Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:29 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:51 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:51 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:40 am
I just had an idea concerning the woman at the tomb and the reason they don't convey the message they're told. Firstly, my theory is based on the premise that it's a literary device, something put in there by Mark for some specific reason. I've always wondered why interpreters and preachers and biblical historians often talk about this scene as if it involved an historical problem or some kind of mystery, i.e. if the women "didn't say anything to anyone", then how could the Word get out and Christianity begin? But that is not a very close reading of the text at all.
I agree with this assessment. Jesus can appear to the disciples regardless of whether the women report back to them or not, just as he apparently does in the gospel of Peter. Any such reunion back in Galilee will naturally come as something of a surprise to the disciples, just as it seems to be in John 21.
Well, I'd say that in this case the reunion would not be a surprise as in John 21 or gLuke, but instead the same situation as in Matt 28. Jesus had told them that they should follow him to Galilee after his resurrection ("I will go before you"), so if they actually do this (which we can't tell because of the ending) then it wouldn't be a surprise for them to meet him.
It would, however, be a bit surprising for the reader if they went, because they had failed horribly when the reality of the gospel hit upon them, i.e. the persecution and death of Jesus. So after having 'lost their faith' having left Jesus, they do after all show faith and all travel to Galilee to meet him resurrected.
Or they go back to Galilee because that is where they live, as per the gospel of Peter and, in its own weird way, John 21.
On any reading, it cannot very well work out as neatly as it does in Matthew, since Matthew 28.16 says that the disciples' rendezvous with Jesus happened at "the mountain which Jesus had designated." But neither Matthew nor Mark narrates Jesus giving such explicit instructions. This is one reason why I feel that Matthew is just making up for Mark's lost ending; his own resurrection appearance gives us little more information than the shorter Marcan ending, and this callback to instructions about a mountain already given by Jesus lands
nowhere in the gospel, betraying its
ad hoc character.
So
at least the time and the exact place (
somewhere in Galilee) of the reunion is going to be a surprise to the disciples in Mark. But I think you are more onto something with that bit that I highlighted, to the effect that "It would be a bit surprising for the reader" if the disciples actually were to follow Jesus' instructions here.
That is the kind of insight that I was following up on. So far as the reader is concerned, the disciples have lost all faith and all hope, I think. All the more impressive, then, when Jesus, in the hypothetical ending, comes back with mercy and forgiveness, as a surprise, and gives them a second chance, just as is implied by the triangulation of John 21 with Luke 5 and Peter 14.
Incidentally, I also believe that Mark shows distinct signs of retelling a story and having to call back to something which was not narrated in order to do so, much as Matthew has done. Mark 15.41: "When He was in Galilee, [the women] used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem." Okay, so where are these women in the early going of the gospel? They are missing in action. In order to show readers the empty tomb, Mark has had to bring characters in from earlier in the story (refer to Luke 8.1-3) without having narrated them before, much as Matthew, in order to show readers the promised resurrection appearance, has had to imagine instructions being given earlier in the story without having narrated them.
All of our canonical gospels show these
signs of retelling an already extant story. While I am pretty convinced, for example, that
something like Mark preceded something like Matthew, I am not at all convinced that we possess (in Mark or in any single extant gospel) the earliest version of the story, a suspicion that is at least consonant with the observation that there was once a version of Mark, no longer extant, which actually once showed a Galilean resurrection appearance.
1) Jesus appears in an organized reunion for the whole inner circle. This we have in Matt 28.
2) Jesus appears as a surprise, first to some then others. This we have in gJohn and gLuke (and gPeter).
When Mark writes that "his disciples and Peter" will meet Jesus in Galilee, this to me sounds like an organized reunion for the whole inner circle, and not just the ones who happen to live in Galilee.
But you're right, the text in gMark cannot support an event where the disciples rally to a
specific location in the expectation of meeting Jesus. So in a way the appearance would be a surprise. Matthew's text cannot support it either, even though this is exactly what happens. In this way you would understand Jesus' prophecy in 14:28, which is repeated in 16:7, as nothing more than that, a prophecy? 'After my death, when you return home to Galilee, I will in fact appear to you'.
But if the disciples travel in organized fashion to Galilee in the expectation of meeting Jesus at some point, in some place as of yet unknown, then the element of surprise is reduced to time and place. The point being that the disciples were seeking Jesus, and that's what's important. They all go to seek him, because they believe in the word he spoke about his resurrection and his "going before" them, they don't need the confirmation (16:7).
And the motif of seeking Jesus, or to seek out Jesus, to come inside of the house with him, accept it when he invites/calls (καλεω), etc. is part of a theological theme in the narrative imo, the whole theme of 'following', and so the disciples going to Galilee in organzied fashion would be another example of people trying to get close to Jesus, but this time with the belief that he is the savior
despite the fact that he was executed. So this seeking out is qualitatively different, because they have seen Jesus' apparant failure and weakness. And yet they still seek him.
It just seems important to me, that the angel says "his disciples and Peter", just like Jesus had spoken to
all of the twelve in 14:28 saying "I will go before you to Galilee". From this I can understand why Matthew would come up with the scene in Matt 28, with all eleven disciples gathered together in Galilee. It looks like in Mark 14:28 Jesus implicitly says that he will meet up with all twelve disciples in Galilee, which means we imagine them going there together in organized fashion.
So I still think it a viable suggestion that Mark wants the disciples to "pursue" Jesus to Galilee, like "Simon and those with him" also "pursued" Jesus who had 'risen from the bed', as it were, in 1:35ff. Not so much because of a possible allegorical parallel in 1:35ff, which is pretty speculative, but rather because of the whole grand theme of 'following', together with the particular term used in both instances: "go before you".
The verb, προαγω, can also be translated "lead", so "I will lead you to Galilee" is a possibility also, as the shepherd who was stricken but now in risen form will still shepherd them (I'm thinking Obi Wan guiding Luke in spirit after his is struck down!) If this aspect of the verb προαγω is also in there, that opens up the possibility that Jesus directs them, "leads" them, toward a specific location in Galilee. But I think προαγω should be translated as "go before" and not "lead", though. But it's a possibility.
If you think that there was a lost ending (I'm undecided but leaning towards 'suspended ending'), then what do you make of the scene with the women, and the fact that the disciples never get the confirmation message from the angel? Why the confirmation message to begin with?