The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks for laying this out in a concise manner. This is certainly a plausible scenario.

I never considered the not-telling of the women a problem, similar to how you solved it. The disciples were at home in Galilee. Where else would they go, even without further instructions? Pay rent in Jerusalem to continue wallowing in misery?

The only thing I'd like to add is that the kind of "reader response" some scholars proposed and which I considered a viable alternative is a bit different: If gMark was never considered to be a text that was supposed to be circulated without someone accompanying and actively using it to proselytize, it would make sense in a public performance/private or close circle split context. Of course, this still means that an ending of a kind would have existed, just that it may never have been written down, which then was one of the reasons that prompted the rewriting by Luke/Matthew.

I have toyed with such scenarios, and I would not actually classify this as a "reader response" scenario (though that may simply be a matter of semantics), since the original hearers (not readers) would not be left to fill in the pieces; the performance would do that for them. It seems weird to me, in such a scenario, that the entire gospel should be written down except the ending. Are there ancient parallels to this sort of thing?

gJohn always struck me as a commentary on gMark, so it makes to some extent sense to see (a version of) gMark's possible ending there. This still only works if gJohn is indeed a composite text, but I think that is a given anyway. I really have to read up on gJohn literature to see how the text can be best subdivided and whether a subdivision yields viable texts by themselves.

IMHO, the editing of John is a mess; I have not been impressed (yet) with the final results of any specific scheme to unravel the various divisions and subdivisions. Not that such attempts should not be made; they absolutely should. But I think we ought to brace ourselves for the possibility that the gospel of John may never yield its original sources and layers to us.

[Ben C. Smith]

A much simpler scenario. Luke was published first, writing to Theophilus the high priest, when he was "most excellent", which dates the Gospel to c. 40-41 AD. Mark's authentic and original ending is as we have in the 99.9% of Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts and has the earliest attestation (e.g. Irenaeus). The apparent gap in Mark is seen in the Lukan Gospel, and the Gospels are knit together into one unit by the Holy Spirit.

You are correct. A scenario in which the Holy Spirit is the guiding force behind all that seems anomalous to us poor mortals is definitely going to be simpler than the complexities with which the scholar must strive once one mentally removes purported influences from the firm hand of God or Providence.

The theory of evolution, for example, is enormously convoluted compared to the simple serenity of accepting Genesis 1-3 as Truth and washing the anomalies down with heavy doses of "God did it." And yes, certainly, scholarly accounts of the development of early Christian writings are going to be far more complex than any scenario which simply accepts the texts at the face value attributed them by early church tradition and lets the Holy Spirit take care of those parts that do not seem to fit very well.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Ulan

The only thing I'd like to add is that the kind of "reader response" some scholars proposed and which I considered a viable alternative is a bit different: If gMark was never considered to be a text that was supposed to be circulated without someone accompanying and actively using it to proselytize, it would make sense in a public performance/private or close circle split context. Of course, this still means that an ending of a kind would have existed, just that it may never have been written down, which then was one of the reasons that prompted the rewriting by Luke/Matthew.

That is astutely observed. A modern example is the highly successful stage musical Godspell. To the great annoyance of the Fundamentalist community, there are no resurrection appearances in the show. Doesn't seem to hurt the gate, but I digress.

The "classical" ending (speaking of works with more than one "authentic" ending) has Jesus' corpse being carried off to a mixed chorus which begins with "Long Live God" and then blends in the boys singing "Prepare Ye."

Imagine my surprise, then, when a famous American Fundie college (Azusa Pacific University) mounted a heavily promoted production of Godspell. Fundie Godspell without a resurrection appearance? Holy Moley.

Generally speaking, Amateur performance rights in the US are licensed contingent upon changing neither a word of the book nor the songs. Godspell is licensed with a few options (typical of stage works that have been made into films, there is a major song that was added for the film - speaking of works with more than one "authentic" and "complete" text). Raising Jesus isn't on offer.

Nevertheless, the Fundies got their resurrection appearance, and they kept to their contractural obligation (as good Christians should).

They did the classical ending, fair and square, They repeated "Long Live God" until Jesus' corpse was offstage. Then, and only then, do the boys sing "Prepare Ye," led by a soloist, none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He mounts the stage, is greeted by the girls like somebody they never expected to see again (special business is a director's prerogative and not contractually constrained). Curtain.

There is no resurrection appearance in the work they performed, and they performed that work "by the book" (pun sort of intended), subject to intellectual property laws that didn't exist when GMark was new, which they oberved to the letter (if not in the spirit). And yet onstage, their Jesus was raised and appeared to his disciples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11IdpwBCNAQ

[Ulan]

I have toyed with such scenarios, and I would not actually classify this as a "reader response" scenario (though that may simply be a matter of semantics), since the original hearers (not readers) would not be left to fill in the pieces; the performance would do that for them. It seems weird to me, in such a scenario, that the entire gospel should be written down except the ending. Are there ancient parallels to this sort of thing?

No good ones. The suggestion assumes some kind of "mystery cult" status for at least some part of early Christianity. A possible comparison would be the Eleusinian Mysteries. The so-called Homeric Hymn to Demeter tells us the well-known story of Demeter, Persephone and Hades (plus a few other figures), and it introduces the mysteries without spilling any of the secret elements. However, the text is self-connscious and tells us that there actually is more to the subject. The last line is "And I will keep you in mind throughout the rest of my song", which is kind of weird as a last line, except if you assume "my song" equates "my life" - or the song goes on after the text ends. Despite the enormous popularity of the cult, nobody spilled the beans of what actually happened during the secret part of the mysteries. We have a few superficial descriptions, and the church father Hippolytus of Rome told us that the last secret object of the highest initiation degree was " an ear of grain in silence reaped", but much of what happened there is still speculation. It's clear that those mysteries had something to do with the afterlife, but what exactly is anyone's guess.

[Bernard Muller]

Not that such attempts should not be made; they absolutely should

I have made a detailed one here: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html

But I think we ought to brace ourselves for the possibility that the gospel of John may never yield its original sources and layers to us.

Not really.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

But I think we ought to brace ourselves for the possibility that the gospel of John may never yield its original sources and layers to us.

But I did just that (the gospel of John yielding its original sources and layers to us): http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html

I have read that page, yes. Thanks.

[Bernard Muller]

I think the simplest way to explain the empty tomb passage and its ending is: the author (probably not "Mark") knew that (crucial) story (that he created himself for addition to gMark) was never heard before, so he had to keep the women silent forever: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
>> Mk 16:8 "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."
How would the author know these women never divulged what they experienced at the empty tomb?
An answer would be each of these women were spied upon twenty-four hours a day up to their death or when the gospel was written (whichever comes first) and never reported to say anything about the 'empty tomb'.
That's a very absurd proposition.
But how could someone know about the empty tomb and the women's experience? And be so sure that anyone of those, at any time, did not talk about the "empty tomb" event?
The only solution appears to be that the "empty tomb" story was not known before, and therefore generated for the gospel. <<

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I have read that page, yes. Thanks.

What about the four other pages, clarifying what I explained on my introduction page?

1. The gospels according to "John" http://historical-jesus.info/jnblks.html
The successive versions, by blocks

2. The complete text of the original gospel http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html
COHERENT and well-ordered. Also about the authorship

3. The latter additions http://historical-jesus.info/jnadd.html

4. The reconstructed original gJohn (without comments within) http://historical-jesus.info/jnorigx.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I have read that page, yes. Thanks.

What about the four other pages, clarifying what I explained on my introduction page?

1. The gospels according to "John" http://historical-jesus.info/jnblks.html
The successive versions, by blocks

2. The complete text of the original gospel http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html
COHERENT and well-ordered. Also about the authorship

3. The latter additions http://historical-jesus.info/jnadd.html

4. The reconstructed original gJohn (without comments within) http://historical-jesus.info/jnorigx.html

Yes, I have read all of those. It has been a while, but I have read them.

[Ulan]

Sorry for derailing the thread. I didn't want to turn this into a gJohn debate, other than how chapter 21 (from the "beloved disciple" layer) ended up there.

I'm not sure whether 21,15 makes much sense as part of a gMark ending though. The tone of the whole story is much too personal for anything in gMark. This may be due to a "beloved disciple" edit, but I'm not sure whether anything is left of this whole exchange if you strip out the very personal tone in this passage.