Talk:Mark the Evangelist

message: 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) .
:It seems to me that the article was rather good until this edit, and since then there's been much reinventing the wheel to get it to the current form.  I would normally try to merge the two versions together, but I'm so much so not an expert on this that I'm not comfortable doing that here.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went back to that version and merged in just the very end of it, mainly the external links and the succession box. I didn't take time to go through all the edits from that version, but I suspect there's more that would be worth merging back in. Wesley 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who was he? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mark is Peter's son? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources for "Biblical and traditional information" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Authorship Claims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Biblical and traditional information 2nd paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: Am deleting it shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation from Paul and his Gospel

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repairing the Vandalism (Blanking) of the <b>Biblical and traditional information</b> section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I realize the references I'm citing are from the same source 

message: 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)
replies: text: We do. And yeah, no news is good news. If no one reverts you, assume you've done well; definitely assume you've done well if no-one replies. Myself anyways, I don't really reply to something unless it's contentious, so that could be why there's been so much silence. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Traditions section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Libyan birth tradition

message: 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)
thread_title: Egypt is part of Africa

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the problem is that this is only one hierarch's statements from one church.  Generic "it is said" and "there is a tradition that" statements are very curious: they are weak, but documenting them requires more than one such source.  If we had "according to one Coptic tradition", then that reference would surely be sufficient.  Tb (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If it used as a reference, it should be done in the reference format, with ref tags around it so it automatically goes in the ref section. Just listing the URL at the end of the ref section wouldn't do readers trying to find the sources of statements much good. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Coptic traditions 

message: 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)
replies: text: He's recorded as being Paul's companion in the Acts of the Apostles, and traditionally also associated with Peter in Rome.  (The tradition that says that Mark wrote the gospel also says he did it under the direction or with the assistance of Peter.) Tb (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the apostel Mark.S711 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no apostle Mark, at least, no Mark in the NT is labelled as such.  The tradition in question, which is what the intro is about, is the tradition that the John Mark in Acts is the author of the Gospel, and wrote it as a disciple of Peter and under his direction.  The Mark the article is about is that traditional figure.  Tb (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter's companion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: 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)
replies: text: Interesting.  Then we could have a Mark the Apostle forward, as we have Luke the Apostle.  Note, however, that the source you refer to establishes what I've been saying: it identifies the author of the Gospel with the John Mark of Acts, and as a disciple of Peter.  Tb (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed a somewhat hard to find and unelaborated reference to Saint Irenaeus' Against Heresies with one that is more detailed and linkable. I believe this is the original source concerning the relationship between Mark and Peter. Jason3777 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Also see Acts 12:12 (as mentioned in the article) and 1 Peter 5:13 - "as does Mark, my son," per the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd edition, p. 720 Jason3777 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure what parts of the article you're addressing. Tb (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No it is not Peter but Mark 

message: Could we move this to cover the "Fate of his remains" only?
Changing it to read:
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)
replies: text: I went ahead and moved the "needs additional citations for verification" to cover ONLY the last section "Fate of his remains" (keeping the same date), since there were no objections.Jason3777 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the refimprove flag to cover only the last section 

message: I did some  reading and wrote the following as a compromise:
::*Mark was said to be the disciple and interpreter of Saint Peter, follower and Apostle of Jesus Christ. According to Church History  Mark composed a short gospel embodying what he had heard Peter preach.
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)
thread_title:  Mark wrote the ''Gospel of Mark'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Body and Blood of Jesus: "Real" or "Spiritual" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Challenging the Neutrality of this Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: The infobox says "Died April 25, 68 AD". I do not believe there is any real historical evidence for such a definite statement, once again legend is being presented as fact. The Catholic Encyclopaedia says " The date of Mark's death is uncertain."[]. So I am changing the death date in the info box to "uncertain".Smeat75 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving a note here to give notice that I am working on a re-write of this article in case anyone has any input they would like to give. The lead needs to be completely re-written to follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD,and needs to be much more clear and concise. I plan to state in the lead, using WP:RS of course, that nothing is known for sure about St Mark, it is all "traditional", and then in the body of the article discuss the various traditions. It will take me some days to do this.Smeat75 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed. (Smeat75, I guess you never got around to it? Then I may give it a shot when I'm done with the mess surrounding John the Evangelist.) And I would suggest (perhaps to myself?), in light of the massive amount of legendary material that tends to accrue around such figures, a few points of editorial guidance. First, detail the reasonably early and reliable patristic evidence—clearly at least Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus. Next, discuss the views of modern scholars—that the attribution to some Mark is authentic, that this was or was not identical to Mark and/or John Mark from the Acts & epistles, what relationship he had to Peter with regard to writing the Gospel, etc. But avoid going into detail about Gospel authorship apart from this facet, and avoid delving into the various Marks of the New Testament, as these have their own articles. Lastly, when you get to "one legend says" kind of stuff, I doubt it's actually worth including at all, unless it can be traced to an early source or has received significant attention in scholarship; at most, lump it all together in a "later legends" section. Lastly, Mark's portrayal in art (of which I know nothing) could be expanded from the infobox (and the alternatives to "lion" addressed).--SlothMcCarty (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to fix some of the more egregious issues in this article a year ago, but it is still a mess. There is way too much Coptic "tradition" stated as if it were historical fact. I will try to improve the article bit by bit along the lines suggested above.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118174726/http://www.tours-italy.com/venice-about-st_marks_basilica.htm to http://www.tours-italy.com/venice-about-st_marks_basilica.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A repeated assertion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abandoned user draft  

message: 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)
replies: text: You have not proven your position, given Wikipedia guidelines clearly state one wikipage may not be used as a source for another. I will add a "contradictory" template, however, on both pages. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word "attributed" to this, but some other solution may be better.Achar Sva (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should point that the Evangelists are legendary figures, rather than historical writers. We don't have the foggiest clue about who wrote the gospels. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article should outline the traditions about "Mark" while pointing out that the gospel is actually anonymous. Meanwhile, as the information in the other article (Gospel of Mark) is securely sourced, I'm removing the tag there. Achar Sva (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Major work: gospel of mark” ?! 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: @Tgeorgescu: Then what is your opinion about this and this source? Potatín5 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  As they say, "consensus is not unanimity". User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 is replete with WP:RS/AC claims about the NT gospels being strictly anonymous. So, of course, there is a view that Mark wrote Mark, but it is not the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The four Evangelists are creatures of legend, not of history. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, just added to the list:  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)
replies: text:  "as preserved in Eusebius" The same Eusebius who admitted that he uses falsehoods in his historical works: "Eusebius discussed "that it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." He has been described as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The point is... 

message: I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:
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)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: 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)
replies: text: Mainstream Bible scholars call it Palestine. I don't know why they do it, but they do. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine didnt exist