Mark 16 and the silence of the women: The disciples redeemed?

[JoeWallack]

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.

Because the message that the women fail to convey, Jesus has of course already conveyed himself way before his crucifixion, as we know, when he says in 14:28: "After I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee" (14:28). So the disciples have already been told the very message, that the angel in the tomb asks the women to tell them.

Indeed, the reader is reminded of this very fact by the angel himself, when he says to the women:

But go and tell to his disciples and to Peter: 'He will go before you to Galilee, you are going to see him there, like he told you'.

So there is no historical problem or narratological problem in that the women fail to convey the message, because the message they fail to convey is not a message as such, but merely a confirmation of a message they have already been given. So with the silence of the women it is up to the disciples to remember that Jesus had told them and to have faith that it is true, that Jesus has indeed risen like he said. And that is what I suggest Mark means with this ending and the silence of the women. That the disicples, after all, in the end, succeed.

The term used, "go before", προαγω, implies that they will subsequently follow. Which is of course an all-important concept in gMark. So the question Mark raises with the silence of the women is: Will the disiples "follow", now that they have realised what the gospel message is, i.e. a message that also concerns suffering, a suffering messiah? So if they still choose to go to Galilee despite the fact that their messiah has just been killed, then yes, they are true 'followers'. They now recognize the gospel as a message of suffering, and they still "follow". Is this what the silence of the women is all about?

JW:
Well, "Good new" and bad news. The good news is I find your post amazing. The bad news is I find it amazing because I think all of your conclusions are wrong. The most important one is you think "The women" not telling anyone that Jesus' corpus (so to speak) was missing in action was intended as evidence that The Disciples believed/understood Jesus' prediction that he would be resurrected and thought of his Galilee statement as instruction of a reunion. Your conclusion not only has no explicit support from the text but is contradicted by the primary theme of GMark:

1) The Disciples believed in a popular, conquering, traditional Messiah.

2) The Disciples never had faith in Jesus.

3) The Disciples filled all of Jesus' formulas for disciple failure. Perfectly.

4) The purpose of the women is to further discredit the Disciples. Unlike JtB's disciples they were afraid to have anything to do with Jesus' dead body (get the figurative meaning?).

5) I don't think the Galilee prediction is original. Even if it is you still have to interpret it based on the rest of GMark and not verses-vice (and that is Ben's mistake). Jesus says he will go to Galilee and later, the Disciples will go there, nothing more. But this is the logical progression of the unbelieving disciples. The have abandoned/failed Jesus so they go home to Galilee where Jesus has already gone. There's nothing in the text indicating that if the disciples met Jesus in Galilee they would believe in him and follow him. Jesus explained that his followers in death would have to suffer like him and that is what the disciples ran away from. The post resurrection stories of the disciples are in subsequent Gospels. To think of the disciples that way is anachronistic.

6) The reason the Reader knows that Jesus was resurrected is because of GMark (revelation) and not because of the disciples (historical evidence), just like it was before GMark.

For Ben, for anyone who thinks of a lost ending you should be interested in P45. I believe that you accept that if there was a lost ending of GMark the reason for loss is more likely to be like 6) above. The disciples meet Jesus in Galilee but don't believe he was resurrected.


Joseph

[Ben C. Smith]

For Ben, for anyone who thinks of a lost ending you should be interested in P45.

I think Ƿ45 cuts off in Mark long before the ending. Am I missing something?

I believe that you accept that if there was a lost ending of GMark the reason for loss is more likely to be like 6) above. The disciples meet Jesus in Galilee but don't believe he was resurrected.

Well, that is your own speculation; my speculation is that the lost ending may have contained something deemed heretical, like a form of docetism.

[Secret Alias]

FWIW I think Ben is right.

[Ulan]

I always found it fascinating that this statement in gMatthew was never solved in that gospel: "17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." It's a weird statement, given we are supposedly looking at a meetup. No word about whether they stopped doubting.

I generally find this whole post-resurrection business one of the most puzzling issues of the gospels. Is "Galilee" used in the literal or in some metaphorical sense that is lost to us? Did the disciples meet on a mountain or by chance, while fishing? Or did they really meet in Jerusalem, and why do we then have those Galilee episodes at all? Where does James (the alleged "brother of the Lord") suddenly come from? In general, why was this group of people, whose leader was just subjected to capital punishment for trying a political coup (the gospels may waffle around this point, but there's that pesky "triumphal entry into Jerusalem") setting up shop right next to the arm of the law? Does it really make sense that a group of people, who are comprised of the retinue of someone who was killed for treason and still openly venerate him, would be left alone, right under the eyes of both, temple and Roman prefect? If Josephus is to be believed, no Roman prefect, not even Pilate, would hesitate much to get rid of all followers of similar figures.

I have a hard time reconciling all of this into a story that makes sense.

Edit: Of course, you can always be inventive. James, who looked very much like his brother, claimed his deceased brother would speak through him, took over the movement by collecting the former followers in Galilee and set up shop in Jerusalem, because the cash flow was better there. The family business went well for a while, until some usurper (Paul) showed up and wrested most of the thriving start-up from the former owners.

The idea of the "cliffhanger" gospel as performance script is at least enticing. When Paul and his main companion arrived at a town, they first delivered a public performance. People who got that hooked that they wanted to know the solution, got invited into a more private environment where the initiation to the group took place.

[Martin Klatt]

)))

[Ben C. Smith]

I always found it fascinating that this statement in gMatthew was never solved in that gospel: "17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." It's a weird statement, given we are supposedly looking at a meetup. No word about whether they stopped doubting.

I generally find this whole post-resurrection business one of the most puzzling issues of the gospels. Is "Galilee" used in the literal or in some metaphorical sense that is lost to us? Did the disciples meet on a mountain or by chance, while fishing? Or did they really meet in Jerusalem, and why do we then have those Galilee episodes at all? Where does James (the alleged "brother of the Lord") suddenly come from? In general, why was this group of people, whose leader was just subjected to capital punishment for trying a political coup (the gospels may waffle around this point, but there's that pesky "triumphal entry into Jerusalem") setting up shop right next to the arm of the law? Does it really make sense that a group of people, who are comprised of the retinue of someone who was killed for treason and still openly venerate him, would be left alone, right under the eyes of both, temple and Roman prefect? If Josephus is to be believed, no Roman prefect, not even Pilate, would hesitate much to get rid of all followers of similar figures.

I have a hard time reconciling all of this into a story that makes sense.

Hear, hear. I fully sympathize (with all of it, not just with the highlighted portion). Most of my thoughts on the highlighted portion of late have been along the lines of considering the Jerusalem folks as a different sect of people than the Galilean folks, only later retrospectively merged under a single Christian umbrella, but whither that thought process leads I am by no means sure.

[moses]

is that the lost ending may have contained something deemed heretical, like a form of docetism.

Ben, have you written on why you think it was deemed heretical?

[Ben C. Smith]

is that the lost ending may have contained something deemed heretical, like a form of docetism.

Ben, have you written on why you think it was deemed heretical?

I have not, no. It is a great question. Why was docetism considered heretical?

[Ulan]

is that the lost ending may have contained something deemed heretical, like a form of docetism.

Ben, have you written on why you think it was deemed heretical?

I'm not Ben, but I can see a hint of what may be seen as wrong at the start of the gospel. Even now, the gospel looks at least adoptionist, in the sense that Jesus was a normal, just very pious guy who got "adopted" as son by God during his baptism. As result, Jesus was allowed to carry the spirit of God to the temple - or better, he was driven by the spirit, as gMark puts it. The spirit leaves Jesus again upon his death.

Irenaeus called gMark the "gospel of the docetists", and who knows, the end may have been in that vein. It's not really clear why Irenaeus would make such a statement, if we look at gMark as it is.

[Ulan]

is that the lost ending may have contained something deemed heretical, like a form of docetism.

Ben, have you written on why you think it was deemed heretical?

I have not, no. It is a great question. Why was docetism considered heretical?

How serious was the accusation of heresy in the early days? If I see it correctly, the word per se just translates as "philosophical school", or something rather harmless like having different ideas about certain concepts. I'm not sure when this word became a serious accusation that afforded punishment.

If I remember correctly, docetism was seen as problematic because it often (though not always) was accompanied by the notion that Jesus/Christ did not really die, with all issues regarding salvation that arise from this if you think a sacrifice is necessary to achieve salvation.