Mark's "intended" ending

[rakovsky]

The Transfiguration could be seen as a prefigurement of the resurrection. And since the Transfiguration was on a mount, perhaps the place in Mark could be on a mount too. Besides, in both Luke and Matthew, Jesus ascends or appears on some mountain, so the same could be guessed about Mark's expectations. In Mark 14, the apostles go to Gethsemane, which is at the foot of the Mount of Olives. So if we see Mark 14 as a prefigurement of the appearance to the apostles, then this is another reference to a mountain.

This raises the question – was the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8) a resurrection appearance that Mark changed into the Transfiguration? And if so why?

Michael,
I know. The Transfiguration, I believe, however was portrayed as being on Mt. Hermon, not on Mt. Tabor. Mt. Tabor is in Galilee, but one of the gospels says that after they came down the mount from the Transfiguration, that they then went in or through Galilee. Mt. Hermon however is right above Caesarea Phillipi, where Jesus left the disciples before ascending the Mount with just three of them.

So- the Transfiguration was likely on Mt Hermon, but Matthew 28 says that the appearance to the disciples after the resurrection was on Mt. Tabor. Secondly, the Transfiguration was seen by just three disciples, and afterwards Jesus came down with them and said not to tell anyone because it was too early. It seems to me therefore that the Transfiguring might be a foreshadowing of the resurrection appearances, or could have even gotten confused with them, but it was not meant as a resurrection appearance.

There are multiple times in the gospels when Jesus goes up on a mountain and has some supernatural experience, starting with the Temptation, and ending with the Ascension. I think that these are all stories about different events, or at least are all not really about the ascension.

As a critic, another interesting question you might ask is whether the Transfiguration story is itself a kind of invention or not. It was only witnessed by three apostles who came to lead the community, and they only told people about it after Jesus was dead, so that would make it harder for people to question the story and to ask Jesus about it. On the other hand, it's not inconceivable that Jesus took a small group of followers (3) to some remote area and had some esoteric mystical, supernatural, or "mystic" experience/moment with them. maybe the whiteness on Jesus was the snow on Mt Hermon. Who knows.

8. You may guess based on Point #6 above that the appearance to Peter was by the sea and resembled John 21, and that the appearance to the apostles was the one in Matthew 28.

Is there another resurrection appearance (one set on a sea) that Mark has moved back into the life of Jesus - Jesus walking on water (Mk 6:45-52)? And if so why?

One theory I read was that the water appearances stories have been moved back earlier into Jesus' life before the resurrection (Mark 6) as a way of dealing with the discrepancy in the resurrection stories-
The gospel writers preferred for the disciples to all be loyal and together in Jerusalem on Day 3 of the resurrection, or for Peter or John to confirm the empty tomb with the women. There could have been competing stories of where and when the first resurrection appearances were (To Peter by the Sea of Tiberias v. To all 11 disciples in Jerusalem). So the discrepancy was resolved by taking the story of Peter with Jesus on/by the water out of the gospel's ending and moving it earlier in the gospels.

This is just one theory.

I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories, but he intentionally avoided talking about them. Ii think it's because they involve the paranormal. He cut down on paranormal descriptions, I believe, and that includes the story about the youth.

I don’t think there is any evidence for this, as Mark has Jesus having conversations with demons and has Jesus refer to Satan.

I am not ruling out ANY supernatural events. Belief in demons and angels was widespread among Judeans.
It seems to me that Mark has a simpler, more "believable" version of the gospel stories- no infancy narrative, no accounts of resurrection appearances, the angel at the tomb is just called a youth, no guards scared away by an angel and earthquake. Mark is also a much shorter version of the gospel.
This also relates to what is for me a brain-cracking puzzle of the synoptic puzzle - whether Mark was first and then Matthew expanded on Mark or vice verse. I think academics should not take for granted the idea that since Mark is shorter and simpler, that Matthew is an expanded version with additions to an "earlier" version, Mark.

One can start with the question of resurrection stories. Had Mark heard of zero resurrection appearance stories from Paul or the other apostles? If the apostles were giving out resurrection stories, it's only natural that Mark would have heard them. Reading the gospel of Mark, whether one considers it myth or not, the reader has an inner tug at the end of the story to know how things turned out. it's only to be expected that this is one of the things Mark would ask and hear about.

I know that there is a thread "Argument for Addition" claiming that Mark 14:28 (Jesus' resurrection prediction) is just a later addition (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2134)
But I don't think that this theory is correct. Theoretically I suppose that every claim of a resurrection appearance in the gospels and epistles could be a later "addition" inserted by some later redactor/scribe or an embellishment made by the later evangelists.
However, the gospels are saturated with intense miracle stories, ranging from the Transfiguration, to the walking on water, to intense healings, etc. Add in to this the common popular beliefs of ancient times (2000 years ago) about resurrections, deifications of emperors, and other extreme miracles, and it's just to be expected that the apostles had post-Resurrection visions of their miracleworking Messiah.

So on this basis we can conclude that Mark was aware of and had in mind resurrection stories when he wrote his gospel. He was implying to his readers that such appearances occurred. Based on this conclusion, I think that we can draw further conclusions about what he wished the reader to infer, as I did in the OP.

[Michael BG]

I am sure that Mark knew much more about the stories than he showed. He obviously knew about the resurrection stories, but he intentionally avoided talking about them. Ii think it's because they involve the paranormal. He cut down on paranormal descriptions, I believe, and that includes the story about the youth.

I don’t think there is any evidence for this, as Mark has Jesus having conversations with demons and has Jesus refer to Satan.

I am not ruling out ANY supernatural events. Belief in demons and angels was widespread among Judeans.
It seems to me that Mark has a simpler, more "believable" version of the gospel stories- no infancy narrative, no accounts of resurrection appearances, the angel at the tomb is just called a youth, no guards scared away by an angel and earthquake. Mark is also a much shorter version of the gospel.

One can start with the question of resurrection stories. Had Mark heard of zero resurrection appearance stories from Paul or the other apostles? If the apostles were giving out resurrection stories, it's only natural that Mark would have heard them.

… we can conclude that Mark was aware of and had in mind resurrection stories when he wrote his gospel.

I am sorry I wasn’t clearer. My objection was to the idea that Mark cut down on paranormal descriptions and supernatural events. As you were saying. From Mark 16:7 and 14:28 we can conclude that Mark wants us to believe there was a resurrection appearance in Galilee.

However I am not sure that for those who said they saw the heavenly Jesus Christ that the location of the event was important. If this is true, it might have been that the early Christian community embellished the stories by first making Jesus more material and less angelic and then by providing locations – Galilee or Jerusalem (or the nearby area).

This also relates to what is for me a brain-cracking puzzle of the synoptic puzzle - whether Mark was first and then Matthew expanded on Mark or vice verse. I think academics should not take for granted the idea that since Mark is shorter and simpler, that Matthew is an expanded version with additions to an "earlier" version, Mark.

We are told by academics and scholars that they also look at the nature of the Greek and Mark’s is simpler and Matthew’s is better Greek and improves on Mark’s Greek and makes the events told run better in the Greek language.

This raises the question – was the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8) a resurrection appearance that Mark changed into the Transfiguration? And if so why?

Michael,
I know. The Transfiguration, I believe, however was portrayed as being on Mt. Hermon, not on Mt. Tabor. Mt. Tabor is in Galilee, but one of the gospels says that after they came down the mount from the Transfiguration, that they then went in or through Galilee. Mt. Hermon however is right above Caesarea Phillipi, where Jesus left the disciples before ascending the Mount with just three of them.

So- the Transfiguration was likely on Mt Hermon, but Matthew 28 says that the appearance to the disciples after the resurrection was on Mt. Tabor.

The problem with this is you are regarding the locations as being always attached to the stories. I also can’t find any of the synoptics giving Mt Hermon as the location or stating that the “next event” was in Caesarea Phillipi. Also Matthew 28:16 doesn’t name Mt Tabor. I don’t know how many mountains there are in Galilee but I think Mts Lebanon, Carmel, Moreh and Gilboa are in Galilee. As Galilee has lots of valleys it is likely to have more than four or five mountains.

Secondly, the Transfiguration was seen by just three disciples, and afterwards Jesus came down with them and said not to tell anyone because it was too early. It seems to me therefore that the Transfiguring might be a foreshadowing of the resurrection appearances, or could have even gotten confused with them, but it was not meant as a resurrection appearance.

As a critic, another interesting question you might ask is whether the Transfiguration story is itself a kind of invention or not. It was only witnessed by three apostles who came to lead the community, and they only told people about it after Jesus was dead, so that would make it harder for people to question the story and to ask Jesus about it. On the other hand, it's not inconceivable that Jesus took a small group of followers (3) to some remote area and had some esoteric mystical, supernatural, or "mystic" experience/moment with them. maybe the whiteness on Jesus was the snow on Mt Hermon. Who knows.

Paul in Galatians refers to three “apostles – James, Cephas and John (Gal 2:9), and here we have the same three at the transfiguration. It is quite possible that before the twelve disciples had been established as the earliest group of disciples there was in fact only these three as referred to by Paul, and the twelve was a later development. If this is so, then it is quite easy to image that one of the earliest resurrection appearances would be to these three disciples on a mountain (a bit like Moses and his mountain revelation with God). If this was a resurrection appearance there has been lots of redaction work to make it into the transfiguration. This redaction would of course include verses 9 and 10.

Is there another resurrection appearance (one set on a sea) that Mark has moved back into the life of Jesus - Jesus walking on water (Mk 6:45-52)? And if so why?

One theory I read was that the water appearances stories have been moved back earlier into Jesus' life before the resurrection (Mark 6) as a way of dealing with the discrepancy in the resurrection stories-
The gospel writers preferred for the disciples to all be loyal and together in Jerusalem on Day 3 of the resurrection, or for Peter or John to confirm the empty tomb with the women. There could have been competing stories of where and when the first resurrection appearances were (To Peter by the Sea of Tiberias v. To all 11 disciples in Jerusalem). So the discrepancy was resolved by taking the story of Peter with Jesus on/by the water out of the gospel's ending and moving it earlier in the gospels.

This is just one theory.

I think this theory only makes sense if Mark had his resurrection appearance set in and around Jerusalem like Luke, but we both agree Mark is telling us that Jesus was seen again in Galilee.

[rakovsky]

Is there another resurrection appearance (one set on a sea) that Mark has moved back into the life of Jesus - Jesus walking on water (Mk 6:45-52)? And if so why?

One theory I read was that the water appearances stories have been moved back earlier into Jesus' life before the resurrection (Mark 6) as a way of dealing with the discrepancy in the resurrection stories-
The gospel writers preferred for the disciples to all be loyal and together in Jerusalem on Day 3 of the resurrection, or for Peter or John to confirm the empty tomb with the women. There could have been competing stories of where and when the first resurrection appearances were (To Peter by the Sea of Tiberias v. To all 11 disciples in Jerusalem). So the discrepancy was resolved by taking the story of Peter with Jesus on/by the water out of the gospel's ending and moving it earlier in the gospels.

This is just one theory.

I think this theory only makes sense if Mark had his resurrection appearance set in and around Jerusalem like Luke, but we both agree Mark is telling us that Jesus was seen again in Galilee.

Michael,

The theory was that John 21 is a "lost" ending of Mark's gospel, but that a later editor took it out because it conflicted with the idea (eg. Luke and John) that Peter should be in Jerusalem on Day 1 of the Resurrection. So the story was re-inserted or re-formulated into Mark, but in a new way so that it was no longer a resurrection appearance.
I do not have a strong opinion about that, but find a tangential issue interesting - the question of what the first appearance to Peter was (hinted at maybe in Mark 16:6-9 and mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor.), and whether as gPeter suggests, Jesus' appearance by the sea in John 21 was it. I don't have a strong opinion about whether a version of John 21 was supposed to be the original ending of gMark, coming after Mark 16:8. I guess not, because Luke and Matthew diverge at this point - verse 8 - and Mark is generally silent when they diverge. So based on that divergence I would not expect something else to be announced here by Mark after verse 8.

I wrote about the appearance to Peter a bit here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/sh ... ost4592540

[Michael BG]

One theory I read was that the water appearances stories have been moved back earlier into Jesus' life before the resurrection (Mark 6) as a way of dealing with the discrepancy in the resurrection stories-
The gospel writers preferred for the disciples to all be loyal and together in Jerusalem on Day 3 of the resurrection, or for Peter or John to confirm the empty tomb with the women. There could have been competing stories of where and when the first resurrection appearances were (To Peter by the Sea of Tiberias v. To all 11 disciples in Jerusalem). So the discrepancy was resolved by taking the story of Peter with Jesus on/by the water out of the gospel's ending and moving it earlier in the gospels.

This is just one theory.

I think this theory only makes sense if Mark had his resurrection appearance set in and around Jerusalem like Luke, but we both agree Mark is telling us that Jesus was seen again in Galilee.

Michael,

The theory was that John 21 is a "lost" ending of Mark's gospel, but that a later editor took it out because it conflicted with the idea (eg. Luke and John) that Peter should be in Jerusalem on Day 1 of the Resurrection. So the story was re-inserted or re-formulated into Mark, but in a new way so that it was no longer a resurrection appearance.
I do not have a strong opinion about that, but find a tangential issue interesting - the question of what the first appearance to Peter was (hinted at maybe in Mark 16:6-9 and mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor.), and whether as gPeter suggests, Jesus' appearance by the sea in John 21 was it. I don't have a strong opinion about whether a version of John 21 was supposed to be the original ending of gMark, coming after Mark 16:8. I guess not, because Luke and Matthew diverge at this point - verse 8 - and Mark is generally silent when they diverge. So based on that divergence I would not expect something else to be announced here by Mark after verse 8.

I wrote about the appearance to Peter a bit here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/sh ... ost4592540

The Mark 6:45-52 that we have seems to have always been where it is now. Matthew has the story there between the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus in the land at Gennesaret. If the story was a resurrection story Mark has edited the story into its current form and this does not seem to be the work of a later redactor.

It is very unlikely that what we have as John 21 would ever have been in Mark’s gospel. Even if the theory was modified and it was only the story of Jesus appearing to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias it is still unlikely as you have pointed out. It is much more likely that the author of John 21 created the story from Luke 5:1-11 the miraculous catch of fish and entwined it with Johannine themes.

We just do not have any early stories about the resurrection appearances to the disciples. Q doesn’t have any. Mark doesn’t give us any, except the clue that the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee and two possible resurrection stories that Mark or his early Christian community have reworked into Jesus’ life. Matthew and Luke fill this void in their own way. Matthew’s story is likely to have been his own creation, but it is possible that Luke re-worked earlier resurrection stories created by the Jerusalem Christian community. John just reworked the stories in the synoptics. I don’t see 1 Cor 15:3-11 as early, I see it as an interpolation.

There are a number of reasons for this. It is generally accepted that the language is not Paul’s normal language. Paul states he didn’t get his message from men, but from God. It is generally accepted this was from men. It is unlikely that Paul would have added this to his teaching if he learnt it 17 years after he was converted. It has been recognised that there are three layers of development to verses 3-7. It is unlikely there would have been enough time to have lapsed for Paul to have picked it up after he had been preaching for three years. Also verse 12 runs well after verse 2 with no need for verses 3-11. As Paul does not refer to the twelve disciples anywhere but here, it is suspect. This is especially true if we see the development of the twelve disciples as a later tradition coming from Jewish eschatological belief and not from Jesus.

[Adam]

It's a good argument that John 21 is not original to GMark because nothing like it is in Luke 24. However, my theory holds that GLuke (in the earlier Proto-Luke phase by Simon the son of Cleophas) was taken off from the Evolving Proto-Gospel the first among the Synoptics, so I'm reduced to admitting the "John 21" (in its source) was not there yet. Then before it was irrevocably introduced and RETAINED with the growing GMark, it was stripped off to be used as John 21. Yet it's temporary presence in a stage of GMark is shown by the Matthew 28 adumbrations of Resurrection appearances in Galilee by Jesus, namely verses 16 to 20. It's just that these concluding verses of GMatthew include doubtful material, similar to the last dozen verses of Matthew 27, particularly Mt. 27:52-53 (not that the saints rising from the dead got emended out of the currently released movie RISEN). (It's in the book, anyway, I'm going to see the movie today.)

[Ben C. Smith]

It is very unlikely that what we have as John 21 would ever have been in Mark’s gospel. Even if the theory was modified and it was only the story of Jesus appearing to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias it is still unlikely as you have pointed out. It is much more likely that the author of John 21 created the story from Luke 5:1-11 the miraculous catch of fish and entwined it with Johannine themes.

Why is that the more likely trajectory? It would appear that such judgments are full of subjectivity; John Dominic Crossan, for example, writes on pages 407 & 410 of The Historical Jesus:

Recalling the chronological sequence of the Gospels from Mark to Luke to John, one might easily judge that 190 Fishing for Humans [2/3] developed from a non-miraculous saying of Jesus in Mark, to a miraculous symbolization in Luke, to be finally displaced into a more climactic post-resurrectional setting in John. All the internal evidence, however, points in exactly the opposite direction. The unit's trajectory is from John to Luke to Mark, and the miracle, far from a later insertion, is a later deletion. Notice, for example, that Peter's confession of his sinfulness in Luke 5:8 makes far less sense there than in a postresurrectional situation after he had denied Jesus during his trial. .... The complex 190 Fishing for Humans is therefore a companion piece to 128 Walking on Water [1/2] and carries exactly the same meaning and message. To row all night without Jesus is to get nowhere; to fish all night without Jesus is to catch nothing. But, of course, it is the leadership group of the disciples who are both rowing and fishing, and it is to them that Jesus' resurrectional assistance is forthcoming.

And B. H. Streeter had already argued in The Four Gospels:

The addition of a miraculous draught of fishes in the story of the original call of Peter in Luke v.4-7, and the addition, in Matthew xiv.29-31, to the story of the Walking on the Water of the incident of Peter leaving the boat to meet the Lord, are best explained as fragments of a story like that of Jn.xxi. current in oral tradition.

Their assessment of what is most likely, then, is exactly the opposite of yours, and I am left wondering which factors make your scenario most likely in your view.

Ben.

[Ulan]

Their assessment of what is most likely, then, is exactly the opposite of yours, and I am left wondering which factors make your scenario most likely in your view.

You don't even need to decide between the options. There have been enough suggestions that gMark is basically a performance piece, due to all scenes being static and all movements being off-screen. In such a scenario, it's easy to imagine something like the Paul & Barnabas Show moving from town to town, performing the gospel up to the cliffhanger with the empty tomb and the not-telling women in the last scene. Then they may end with the invitation "If you want to know more, come tonight to the house of Timotheus", where something like John 21 follows. (The company then sadly split when Barnabas had enough of Paul hogging the role of "Christ"). In such a scenario it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine that only the first part was written down at some point, while the rest still lingered until someone else took it up to bring that into a written piece.

And I'm afraid we won't be able to decide between all these possibilities.

[Ben C. Smith]

Their assessment of what is most likely, then, is exactly the opposite of yours, and I am left wondering which factors make your scenario most likely in your view.

And I'm afraid we won't be able to decide between all these possibilities.

Well, in a telic sense I agree with this much, anyway.

You don't even need to decide between the options. There have been enough suggestions that gMark is basically a performance piece, due to all scenes being static and all movements being off-screen.

I am not sure what this means. There are several places in the gospel where the movement itself is described, with crowd reactions and conversations while traveling, so I do not know what you mean by "static" in this context.

[Ulan]

I am not sure what this means. There are several places in the gospel where the movement itself is described, with crowd reactions and conversations while traveling, so I do not know what you mean by "static" in this context.

It's not my theory. I'll try and find the book quote. While movement is spoken about, none of the scenes themselves need any past the constraints of a stage. And crowd reactions are a given if it's a performance. This explains all those "immediately"s, too.

Some wording in Paul's corpus also suggests that he basically performed the crucifixion.

Edit: My Google fu fails me regarding the specifics I mentioned. It may have been from Horsley. The suggestion of the gospel as performance piece is quite common though, although I think that ideas like from M.A Beavis that Mark saw a performance at Herodes' theater a bit far-fetched. I had thought of a street performance, maybe at some crossroads. That also allows for "travel" scenes on the crossroads while helpers change a few props nearby.

[Secret Alias]

Clement's idea of Christianity as a mystery religion would support some sort of ritual reenactment. Good points.