Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:23 pm
There are gaps, yes. Most of these pericopae contain such gaps, which are not the same as inconsistencies.Michael BG wrote: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.Ben C. Smith wrote: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.Michael BG wrote: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).
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?
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.
What remains is the miraculous catch of fish itself, seemingly symbolic of Christian mission and honored as the centerpiece of a resurrection appearance story in John 21 (recall that I came to Luke 5 by way of John 21, and not vice versa), and Peter's crying out that he is a sinful man (which is the confirmatory part of the argument), which I maintained in the OP (and which I still maintain) fits better after the 3 denials than here in Luke. The rest is, as I have said, drawing on Mark 1.16-20 (oh, and Mark 4.1, of course, as well). You can add as many details to Luke drawing upon Mark 1.16-20 as you like, and it will not directly affect what the OP argued.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.Ben C. Smith wrote: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.
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.