The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

[Ulan]

Ulan
That is astutely observed. A modern example is the highly successful stage musical Godspell.

Thanks, also for the modern example. I have to add though that this is not my own idea, but this was actually proposed in a book whose author eludes me at the moment (I should keep better notes). Also, the idea is general enough to accommodate everything from acting out to a simple oratory performance. Somehow these street preachers like Paul and later colleagues must have spread the message, and this may have been the script of some of them.

[Ben C. Smith]

No problem, Ulan. Everything you have said has been on topic.

None of 21.15-17 sounds Marcan in style to me. But whatever John touches seems to turn Johannine, so a Marcan substrate may have been rewritten into what we find here. But my hypothesis does not in any way depend on these verses having formed part of a lost Marcan ending. John has three denials, too, so he has every motive for creating a threefold restoration.

[Steven Avery]

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.

In this case, and often, it is also a much crisper and clear theory than the skeptic convolutions. However, I did omit one important part. Mark was writing a fresh Gospel for the Roman audience, thus he likely wrote either in Latin, a Graeco-Latin dialect, or two editions, one Greek, one Latin.

Since we know that Luke completed Acts (correction 4/30/2017 -the Gospel of Luke) in 41 AD, it is difficult to place Mark as the earlier Gospel, as Mark and Peter were in Rome in the early 40s.

Keep in mind that it is the omission theory that is fighting the massive textual and ECW evidence. 999 out of every Greek, Latin and Syriac ms contain the Markan ending properly.

Steven

[Ben C. Smith]

Keep in mind that it is the omission theory that is fighting the massive textual and ECW evidence. 999 out of every Greek, Latin and Syriac ms contain the Markan ending properly.

Kunigunde and I agree on the spuriousness of the longer ending, and this thread is meant for her. From the OP:

This probably goes without saying, but this post also assumes that the longer ending, the shorter ending, and the Freer logion are spurious additions to the text of Mark.

So this thread is not the place to discuss the merits of the longer ending. However, you ought to feel free to start your own thread about it; and, if you do, I promise not to lobby to have it deleted.

[Michael BG]

Hi Ben

IIUC you are proposing a scenario in which:
a/ Mark originally had an ending similar to John 21.
b/ Luke and the final redactor of John knew a version of Mark with this ending.
c/ This ending had already been lost in the version of Mark known to Matthew.
Am I right ?

(If I am right I'll probably try and comment on Monday about strengths and weaknesses of this scenario but I want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you.)

Yes, that is correct. Add in, however, that Peter also knew such an ending.

Alternatively, none of those texts knew the ending of Mark itself, but knew another (lost) text which included the tradition upon which Mark's ending was based.

I have run through quite a few possible stemmata in my mind about this, and I am aware of some weaknesses; but I do not think they are decisive. I will be interested to hear what you have to say.

I accept it is possible that Mark originally had a resurrection appearance in Galilee, but I don’t think it is recoverable.

You wrote:

The abrupt ending at 16.8 is, among extant endings in the manuscript record, the most ancient. In fact, the manuscript record is, to my mind, the single strongest argument against my position that an ending has been lost.

I don’t think you have addressed this argument sufficiently.

I am sure you are aware that I think both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. I am content to accept that Matthew wrote before Luke. However you do not think that Matthew has used the lost Marcan resurrection appearance story for Mt 28:16-20 (and I would not dispute this). For me it then becomes an issue that Luke writing later than Matthew has a longer copy of Mark than the one used by Matthew. (And even more of an issue if the gospel of Peter is the one writer who has a copy of Mark with the original longer ending.)

When considering Lk 5:1-11 there are some issues – in verse 2 the owners of the two boats are not Peter, James and John. Jesus and the disciples take a boat which has suddenly changed ownership to Simon (v3) from which Jesus teaches the people, later it changes ownership again to include James and John (v 10). Then in verse 5 Simon is one of the fishermen and not a follower of Jesus. In verse 8 Luke has “Simon Peter”; such a name change is often because the author is merging two traditions.

If you wish to see Lk 5:1-11 containing the Marcan resurrection appearance I think you should consider which parts are likely to be Lucan redaction. For example verses 1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and parts of verse 4 and 11; and “Master” (επιστατα) in verse 5 (I think an unique Lucan word - 8:24, 8:45, 9:33, 9:49 and 17:13) . But once these are removed it still has the issue of the two names of Simon and still doesn’t look like a resurrection appearance. It is still possible that it is a composition of Luke’s using bits of Mark from difference places 6:53 and 1:16-20 and maybe some unique tradition. Luke could be making a point that the three disciples catch a huge amount of fish and they will catch lots of “men” when they are “catching men” (v 10 changed from Mark “fishers of men [Mk 1:17]).

I think Mark does have a resurrection appearance but he doesn’t like it – Mk 6:47-51

[47] the boat was out on the sea, …
[48] … for the wind was against them. … he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[51] And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased …

If Mark wanted a resurrection appearance it seems strange he didn’t use this.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am sure you are aware that I think both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. I am content to accept that Matthew wrote before Luke. However you do not think that Matthew has used the lost Marcan resurrection appearance story for Mt 28:16-20 (and I would not dispute this). For me it then becomes an issue that Luke writing later than Matthew has a longer copy of Mark than the one used by Matthew.

It is even more complex than this from my perspective, since the miraculous catch of fish seems to have formed part of the Marcionite gospel, and I think that both Luke and the Marcionite gospel drew upon an earlier gospel, which would then be the gospel which included this pericope; and when this gospel was written relative to Matthew is an open question for me.

[Ben C. Smith]

When considering Lk 5:1-11 there are some issues – in verse 2 the owners of the two boats are not Peter, James and John. Jesus and the disciples take a boat which has suddenly changed ownership to Simon (v3) from which Jesus teaches the people, later it changes ownership again to include James and John (v 10). Then in verse 5 Simon is one of the fishermen and not a follower of Jesus.

I honestly am not seeing these issues. The boats do not change ownership; it is just that the author does not tell us who the owners are until a bit later. There are two boats right from the start, so having both Simon and the Zebedee brothers as owners makes sense. And that Simon is not yet a follower of Jesus in this gospel is already true.

[Michael BG]

There is another resurrection appearance in Mark 9:2-7

[2] … Jesus … was transfigured before them,
[3] and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them.
[4] And there appeared to them Eli'jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.
[5] And Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah."
[6] For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid.
[7] And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is my beloved Son; listen to him."

It is even more complex than this from my perspective, since the miraculous catch of fish seems to have formed part of the Marcionite gospel, and I think that both Luke and the Marcionite gospel drew upon an earlier gospel, which would then be the gospel which included this pericope; and when this gospel was written relative to Matthew is an open question for me.

This looks like that this earlier gospel is not Mark. What is its relationship to Mark?

When considering Lk 5:1-11 there are some issues – in verse 2 the owners of the two boats are not Peter, James and John. Jesus and the disciples take a boat which has suddenly changed ownership to Simon (v3) from which Jesus teaches the people, later it changes ownership again to include James and John (v 10). Then in verse 5 Simon is one of the fishermen and not a follower of Jesus.

I honestly am not seeing these issues. The boats do not change ownership; it is just that the author does not tell us who the owners are until a bit later. There are two boats right from the start, so having both Simon and the Zebedee brothers as owners makes sense. And that Simon is not yet a follower of Jesus in this gospel is already true.

Luke tells us that fishermen were not in their boats (v 2), while Simon magically is in one of the boats (v 3) and then becomes one who had been fishing (v 5). I missed partners in verse 7. It seems odd that two different Greek words are used which are translated as partners - μετοχοις (v 7) and κοινωνοι (v 10). Simon is not a follower in the Lucan version but would have been in the Marcan resurrection appearance story, which is why verses 1-3 and 11 have to be seen as Lucan redaction if the story is based on a Marcan resurrection appearance story. Also I think that verse 8 would not have been in the Marcan story because Mark normally refers to Simon as Peter (except Mk 1 and 3:16 and 14:37).

[Ben C. Smith]

This looks like that this earlier gospel is not Mark.

Correct.

What is its relationship to Mark?

Unknown.

Luke tells us that fishermen were not in their boats (v 2), while Simon magically is in one of the boats (v 3) and then becomes one who had been fishing (v 5).

Again, this summary does not resemble what I am reading. I am all in favor of finding seams and inconsistencies; they might be clues. But it feels like you are inventing them, not discovering them.

Verse 2 says that the boats had been left on the beach by the fisherman; it also says that the fishermen are washing their nets. Where is the inconsistency?? Verse 3 tells us that one of those fishermen is Simon. Again, where is the inconsistency?

Simon is not a follower in the Lucan version but would have been in the Marcan resurrection appearance story, which is why verses 1-3 and 11 have to be seen as Lucan redaction if the story is based on a Marcan resurrection appearance story. Also I think that verse 8 would not have been in the Marcan story because Mark normally refers to Simon as Peter (except Mk 1 and 3:16 and 14:37).

If my hypothesis is correct, remember, then Luke is not just rewriting a resurrection appearance; he is combining a resurrection appearance with Mark 1.16-20.

[Michael BG]

Luke tells us that fishermen were not in their boats (v 2), while Simon magically is in one of the boats (v 3) and then becomes one who had been fishing (v 5).

Again, this summary does not resemble what I am reading. I am all in favor of finding seams and inconsistencies; they might be clues. But it feels like you are inventing them, not discovering them.

Verse 2 says that the boats had been left on the beach by the fisherman; it also says that the fishermen are washing their nets. Where is the inconsistency?? Verse 3 tells us that one of those fishermen is Simon. Again, where is the inconsistency?

I think finding “seams and inconsistencies” is an art form and not a science, and I do not consider myself very good at it. I think I have done very well to see so many in Lk 5:1-11.

In verse 2 the fishermen are out of the two boats – αποβαντες; in verse 3 Jesus gets into a boat and then asks Simon to move away from the land. He doesn’t ask Simon to get into the boat, it is implied that he is already in the boat and not out of it washing the nets. Then later in verse 4 Jesus wants Simon to use the nets again, but we are not told that they have been put back into the boat.

If my hypothesis is correct, remember, then Luke is not just rewriting a resurrection appearance; he is combining a resurrection appearance with Mark 1.16-20.

You have not attempted to divorce Luke’s redaction including his use of Mk 1:16-20 (and I suggest Mk 6:53) from what could be the Marcan resurrection appearance story. I also think that “so that they began to sink” in verse 7, which might look to the stilling of the storm (Mk 4:35-41, Lk 8:22-25), is also Lucan redaction especially because no action is taken in the story here to prevent both boats from sinking.

I think it is more likely that Luke has improved Mark’s calling of Simon, John and James (Mk 1:16-20) into a much better story than that Luke has combined a resurrection appearance story from Mark with the calling story. Once Lucan redaction and combining have been removed I don’t see any features of a resurrection appearance.