Mark's "intended" ending

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Mark's "intended" ending

Post by rakovsky »

What was Mark's intended ending about the resurrection story?

As a 19 year old when I read it, I was excited and very curious when I got to the end. But the original version drops off at verse 8 in chapter 16.
And I think that Mark intended to do so. Whenever Luke and Matthew disagree about a section of the narrative, Mark does not narrate. The Incarnation story and birth/Nativity is a good example. Since Matthew and Luke disagree beyond verses 1-8 (the finding of the tomb by the women empty), it stands to reason that verse 8 was the ending.
To me, this is the strongest proof, along with the fact that some major manuscripts are quiet past verse 8, and because in terms of literary analysis, verse 9 sounds like it is picking up a new narrative, with the way it introduces Mary.

So what does Mark think about the resurrection appearances? I think one really can draw some conclusions.

1. Mark is narrating directly about the empty tomb.

2. I think Mark implies that the youth in the tomb was an angel, but I think Mark's style is to write in a veiled way sometimes about divine aspects of the story, like about Jesus' divinity. So this explains for one reason why he just calls the angel a youth.

3. The angel/youth says that Jesus will meet the apostles in Galilee and that Jesus predicted a Galilean meeting. So we can conclude based on Jesus' prediction earlier in Mark that there really would be a Galilean appearance to the apostles. But it doesn't say when. For example, maybe the Galilean appearance happened after one in Jerusalem, which is not specified in Mark.

4. The angel says to tell Peter and the apostles. Here he especially names Peter. This suggests a special meeting with Peter, as mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 15, which Paul listed as the first appearance - ie before the apostles.

5. The first appearance to the disciples must have come as a surprise. The gospels claim that the apostles did not yet understand the true meaning of rising from the dead or the scriptures on the topic until Jesus' appearances.(John 20:9) Further, Mark 16:1-8 ends with the women being too scared to tell anyone. The normal meaning of that is that "no one" was told, including of course the apostles, because they would be "someone". There is no mention in Mark, or for that matter in Matthew, about the women telling the apostles and bringing Peter to the tomb. It is notable that in John 21, it sounds like Peter and the others are not expecting Jesus to appear to them at the sea. And in Luke 24 and John 20 when Jesus appears, it comes as a surprise to the apostles.

6. You might be able to make some guesses about the appearance based on Mark 14. There it says:
27And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.' 28"But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." 29But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away, yet I will not." 30And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times." 31But Peter kept saying insistently, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were saying the same thing also. 32They came to a place named Gethsemane; and He said to His disciples, "Sit here until I have prayed." 33And He took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be very distressed and troubled. 34And He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death; remain here and keep watch."
I say this because the Bible has a literary or poetic style of contrasts, as well as a chiastic structure:
  • (A) Jesus talks about the sheep being scattered, then being raised and going to Galilee.
  • (B) Then Peter denies he will leave, and then the others deny it.
  • (C) Then they go to Gethsemene, Jesus says to sit until he prays.
Could this narration, which includes two predictions being "fulfilled" in some kind of structural fashion, besides just in a minimal way?
The fulfillment would be that:
(A) The apostles dispersed because of the arrest of Jesus, then Jesus was raised and went to Galilee.
Then what?
(B) In John 21, Peter does make things up with Jesus. Just as he had denied Jesus three times, in John 21, peter affirms his love for Jesus thrice. This seems to be a structural parallel for fulfillment of the narration back in Mar 14.
(C) Then the apostles go to some place, and perhaps Jesus and the apostles are there and there is waiting by the apostles and then prayer/communication by Jesus. This would also be a post- resurrection narrative that correlates with the narration of Mark 14. It sounds a bit like it could match Matthew 28's events, where the apostles go to a location in Galilee and Jesus meets them.

7. You can guess that the place in Galilee with the appearances would be a mountain, the one in Matthew 28. It is remarkable that the mention in Mark 14 of taking Peter, James, and John in Gethsemane where he says his soul is troubled to death brings to mind Jesus bringing those three up the mount for Transfiguration elsewhere in the gospels. The Transfiguration could be seen as a prefigurement of the resurrection. And since the Transfiguration was on a mount, perhaps the place in Mark could be on a mount too. Besides, in both Luke and Matthew, Jesus ascends or appears on some mountain, so the same could be guessed about Mark's expectations. In Mark 14, the apostles go to Gethsemane, which is at the foot of the Mount of Olives. So if we see Mark 14 as a prefigurement of the appearance to the apostles, then this is another reference to a mountain.

8. You may guess based on Point #6 above that the appearance to Peter was by the sea and resembled John 21, and that the appearance to the apostles was the one in Matthew 28.

Image

Image
The 3 women at the tomb and the youth.

Image

Image
Christ’s Appearance on the Mountain: Duccio Di Buoninsegna, 14th century

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by iskander »

Catholic Study Bible Hardcover – 15 Sep 2011 ,by Donald Senior (Editor), John J. Collins (Editor)
2560 pages
Publisher: OUP USA; 2 edition (15 Sept. 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 019529775X
ISBN-13: 978-0195297751

The footnote to Mark 16.8 explains the short ending :
The purpose of this narrative is to show that the tomb is empty and that Jesus has been raised and is going before you to Galilee( Mk 16:6-7) in fulfilment of Mk 14:28...

In the Reading Guide in page 396 it says :
The Empty Tomb
Although brief, this concluding scene of the Gospel proclaims a substantial message. An author later than Mark added a longer ending, but this story of the empty tomb was probably the original conclusion to Mark's story.
theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by theterminator »

2. I think Mark implies that the youth in the tomb was an angel, but I think Mark's style is to write in a veiled way sometimes about divine aspects of the story, like about Jesus' divinity. So this explains for one reason why he just calls the angel a youth.
matthew and luke removed the hijab/veil of marks young man?
.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by rakovsky »

theterminator wrote:
2. I think Mark implies that the youth in the tomb was an angel, but I think Mark's style is to write in a veiled way sometimes about divine aspects of the story, like about Jesus' divinity. So this explains for one reason why he just calls the angel a youth.
matthew and luke removed the hijab/veil of marks young man?
Allegorically speaking, yes.
OR Mark put a veil on Matthew's youth-angel, depending on which chronology of writing the gospels you accept. Under the Augustinian Theory, Matthew was written first, then Mark.

I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories, but he intentionally avoided talking about them. Ii think it's because they involve the paranormal. He cut down on paranormal descriptions, I believe, and that includes the story about the youth. There is an alleged book called "Secret Mark", wherein Mark wrote "secrets", things that he didn't put in the "official" or public version, although Secret Mark is debated as to its validity/authenticity.

It is quite reasonable, I find it, to imagine that some early Christians gave one story to the general public that was more veiled, and a more paranormal version to initiates. Christian practices include remnants of this kind of secrecy, like when we say every week at church "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies". If you are an enemy of Jesus, I am not going to tell you things that will make him look bad and could give you an opportunity to persecute us Christians or deride us.

Nowadays I think societies are more tolerant and our societies in the West are at least culturally Christian, so there is not as much need for the secrecy even in conversations with some skeptics.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by rakovsky »

Or is canonical Mark a later version of Secret Mark, but with some of the secrets removed? Would one of those secrets be the resurrection stories of Jesus?

I am even skeptical though if anything like a "secret Mark" exists, based on this essay debunking it:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/eva358016.shtml

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by theterminator »

I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories
mark has told us in his account the difference between an angel and ordinary human.
.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by rakovsky »

Earlier in Mark it talks about an unnamed youth in Gethsemane who leaves his clothes behind. I think in Mark 16, this youth is the same one. I am inclined to think that's the same "angel" who in Luke 22:43 came to comfort him in Gethsemane.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by rakovsky »

theterminator wrote:
I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories
mark has told us in his account the difference between an angel and ordinary human.
Can you be more specific?

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by Michael BG »

I don’t know what your intension is with this topic. I agree that Mark intended his gospel to end at 16:8. Is your intension to make out the case for this? Is your intension to seek criticism of your case?
rakovsky wrote:Since Matthew and Luke disagree beyond verses 1-8 (the finding of the tomb by the women empty), it stands to reason that verse 8 was the ending.

To me, this is the strongest proof, along with the fact that some major manuscripts are quiet past verse 8, and because in terms of literary analysis, verse 9 sounds like it is picking up a new narrative, with the way it introduces Mary.
This is evidence that by the time Matthew and Luke used Mark it ended at 16:8, but others see 15:39 as the original ending and 15:40-16:8 as a later addition.
rakovsky wrote:3. The angel/youth says that Jesus will meet the apostles in Galilee and that Jesus predicted a Galilean meeting. So we can conclude based on Jesus' prediction earlier in Mark that there really would be a Galilean appearance to the apostles.
Again I agree with you that 16:7 links back to 14:28. However those who see 15:40-16:8 as an addition see 14:28 as an interpolation (but I wouldn’t call them apostles I would call them disciples – Paul says he is an apostle and he didn’t see Jesus in Galilee).
rakovsky wrote:2. I think Mark implies that the youth in the tomb was an angel,
It is generally accepted that Mark’s description of the “youth” as clothed in a white robe and the women’s amazement are normal and appear in other texts where an angel appears.
rakovsky wrote:Further, Mark 16:1-8 ends with the women being too scared to tell anyone. The normal meaning of that is that "no one" was told, including of course the apostles, because they would be "someone". There is no mention in Mark, or for that matter in Matthew, about the women telling the apostles and bringing Peter to the tomb.
It has been suggested that this is just Mark’s secret motive, while others have suggested that it was added because until Mark no one had heard of the women finding an empty tomb.

I am not sure it is useful to use Matthew’s or John’s gospel to discover what Mark intended. Also I wouldn’t use 1 Cor 15:3-11 to support Mark.
rakovsky wrote:The Transfiguration could be seen as a prefigurement of the resurrection. And since the Transfiguration was on a mount, perhaps the place in Mark could be on a mount too. Besides, in both Luke and Matthew, Jesus ascends or appears on some mountain, so the same could be guessed about Mark's expectations. In Mark 14, the apostles go to Gethsemane, which is at the foot of the Mount of Olives. So if we see Mark 14 as a prefigurement of the appearance to the apostles, then this is another reference to a mountain.
This raises the question – was the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8) a resurrection appearance that Mark changed into the Transfiguration? And if so why?
rakovsky wrote:8. You may guess based on Point #6 above that the appearance to Peter was by the sea and resembled John 21, and that the appearance to the apostles was the one in Matthew 28.
Is there another resurrection appearance (one set on a sea) that Mark has moved back into the life of Jesus - Jesus walking on water (Mk 6:45-52)? And if so why?
rakovsky wrote:I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories, but he intentionally avoided talking about them. Ii think it's because they involve the paranormal. He cut down on paranormal descriptions, I believe, and that includes the story about the youth.

I don’t think there is any evidence for this, as Mark has Jesus having conversations with demons and has Jesus refer to Satan.
rakovsky wrote: I am even skeptical though if anything like a "secret Mark" exists, based on this essay debunking it:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/eva358016.shtml
I have always been sceptical about Secret Mark and this article by Craig A Evans make a good case for Morton Smith to have created it.
theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Mark's "intended" ending

Post by theterminator »

Further, Mark 16:1-8 ends with the women being too scared to tell anyone. The normal meaning of that is that "no one" was told, including of course the apostles, because they would be "someone". There is no mention in Mark, or for that matter in Matthew, about the women telling the apostles and bringing Peter to the tomb.
And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them.
if "and behold" introduces something new, then the women met jesus before they met the disciples. if that is the case then mark's women do not meet anyone after they leave the tomb. "they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid"
.
Post Reply