A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

You did not answer my question. I asked how the author of the Longer Ending of Mark solved the problem of there being no Galilean appearance in Mark. Matthew has nothing to do with it.

Initially gMatthew did not have the reappearance in Galilee, as I demonstrated on my web page indicated earlier.
No fulfillment of previous prophecies about some reappearance? If "Matthew" could do it, why not the author of the long ending?
And I already explained why it makes more sense to have the reappearances in Jerusalem rather that much later in Galilee.

On your diagram, I do not see where you put gJohn and gMark and your proto-Luke in relation with the long ending. And your yellow rectangle should be erased, because based on wild unevidenced possibilities.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

You did not answer my question. I asked how the author of the Longer Ending of Mark solved the problem of there being no Galilean appearance in Mark. Matthew has nothing to do with it.

Initially gMatthew did not have the reappearance in Galilee, as I demonstrated on my web page indicated earlier.
No fulfillment of previous prophecies about some reappearance? If "Matthew" could do it, why not the author of the long ending?

Okay, I see now what you are saying. But for Matthew to lack any appearances at all, like his Marcan source, is different than adding appearances which are not in Galilee.

[Ben C. Smith]

On your diagram, I do not see where you put gJohn and gMark and your proto-Luke in relation with the long ending. And your yellow rectangle should be erased, because based on wild unevidenced possibilities.

By the same standard, positing that Matthew's Great Commission is an interpolation is "unevidenced." You use (slender) internal evidence to make that argument, and I use (slender) external evidence to make mine about Aristion.

I completely agree that we are speculating about possibilities at some point in this process. I view the Longer Ending being a composition independent of the rest of Mark as a stronger conclusion than anything else we have discussed on this thread so far.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

Okay, I see now what you are saying. But for Matthew to lack any appearances at all, like his Marcan source, is different than adding appearances which are not in Galilee.

If we look at Mk16:7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.", that does not make sense: why would the resurrected Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee, days later, when those were still in Jerusalem? That's one reason why the author of the long ending would switch to gLuke.
And nothing is said in gMark (1:1 to 16:20) that the message from the angel is communicated to the disciples.
And I have reason to believe that Mark 14:28 is a later insertion. In any case, gMark 1:1 to 16:8 also did not have the fulfillment of prophecies about reappearance in Galilee.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

By the same standard, positing that Matthew's Great Commission is an interpolation is "unevidenced." You use (slender) internal evidence to make that argument,

My evidence, I explained in my aforementioned web page, is not slender and there is nothing wrong about using internal evidence.

I use (slender) external evidence to make mine about Aristion

Your external evidence is rather not existing and rely on very slim possibilities, more so for this mysterious Aristion alleged involvement in the long ending.

I view the Longer Ending being a composition independent of the rest of Mark as a stronger conclusion than anything else we have discussed on this thread so far.

If that makes you happy, so be it.
Are you going to come up with a new diagram, with gJohn & gMark in it, and no Aristion?

Cordially Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

If we look at Mk16:7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.", that does not make sense: why would the resurrected Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee, days later, when those were still in Jerusalem? That's one reason why the author of the long ending would switch to gLuke.

This Post is tough for me to write. I mean it strictly in a Constructive Manner. Thnx.

What this ALL points to is the Division of Sources between the Jewish Original and the Roman Rewrite. To speak Ironically, Peter as a Character DOES exist in the Original. He is the Main Character. The Priest who is rewritten into the character of "Jesus", DOES promise to meet the "Disciples" in Galilee. There is precisely Zero Knowledge of what is to happen 70-ish years later. Peter is a child @ 4 BCE. He would be in his 80s at the destruction of the Temple.

The Priest survives the Passover Massacre. He will meet the Disciples to plan the follow-up and regrouping of the Seditionists. Their homes are in Galilee, as the Priestly Groups are given Settlements in Galilee. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL STORY.

The LE is strictly Post-Roman Takeover of the Culture, Art - and Stories. As such, there is no need to worry about a "Prophecy of Jesus" meeting up in Galilee. There was no "Prophecy of Jesus" here. The POV is strictly Roman and the promotion of the Roman Empire under the Guidance of the Father (Vespasian), the Son (Titus) and the Holy Spirit (Domitian).

"See you in Galilee..." has little or no meaning to the Author(s) of the LE.

"They say I have a drinking problem. I drink. I fall down. No problem..."
As Vonnegut said about another problem: "So it goes..."

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

By the same standard, positing that Matthew's Great Commission is an interpolation is "unevidenced." You use (slender) internal evidence to make that argument,

My evidence, I explained in my aforementioned web page, is not slender and there is nothing wrong about using internal evidence.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using internal evidence, I agree. I use it all the time. But your internal evidence in this case is slender. If you think it is ample, have at it!

I use (slender) external evidence to make mine about Aristion

Your external evidence is rather not existing and rely on very slim possibilities, more so for this mysterious Aristion alleged involvement in the long ending.

You may be right. I am just trying to put all the pieces together in a logical and plausible way.

Are you going to come up with a new diagram, with gJohn & gMark in it...?

Well, okay, but it literally adds more questions for me than answers (assume all dotted lines have question marks):

Aristion, Luke, & the Longer Ending of Mark.png (95.16 KiB) Viewed 10706 times

...and no Aristion?

No. I still like the idea, and it dovetails pretty neatly into the parts of MacDonald's thesis about Papias and the gospels that I appreciate the most.

[Steven Avery]

If you focus on actual writings, the Mark’s Galilee references were building on Matthew and/or (less likely) John.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... #post-5259

Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.

Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

==========

Matthew 28:16-20
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 21:1
After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias;
and on this wise shewed he himself.

[Bernard Muller]

This is my diagram showing the relationship of Mark 16:9-20 with gLuke, gJohn and gMark, based on solid evidence:


Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

The trouble is that all of these suggestions is possible. We have no direct evidence for any of them (just external patristic rumors and internal directional indications), and the probabilities we are slicing are very fine.