The Best Markan Ending That "Mark" Never Wrote. An Inventory

[rakovsky]

Sometimes novelists leave their readers on cliffhangers but based on the texts you can guess what they are implying to their readers. This can be done with Mark's gospel. Short answer: John 21 / Gospel of Peter ending would be the most likely implied ending to Mark 16 IMO. Some scholars have long suggested John 21 as an actual missing ending to Mark 16.

Also, Mark IMO is an abridged version of Luke and Matthew, because it leaves out big sections where those two gospels diverge dramatically, like the Birth and Resurrection. That someone could make a revised gospel and have it treated authoritatively is shown by the Diatessaron.

Here is a good example of the book's implication:

Mark 14:28
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

POINT 1.
You can say that the women never gave the apostles the message because they were scared, BUT... you have to remember that in Mark's eyes, the apostles' lack of faith doesn't stop something from happening or being unexpected by Jesus. Good example: Peter said he wouldn't betray Jesus, but Jesus knew he would and even told him about the cock crowing.

Same thing here. In case the women didn't even tell the apostles, then based on Mark's presentation of Jesus, the foreknowing Jesus would be able to know whether the women did that.

POINT 2.
Jesus would go to Galilee after the resurrection, and so would the apostles.

The angel/youth at the tomb says:

He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.
7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

Point 3.
Jesus bodily exited the tomb. Future meetings with Jesus would be in his bodily state.

Point 4.
Peter would be a special part of the future meeting with Jesus. (as shown BTW in John 21, G.Peter, and Paul's note in Corinthians on the resurrection appearances)

Point 5.
Again, a reassertion that this appearance would be in Galilee.
Interesting note BTW about "seeing" Jesus.
The gospels' presentation of Jesus' fate was a bodily resurrection with bodily Christophanies, BUT the reference to "seeing" Jesus suggests to me the possibility that the appearances of Jesus were actually visions.

It ends with:

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Point 6.
To best understand Mark 16, it's worth looking into the Chiastic nature of it, since chiasm was a feature of Christian writing in the gospels. Looking at structure of poetry and prose can give deeper insights. I remember noticing that this especially applies to this chapter.

There is also a chiasm lining up the message by the youth in the tomb with John the Baptist heralding the coming of the Messiah.

[Relationship between the chiasm's halves:] Sending messenger ahead

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way. @1:3 A voice of one crying out in the desert: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.'" (1:2-3)

But go and tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.'" ( 16:7 )
http://www.bible.literarystructure.info ... k_e_1.html

Interesting issue comes up here if you think the end applies to the beginning chiastically. If the young angel at the tomb is mirrored to Jogn Baptist, then what in the gospel preceding John the Baptist is the women's (particularly Mary Magdalene's) scared silence about the angel related to? I suppose it could be Mary's silence about Jesus' virgin birth. It explains why Mark leaves out the virgin birth. He implies Mary didn't tell anyone about it because she was scared.

John Dart sees a chiastic structure between (A) the anointing of Jesus' feet by the woman in Mark 14 and Judas' betrayal, and (B) the women going to anoint Jesus' body and not telling people about the angel's message.
https://books.google.com/books?id=RSy6W ... sm&f=false

If you continue the chiasm, just as Jesus was in Mary's womb before the birth at the beginning of the gospels' idea of Jesus' life, Jesus is in his followers' bodies after the resurrection.

Here is another chiasm:

1a) Mar 16:5, Entering the tomb, they saw the angel, and they were alarmed;

central axis) Mar 16:6-7, The angel said, Do not be alarmed, Jesus is risen! Go tell His disciples;

2a) Mar 16:8, The women fled from the tomb, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid;

http://www.alittleperspective.com/mark-16-2016/

Point 7.
The women didn't tell the apostles, and so it was a surprise appearance by Jesus to the apostles in Galilee. That is, the apostles went back to Galilee after Jesus' death and then he showed up to them there.

Point 8.
The literary implication is that at some later point the women did tell the apostles about their finding an empty tomb, or else it wouldn't have gotten into the story.

[james_C]

Mark 14:28
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

i wonder if "there you will see him" = interpolation ?
in mark 14:28 jesus does not say that they will see him in galilee . "there you will see him" seems like an interpolation.

[rakovsky]

Mark 14:28
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

i wonder if "there you will see him" = interpolation ?
in mark 14:28 jesus does not say that they will see him in galilee . "there you will see him" seems like an interpolation.

I understand.

1)
The implication of Mark 14 could be that since they are both in Galilee, they will see him there, and that the reason he goes to Galilee is to meet them. It's kind of like saying to school friends "I will march in the parade tonight and then I will go ahead of you to the park".

2)
Also one can check the chiastic structure of Mark 16 to see that the disciples seeing Jesus fits into the pattern:

5. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.

7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

A lot of parallels and poetic comparisons there.

The angel is paired with Jesus (single supernatural beings)
The women are paired with the disciples (plural human beings)

The angel tells the women instructions.
The women are to tell the disciples instructions.

The women go into the tomb and "see" the young man (angel).
The disciples are to go into Galilee and "see" Jesus (divine being).

The rising of Jesus is contrasted with the sitting of the angel.

The women being "alarmed" is contrasted with the angel's instructions not to be "alarmed".

The angel's being there in the tomb, or Jesus' being "there" in Galilee" is contrasted with Jesus' not being "there" in the tomb.

The youth/angel wearing a long white robe (symbol of resurrected flesh) is contrasted with Jesus/divine person being crucified.

The tomb's place where they laid Jesus is contrasted with the tomb's place where the angel is sitting, ie. the angel's sitting on the "right hand", a phrase that serves as a reference to Jesus being on the right hand of the Father.

[james_C]

The implication of Mark 14 could be that since they are both in Galilee, they will see him there, and that the reason he goes to Galilee is to meet them. It's kind of like saying to school friends "I will march in the parade tonight and then I will go ahead of you to the park".

but would you say your words if your park is the size of galilee? "there you will see me" seems to strengthen where exactly jesus would be seen.

both of them are in galilee and jesus says, "i will go before you to galilee" ?
one speaks like this even when one is in galilee?

this all seems ambiguous .


whenever mark has jesus go before his disciples is he always in their company?
why didn't mark have any of them led by jesus from jerusalem ? why didn't jesus meet up with them at the tomb?

27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

the women went out and fled from the tomb.

Then everyone deserted him and fled.

jesus does not say that he will lead them again by being in their company.

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Date	Apologist	Source	Apology	Commentary
1968	Raymond Brown	The New Jerome Biblical Commentary	629 Mark probably assumed some familiarity among his readers with the appearance traditions, and so he chose to end the Gospel subtly and dramatically by leaving the readers acknowledging the resurrection and looking forward to the parousia.	"subtly and dramatically"? A hopelax legoame. Brown did not write this but he was an editor of the book so presumably he agreed. Here we have the traditional related Christian apology, "Mark" (author) did not provide supposed known witness to a resurrected Jesus because his readers already knew who they were. This is of course ridiculous/comical or as Brown would say, "fantastic", because: 1. As far as we know GMark is the original Gospel narrative that all others were based on. 2. Most of GMark's hearers probably had never heard of Jesus. 3. Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that the most important assertion of Christianity is that there was known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. Strange/bizarre/macabre that the original Gospel would not only not show this but put a lot of effort into denying it. Brown was the outstanding CBS scholar of his time writing the classics Birth and Death. He always said he also wanted to write Resurrection but never got around to it. Presumably because he would have to deal in detail with the lack of detail in GMark. For example, showing that GMatthew copied GMark to 16:8 and than the only significant edit was changing the women not telling anyone to the women telling everyone, how do you spin that?
2011	James McGrath	Mark’s Missing Ending: Clues from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter	This lack of closure may perhaps have seemed less problematic in the context of early Christian communities in which visions of the risen Christ were part of their religious experience. It also needs to be placed in the context of a vibrant oral tradition that was both the author’s and the readers' primary mode of contact with stories about Jesus. There can be no doubt that, even if the written Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8, the story known to the author and his readers did not.	In plain English, McGrath's apology is that the ending of GMark is not a significant problem for Christian assertian because its lack of post resurrection reunion is not important. But as my five year old son used to retort, "Yes, important." McGrath ignores/denies/exorcises the most important related issue as far as Christianity is concerned, what is GMark's evidence as far as Christianity's most important assertian that there was known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus? All subsequent Gospels use GMark as a base and the only significant story added is known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. Instead of dealing with the larger and more objective issue of the significance of no known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus McGrath throws darts against the bored hitting not just the why but why the why is not a problem scoring not QP but PC (polemically correct) points and can only doublespeak out. The more important observations/issues of 16:8 that McGrath fails to deal with are: 1) The only related certainty we have is that there was no historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. If you are afraid and can not speak this than you are not a Bible scholar indeed. All related scientific reasoning must start with this observation. 2) The extant evidence indicates that GMark is the original Gospel narrative. Most hearers would never have previously heard of a Jesus narrative. Based just on GMark they would have no reason to believe there was known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. 3) 2) is consistent with 1). Since historically there was no known historical witness, it's logical that the original narrative would make a lesser conclusion, Jesus was physically resurrected but no claim of known historical witness. 4) The cruncher as the Brits would say, as Christianity turns orthodox (so to speak) all subsequent Gospels want known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus, but they still use as a base up to that point a Gospel which doesn't have any. Evidence that there was no such narrative at the time. 5) Thematically, the first two significant Christian authors, Paul/"Mark", want belief based on faith. So they want belief in Jesus' supposed resurrection based on faith. Consistent with 1-4). 6) After looking at Paul/"Mark" (and Q if you like) for evidence of known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus it's like the classic Adam Family episode where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left. The best explanation for the lack of a presentation of known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus in GMark is not only because "Mark" (author) did not believe there was but was unaware of any such claim. There can be no doubt then that instead of teaching history classes at a University McGrath should be teaching Sunday School.
2016	Larry Hurtado	Jesus, the Cross, the Women, and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark	Part of my argument was that Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else.	Standard apologetic technique of ignoring/denying clear, explicit and absolute meaning in favor of unclear, supposed implied and relative meaning. Not to mention that his supposed implication is contradicted by all Internal evidence such as theme, context and style. Note that in the Comments section he further devolves into standard Apologetic defense of moving basis of related discussion to any dissent being based on not reading/understanding/agreeing with his argument rather than the basic issue itself.

Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite

[iskander]

The implication of Mark 14 could be that since they are both in Galilee, they will see him there, and that the reason he goes to Galilee is to meet them. It's kind of like saying to school friends "I will march in the parade tonight and then I will go ahead of you to the park".

but would you say your words if your park is the size of galilee? "there you will see me" seems to strengthen where exactly jesus would be seen.

both of them are in galilee and jesus says, "i will go before you to galilee" ?
one speaks like this even when one is in galilee?

this all seems ambiguous .


whenever mark has jesus go before his disciples is he always in their company?
why didn't mark have any of them led by jesus from jerusalem ? why didn't jesus meet up with them at the tomb?

27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

the women went out and fled from the tomb.

Then everyone deserted him and fled.

i still don't understand why the author would have written "there you will see him" when even jesus did not say, "here you will see me" when he was in galilee.

I will go before you, is clear to the listeners, but he may have said a few more words than the ones which were recorded in that particular item. Jesus will be waiting for them and he will meet with them.

[james_C]

Jesus will be waiting for them and he will meet with them.

or it could mean that they were scattered in galilee and no longer led by jesus?

[james_C]

Jesus will be waiting for them and he will meet with them.

2000 + years and christians have failed to produce a living jesus. jesus thought that the high priest would see the son of man, but the high priest died. i wonder if "going before you to galilee" means a literal seeing ?
high priest did not literally see any son of man riding on clouds.

[iskander]

Jesus will be waiting for them and he will meet with them.

or it could mean that they were scattered in galilee and no longer led by jesus?

Yes, There were scattered , even in hiding as the followers of one persecuted heretic would do.

I will be waiting for you, does not specify number.
In the secular world ( say Emiliano Zapata in Mexico) he may say to his friends : Hide ( in our safe places)now, I will meet with you ( some of you) when I can.

[iskander]

Jesus will be waiting for them and he will meet with them.

2000 + years and christians have failed to produce a living jesus. jesus thought that the high priest would see the son of man, but the high priest died. i wonder if "going before you to galilee" means a literal seeing ?
high priest did not literally see any son of man riding on clouds.

It is a religious text like any other.