Talk:Gospel of Mark

concerning recent revisions

I recently edited the titles for all four of the gospels of the New Testament, seeing as I thought it fit to input one of the four gospels of the New Testament as not so much longer, as the maximum character limit is 90 characters, but as to improve readability and to improve the description so as to give a more ample overview of what the article was, as these are seen as teasers of the article Ai777 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ai777: See WP:SD40. With a topic so prominent as a canonical gospel, a very brief description like "Book in the New Testament" is enough to alert readers that they are on the right article. Additionally, specifying "One of the four", while normative, could be seen as not in keeping with NPOV: there are those who hold/held other gospels as also canonical. In this case, shorter=better. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

indeed Ai777 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Dr Christopher Bryan: You have to obey WP:RS/AC, just like everybody else. If you have been published at OUP, you certainly have read WP:SOURCES such as those listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. These sources tell a different story than your WP:POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

@Pbritti: Rejecting WP:RS/AC on the ground that there are too many sources is WP:TE. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Struck since you agree with me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bullet point is my comment preceding you striking your comment, but I think it's important to include it.

• @Tgeorgescu: No, I agree with you! What you did was drop a REFBOMB that featured such highlights as a note that reads [bolding original] Hint: it only concerns the Gospel of John and at least two references only about Matthew. That is disruptive. I am about to restore a couple sources that appropriately reference the "most scholars" claim.

I will use a couple of the sources you added, probably the The New Oxford Annotated Bible and one of the redundant Holman sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I replied at my talk page, my understanding is that REFBOMB is against many references (footnotes), not against many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. See your talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the source you have WP:CITED is highly prestigious, but... not a WP:RS/AC kind of source. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I selected it because you cited it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3: not everything therein is WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not a reliable source. Also, perhaps linking to your copypasta is imprudent. This is not a big deal. You've already struck your aspersion and allowed your REFBOMB to be replaced by a highly reliable source that does appropriately aggregate other sources. We're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous Definition of Gospel

Christianity is so influenced by Paul's use of "gospel" in reference to Jesus that it too frequently forgets that, in the synoptics, Jesus is the messenger of it not the subject of it. In Mark, Jesus indicates that the "good news" is the impending arrival of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Apologists want to project their modern theology onto that and claim it's about crucifixion and resurrection, but that's simply not what the text says. Here, "gospel" is not about Jesus himself; it's just announced by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:A123:A51D:6D83:92DE (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"False Balance"

@RemsenseHi, I'd like to understand why my edit constituted as false balance, and if so, I'd like to know how to add the content within better accomodation to the guidelines. The edits I made were well-sourced (albeit probably too long), and by reputable scholars, in contrast to the first version which had only one citation from over 20 years ago. Divus303 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, starting off the paragraph with It is contended that is a comparatively poor choice of words we are careful using when describing viewpoints. Secondly, your revision appears to present scholarly positions in a way where the apologetic minority position is weighed equally to that of the critical majority position. This is the core of the issue. Remsense ‥ 论 23:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my poor choice of words, so I will bare that in mind. For your main issue, however, would it be preferable to include reference to the Jesus Seminar too? I would also suggest being careful using the word "apologetic" since at least two of the sources I cited are by scholars quite influential in New Testament studies. Divus303 (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of RS Material

@Achar Sva Please stop removing reliably sourced material about the Gospels. Tucker Ferda and Larry Hurtado are both highly respected and prominent members of the scholarly community and have published with renowned publishers. Silverfish2024 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That material be reliably sourced is essential, but not sufficient. What I want you to do is explain here why you think your edits improve the quality of the article. Here is the material I took out from the section on the composition of Mark: I find it incomprehensible; please explain what it means, and why it fills out what's already there (existing material in square brackets, addition in quotes).

• [It is widely accepted that this was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.] "This does not necessarily show a linear approach of continual development and addition only, as some of what Paul the Apostle writes in his letters is more similar to details found in Matthew rather than Mark."Achar Sva (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people think that the Gospel tradition grew from a shorter, simpler core in Mark to more theologized and ahistorical material in Matthew, and Luke, who used the former. My edit shows that this simple linear development is untrue since Paul, who most scholars believe preceded Mark, says more detailed things more similar to what can be found in Matthew than in Mark. This of course improves the understanding of how the relationship between the Gospels should be interpreted when connecting them to history. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As you've explained your edit, it amounts to OR, since this is what you deduce. Moreover, on Wikipedia we set out the consensus of current scholarship, or if there isn't one we set out the major viewpoint and important others - meaning that what "some people" might think isn't what we're after. 04:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) (Forgot to sign - doing so now Achar Sva (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC))

I did not deduce anything but rephrased what Ferda and Hurtado said. We at Wikipedia seek out reliable sources whether they are the majority or not, not necessarily the academic consensus (a very strong claim that is hard to achieve, especially in a field like Biblical studies) WP:RS. I already set out a significant viewpoint (Allison hailed Ferda's book as one of the best and most important ones about Jesus in the last 25 years). There is every reason to think these sources are true and reliable and no reason to think the POV is held by few. Do you have sources that claim the overwhelming majority of scholars espouse a linear development model for the Gospel traditions? I personally doubt this. I do not think most sources on Wiki are checked to see if they represent the majority of scholars anyways; in fact I know many things here are not consensus. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)