Mark 16
1. the women are told to go and tell peter and the disciples that
“he is going ahead of you to galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you”
some have suggested that the women are not told to report about the ressurection, because peter has already seen jesus prior to the women going to the tomb.
So is a plausible way to read the text in a way that the womens job was for reminding purposes in which they failed?
if one is to assume jesus already met peter, what was peter still doing in jerusalem?
Stephen said
CEJ said
jakejones said
Thanks Robert.
Sorry, but I think John 21 likely is the “missing” ending of Mark, modified to meet the needs of the time when it was appended to John.
I know why scholars think this unlikely. Why do you think it is so?
Forget the scholars, Stephen.
Ehrman and Pagels, among others, disagree.
But why do *you* disagree?
Robert said
CEJ said
Forget the scholars, Stephen.
Ehrman and Pagels, among others, disagree.
But why do *you* disagree?
Doesn’t Bart accept Mk 16,8 as the original ending of the gospel of Mark? I’m pretty sure he does.
Has Elaine Pagels discussed the gospel of Mark in any detail?
Yup. If I recall correctly, both Ehrman and Pagels hold Mark 16:8 to be the original ending.
I recall Pagels saying so in an interview without any detail.
But I could be wrong.
Robert said
CEJ said
Robert said
CEJ said
Sorry, but I think John 21 likely is the “missing” ending of Mark, modified to meet the needs of the time when it was appended to John. …
Forget the scholars, Stephen.
Ehrman and Pagels, among others, disagree.
But why do *you* disagree?
Doesn’t Bart accept Mk 16,8 as the original ending of the gospel of Mark? I’m pretty sure he does.
Has Elaine Pagels discussed the gospel of Mark in any detail?
Yup. If I recall correctly, both Ehrman and Pagels hold Mark 16:8 to be the original ending.
I recall Pagels saying so in an interview without any detail.
But I could be wrong.
Sorry, I’m confused. Are you citing Ehrman and Pagels because they disagree with you?
I hold that John 21 likely is a modified version of the missing ending of Mark.
I believe Pagels and Ehrman hold there is no missing ending. Mark originally ended at 16:8 according to them.
Robert said
Yeah, I’m still confused. I thought you were mentioning Ehrman and Pagels because you thought they supported your position, but you know they don’t, so I don’t understand why you brought them up.James McGrath does support your position about John 21 being related to Mark’s lost ending.
McGrath makes a very good point that Mk 16,8 is not an open ending but an abrupt ending. I agree with that completely. An abrupt ending makes it all the more likely that it is an Aristotelian ending in my opinion. The Aristotelian ending is still not so obvious, however, until one understands it in light of the the beginning and middle of the plot, which make up the Aristotelian whole, held together by the necessary progression of prophecy and fulfillment.
I brought them up because I believe mine is a minority view.
Lots of heavyweights disagree with me.
I get that.
Robert said
Yeah, I’m still confused. I thought you were mentioning Ehrman and Pagels because you thought they supported your position, but you know they don’t, so I don’t understand why you brought them up.** you do not have permission to see this link ** does support your position about John 21 being related to Mark’s lost ending.
McGrath makes a very good point that Mk 16,8 is not an open ending but an abrupt ending. I agree with that completely. An abrupt ending makes it all the more likely that it is an Aristotelian ending in my opinion. The Aristotelian ending is still not so obvious, however, until one understands it in light of the the beginning and middle of the plot, which make up the Aristotelian whole, held together by the necessary progression of prophecy and fulfillment.
BTW I just saw a reference to Evan Powell being a member of this blog in an Ehrman post:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Is that still true?
It is his book, “The Unfinished Gospel”, that alerted me to the probable tie between Mark’s missing ending and John 21.
He’s the guy who should be posting here about now.
Robert said
Very perceptive, Jake. Essentially the women’s silence is an Aristotelian poetic plot device to end (τελευτή) a story and connect it to the beginning of a very well constructed plot (** you do not have permission to see this link **). The reader is thereby challenged to believe and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God, unlike the women, and the whole work is the foundation (ἀρχὴ) for the preaching of the gospel. All the disciples, the twelve, and the women, never fully understood who Jesus really is, but the reader has been clued in to his identity from the very beginning with the initial ‘title’ and God’s proclamation to Jesus (and the reader) at his baptism, from the confession of demons which Jesus silenced, and from the many predictions of the death and resurrection that the disciples never grasped. The community knows persecution and is afraid, like the women, but they must nonetheless preach the gospel (13,9-13; cf 4,17 10,30):
Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah, Mark 8:29
Peter James and John are all personally told by God that Jesus is his son, Mark 9:7
Jesus openly declares himself to be the Messiah in response to the high priests question, whereas its left vague in Matthew. “I am” in Mark vs “you have said so” in Matthew.
One also would have to wonder why Mark’s ‘very well constructed plot’ requires him to specifically name the women in his ending. Its obvious why Matthew would want to tell his readers the names of the only witnesses to the empty tomb, but why does Mark want to tell his readers that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome were the three witnesses who saw the empty tomb but never told anyone about it?
There’s no indication that Mark thought of a bodily resurrection with Jesus walking around, eating with his disciples, teaching them for forty days before ascending into heaven. The resurrection was his ascent (somewhat akin to Enoch or Jonah) and he is returning soon.
Jesus is raised from the dead in Mark, not raised to heaven. Mark 9:10 “They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what ‘rising from the dead’ meant” (literally, to stand up from the dead)
When the women are told Jesus has risen, Mark 16:6, its the same word Herod uses in Mark 6:16. “John the baptist whom I beheaded has risen”. He is “risen”, Herod claims, as a walking talking Jesus.
The women are told to tell the disciples, Mark 16:7, that Jesus “is going ahead of you into Galilee”, the verb means to proceed before. Mark 6:45 “Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida”. The idea is that Jesus will travel to Galilee, just as they will. That he will be waiting for them there. And that they will see him there. Not that Jesus is raised to heaven, that disciples will travel to Galilee and there Jesus will appear to them.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert