Mark's "intended" ending

[Ben C. Smith]

Many scholars have believed that John had access to his own sources different from the synoptic gospels. However many scholars have believed that John knew all the synoptic gospels and this is my present position. I don’t know if any scholars support my position on John 21 and Luke 5:1-11, but that should not be important.

You have supporters there; fear not.

From your quote from Crossan the only evidence he produces is the idea that Peter’s confession in Lk 5:8 only makes sense after Jesus’ trial. However John 21 does not have this confession and so Luke didn’t get it from there.

Well, true; the idea is that both Luke and John got the pericope from somewhere else; Luke retained the Petrine confession and John the threefold Petrine restoration. (It is further speculated by the likes of Streeter, for example, that this "somewhere else" was a lost ending of Mark, since both a Petrine confession and a threefold Petrine restoration after his three denials would fit supremely there, but that is not a necessary hypothesis for the point I am making here.)

It is just as possible that Luke created it and placed it here in his own version of the calling of Peter and the sons of Zebedee.

I can certainly live with "just as possible" more easily than with "much more likely".

I would be interested if he unpicks John 21 and Luke 5:1-11 to provide any other reasons for his theory.

He is pretty laconic in this instance, but he is also relying on the work of his predecessors, some of whom have pointed out, for example, that John 21 looks very much like a first, unexpected resurrection appearance, not a third one. (Those who connect this to a lost ending of Mark would point out, first of all, that this accords with the fragmentary ending of the gospel of Peter and, second, that an unexpected resurrection appearance, if any, is exactly what we would expect at the end of Mark, since the women did not tell anybody about the resurrection. They might also point out that Levi from the ending of the gospel of Peter and the sons of Zebedee from John 21 seem like Marcan personnel, disciples directly called by Christ in the gospel of Mark, whereas this is their first and only mention, for example, in the gospel of John.)

I find myself fluctuating back and forth all the time on whether Mark was supposed to continue after 16.8, by the way. When I am in "lost ending" mode, a second calling of the disciples, fishing by the sea, after their dismal failure(s) in the body of the gospel seems quite appropriate to the ending of Mark. On such a reading, the disciples failed so thoroughly during Jesus' career that they require a complete do-over, a second chance, and it starts where it started the first time: at the sea of Galilee. In this scenario, the "fishers of men" line in Luke 5.10 would have originally applied to their recommissioning (a situation hinted at by Crossan elsewhere in the same chapter I quoted).

Are not all decisions on each pericope a little subjective based on each person’s own conclusions regarding the sources of each gospel? We each have to make our own judgement based on the arguments presented.

Absolutely. I just thought that "much more likely" was a little too much.

Cheers.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

From your quote from Crossan the only evidence he produces is the idea that Peter’s confession in Lk 5:8 only makes sense after Jesus’ trial. However John 21 does not have this confession and so Luke didn’t get it from there.

Well, true; the idea is that both Luke and John got the pericope from somewhere else; Luke retained the Petrine confession and John the threefold Petrine restoration. (It is further speculated by the likes of Streeter, for example, that this "somewhere else" was a lost ending of Mark, since both a Petrine confession and a threefold Petrine restoration after his three denials would fit supremely there, but that is not a necessary hypothesis for the point I am making here.)

Most of the conversation between Peter and Jesus is very Johannine. So I think we can reject the idea that “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep” and “Feed my sheep” go back to any oral tradition. Also verses 20-24 are clearly Johannine referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved. I also think it is unlikely that verse 18 goes back to Jesus either, especially if it refers to the death of Peter.

It is just as possible that Luke created it and placed it here in his own version of the calling of Peter and the sons of Zebedee.

I can certainly live with "just as possible" more easily than with "much more likely".

Maybe I should defend what I wrote:

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.

I can’t believe anyone is really saying that Mark’s gospel would contain a story thick with so much Johannine material, plus rakovsky had already pointed out that it was extremely unlikely that Mark contained anything after 16:8 so given that as alternative one and the second being John based his story on Luke 5:1-11, then yes this second alternative is much more likely than the first one.

I would be interested if he unpicks John 21 and Luke 5:1-11 to provide any other reasons for his theory.

He is pretty laconic in this instance, but he is also relying on the work of his predecessors, some of whom have pointed out, for example, that John 21 looks very much like a first, unexpected resurrection appearance, not a third one. (Those who connect this to a lost ending of Mark would point out, first of all, that this accords with the fragmentary ending of the gospel of Peter and, second, that an unexpected resurrection appearance, if any, is exactly what we would expect at the end of Mark, since the women did not tell anybody about the resurrection. They might also point out that Levi from the ending of the gospel of Peter and the sons of Zebedee from John 21 seem like Marcan personnel, disciples directly called by Christ in the gospel of Mark, whereas this is their first and only mention, for example, in the gospel of John.)

I can’t believe any serious scholar really sees the women as not telling anyone as historical. Peter and the sons of Zebedee are in Mark and if the author of John 21 knows Mark, which I think is true, then that would be where the author got the idea from, there is no need for any separate tradition. It is also possible that the author of John 21 was not the same author as the rest of John’s gospel.

I find myself fluctuating back and forth all the time on whether Mark was supposed to continue after 16.8, by the way. When I am in "lost ending" mode, a second calling of the disciples, fishing by the sea, after their dismal failure(s) in the body of the gospel seems quite appropriate to the ending of Mark. On such a reading, the disciples failed so thoroughly during Jesus' career that they require a complete do-over, a second chance, and it starts where it started the first time: at the sea of Galilee. In this scenario, the "fishers of men" line in Luke 5.10 would have originally applied to their recommissioning (a situation hinted at by Crossan elsewhere in the same chapter I quoted).

There is a large question mark over the stupidity of the disciples in the gospel tradition. Of course there could have been a tradition of a resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee, which is why I was suggesting it might be behind Mark 6:45-52.

[Ben C. Smith]

Most of the conversation between Peter and Jesus is very Johannine. So I think we can reject the idea that “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep” and “Feed my sheep” go back to any oral tradition. Also verses 20-24 are clearly Johannine referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved. I also think it is unlikely that verse 18 goes back to Jesus either, especially if it refers to the death of Peter.

Everything that John touches becomes Johannine. His style is contagious. It is not my suspicion or my suggestion that John 21 represents, as is, any part of Mark. It is my suspicion that it was based on an ending of Mark, with all the usual leeway for the Johannine style to seep in from all directions.

Maybe I should defend what I wrote:

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.

I can’t believe anyone is really saying that Mark’s gospel would contain a story thick with so much Johannine material, plus rakovsky had already pointed out that it was extremely unlikely that Mark contained anything after 16:8 so given that as alternative one and the second being John based his story on Luke 5:1-11, then yes this second alternative is much more likely than the first one.

I do not think that Mark contained anything so Johannine as John 21. Again, I suspect that John 21 may be based on something Marcan, which is not the same thing.

I can’t believe any serious scholar really sees the women as not telling anyone as historical.

I for one am not pressing for history in any of it. I am saying that John 21 looks like a first appearance; this observation has been made many times by many people. I think the women being silent naturally set up a first appearance back at where the disciples were before Jesus met them and would be had he never met them: fishing in Galilee. That is all from a literary point of view. Historicity has nothing to do with it (at least not yet).

Peter and the sons of Zebedee are in Mark and if the author of John 21 knows Mark, which I think is true, then that would be where the author got the idea from, there is no need for any separate tradition.

I agree. If the author of John 21 knows Mark, then there may be no need for a separate tradition.

It is also possible that the author of John 21 was not the same author as the rest of John’s gospel.

True. But there is that Johannine style to reckon with.... A school of some kind?

Ben.

[theterminator]

michael, are you saying mark knew of a meeting , but didn't know details like the other synoptics do?

[Michael BG]

michael, are you saying mark knew of a meeting , but didn't know details like the other synoptics do?

I am saying that Mark in his gospel tells us that the disciples will see the resurrected Jesus in Galilee. The only stories in Mark’s gospel that might be resurrection appearance stories, Mark has placed into the life of Jesus. I don’t think Matthew had any stories of resurrection appearances except for what is in Mark’s gospel. I don’t think John had any stories of resurrection appearance except for what is in the synoptic gospels.

Everything that John touches becomes Johannine. His style is contagious. It is not my suspicion or my suggestion that John 21 represents, as is, any part of Mark. It is my suspicion that it was based on an ending of Mark, with all the usual leeway for the Johannine style to seep in from all directions.

I do not think that Mark contained anything so Johannine as John 21. Again, I suspect that John 21 may be based on something Marcan, which is not the same thing.

Peter and the sons of Zebedee are in Mark and if the author of John 21 knows Mark, which I think is true, then that would be where the author got the idea from, there is no need for any separate tradition.

I agree. If the author of John 21 knows Mark, then there may be no need for a separate tradition.

It seems you are saying that behind John 21 there could be a resurrection appearance story that Mark had after 16:8 but it could equally have been created by John from what we have as Mark’s gospel ending at 16:8.

My position is if we don’t have it, and we don’t need then why speculate that it existed, when we have a theory that fits the facts. We should only speculate about something that no longer exists if it is the best theory.

It is also possible that the author of John 21 was not the same author as the rest of John’s gospel.

True. But there is that Johannine style to reckon with.... A school of some kind?

Ben.

I am happy with the idea that John’s community would have continued to use the Johannine style after John’s death.

I can’t believe any serious scholar really sees the women as not telling anyone as historical.

I for one am not pressing for history in any of it. I am saying that John 21 looks like a first appearance; this observation has been made many times by many people. I think the women being silent naturally set up a first appearance back at where the disciples were before Jesus met them and would be had he never met them: fishing in Galilee. That is all from a literary point of view. Historicity has nothing to do with it (at least not yet).

I wouldn’t use the women not telling anyone as a basis for anything as I don’t consider it historical. Of course I don’t even consider the empty tomb historical either.

However the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee does find favour with me, because I think it is more likely that the Christians based in Jerusalem, who even Paul sees as having a central role, would create such stories than the non-central Christian communities in Galilee created them in Galilee.

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree. If the author of John 21 knows Mark, then there may be no need for a separate tradition.

It seems you are saying that behind John 21 there could be a resurrection appearance story that Mark had after 16:8 but it could equally have been created by John from what we have as Mark’s gospel ending at 16:8.

I meant that, if John knows the lost Marcan ending that is being hypothesized, then there is no need for a separate tradition. Sorry for the confusion.

My position is if we don’t have it, and we don’t need then why speculate that it existed, when we have a theory that fits the facts. We should only speculate about something that no longer exists if it is the best theory.

I would not say it is the best theory, but I would say that it stands at least as decent a chance of proving correct as does the theory that a saying in Mark led to a story in Luke and then to a story in John. There are little weirdnesses in that scenario that the Streeter conjecture solves.

But I cannot stress enough how hypothetical it all is.

It would be nice to be able to say that, since (we think that) Mark came first, and then Luke, and then John, the tradition must have developed in that same trajectory... but I do not think that is the kind of literature we are dealing with.

I wouldn’t use the women not telling anyone as a basis for anything as I don’t consider it historical. Of course I don’t even consider the empty tomb historical either.

I am in the same position. But I do not understand why you are saying this again after I stated that I was using the story only in a literary way, to explain later texts, not in an historical way.

However the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee does find favour with me, because I think it is more likely that the Christians based in Jerusalem, who even Paul sees as having a central role, would create such stories than the non-central Christian communities in Galilee created them in Galilee.

I am not following. You like the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee because you see the Jerusalem crowd as more likely to create resurrection stories?

[Michael BG]

However the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee does find favour with me, because I think it is more likely that the Christians based in Jerusalem, who even Paul sees as having a central role, would create such stories than the non-central Christian communities in Galilee created them in Galilee.

I am not following. You like the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee because you see the Jerusalem crowd as more likely to create resurrection stories?

From Paul we know there was a Christian community led by James, Peter and John in Jerusalem that claimed a leadership role. We do not know of a Christian community in Galilee that claimed a leadership role. Therefore for me, it is more likely that the Christian community that claimed the leadership role would create resurrection stories happening in their area. I suppose in the same way that Rome by the second century had stories of the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome.

If Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Jerusalem it is harder to understand why anyone would create a resurrection appearance for him in Galilee. However if Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Galilee because after Jesus was crucified he had returned home in disappointment there are stronger reasons for moving the appearance to Jerusalem, especially with Luke’s central aim of a continuous controlled growth of the church theology.

I hope I have explained what I mean better this time.

[Bernard Muller]

Mark's "intended" ending": Mk 15:38. Mk 15:39-16:8 was added soon after by somebody else: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
The women never saying to anybody about what they witnessed at the tomb can be fully explained by the story of the empty tomb never heard before Mk 15-39-16-8 was written in Mark's gospel. Therefore nobody before knew (including the disciples) about the empty tomb. And accepting that Mk 14:28 is an interpolation, any "tradition" of a future meeting in Galilee between a resurrected Jesus and his eyewitnesses did not exist before gMark.
All subsequent gospels grabbed the Empty Tomb from gMark, but despite that gospel, only one (gMatthew but see bottom Note) has Jesus meeting his disciples FIRST in Galilee.
That tells me, despite gMark, a meeting in Galilee was not considered to be "historical" by most early Christians then.

Note: About gMatthew, I am also certain the two reappearances of the resurrected Jesus (to the women and on the mountain) were added by two different interpolators at different times. Why?
a) The Empty tomb story is made foolproof to prevent people to think Jesus' body was removed by humans (why do that if the original author had intended to describe next two reappearances?).
b) The women seeing Jesus and telling the disciples is not in gMark, which "Matthew" mostly followed (a lot more than "Luke").
c) Discontinuities such as:
- Where & when to meet in Galilee as expected to be said by Jesus to the women.
- "Matthew" did not say the 12 disciples were appointed on a mountain (but "Mark" said it: 3:13), however the interpolator of Mt 28:16 knew it (from gMark).
- The gospel has Jesus asking his disciples to preach to & baptize the Gentiles at the very end: Mt 28:19 contrary to Mt 10:5.

So my conclusion is, there was no story about a meeting in Galilee before the very end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

From Paul we 'know' there was a Christian community led by James, Peter and John in Jerusalem that claimed a leadership role.

Such a 'community' & a claim about it may have been an interpolation-redaction when the Pauline texts and the gospel texts were brought together.

We do not know of a Christian community in Galilee that claimed a leadership role.

True.

Therefore for me, it is more likely that the Christian community that claimed the leadership role would create resurrection stories happening in their area. I suppose in the same way that Rome by the second century had stories of the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome.

or, the communities that developed these narratives made sure they were set well away from their local community, so no-one could question them.

[Ulan]

From Paul we know there was a Christian community led by James, Peter and John in Jerusalem that claimed a leadership role. We do not know of a Christian community in Galilee that claimed a leadership role. Therefore for me, it is more likely that the Christian community that claimed the leadership role would create resurrection stories happening in their area. I suppose in the same way that Rome by the second century had stories of the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome.

If Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Jerusalem it is harder to understand why anyone would create a resurrection appearance for him in Galilee. However if Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Galilee because after Jesus was crucified he had returned home in disappointment there are stronger reasons for moving the appearance to Jerusalem, especially with Luke’s central aim of a continuous controlled growth of the church theology.

One way out of this dilemma may be that the identification of Cephas with Simon Peter is shaky. And why is James the leader? Or, in other words, there seem to be separate traditions at work.

Regarding Galilee, that's actually where the Jewish leadership moved after the fall of Jerusalem, which means that this may be an echo of this. The word "Jerusalem" may just be used in a metaphorical sense, just like for the so-called "Jerusalem Talmud" that was written mostly in Galilee (Tiberias, Sepphoris) and Caesarea, but definitely not in Jerusalem. Which means that we should always consider that the word "Jerusalem" may just transport an idea and not actually refer to the place.