Ben C Smith

Absolutely correct. We do not disagree on this. I will state it clearly so that you will not have to repeat it (): The women are the only ones besides the youth at the tomb who know about the resurrection; the women are told to tell the disciples, but the women do not tell the disciples.

Just instructions? He is also informing them that Jesus was raised (as opposed to his body having been stolen or what have you), right?

Completely agreed. The women did not at that time (or in my humble judgment ever) tell the disciples about the resurrection. We are agreed on that.

Carlson? You mean Stephen Carlson? I am aware that he favors a lost ending to Mark based on Croy (whom I shall hopefully have a chance to read shortly), but is holding off judgment until reading another book on the topic; but I am completely in the dark as to what he thinks a lost ending might have held.

Your comments about the canon are odd. I care little for the canon of scripture. I was quite happy with Mark ending at 16.8 until I studied the internal evidence against the longer extant ending.

That would be Paul, not Mark.

This view of Mark would give me no trouble whatsoever if it were not for 14.28 and 16.7.

Close. But let us back up to make certain we are clear on Mark 16.7. Once again you gave me a lengthy post. Once again you quoted Mark 16.1-8 as a whole. Once again you emphasized and reemphasized that the women told no one (a point that is not in dispute here). And once again you did not address the words of the young man in 16.7:

But go, tell his disciples and Peter: He is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.

Is this young man asking the women to communicate a lie to the disciples? That would boggle my brain. Surely Mark sees the content of this message within its narrative context as the truth: Jesus is indeed going into Galilee (see 14.28) and will indeed appear to the disciples.

I must point out that Luke the evangelist understood the implications of Mark 16.7. He had to change the wording...:

He is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.

...so as to preserve Jerusalem, not Galilee, as the site of the resurrection appearances (Luke 24.6b):

Remember how he spoke to you while he was in Galilee.

Luke knew that Mark 16.7 meant that the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee. As for me, I would have no problem embracing much of what you have said on this thread if it were not for 16.7. How can I just ignore that? (Well, I suppose you have twice posted in response to my inquiries about the words of the young man and somehow ignored it; maybe I could too. )

This verse forces my hand. You asked how, in my hypothetical reconstruction of the original ending, the disciples end up seeing Jesus if the women failed to tell them. Let us imagine for a split second that I have no earthly idea how the disciples are supposed to meet up with Jesus. Even if that were the case (and it is not), 16.7 would force me to assume that Mark had a way of bringing this about, even if I were doomed never to figure it out.

Fortunately, the very ending of Mark that I have deemed likely ever since reading B. H. Streeter answers this very question. My working hypothesis is that Luke 5.4-11 and especially John 21.1-19 contain, in heavily redacted form, the original ending of Mark. This scenario would explain oodles of stray details in both accounts:

1. Why does Peter fall down confessing his sinfulness in Luke 5.8? Because the miraculous catch happened after his three denials in the original ending of Mark.
2. Why does the meeting in John 21 look so much like a first meeting between Jesus and his disciples? Because in the original ending of Mark it was the first (and probably only) meeting.
3. Why does John 21.2 include the sons of Zebedee when they have not even appeared in the rest of John? Because they were present in the original ending of Mark as an inclusio with Mark 1.16-20 (Luke noticed the parallels between the miraculous catch and the call of the first disciples; hence his placement of the former in the position of the latter).
4. Why does the gospel of Peter, in its final parallel to John 21, include Levi amongst the fishermen? Because the original ending of Mark included Levi, since he was one of those that Jesus directly called (like the first four in 1.16-20) in the gospel of Mark (see 2.14).
5. Why does John 21 use a word for fish that differs from the usual Johannine word in John 1-20? Because that word was what was in the original ending, and indeed the rest, of Mark.

And, most importantly for this thread:

6. Why are the disciples in John 21.3 returning to their former way of life, fishing, after having seen the resurrected Lord twice? Because in the original ending of Mark they had not yet seen him, nor had the women told them anything about it; their dreams were dead, and they were going back to Galilee to resume their original lives as fishermen.

So, to answer your question...:

...the women fail to tell the disciples the good news, therefore they return to their former occupation of fishing, and there, on the shore, Jesus meets them. Still think it unlikely that Jesus would appear to the disciples after the women failed to communicate the message? Then consider that this is exactly what happens in the gospel of Peter. The women flee, afraid, and as far as we can tell never tell the disciples, who are said to still be grieving; then they go back to the sea with their nets, and the fragment breaks off.

Am I dead certain about any of this? Of course not. It is an hypothesis. And right or wrong I have certainly enjoyed exploring it.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Ah, I misunderstood.

I think the Jerusalem pillars agreed (at least in principle) with Paul at first, then Peter (in Antioch) slipped back into what Paul would regard as an old and inappropriate habit. As long as the pillars were in Jerusalem, where the church probably had virtually no gentiles, the issue never really came up. It broke only in Antioch, which was full of gentiles.

I really do not know whether Peter persisted in his segregationist behavior after being rebuked by Paul, nor whether James was really behind the men from James in Galatians 2.12. There may be good answers to all these questions out there, but I am not familiar with them.

I agree; that is a difficult and tangled topic.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
But go back to a previous post, then you can tell his disciples and Peter Kirby: My answer is going before you into Google. There you will see it, just as I told you.

JW:
Bingo!

JW:
Considering that "Mark's" priMary Theme is you need Faith to Believe in Jesus and not Evidence and after spending the Entire Gospel demonstrating The Disciples Lack of Faith despite receiving the most Evidence (especially Peter) and that Jesus Explicitly said that Generation would receive No sign to suggest that "Mark" would undo all this with an Ending that shows the Disciples Lack of Faith was unimportant after all and all they really did need was Evidence I can only repeat the words of Ziegfried when he has Maxwell Schmart cornered and Max says, with hands raised, Would you Believe it, at this very moment you're being surrounded by 500 Jehovah's Witnesses. Would you Believe it, 500 Witnesses, and Ziegfried says, "I find that hard to believe."

The Gospel of Peter is part of The Natural Genesis of the resurrection Ben:

1) Believe that Jesus was resurrected.

2) Believe that a resurrected Jesus was seen.

3) Believe that a resurrected Jesus was seen by Disciples.

4) Believe that Jesus predicted that a resurrected Jesus was seen by Disciples.

5) Believe that a resurrected Jesus was touched by Disciples.

6) Believe that a resurrecting Jesus was seen by Disciples.

Peter can have the sighting because he doesn't have "Mark's" Faith vs. Evidence Theme.

"Matthew" and "Luke" changed "Mark" from a Statement of Faith to a supposed Historical Narrative.

JW:
You have a great sense of Humor Ben and I'd like to think that if there was a Jesus, he, like me, Believed that Entertaining was more important than Being Right.

Now, let's take a Look at "Mark's" Negative treatment of The Disciples (if you have a Lifetime):

1: (NIV)
29 "As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."

Note that for Simon's mother-in-law Jesus does a little healing. A little healing for a little faith? Generally the Big Healings are for people that don't know Jesus. They never received the Evidence that The Disciples did. But they do have Faith. (I kind of remember that within "Mark" the author makes this Explicit - Healing is Dependent on Faith. Probably get to it later). Note that Jesus never Heals any of The Disciples. Sending them out Chaiking aCross Israel there must have been some injuries such as Ingrown tonNails but no Healing of The Disciples. Why do you suppose that is Ben? Did they have a HMO in your HO?



Joseph

"I guess it would be nice, if I could touch you body" - Michael

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

:rolling: I like it.

This is the closest you have come so far to dealing with the stark implications of Mark 16.7 on this thread. Next year, maybe in Jerusalem....

Here are some easy yes-or-no questions to get you started:

1. Does the young man in Mark 16.7 instruct the women to tell the disciples that they will see Jesus in Galilee?
2. Does Mark wish to portray the young man as a liar and the expected appearance as a lie?
3. If so, does Mark also wish to portray the resurrection announcement, delivered by this same young man, as a lie?
4. If not, how are the disciples supposed to thwart this divine prediction?

Even if Mark really ended at 16.8 the reader knows from Mark that there was a resurrection appearance in Galilee.

I find such a statement incredible. Does John have a theme of faith versus evidence? Yes (see John 4.48; 6.30; 20.25-29). And does John have resurrection sightings? Yes.

Where does Mark say that Jesus never healed the disciples?

Ben.

Julian

Ben,
I was just reading some of Brown's The Death of the Messiah last night where he addresses 16:7 and 14:28. He notes that there are many theories, like Bultmann who thought 16:7 to be a later addition for harmonization, but in the end Brown ends up agreeing with your assessment. If you have the book, it is in volume 1 somewhere around page 132 or so, I forget exactly.

Julian

Ben C Smith

I do not have the book, but I have read parts of it at various times. Thanks for the tip, Julian.

Ben.

JoeWallack

Mark 16: (NIV)
1 "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

JW: (Doing Yuri impression)
Yes.

JW:
No (snapping out of Yuri trance).

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'

There are two actions before the conclusion (just as he told you):

1) He is going ahead of you into Galilee

2) There you will see him

The conclusion is at least partially correct if it only refers to the first action. Also, the conclusion may be considered acceptable (as opposed to correct) if you take the second action as an Implication of the first. However, God forbid I should sound like a Rick Sumner, so technically the conclusion should refer to both actions. Therefore the Young Man has given somewhat inaccurate instructions since Jesus did not Explicitly say the disciples would see him in Galilee.

"Mark" is not presenting the Young Man as a Liar because the Young Man is just a Messenger doing his job. Were the "Prophets" Liars because their instruction was not followed?

Similarly, as far as "the expected appearance as a lie?" the "expected appearance" is part of a quotation included in a communication instruction. It's not a straight-forward prediction and clearly there is no claim of prophecy fulfillment (which would be counter to the No Sign Statement). This is how the Author is handling what you perceive as a Problem.

JW:
I don't think you're 2) is True so, but "Mark" clearly shows by straight forward Narrative that Jesus was resurrected. This is clearly Communicated to The Reader. The same clear, straight forward narrative shows it was never Communicated to The Disciples. That's "Mark's" point Ben. The Reader Audience can see what the characters couldn't. That Jesus was resurrected. Oedipus Wrecks, Look out!

While we're talking about problems with Pet(er) Positions you have the bigger one here. You want to argue that the Young Man/Angel wouldn't refer in instruction to something Jesus did not clearly say or mean. But why would a Divine Divine Being even give instructions that weren't going to be followed in the first place. This wouldn't help the characters any. Who would it be helping Ben? Did the Divine being only say it because being Divine it knew that a Gospel would be written about it, than ViCaRs, than DaViDs and then Sindication?

JW:
They just won't be "looking" for Jesus.

I guess I should repeat here my answer of why I think "Mark" has the Young Man give instructions that won't be followed lest you keep asking me until Jesus returns (maybe he will be found at the new Christian Theme Park in Galilee if Pat Robertson stops telling us how to find Jesus). In "Mark's" Ironic Contrasting Style he has the Messenger at the Beginning who All listen to and this is contrasted with the Messenger at the End that No one listens to. Does the same thing with Jesus. At the Beginning All come to Jesus in Galilee. At the End No one comes to Jesus in Galilee. "Mark's" Themes are more important than problems with implications from specific verses.


JW:
When I say "Peter can have the sighting" I refer to the Gospel of Peter. You know that in "Mark" Evidence follows Faith and that in "John" Faith follows Evidence ("The Signs Gospel"). The Theologies are Opposite. Again, "Mark", based on Faith, is closer to a claimed Historical event that never happened. So there was no real evidence, just Faith. After the original Jesus movement Failed and after "Mark" Failed, Christianity started to Create its Evidence, such as Resurrection sighting stories. This is all why "Mark" has no resurrection sighting, it was Sold on Faith. This is why the others including "John" do, they were Sold on supposed Evidence and, as Raul Jewlia said in the classic, "Moon Over Parador", "We have a hit!".

JW:
So now Implications don't mean anything. Interesting. Continuing...

3: (NIV)
13 "Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14He appointed twelve—designating them apostles[b]—that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15and to have authority to drive out demons. 16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."

JW:
"Apostles" as I've mentioned is probably a Forgery but anyway:

"and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."

What implications do you get from this Ben? Iscariot? Iscariot? Why does that sound familiar?



Joseph

"When you're looking and looking for Something and you just can't seem to find it anywhere, it may be lost." - Granny Wallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Mark 14 (NIV)
27 "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.'[c] 28But after I have risen, I will go
ahead of you into Galilee."
29 Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."
30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."
31 But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same."

"14.30 á¼¢ δὶς ἀλ�*κτοÏ?α φωνῆσαι {C}
It appears that scribes either preferred to move δίς closer to the verb or to omit it by assimilation to a parallel account (Mt 26.34; Lk 22.34; Jn 13.36)."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York

14:30 was assimilated according to The Borg. Maybe the Original 14:28 fell away before it. Oh what's this scrap of parchment in my pocket? Why it's the Rainer Papyrus (2nd century) and 14:28 seems to be absent (just like it is from The Metz).

On Page 132 Brown has the ridiculously Biased footnote:

"The absence of Mark 14:28 from the late-2d-cent. Fayum fragment (Rainer papyrus) may be an early attempt to harmonize Mark's presentation of Jesus' postresurrectional career with the portrayal of Luke, John. and the Marcan Appendix where these are Jerusalem appearences of Jesus, not only Galilean ones."

JW:
Well Jesus Raymond, may the absence of 14:28 in the earliest, or at least one of the earliest fragments, simply mean that the absence was Original?

"And then Benjamin remembered what Joseph had said about it being more Likely that the Original had Less Evidence of a post resurrection sighting."



Joseph

REDEMPTION, n.
Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Mark has not narrated Jesus explicitly saying so, of course, but nor has he denied that Jesus explicitly said so. I do not know why Mark did not make a fuller verbal connection between 16.7 and 14.28, or provide a more explicit dominical statement elsewhere, but there 16.7 stands nevertheless, and it will not be ignored.

The young man nowhere predicts that the women will follow instructions. He does predict that Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee.

Mark 16.7 redux:

There you will see him, just as he told you.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Correct. The readers can see what the disciples cannot, that Jesus is alive again, that the women know it, and that Jesus is going to meet them in Galilee, even if they never got the message.

Correct.

There is no parallel between giving divine instructions (go, tell) that fallible humans do not obey and giving a divine prediction (you will see him).

No, Mark is getting the disciples back to Galilee in defeat, not in victory. There they will (as yet unknown to them) be given a new call and commission to both parallel and replace, as it were, the old one by the lakeside in Mark 1.16-20.

I have not once asked you why the young man gives instructions (go, tell) that are not followed. What I have repeatedly asked is why the young man gives a prediction (there you will see him) that does not come true.

That may well be, but the issue is not how many people listened to the young man at the tomb, but rather whether his prediction (and that of Jesus himself, according to 16.7) will come true despite the fact that nobody listened.

Right. No one comes to Jesus in Galilee (they were going fishing again, not looking for Jesus). Jesus has to come to them.

I know. I brought up the gospel of John because John does what you were considering to be an impossibility, emphasize faith over evidence and yet provide a resurrection sighting.

Disagree. John emphasizes the importance of believing without evidence in 4.48; 6.30; 20.25-29.

Not at all. John believes in faith without having to see evidence.

What implications? Where does Mark ever make hay from the lack of mention of the disciples getting healed?

Thank you for reminding me of the Fayyum fragment, which I have transliterated and translated on my site.

You are correct to note that a parallel to Mark 14.28 = Matthew 26.32 is lacking. Good show.

But how do you know that this is based on any text of Mark? It looks closer to Matthew to me: Matthew has a parallel for εν ταυτη τη νυκτι
(line 2) in 15.31, while Mark lacks one in his parallel 14.27, and both Matthew 26.33 and lines 4-5 of our fragment use the same word for speaking, against Mark, who uses a different word.

Is there any agreement between our fragment and Mark against Matthew? (I ask because I am not sure.)

But your big problem is not really Mark 14.28; it is Mark 16.7. We have two witnesses to the text of Mark much earlier than the Fayyum fragment, provided we use them carefully. I am referring, of course, to Matthew and Luke. Matthew copies Mark 16.7 in 28.7, and Luke know of it in 24.6. One could argue, of course, that Luke found it only in Matthew, not Mark (since I accept that Luke knew Matthew), but Luke frequently ignores Matthean narrative details (witness the birth narratives, the report on the death of Judas, and so forth). Why not here? I think he was reacting against what in his day was the more powerful of the two texts, Mark.

As for your disparagement of what Brown has to say about harmonizing a Galilean appearance with other gospels like Luke, we know that such harmonization took place. We have John 21, appended to John 20, affirming both a Jerusalem tradition and a Galilean tradition for the resurrection appearances.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Morrissey, from the Smiths, Cemetary Gates:

Keats and Yeats are on your side,
But Wilde is on mine.

I think I have the important witnesses to Mark on my side, Joe. Matthew read Mark and knew that it meant a Galilean appearance, so he provided one for us in 28.16-20. Luke read Mark and knew that it meant a Galilean appearance, which he was all set to reject in favor of Jerusalem, so he had to reword the incriminating line in 24.6. John read Mark and knew that it meant a Galilean appearance, so he provided one for us in an appendix to his main gospel text, John 21.

Ben.