Alternative ending(s) to the Christ narrative(s) / Gospels

[Jagd]

I think it may be useful to collect all the possible alternative endings to the Christ narratives here (different from the typical canonical ones).

I'm keenly interested in the possibility that the older/original Christ narratives did not contain any Passion/crucifixion/resurrection, but instead had the apotheosis common of Greco-Roman divine men. I come across a lot of political motivations of why the Passion narratives are the way they are (essentially a lot of ancient blame-games), but presupposing that the Passion/crucifixion narrative is added later, what could the alternative (and perhaps older) endings to the Christ narrative be?

Some that come to mind:

• The Transfiguration as the ascent without any passion narrative (finishing at Mark 9:8)

• The Centurion's line in Mark 15:39 (as pointed out by mlinssen)

• The Farewell Discourse in John 14–17

• The execution and body fiasco in the Toledot Yeshu

I will also note that, while there are different details in the Passion narratives of the canonical four, they are still seemingly derivative of the same general Passion story. I do wonder if the basic Passion story was invented around the same time that authors began trying to harmonize the different Gospels, with the Passion being the great unifying event across all four.

[mlinssen]

I think it may be useful to collect all the possible alternative endings to the Christ narratives here (different from the typical canonical ones).

I'm keenly interested in the possibility that the older/original Christ narratives did not contain any Passion/crucifixion/resurrection, but instead had the apotheosis common of Greco-Roman divine men. I come across a lot of political motivations of why the Passion narratives are the way they are (essentially a lot of ancient blame-games), but presupposing that the Passion/crucifixion narrative is added later, what could the alternative (and perhaps older) endings to the Christ narrative be?

Some that come to mind:

• The Transfiguration as the ascent without any passion narrative (finishing at Mark 9:8)

• The Centurion's line in Mark 15:39 (as pointed out by mlinssen)

• The Farewell Discourse in John 14–17

• The execution and body fiasco in the Toledot Yeshu

I will also note that, while there are different details in the Passion narratives of the canonical four, they are still seemingly derivative of the same general Passion story. I do wonder if the basic Passion story was invented around the same time that authors began trying to harmonize the different Gospels, with the Passion being the great unifying event across all four.

I'm having to concede to the centurion which obviously is a Markan addition, as is the tearing of the veil.
Jesus "giving up the Spirit" is the final sentence of Marcion, I am quite convinced of that - but that is initially unrelated now

The entire goal of the Transfiguration is to piss down the throats of Moses and Elijah - Gawd is telling them to obey Jesus! And if you look closely at the 3 accounts you can see how they 1) try hard to euphemise / excuse Peter's words and 1) create uncertainty about Moses and Elijah still being "on stage" while Jesus is getting praised by Gawd. The reason for that is twofold and lies entirely in their source which is Marcion and who portrays Simon Peter as the religiot that he is in Thomas: he speaks but doesn't think; and of course Moses (Law) and Elijah (prophets) have to make way for Jesus, the new king of the new thing

I have no idea about the other 2

[Paul the Uncertain]

Just speaking of gMark, I don't see the transfiguration as a curtain scene. Jesus has already given the audience a "forward" (8:31-32; Daniel Ball's term for the ubiquitous dramatic device of telling the audience from time to time that something is going to happen) that he'll die on the mission but somehow get better.

I think Crossan is someone who has promoted the Centurion's line as a suitable curtain. Since it isn't Mark's curtain, we say it is a "false curtain," which like the forward, is a common dramatic storytelling device.

As with so much else in gMark, there are three of these false curtains. You may wish to add to your list, then, the entombment of Jesus by Joseph Ex Machina. That's where Thomas Jefferson ended his modern edition of the gospel story.

The final false curtain is the young man's speech in the tomb at 16:7, "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, he goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you." That clears the slate of all pending forwards, and has a rousing quality that's desirable in a curtain.

The next line 16:8 is attested as a last line. I suppose it was irresistable since it portrays women as weak, disobedient, and unreliable. If gMark isn't being performed as a whole unit, but rather in parts (as in a liturgical setting), then it doesn't much matter that it's not a curtain line. The thread only asks for alternative endings, and 16:8 is an attested ending.

However, if 16:8 is authentic (as opposed to a misogynist interpolation to defeat the impression left by 16:7 that the young man - who is supposedly wink-wink-nod-nod an angel - would trust two women and a girl with anything important), then I am confident that 16:9 is authentic as well. It imparts important new information (that Jesus rose on the third day as he predicted, consistent with Paul, and as was biblically significant) and completes a common figure of speech begun in 16:8, the emphatic negation followed by an exception.

The completion of the action begun at 16:9 is 16:11, "When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they disbelieved." That would be an interesting curtain line, and no more "difficult" than the popular 16:8. I don't think it was, though, because it is so well-integrated into a "build of three" that climaxes at 16:14.

So to recap possible contributions to your list in progress:

second the centurion's confession (as a sincere expression of admiration for Jesus)
nominate the entombment of Jesus by Joseph
nominate the young man's speech in the tomb
remind that the collapse of the women had an ancient Christian consituency as an ending
nominate verse 16:14

[mlinssen]

second the centurion's confession (as a sincere expression of admiration for Jesus)

The centurion is definitely a Markan addition given his κεντυρίων whereas Luke and Matthew both use ἑκατόνταρχος

nominate the entombment of Jesus by Joseph

The entombment in Mark is the most primitive of all and only serves the resurrection - it has no function or purpose in itself

nominate the young man's speech in the tomb

That most certainly isn't a "curtain" as the audience consists solely of complete nobodies, given their role in Mark. What the angel says is not a goal, it is a means to an end: and the end is that the damn women botch it

remind that the collapse of the women had an ancient Christian consituency as an ending

Could you translate that please?

nominate verse 16:14

16:14 is apologetic and Judaic and it's impossible to end a story with paraphrasing what the protagonist said while he himself is on the very stage at that same moment

[Paul the Uncertain]

The entombment in Mark is the most primitive of all and only serves the resurrection - it has no function or purpose in itself

The OP was looking for alternative endings, and that is an attested ending (the Jefferson Bible, searchable).

As to Mark, it is a false curtain, and like any storytelling device, it has a function and purpose in itself: to enhance the audience's experience of the performance. The contrast between a stranger portrayed as coming forward alone and receiving the corpse of Jesus versus the disciples of John having collectively received the greater portion of his corpse is very affecting (strong affect being desirable in a curtain scene). Plus, as a false curtain, it sets up the immediate introduction of the women neatly.

That most certainly isn't a "curtain" as the audience consists solely of complete nobodies, given their role in Mark. What the angel says is not a goal, it is a means to an end: and the end is that the damn women botch it

By audience, I mean those listening to the performance (affectionately known in the trade as the "bums in the seats"), not the onstage characters listening to the performer. And the women only "botch it" if the performance is supposed to end at verse 16:8. For the reasons stated, I very much doubt that Mark was that incompetent. In contrast, I very much believe that the boys club generations later would grasp an excuse to justify marginalizing women and excluding them from any serious role in church affairs outside the kitchen or nursery.

Could you translate that please?

There are ancient manuscripts of gMark that end at 16:8, a verse which depicts women exhibiting symptoms of clinical shock (compare John's masterful depiction of that condition in his Mary Magdalene of chapter 20).

16:14 is apologetic and Judaic and it's impossible to end a story with paraphrasing what the protagonist said while he himself is on the very stage at that same moment.

Is he? The Narrator is an established character in gMark. At 16:14, the last direct discourse attributed to another character was back at 16:7. Ending a performance with a monologue isn't an issue to those who hold to 16:8, it cannot become an issue at 16:14. Sauce for the gander.

There is also precedent for ending a performance with a narrated monologue. Among the more famous ancient examples:

You residents of Thebes, our native land,
look on this man, this Oedipus, the one
who understood that celebrated riddle.
He was the most powerful of men.
All citizens who witnessed this man’s wealth
were envious. Now what a surging tide
of terrible disaster sweeps around him.
So while we wait to see that final day,
we cannot call a mortal being happy
before he’s passed beyond life free from pain.

And modern ones to boot.

A glooming peace this morning with it brings,
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head.
Go hence to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon’d, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

[mlinssen]

That most certainly isn't a "curtain" as the audience consists solely of complete nobodies, given their role in Mark. What the angel says is not a goal, it is a means to an end: and the end is that the damn women botch it

By audience, I mean those listening to the performance (affectionately known in the trade as the "bums in the seats"), not the onstage characters listening to the performer. And the women only "botch it" if the performance is supposed to end at verse 16:8. For the reasons stated, I very much doubt that Mark was that incompetent. In contrast, I very much believe that the boys club generations later would grasp an excuse to justify marginalizing women and excluding them from any serious role in church affairs outside the kitchen or nursery.

Could you translate that please?

There are ancient manuscripts of gMark that end at 16:8, a verse which depicts women exhibiting symptoms of clinical shock

[EDIT]
The entire goal of Mark was, always had been, and still is, to end at 16:8

Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus contains the falsified 16:9-20, although Bezae and Alexandrinus do.
The entire point of Mark is to blame the goddam biatches for the fact that no one had ever heard that da Lawd had not died but risen instead.
But there's another thread for that, so I'll leave it at that