I’ve lately been puzzling over the ending of Mark’s gospel, and how he meant it to be taken.
A few thoughts and questions:
First, if Mark was trying to cast shade on the Jerusalem church founded by the pillars–or their Jewish-Christian successors a movement that had, I gather, probably moved to Pella–, and assuming that he really meant to say that the women never relayed the message, the ending might fit that purpose: The apostles failed again, though in this case, it was directly caused by a failure of some of his women disciples, rather than a moral failing of the twelve themselves.
Second, Mark doesn’t tell us anything about what Jesus does after the resurrection. I only just realized the potential significance of this because I’ve always read him with the other accounts in the back of my mind. At the end of Mark’s Gospel a risen Jesus is walking around the world, intending, at that moment, to meet the twelve in Galilee, but we can (probably) infer that meeting doesn’t take place. That is all we know, and if that is all we know it opens up a lot of totally new possibilities. We are never told that Jesus does meet up with the twelve, nor are we told that he ever goes away–there is no ascension. So, the enigmatic ending would leave some very interesting open questions: Where did he go and what did he do? Is he, perhaps, even now (c. 70 AD) still alive?
Maybe Mark wanted the reader to infer that Jesus was literally (somehow) playing a role in the destruction of the temple, not just overseeing it from the next life but here on earth–like a first century count of Monte Cristo or a Jewish Odysseus, back from the dead to take his revenge and make good on his promises in a grand drama. Perhaps Mark even wanted the reader to conclude that Jesus, still walking around on earth, was, at any moment, ready to reveal and assert himself before the whole world, ushering in the kingdom. That would be high drama indeed; not only a classic trope, but the climactic ending was being played out in real time on the world stage for everyone to watch.
Maybe Mark wanted to justify his more gentile strain of Christianity against the rival Jewish Christianities: The original Jewish followers stood the risen Christ up (much as they had consistently misunderstood him and even abandoned him during his pre-resurrection ministry), and so he came to us pagans. Despite our differences from the “original” church in Jerusalem, we have the better claim to being the true Christians (in a rhetorical move very similar to what Paul made) because we are the one he came to after the resurrection.
The idea that the risen Jesus turned to some gentile group after the twelve never showed up also answers the obvious hole in the narrative: how does Mark claim to know what happened at the tomb if the women told no one anything?
So how does that strike y’all?
I have never accepted the Pella claim, at least for the key players in the church. I think it more likely they died in Jerusalem before its fall in 70AD.
Papias is claimed to have written that John died at the hands of his fellow Jews. Though he didn’t identify the location, Jerusalem seems a likely spot. James the Just apparently died in Jerusalem. And we have stories of others, such as James Z. and Stephen in the NT.
Peter’s death in Rome comes from The Acts of Peter, a fanciful text of little credibility.
John 21 says Peter will go with hands outstretched where he doesn’t want to go. Crucifixion by the Romans as someone trying to escape Jerusalem during the siege? Enslavement by the Romans after the fall of Jerusalem? I don’t know. But there seems no reliable record of these people after Jerusalem.
I have never accepted the Pella claim, at least for the key players in the church.
I’m not committed to it happening, and certainly not committed to all the initial leadership making the move (James the Just was certainly dead). It does seem to me plausible that some remnant of the Jerusalem church relocated to Pella and that remnant was the source of the Ebionites. But if I’m wrong in being open to that, I don’t think it changes all that much.
@Porphyry
“So how does that strike y’all?”
It doesn’t work. Mark has already told his readers that Jesus will return on the clouds with great power and glory. And that it is
“like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back.”
We also shouldn’t conclude Mark thinks the disciples won’t meet up with Jesus in galilee. The announcer at the tomb says “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” This isn’t intended to be a false prophecy.
Rather the conclusion should be that Mark never intended his gospel to end at 16:8
Good points.
I’m not sure the first two are conclusive: I don’t think it would be wrong to talk about him returning if he is killed and buried and comes back sometime later to set things straight.
The idea that 16:7 would be rendered a false prophecy is trickier. But there is also the issue that the man first tells the women to instruct the women to go to Galilee, then says they will meet Jesus there. Mark tells us explicitly that they do not relay that message. Given that the last thing that Mark tells us is that they didn’t, I’m not sure what he wants us to think. Possibilities:
1) At some later date the women do give the message (they didn’t tell anyone at that time, because they were still afraid, but eventually they did relay it, and they all went and met Jesus),
2) They didn’t tell anyone, but everyone went back to Galilee for other reasons (it’s where they were from anyway, so it would have been natural for them to do it without instruction), and they did meet up with Jesus; Maybe after the fact, it came out that the women had seen him–they go home, Jesus comes to them, “what has taken you so long?” Peter, “what are you talking about?” Mary Magdalene, “oh, apropos of nothing, there was a little something I’ve been meaning to mention.”
3) the message wasn’t conveyed, and they just stayed in Jerusalem, or if they did return, they did so too late to meet him; in this case the young man’s prophecy isn’t so much a prophecy as a statement of the purpose of their going back to Galilee, but since they didn’t go back, he wasn’t really wrong–the outcome wasn’t what he said it would be because the instructions he gave weren’t followed.
Even if Mark’s gospel originally had a further ending, I don’t see many other options than these. And I’m trying to imagine how the narrative might have continued in such a way that it doesn’t lead to (3) and doesn’t give the reader whiplash: e.g., they didn’t tell anyone for they were afraid. But on the next day they told Peter everything.” “They told no one anything” is pretty emphatic.
I think the ending reports the resurrection of Jesus as an ascension comparable to that of Enoch, Moses & Elijah (cf already the Transfiguration), and you can find a similar empty tomb apotheosis idea in surviving Greek literature.
I agree that the destruction of the Temple is seen by ‘Mark’ as the beginning of the end, that Jesus will return soon, ‘though no one knows when precisely, to finish the apocalyptic beginning of the Kingdom of God. Until then the gospel is to be preached to the ends of the earth, which obviously would include the gentile nations. This presumably starts in Galilee and would naturally move into Syria
Let me see if I have this right: you are interpreting Mark’s empty tomb as evidence that Jesus was taken up to heaven (a la, Enoch, Elijah, or even the “rapture”). And the “you will see him in Galilee” refers to his return in power–what he had predicted to the High priest at his trial.
@Porphyry – “Mark tells us explicitly that they do not relay that message. Given that the last thing that Mark tells us is that they didn’t, I’m not sure what he wants us to think.”
He doesn’t tell us explicitly. He says they fled from the tomb and said nothing to nobody.
The obvious question to ask is why did the women not run out shouting from the tomb saying Jesus is risen. Or tell everyone around to come look at the empty tomb as proof. Mark’s explanation is that they fled from the tomb and said nothing to no-one for they were afraid …
“For they were afraid … ” is used 4 times in Mark/Luke and the other 3 times its somebody or some people they are afraid of.
Presumably in Mark 16:8 its the guards or the soldiers or the chief priests that the women are afraid of.
The women flee from the tomb without telling anyone what they saw. Mark never says they kept the tomb story to themselves for the rest of the lives.
The use of Peter in the phrase “tell the disciples and Peter … ” should also be considered very telling. Mark clearly intending Peter to play a part in the continuation of his story. Just as happens in Luke/John.
Maybe Robert can explain the greek, but when it says they “fled” this means they fled from what was experienced in the tomb, not what was outside of it. mark does not say that the tomb was guarded or that jewish threat was near by.
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”
The rolling of the stone should have been least of their concern
More or less what I was going to say; “φεύγω” seems to imply getting away from something, though I’ll let Robert chime in on the range of meanings it can carry. What happened at the tomb scared the bjeezus out of them and they ran away in a panic.
Also note they were seized by “τρόμος”–trembling (usually caused by fear). They weren’t just apprehensive about what might happen to them if they were to go off and say the wrong sort of thing to the wrong person. They were already shaking in their boots because of what had already happened. They felt that they were at that moment in danger, they didn’t just fear that they they might put themselves in danger if they handled this badly.
Also, saying they didn’t say anything *publicly* because they were afraid of the authorities is much more modest than what Mark writes. He says they said nothing to no one. Unless you want to make a to do about the double negative, then, given that Peter is someone, this excludes their telling Peter too. So taken literally, this means they didn’t tell Peter. Maybe that is too literal, but that is what it says.
Hoo boy, being a hopelessly terminal Markophile I never get tired of this stuff even though it is a bottomless pit.
First though, the so-called “Flight to Pella”. I suspect the last remnants of the Jerusalem Jesus community, whatever that might have consisted of by the time of the First Revolt, were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem. If they had any intimation that the events surrounding the First Revolt were signs of the imminent Parousia, why would they flee? The story of an escape probably arose as a way to provide some connection between the original Jerusalem community and the later church, like the book of Acts. I think when Jesus went to Jerusalem on his fateful trip he left behind in Galilee some sort of following. This following became the foundation of later Jewish Christianity. Speculation of course but why then does Mark insist the disciples return to Galilee?
The ending of Mark-
I can’t completely abandon the idea that the original ending of Mark was lost. Here’s my thinking, as silly as it might sound. As we have it, the ending of Mark AT 16:8 is so brilliant from a literary perspective that, as a modern, I find myself doubting an explanation that would seem so brilliant – to a modern. Make any sense? The ancients didn’t think the way we think. So if the ending seems so brilliant a literary strategy to me as a modern reader, then I begin to suspect that I must be getting it wrong. I immediately suspect I’m projecting my values onto the text.
That said, I do think Mark 16:8 was the original ending. And from a literary perspective it is brilliant. But for a couple days every month I do pull out the “lost ending” hypothesis just to keep myself honest.
As far as the fear of the women at the tomb, go through the gospel of Mark and note every reference to fear in the text. Note who is afraid and what causes that fear. “Fear” is one of Mark’s recurrent motifs in his gospel. The response of the women does not seem so unusual when you do this.
Robert wrote-
I think the ending reports the resurrection of Jesus as an ascension comparable to that of Enoch, Moses & Elijah (cf already the Transfiguration), and you can find a similar empty tomb apotheosis idea in surviving Greek literature.
Yes, in her book, which I am sloooowly reviewing, Prof Walsh lists a dozen examples from Greco-Roman lit of variations on the “Empty Tomb” trope. I think this is an important point. I don’t think Mark believes in a resuscitation. I agree he still has the earlier view of the Resurrection as an apotheosis. It is the later gospels who interpret the Empty Tomb to mean that Jesus’ corpus actually came back to life in some fashion. I don’t have any trouble with the idea that Mark is using literary tropes from the wider culture.
I think for Mark the image of the Empty Tomb is functioning as an Aniconic (non-representational) image of the the Resurrection. The best way to illustrate this is from an Eastern religion, Buddhism. Most people are aware of the iconic image of the Buddha, in meditation posture, sitting, legs crossed. This image is so iconic that even people who have no idea of Buddhist doctrines recognize it immediately. What most folks are not aware of is this is not the earliest image of the Buddha. The earliest images were Aniconic, non-representational. An empty throne. A fully saddled horse with no rider. A footprint.
The Buddha was known as the Tathagata. “One who has thus gone…” Hard to translate but the best way to think of it is like someone who has just left a room. He was here but now he’s gone. In Buddha’s case he has transcended the self that engendered the cycles of rebirth. So how do you depict one such? With a non-representational image.
This is what I think Mark is doing with the image of the Empty Tomb. Not saying that Jesus woke up and walked away. But that Jesus was here and now he’s gone. He’s not dead. Jesus has ascended to the Father.
And having come out (ἐξελθοῦσαι) they fled the tomb. ie they fled after exiting the tomb. There’s no real room for interpretation here.
Jesus had just been executed by Rome – of course they were afraid to be seen as a supporter, Peter was earlier in Mark. “The sheep will be scattered … ” – all the other disciples had fled in fear of the authorities. The women said nothing to no one because they too were afraid.
About the double negative – this reads as very emphatic in English because its unusual, but its just the normal way of saying it in Greek. “They fled from the tomb without telling anyone”. Compare Mark 9:8 when Elijah and Moses disappear and they only see Jesus “no longer no-one they saw but Jesus alone”.
@Stephen “This is what I think Mark is doing with the image of the Empty Tomb. Not saying that Jesus woke up and walked away. But that Jesus was here and now he’s gone. He’s not dead. Jesus has ascended to the Father.”
Jesus waking up and walking away is precisely the language Mark uses.
Mark 4:38 “Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him (ἐγείρουσιν)”
Mark 5:39-41 “The child is not dead but asleep … little girl, I say to you awaken! (ἔγειρε)”
Mark 16:6 “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been awakened (ἠγέρθη) He is not here.”
Mark 10:32 “They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them (προάγων)” NRSV
Mark 16:7 “He is going ahead (προάγει) of you into Galilee.”
I suppose my lingering question, for Robert and Stephen, is whether the bit about seeing him in Galilee was meant to indicate a meeting on his return which, even as Mark wrote, was yet to happen. Or did it mean a more proximate meeting either one that had already taken place by the time Mark was writing–like those Paul records in 1 Cor. 15:5-7–or one that was meant to have taken place but didn’t because the women didn’t relay the message?
The former is more satisfying as a legend: turning him into a sort of King Arthur figure; he has gone away, but will return when we need him most. The second is more in keeping with Paul seems to indicate Christians believed.
Having exited they fled. ie they’re not fleeing from what’s inside the tomb, they’re fleeing from what’s outside the tomb. Outside is where the danger is.
They left the tomb and upon leaving they were gripped by trembling and amazement. Outside the tomb the rulers of the age were still in power and what they had just witnessed put them at odds with those rulers. It was upon exiting that this realization hit them and they fled, saying nothing to no one for they were afraid … (page torn out).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert