The Best Markan Ending That "Mark" Never Wrote. An Inventory

[james_C]

they might still have had enough faith based on Jesus' miracles

miracles don't seem to do much for marks disciples.

[rakovsky]

So in the case of Mark, when Jesus and the angel are presented as divine or angelic beings who can make special predictions (eg. Jesus predicted his own death), then the implication by the author is that when these figures predict Jesus going to Galilee first ahead of the disciples, that this is what happened.

14:28 is an interpolation

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/ma ... 14-28.html

It says:

Mk 14:28

Text

No issues.

Analysis

Interpolated. Notice the smooth flow of the story if it is removed: Peter in 14:29 then responds directly to Jesus's prediction of Peter's betrayal in 14:27. With 14:28 in place, it is narratively unintelligible that Peter should ignore this enormously hopeful prediction that Jesus will rise again after his death.

This is not persuasive.
Jesus was a teacher who told narratives and parables, and his audience heard them and afterwards people commented like when the pharisees after hearing parables objected to something.
Jesus tells the story of what will happen to their community: They leave him, he gets killed, and then goes to Galilee ahead of them.

After hearing the story, Peter objects to the part of the story where they abandon him. This has a fully natural flow.

Here is the passage:

27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

Notice the parallel to Mark 8:

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

Both involve Jesus saying he gets rejected, rising soon after, and then Peter objecting after hearing the story that included the resurrection part.

In the link you showed me, the claimant won't believe Mark 14:28 is original because the claimant demands that Peter interrupt while Jesus is still telling the story and hasn't gotten to the part where He resurrects yet. So the "it doesn't flow" argument is not persuasive. In fact, based on Mark 8, it's more likely that Jesus did finish the story in Mark 14 and talked about the resurrection itself and not just the abandonment. One of the main concepts in the gospels is both the killing/rejection and resurrection/good news("gospel").

I thought maybe you don't like Mark 14:28 because it could conflict with Luke and John 20 where Jesus sees them in Jerusalem. But here's the thing: It takes a few days' journey to Galilee from Jerusalem. Luke and John 20 have the sightings of Jesus in Jerusalem the same day or next one after the resurrection. That would put the apostles in Jerusalem still on the day of the 3rd day resurrection or shortly thereafter, not making a 4-6 day round trip to Galilee.

Alternately, maybe you are trying to make the argument that Mark DOESN'T think the apostles had any post-mortem appearances of Jesus or that Mark thinks Jesus just stayed dead and that the whole story is meant as a Greek tragedy. But there are even more clues of the alternative did throughout the gospel, one being the fact of the gospel itself ("good news")

[rakovsky]

they might still have had enough faith based on Jesus' miracles

miracles don't seem to do much for marks disciples.

1) Mark 10 says they gave up everything to follow him. That's pretty strong commitment, isn't it:

28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

^This passage also implies that despite giving up Jesus at Gethsemane, they would still get rewarded by Jesus because they gave up their things for him. This in turn means Jesus does not abandon them despite their abandonment. That implies a "happy ending" to the story.

2) The Transfiguration knocked them unconscious, so the miracle had a strong effect. Seeing Moses there is also pretty convincing that extreme supernatural miracles and resurrection are real.

You can say that they abandoned Jesus out of fear, but that is not the same thing as saying they had no hopes for his resurrection.

Your question was why would they stay in Jerusalem and I gave several different reasonable explanations. You would have to make a counterargument from your POV that the apostles had zero hope or expectation Jesus rose at his tomb to debunk the explanations.

[james_C]

This passage also implies that despite giving up Jesus at Gethsemane

no it doesn't . you are making stuff up.

1) Mark 10 says they gave up everything to follow him. That's pretty strong commitment, isn't it:

31: But many that are first will be last, and the last first."

v31: Some exegetes have seen this as an exhortation to service, or a prediction of who will be in the Kingdom (the least), or simply as an uncontextualized saying tacked onto the end of the pericope. Reading this against the writer's constant denigration on the disciples, I see this as a prediction of their future behavior. But many that are first on the list of the Twelve in Mark 3 will be last to fall away when the tribulation comes, culminating in Peter, the very first name on the list, and the last disciple to deny him, and the last, Judas, will be the first to betray me." Read that way, the final line is then in context with the previous several verses, especially as "the hundredfold" in v30 takes the reader back to the Parable of the Sower, and thence to the typology that identifies the role of the disciples in the Gospel of Mark.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark10.html

miracles don't do much for the disciples.

This in turn means Jesus does not abandon them despite their abandonment. That implies a "happy ending" to the story

33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”


71 Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know this man you’re talking about!” 72 And immediately the rooster crowed the second time.


Suddenly, Jesus’ words flashed through Peter’s mind


why in ALL predictions of resurrection, each one is ignored by the disciples?


happy endings don't need to include this

The women fled from the tomb


they sought safety in flight from danger.

2) The Transfiguration knocked them unconscious, so the miracle had a strong effect.

nothing had a "strong effect" if that were the case they would have raised jesus themselves.

[james_C]

in mark 8 peter rebukes jesus
he does not know of a dying and rising messiah

on the other hand in mark 14:29 we see willing lambs

29: Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not." 30: And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." 31: But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same.

this seems to be a positive peter. how could they have missed reacting to what was said in verse 28? here they are willing lambs.
you want to believe that peter aka satan heard 8:32 , continued to be ignorant of prediction of resurrection in 14:28 , but paid attention to "you will all fall away" ?

this just reinforces the fact that they would never have been waiting to hear news from the women that an unknown man in an unknown empty tomb told them about jesus going before them to galilee.

the resurrection predictions were clearly not important to them/mark does not want them to view it as important.

Your question was why would they stay in Jerusalem and I gave several different reasonable explanations. You would have to make a counterargument from your POV that the apostles had zero hope or expectation Jesus rose at his tomb to debunk the explanations.

you have nothing from mark which says they stayed in jerusalem. the only thing you have from mark is

1. they fled and peter remembers denying jesus.

But here's the thing: It takes a few days' journey to Galilee from Jerusalem

therefore it would be an intelligent thing for them to run off to galilee, right?

they have lack of faith, fear is greater than their faith and their leader is arrested and impaled, what more reason is left for them to remain?

[Charles Wilson]

Hi Joe --

I went back and read and re-read the Long Ending. For years I have been umimpressed with the LE as Boiler Plate, considering it as something added "later" by someone to give the right savior/god flavor to the mix. It still reads very flat to me. Then, following a habit I have, saw something a little different. "Why is this here? What is it saying?":

Mark 16: 18 (RSV):

[18] they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

The odd phrase is "...if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them...". The question is, "Did anyone ever drink poison and live?" The answer is, "Yes. Of course."

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Titus:

"The boys [Britannicus and Titus] were so intimate too, that it is believed that when Britannicus drained the fatal draught,Titus, who was reclining at his side, also tasted of the potion and for a long time suffered from an obstinate disorder..."

The Minority Report (Consisting of probably just me...) looks at John 3: 16 from the Flavian POV (By way of the Egyptians, Eternal Life is for Important People, such as the Emperors, not the slaves and little people).
Britannicus was important to Titus. If "The Romans Did It" is True, then Titus is being given a Push by the Author of the Long Ending.

The identity of the person(s) who could pick up serpents is a bit more problematic...Unless Acts comes into play:

Acts 28: 3: (RSV):

[3] Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand.

This is from the last 2 chapters of Acts and it carries the mark of Tacitus (or an intimate) following the Story of Anicetus at The Pontus (Histories, Book 3). Further, there is the isolation of Antonius Primus by Mucianus, who exchanged letters with Vespasian over who should Rule until Vespasian came to Rome. The tie here is very tenuous. Nontheless, I consider the character "Paul" to be based on Mucianus and the Isolation of Primus after the exchange of letters points to Primus <=> Viper. "Bundle of Sticks" <=> "Onto the Fire" should point to Mucianus handling the Senate (Fasces). Maybe.

This, if correct, would point to an IMMEDIATE alteration to the End of Mark by the Flavian Court after the recognition that "Nice Story ya' got here Mark...There's a lotta' money to be made wid'it..."

Thanx,

CW

[rakovsky]

This passage also implies that despite giving up Jesus at Gethsemane

no it doesn't . you are making stuff up.

They were in Gethsemane when according to the gospels they abandoned him, eg.:

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away"
Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written ...
Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will abandon me tonight. Scripture ...

Mark 14:27
"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "'I ...
And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, ...
And Yeshua said to them, “All of you will be ashamed of me this night, for it is written

People are free to change the gospels' teachings into any version they want I guess, though, and to accuse the mainstream Church who actually wrote the books of making up their own ideas about what they say. It's probably been happening since the first-second century.

Neat quote by Clement Alexandrine in the 2nd c.:
“The Church has four gospels, the heretics - many”.

[rakovsky]

I didn't realize until the last year or so how much of the mainstream post-18th c. "critical scholarship" makes things up and then treats it like academic fact, ranging from the Q Document thesis, to Secret Mark being an actual non-fraudulent fragment, to now apparently serious academics' claims that Mark 14 and 16 about Jesus going to Galilee are "interpolations", even though they are actually part of the original essential structure of the chapters.

It's not really hard to show unless you have an agenda. Jesus had a practice of telling parables and the gospels record different peoples' objections after the conclusion of the parable. Some academics claim that Peter could only express his own objection by interrupting Jesus at the moment he badmouthed the apostles by saying they would abandon him. The academics who say this obviously haven't actually been paying attention to how the gospel anecdotes by Jesus work and how the whole pattern of dialogues there works. Why would these academics make up something so baseless....?

My guess is that there has actually been a practice dating at least since the Protestant Reformation to read one's own biases into the text. So for me personally, I am pretty uncertain that Jesus actually resurrected and ascended into heaven, but OK.... when I read the texts I am able to separate my own misgivings from what I am actually reading.

Dating back to the Reformation, there was an opposite practice. Calvin decided that it was impossible for Jesus to be in pieces of bread, THEREFORE the gospels must not be actually teaching such a superstitious idea. Personally, I am able to disassociate my own skepticism. I don't have the same big problem Calvin does when reading the text. Just because someone today thinks something is unlikely doesn't mean that the story writers actually wanted their audience to be modern skeptics.

Nowadays I believe a lot of the same kind of thing is going on. A lot of people don't think Jesus is God, so as skeptics they believe that the early writers couldn't have believed that either. Same thing with all the other out-there stuff. Virgin Birth? No way. Can't happen. SO THEREFORE That must have been added in too.

As Bruce Mack wrote- the early Church was like modern enlightenment thinkers. None of this superstition resurrection god-man stuff. At least that's how the modern skeptics often read into the text.

[Ulan]

My guess is that there has actually been a practice dating at least since the Protestant Reformation to read one's own biases into the text.

People have always done that and will always do that. And everyone does that, you and me included. The best we can do is be aware of our own biases and question our own thoughts.

Also, regarding critical scholarship, it's the same as with all scholarship: you have people who are good at their work and others who aren't. It's the same in all walks of life. Even apologists are right once in a while .

Regarding topics like the virgin birth of Jesus, you simplify the issue in order to make a point that doesn't really work. The reason why people think it's not original is not connected to a belief that a virgin birth is not possible. The reason to think it's added in later is that the childhood stories in both gospels that actually deal with this look as if they were added on to an existing text. But that's not a topic for this thread anyway, as this is about gMark, which doesn't deal in virgin births.

The resurrection stories themselves are good examples for texts that seem to have been changed a few times. They are full of contradictions within themselves. Which is good for us, because it lets us get a feel for elements that don't belong together.

[rakovsky]

My guess is that there has actually been a practice dating at least since the Protestant Reformation to read one's own biases into the text.

People have always done that and will always do that. And everyone does that, you and me included. The best we can do is be aware of our own biases and question our own thoughts.

Also, regarding critical scholarship, it's the same as with all scholarship: you have people who are good at their work and others who aren't. It's the same in all walks of life. Even apologists are right once in a while .

Regarding topics like the virgin birth of Jesus, you simplify the issue in order to make a point that doesn't really work. The reason why people think it's not original is not connected to a belief that a virgin birth is not possible. The reason to think it's added in later is that the childhood stories in both gospels that actually deal with this look as if they were added on to an existing text. But that's not a topic for this thread anyway, as this is about gMark, which doesn't deal in virgin births.

Hi Ulan.
This is my general theory about what is really happening with the skepticism. Calvin would never say "I am a skeptic about the supernatural, so the Bible can't teach supernatural things like the real presence in bread". But that was basically what he did. He made that same kind of argument on numerous issues, as some Calvinists started to in his wake. One famous 18th c. Calvinist said that in the Bible when it talks about people being demon possessed, it really just means lunatics and crazy people.

The thing is, I think that actually when the Bible talked about demons, it really did mean supernatural beings that could go into people.People in those days really believed in that stuff.

Likewise, nowadays, people are even more skeptical about virgin birth stories, and I believe it's a major unspoken factor why some people think it's not something the original Christians believed in. Modern skeptics aren't going to announce: "I think Virgin births are fake, therefore Peter, Paul, and James, etc. never believed that stuff". But it's actually the same kind of bias just like what Calvin had.

Here's the thing. If the gospels started with Jesus sitting as a kid in Nazareth's synagogue and learning Torah and Tanakh from the rabbis, the modern skeptics wouldn't have much problem with it. You start throwing in stuff like a star going to Bethlehem and magi visiting a cave, and it becomes "Whoa whoa whoa, the Christians definitely never taught any stuff like that".

Take for example Bruce Mack's comment on the Didache:

We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.

He totally does not get it and is imposing his own worldview about non-supernatural non-apocalyptic philosophy back onto people 1900 years ago who had a totally different mindset, speaking in tongues and listening to charismatic "prophets".