlighting the unconfirmable nature of the gospel if there is no reliance on 1st hand accounts and longstanding tradition. DennisRoddyy ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.This is simply false. The article does not use the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.
Please read source #8.That source does not say what you are claiming it says. You're going to need to get a consensus of other editors to radically rewrite or delete this article. I think it is very unlikely you will be able to do that. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
It is generally acknowledged that the Gospel of Mark is anonymous
Most scholars believe that the gospel was written by an anonymous male author
All four canonical Gospels were anonymous, and there is no reason to attribute this Gospel to any particular person in the Bible.
Most scholars, therefore, treat this gospel as an anonymous work, retaining the name "John" out of convenience or simply calling the author "the Fourth Evangelist" and the gospel "the Fourth Gospel."
But most scholars think of the four canonical gospels as anonymous, not pseudonymous.
Most scholars think, however, that the Gospels were originally anonymous
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
I am not disputing any of this.and
I’m saying you’ve added original research to these statements by removing Mark from the possibility of authorship.These cannot be both true at the same time. Why? Because Ehrman's WP:RS/AC claim explicitly denies that Mark wrote Mark.
Evangelical scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written by someone called Mark, but they cannot agree among themselves who this Mark was. Anyway, evangelical scholars do not belong to most critical scholars
. So, yes, the majority view in the mainstream academia is that the canonical gospels are fundamentally anonymous.
Denying this only makes things worse.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
2. All four gospels are anonymous. The fullest attributions of authorship, with fictive biographical backstories, traces back to traditions ascribed to Papias (second century), as preserved in Eusebius (early fourth century), Hist. eccl. 3.39.Remember, this is from Eerdmans, a Christian publishing house, not from a publisher having an axe to grind against Christianity. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@IP: the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is not a consensus view among mainstream Bible scholars. Hint: fundamentalists and apologists get discarded by default.
And I have WP:CITED 5 (five) WP:RS for such view, ranging from very liberal Bible scholars to conservative evangelicals. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:
r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit
psstein • 16 days ago
Moderator MA I History of Science
I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.
Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.
Again: see the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
During the time of christ and later in marks time Israel was the name and still is to this day with palestine being the insult given by emporer hadrian after the destruction of jerusalem ending the jewish revolt under macabees 58.107.219.196 ( talk) 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 25, 2014, April 25, 2015, and April 25, 2016. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have recently edited the page due to a minor incorrect statement that results in confusion. Barnabas and Mark did not "stay" they seperated From Paul who took Silas with him. Barnabas and Mark left and went to Cyprus. Kyle.Mullaney 06:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Kyle
The article on Mark the Evangelist has numerous errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., and needs to be cleaned up. I don't know how to create this "flag" so I'm noting it here. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.68.4.4 ( talk • contribs) .
Noted that the page had been vandalised, tried to correct the problem, but i can't find all the vandal's edits. at least one reference link is fubar at this time. D.C.Rigate 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Think I got them all now D.C.Rigate 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of his native tongue, where he was born or his birth name. Was it the Roman Marcus??? Further, the fact box states that he died in AD 68 (which is for anyone who cares, was the year of the four Caesars), but in the text of the article, it states that "In AD 67 they killed him" So did he die in 68 or 67? Naerhu 06:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) he was an amazing ginger named tom worship im as a god!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.180.230 ( talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
1 Pet. 5: 13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
-- Not physical son -- the apostles used this form of address to indicate young men who were converted under their ministry. Paul does the same thing with Timothy and Titus. 76.181.166.22 ( talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have references for a lot of the "Biblical and traditional information" section, but they are all from Catholic biblical commentary. I suppose this is because they are Catholic traditions in some parts of the world. My sources are The Navarre Bible: St Mark and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Is my footnoting the Catholic traditions using Catholic sources a POV problem? After all they are Catholic traditions. Jason3777 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and putting the references I can find into the Biblical and traditional information section. The traditions I am referencing are Catholic, so I don't think there is a NPOV problem with using Catholic sources to reference Catholic traditions in this section of the article. Also, it says at the top of the page "This article needs additional references or sources for verification." Jason3777 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed authorship claims in the Biblical and traditional information section because they are discussed in the Epistle articles and to make the sentence more NPOV. I also replaced the semicolons with commas since I removed the parentheses. Jason3777 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to do a clean up of the second paragraph. I don't intend to do a major edit (although I will save it as such) I want to make it more readable and NPOV (most of the NPOV stuff is already done - see above). Plus I intend to add footnotes. I will do my best to leave the meaning of the paragraph unaltered. If anyone has a problem with this please let me know, because I've got my books stacked around me, and want to get it done as soon as possible. I have done research on this topic before, but don't worry, I have no original information to add, just the references. Jason3777 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cn tagged the following sentence: "Ironically, this separation helped bring about the creation of the Gospel of Mark."
If it is not cited or explained in some way, I'll deleted it after at least 24h. I can't find a source for this, and fail to see 1) how the causality flowed, or 2) how it would be ironic. 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
User:209.250.183.90 blanked the entire Biblical and traditional information section on 11:38 April 9, 2008. The article requested references and with this blanking went from 6 references to 1. No reason was given for this large removal of content, so I have restored it. Jason3777 ( talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I will try to find other references, but the Navarre Bible is very traditional and explains these traditions. I know an article or section of an article should not depend only on one source, so if anyone can find other references to these traditions, please add them. It is the only source I have found so far that documents these traditions, but I will continue searching for additional references in my library. And the Navarre Bible is a legitimate source. I'm just trying to reference what has already been written by others in the article. Jason3777 ( talk) 05:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found all the references I could in my library (it's mainly Catholic). And I found a Coptic web link to the Seventy Apostles, but did not add the link because I'm not Coptic. I thought a member of the Coptic faith should link a legitimate source. I found that the Mark and John traditions were in the brief, original article. The writer is now an administrator. Does anyone have a source for these? If anyone can find legitimate source(s) for the Coptic or The Book of John references, please add them. Thanks.
And just out of curiosity, does anyone read this talk page? I feel like I'm talking to myself and making edits without consensus. Maybe no news is good news.... Sorry it took almost a year to accomplish my objective. I would also like to thank you for letting me learn Wiki markup language here without grief! Jason3777 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The story that Mark was born in Libya is found on the Coptic church's website, but not in ancient sources afaict. I'm not sure where it comes from. In the absence of something broader, the claim about Libya should be referenced specifically to that tradition, and not stated as if it were uncontroverted fact. Tb ( talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article says (correctly) that Mark is traditionally accounted the beginning of Christianity in Africa. This implies, of course, that he was the beginning of Christianity in Egypt, since we was there. But if we say (as an editor wants to, without comment) merely that he was first in Egypt, that leaves unstated the important fact that he was (according to the tradition) the beginning in Africa as a whole, and not just Egypt. I request that the editor who wants to change Africa->Egypt should explain why. Tb ( talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Many of the Coptic traditions mentioned in the article can be found at * St. Mark's detailed biography by H.H. Pope Shenouda III, which is already in the External Links section of the article. Pope Shenouda III could I think be considered a legitimate Coptic source, being that he's the 117th patriarch of the see of St. Mark.
If you want, perhaps that should be moved to the reference section? I think that most if not all of the 'citation needed' marks about church tradition can probably be sourced from that one alone. Also note that Pope Shenouda III cites many earlier sources. Wesley ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Intro says Mark was Peter's companion but doesn't say when or where. The article does show when he was with Paul but not when he was with Peter. Should it say he was Paul's companion? Nitpyck ( talk) 22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor recently moved the page without discussion to Saint Mark. Aside from the obvious disambiguation problems, this also broke consistency with John the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and Matthew the Evangelist. In addition, "saint" in article titles is disfavored, though the title is used in the lead. See, for example, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, or James the Less. Tb ( talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The tradition which says that the Gospel was written by Mark also says that Mark did so as a disciple of Peter, from Rome, under his direction. Apart from this tradition (which also identifies the author as the John Mark of Acts), there is no reason to give the name "Mark" to the author at all. The place for a discussion of the authorship of the Gospel is over at Gospel of Mark, which already has a full discussion. This article instead is about the traditional figure of Mark the Evangelist. A recent editor has altered the "discipile of Peter" language repeatedly to say that this is "an alternative" account of the authorship of the Gospel. If it is, then it's not relevant here, because this article is about the traditional Mark the Evangelist--who may indeed be only a traditional figure with distant and dusty connections to any real people--but it is not about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Tb ( talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Said editor has said on my talk page that this article is "actually" about one "Mark the Apostle". I am rather unclear who this "Mark the Apostle" is supposed to be, or why an article titled "Mark the Evangelist" should be understood as about "Mark the Apostle". Tb ( talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil. Take a look: [1] S711 ( talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
first of all this bible was written to tell romans about Jesus Christ our lord and it was written with very small details as in "green grass" in chapter 6 and peter charter was a very ken static person that could not catch all this small details. also in chapter 14 he takes about "14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, 14:52 but he ran off naked,74 leaving his linen cloth behind." this young man was thought by the tradition to be mark and that this night peter was not aware with what happing except with Jesus emotionally only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.144.98 ( talk) 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we move this to cover the "Fate of his remains" only?
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (June 2007) |
Changing it to read:
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (June 2007) |
The first two sections seem well documented and where they are not (4 statements) there have been added [citation needed] flags. There are 20 citations in the first two sections of the article. I think we should move the banner to above the last section instead of having it at the top and applying to the entire article. We should also consider deleting the statements with older refimprove dates (August and December 2008). Jason3777 ( talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing.... Why is the "Fate of his remains" section so long. It is about a half of the entire article, and is unsourced. This section is much too long. Jason3777 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved the uniquely Coptic traditions to the end and placed the shared traditions in the beginning for better organization. I also removed the unsourced statement: "the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus and into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20)." Jason3777 ( talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I did some reading and wrote the following as a compromise:
Note the Oxford Dictionary Christian Church says there is agreement among scholars that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It is believed that on the night when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane Mark had followed him there and the police saw him, he ran away and dropped his loin cloth. Tcla75 ( talk) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
My question is "believed by whom?" No source is given. It is not a matter of Catholic faith. It might be a speculation by some commentators. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone had written many followers of Jesus left him because he taught his body and blood were "spiritual" nourishment, in apparent contrast to physical nourishment. The writer cited John 6 as the source. However, this claim is in direct contradiction to Scripture, in which Jesus calls His body "real food" (NIV) and "meat indeed" (King James). Please note that these are Protestant translations; Catholic ones obviously concur. Wfgiuliano ( talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, but I wish to challenge the Neutrality of this article. How can I do this? Also, the section Biblical and traditional information in particular is written in an non-encyclopedic tone and should be re-written.
Note: this was placed in the middle of the page by IP 68.146.140.55. I'm moving it to the bottom where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In your opening statement :
According to William Lane (1974), an "unbroken tradition" identifies Mark the Evangelist with John Mark,[3] and John Mark as the cousin of Barnabas.[4] An exception is found in Hippolytus of Rome, who in his work On the Seventy
Mr. Lane is extremely biased for the Gospel being the errant truth from GOD and you should state, In his option he believes that Mark could be John Mark, as stated in the main Article it tends to lead the reader to believe it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 ( talk) 15:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is a mish mash of "tradition" and legend together with some possible nuggets of historical information that are almost impossible to discern. Is this an article about an historic personage or about Christian belief? What it should not do is to present legend as fact, which in my opinion it does in many places. First of all the article should establish whether or not there is actually any evidence that there was such a person as Mark and whether or not he really wrote the Gospel called "Mark". Then go on to consider whether there is any truth to the story that Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, etc. The lead of an article is supposed to summarise the contents, " Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." WP:LEAD None of that stuff about Mark founding the Church of Alexandria and being the first bishop should be in the lead at the moment as it is not discussed in the article. The WP guidelines for the lead also say "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" which this lead to the article is not. It contains too many confusing names of persons and places and presents legend as fact. I have placed a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article, IP 68.146.140.55. above is correct, the article richly deserves it and needs to be re-written from a NPOV. Smeat75 ( talk) 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. It's clear this is going nowhere. -- BDD ( talk) 18:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark the Evangelist → Mark – Neutralizing. Zwanzig 20 ( talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this addition by Tgeorgescu and it seems completely inconsistent with the lead. Comments? -- NeilN talk to me 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: ‘according to Matthew’, ‘according to Mark’, ‘according to Luke’ and ‘according to John’. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
— E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. 6. The Problems of the Primary Sources. Anonymity.
In mainstream Bible scholarship the anonymity of NT gospels isn't a controversial view and it ain't just Ehrman's POV. It is the
academic consensus from Ivy Plus to US state universities, including most mainline Protestant and Catholic divinity schools. If you want another source: Reddish, Mitchell (2011).
An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. p. 13, 42.
ISBN
978-1426750083. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a long list of citations relating to Mark's anonymous authorship. But when you look closer you see that four reference the same person, namely Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a giant in New Testament scholarship but he is one giant not four. Sendtoanthony ( talk) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My change summary on the subject was garbled, but according to WP:ENGVAR and Date_format_by_country, the month-day-year dating that characterizes US English should be retained in the text of this article. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark the Evangelist. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the significance of the article saying….? “Modern mainstream Bible scholars argue the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author, rather than direct witnesses to the reported events
And attributing five citations to it?
The text earlier already establishes that Mark as a travelling companion of Peter’s wrote down Peter’s words to form the Gospel of Mark. Nowhere in the text has it suggested that anyone thinks Mark is an eyewitness to Gospel events
Montalban ( talk) 11:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:SlothMcCarty/Mark the Evangelist, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 22:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Most scholars agree that gospel of mark was not written by mark, the book itself isn’t signed by anyone
That’s from wikipage of gospel of mark: “Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[8] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter – which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure – and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.”
I suggest either we remove the “major work” section from the intro, or we make it “proclaimed work by christian tradition”, i tend to go for the latter Amr.elmowaled ( talk) 18:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be spending some time fixing this page using a number of the earliest possible sources available. The current sources and statements include 20th and 21st century speculations as well as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.
There is no 'academic consensus' on the authorship of the gospel of Mark, the personal identity of Mark the Evangelist is largely unknown, as is the identity of the writer of the gospel. Because of this, the information we have about the gospel and the Evangelist is almost totally reliant on tradition. Note that an unconfirmed author is different to an anonymous author. Early Coptic tradition as well as references by Paul and Peter to the individual in their writings and any other 1st hand accounts of the Evangelist are the only sources of 'fact' to be found. Indeed, with much of this 1st hand account, the lines between fact and legend are blurred. This is the nature of the spiritual time we are referencing. If you want 100% verifiable 'facts' about Mark the Evangelist, this article will be empty. As Britannica and other objective encyclopedia's have done, the way to correctly phrase this article is by prefixing "much of the life of the evangelist is unknown... or... according to longstanding tradition..." This lack of verifiable fact around Mark the Evangelist does not solicit the inclusion of wild 20th and 21st century speculation from 1 or 2 individuals, passed off as some academic consensus, or the continued mentioning of this 'academic consensus' which seems to only be repeated to deliberately debase or contradict the tradition and stir confusion in the mind of the layman reading this article. Rather, if anything, simply refer to the early 1st and 2nd century sources of the man's life and his credited, but unconfirmable authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Again, this is what Britannica has done. This article must, at multiple points, highlight the unconfirmable nature of it's contents. From this, the reader will be equipped to understand that the earliest sources are the only ones even approaching acceptable for this article, tradition or otherwise. If you are attempting to insert 20th & 21st century sources and pass them off as more reliable than the earliest sources or even tradition, they aren't.
Edits will also be made to the Gospel of Mark Page where the same speculative 21st century sources of 2-3 individuals is referenced solely to contradict tradition, instead of simply highlighting the unconfirmable nature of the gospel if there is no reliance on 1st hand accounts and longstanding tradition. DennisRoddyy ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
as incorrect statements about a modern academic consensus that includes the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.This is simply false. The article does not use the 'Da Vinci Code' as a reference for fact.
Please read source #8.That source does not say what you are claiming it says. You're going to need to get a consensus of other editors to radically rewrite or delete this article. I think it is very unlikely you will be able to do that. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
It is generally acknowledged that the Gospel of Mark is anonymous
Most scholars believe that the gospel was written by an anonymous male author
All four canonical Gospels were anonymous, and there is no reason to attribute this Gospel to any particular person in the Bible.
Most scholars, therefore, treat this gospel as an anonymous work, retaining the name "John" out of convenience or simply calling the author "the Fourth Evangelist" and the gospel "the Fourth Gospel."
But most scholars think of the four canonical gospels as anonymous, not pseudonymous.
Most scholars think, however, that the Gospels were originally anonymous
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
I am not disputing any of this.and
I’m saying you’ve added original research to these statements by removing Mark from the possibility of authorship.These cannot be both true at the same time. Why? Because Ehrman's WP:RS/AC claim explicitly denies that Mark wrote Mark.
Evangelical scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written by someone called Mark, but they cannot agree among themselves who this Mark was. Anyway, evangelical scholars do not belong to most critical scholars
. So, yes, the majority view in the mainstream academia is that the canonical gospels are fundamentally anonymous.
Denying this only makes things worse.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
2. All four gospels are anonymous. The fullest attributions of authorship, with fictive biographical backstories, traces back to traditions ascribed to Papias (second century), as preserved in Eusebius (early fourth century), Hist. eccl. 3.39.Remember, this is from Eerdmans, a Christian publishing house, not from a publisher having an axe to grind against Christianity. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@IP: the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is not a consensus view among mainstream Bible scholars. Hint: fundamentalists and apologists get discarded by default.
And I have WP:CITED 5 (five) WP:RS for such view, ranging from very liberal Bible scholars to conservative evangelicals. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:
r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit
psstein • 16 days ago
Moderator MA I History of Science
I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.
Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.
Again: see the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
During the time of christ and later in marks time Israel was the name and still is to this day with palestine being the insult given by emporer hadrian after the destruction of jerusalem ending the jewish revolt under macabees 58.107.219.196 ( talk) 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)