Peter Kirby

But the twelve were weeping and sorrowful, and as it was the final day of the passover feast, each one departed to his home.

Simon Peter said to his brother Andrew, "I'm going out to fish," and he said, "I won't go with you."

For Andrew had loved Jesus and was still sorrowful.

Having taken his nets, Peter went off to the sea. He went out and got into the boat, but that night he caught nothing.

Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore.

He called out to him, "Friend, haven't you any fish?" "No," Peter answered.

He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When Peter did, he was unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

Then Jesus said, "Find among them a fine large fish, and throw all the little fish back into the sea."

When he had heard this, Peter put on his garment (for he was naked) and jumped into the water.

And he reached the shore. Simon Peter fell to his knees and said, "Have nothing to do with me, Lord, heathen that I am!"

Then he said unto Peter: "Come, do not be afraid. I am your master, even he, Peter, whom you did deny three times, and do you now deny again?"

"Lord," Peter said, "you know that I love you."

Then Jesus said to him, "I am going up to the mountain," and he said, "I will go tell the others."

That very day Mary Magdalene and Salome were in Capernaum along with Andrew and Levi. Andrew said that Peter had gone out fishing the day before.

Then Mary remembered what the young man had said and told Andrew that she must speak with Peter. But Andrew answered and said, "What do you want with Peter?"

Now Peter appeared.

And Mary said, "A young man was in the tomb where they laid the Lord."

And Peter said, "Yes, and the Lord appeared to me as I was out fishing."

And Mary said, "He said to go to the mountain. Peter, if you love Jesus, let us go."

And Peter said, "You know that I love him. Then let us go."

And Peter led them out.

But Levi remembered to go tell the sons of Zebedee and the other disciples, so he left them and Peter.

So Peter and Andrew along with Mary and Salome went up the mountain.

And Levi went up the mountain along with the other disciples.

When they got there, they were expecting Jesus to appear.

But Jesus did not appear.

And some of the disciples doubted and said that they should come down off the mountain.

Then Mary said, "Simon, do you truly love him?"

And Peter said, "You of all people should know that I love him."

And Mary said, "Tend his sheep."

At that Peter said to them, "Make ready the way, for we shall go down from this mountain to the shore of the Sea of Galilee."

And when they reached the shore of the sea, they found that the boat with the net full of fish had come ashore.

And Peter took the fish, gave it to the disciples and said:

"Let us cook the fish and eat it to remember that we love Jesus."

And Mary ate the fish, for she did love him.

Solo

Okhaaay.... ......actually, it does
make sense, sorta : histamine allergic reactions have known psychoactive effect.Tilapia (aka St.Peter's Fish) is on the list of species known to produce histamine poisoning. (Not listed in the web but mentioned in Wiki's blurb on histamine, is its role in sleep regulation).

So, Peter might have eaten something and Mark, recording it, got the rash. :devil3:

Jiri

Peter Kirby

This hypothetical reconstruction was designed with an eye towards overcoming the deficiencies of an earlier attempt in the thread Mark 16 and Beyond.

If it is possible that this text or something like it were the original ending of GMark, I would like to know.

Also, I would not mind knowing what people think of the basic story (Jesus appears to Peter on the sea -- Jesus fails to appear on the mountain -- Peter himself distributes the fish at the shore of the sea).

The prominent role of Mary in this reconstruction is probably the most controversial part, and thus the one most in need of redressing in a future or alternative attempt.

Ben C Smith

OTOH, if Mark had given one or more of the women (especially Mary or Salome) a prominent role, that may go part of the way toward explaining why the ending was removed, if indeed it was removed and not accidentally lost. (I am thinking of the prominent place certain gnostic circles accorded these women.)

Ben.

Clouseau

Perhaps the most controversial aspect is that of a woman telling a man what to do. Very contemporary, methinks.

There are those who think it quite possible that Mark ended his account at verse 8, and quite deliberately. Ancient accounts and dramas quite often ended suddenly. But maybe this ending is not so sudden as all that. Mark's close may have been deliberate irony, because in his account he several times mentions people speaking of Jesus when they were told not to, e.g.:

'"See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places."' Mark 1:44-45 NIV

But here the women were keeping silent when they should have not been! There may be a subtle point made here.

Peter Kirby

Well, the Gospel of Mary was part of my inspiration.

Peter Kirby

I know that my "reconstruction" is speculative, but it is just this kind of speculation which is often useful for refining hypotheses and checking assumptions.

Is there any reason why the given text should not be regarded as "the lost ending of Mark"? The flip side of that question asks, what do we know about Mark and/or the way he would have ended his gospel?

It is one thing to say that there may be a lost ending to Mark, or there may be a text from Tacitus in detail on Christianity, or there may be an original Testimonium. It is quite another thing to try to imagine what it could have looked like, and something else is to form hypotheses about the author that would rule out some of the more out-there imaginings.

It is just barely possible that at the end of this exercise we would have either learned some rather definite things about the lost ending (or Tacitus on Christ, or the Testimonium)--or, perhaps, have uncovered contradictions in the hypothesis that lead to abandoning the hypothetical altogether.

So, please...press on! What's wrong with this "lost ending" as a product of Mark?

Ben C Smith

Too much back-and-forth dialogue for Mark.

Ben.

Clouseau

What is the date of its earliest manuscript?

Ben C Smith

P45, century III. But it breaks off somewhere in chapter 14 of Mark.

Ben.