Peter Kirby

I am visiting Michael Turton's most excellent Historical Commentary on Mark.

Vork suggests the following as a tentative reconstruction of a chiasmus here (minor problem, Michael: the 'previous chapter' links from 16 to 14):

A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
-- B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
---- C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
------ D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
------ D' And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
---- C' And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;
-- B' and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
[[A It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over.]]

Reviewing this, I think the chiasmus reconstructed above (up to B') is good. The B's balance what the women say and show their inability to affect change, the C's have the women entering/exiting and show astonishment, and the D's have the amazement and sight & seeking in common.

I wonder if there are any clues to the missing ending of Mark. I would like to get the ball rolling by suggesting an amalgam of verses from the Gospel of Peter, the Epistula Apostolorum, and John 21. (I draw largely on the ideas here.)

[GP.58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [GP.59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.
[GP.60 // GJ 21:2 cf. Mark 3:18, EA] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord called as a tax collector, Matthew, Thomas called the Twin, and the sons of Zebedee.
[GJ 21:3] I [Simon Peter] said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to me, "We will go with you." They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
[GJ 21:4, cf. EA] Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
[Luke] At the sight of this, Simon Peter fell to his knees and said, "Have nothing to do with me, Lord, heathen that I am!"
[EA] Then said he unto us: Come, fear ye not. I am your master, even he, O Peter, whom thou didst deny thrice; and dost thou now deny again?
8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.
9 When they landed, they saw a fire there with fish on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord.
13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."
19 Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Some notes:

If there's any truth to this at all, I think that there is some missing material between verse 17 and 19 and/or after 19.

Two of our sources present themselves in the first person, the Gospel of Peter and the Epistula Apostolorum. So does John 21, after a manner, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."

The question this makes for me is that the rest of the Gospel of Mark is not in the first person, so, is this ending for Mark an independent document that got grafted onto Mark and onto John in different ways? (Onto the original of Mark, perhaps, and then lost, but onto a subsequent recension of John, if the web page cited is convincing that the patristic witnesses point to a John without 21 circulating.) If so, would it be a mistake to attempt to identify chiasmus in this text in the same way as the rest of Mark? In any case, I will try to work out a chiasm in any case. Perhaps Michael can give his own thoughts on any possible ending of Mark with a chiastic structure (not necessarily this one).

Concerning the line--"But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord called as a tax collector, Matthew, Thomas called the Twin, and the sons of Zebedee."--consulting The Seven Apostles again can help understanding of my decisions here. The first half is from the Gospel of Peter; the rest after "whom the Lord" is conjectural. But I like it for a couple reasons. Nathanael is in the Gospel of John, and I take him to be equatable (in the legends) with Matthew, based on my article and on a footnote I read stating that the names have similar meaning. Once the substitution is made, the rest of the names in the Gospel of John 21:2 also appear in the Gospel of Mark. I created the ambiguity of the possible identity of Levi and Matthew to explain the revision made in "the Gospel of Matthew" to rename Levi as Matthew; I would take them to be separate in our ending of Mark. As others have noted, "the sons of Zebedee" are in Mark and John 21 but not the rest of Mark. "Simon Peter," which is in John 21 but not the rest of John, also appears in the "Gospel of Peter."

The web site linked puts a verse from Luke between 6 and 8; see the site for the reasoning. I noticed that a verse from the Epistula Apostolorum is an especially apt response, especially given the rest of John 21 (the three times rehabilitation scene that is not in the Epistula Apostolorum).

I'd love to see how far these ideas can be developed.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

This is a bump. Anybody have any reaction?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

In process of formulating one...tonight.

Vorkosigan

Thought 1

Hi Peter:

Looking over this, several things struck me.

• [GP.58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [GP.59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.

The verse offers us 12 disciples....Mark never tells us that Judas was killed or in any way struck from the list. As Fowler points out, any reading of Mark without Luke or Matt in the background must lead one to conclude that Judas is still an apostle. So the reference to "twelve" there is either borrowed from Mark, or else the author has permitted himself to indulge in historical anachrononism.

Further, the opening breaks out in a very Markan way:

A Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over.
B But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful;
B and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.
A But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea.

Note the microchiasm
Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over.
But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful;
and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.

Very, very Markan. This may well be the original verse, or something very close to it.

Vorkosigan

Peter's suggestions, chiasm-ed

A But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea.
B And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord called as a tax collector, Matthew, Thomas called the Twin, and the sons of Zebedee.
C I [Simon Peter] said to them, "I am going fishing."
C They said to me, "We will go with you."
BThey went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
A Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

Looks good. Obviously the disciple names have additions. The original probably offered Peter and Andrew, and perhaps the Sons of Zebedee, and perhaps Levi. "whom the Lord called as a tax collector" is ridiculously unMarkan, and Thomas and his descriptor are unMarkan as well. Why would Mark reintroduce these disciples at the end of the Gospel when he has never done so at any other point in the text? I'd say it looks like:

But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea.
And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus and the sons of Zebedee.

Those would be the original disciples called in Mark 1:16-20 and 2:14-17. The calls of Peter/Andrew, James/John and Levi are all structurally and linguistically parallel. Hence, these names work for me too, since they would then form a very nice chiasm with the beginning of the Gospel of Mark.

• I [Simon Peter] said to them, "I am going fishing."
  They said to me, "We will go with you."

This exchange is so direct it is almost robotic. Mindless. UnMarkan.

• They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

That's so weird, it is Markan. Reminds me of Jesus entering the Temple and doing nothing in Mark 11. Do you know of an OT parallel for this passage?

• Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

I have no idea what to make of this. Would Mark start out by explaining that it was Jesus but the disciples didn't know? That's too clumsy and direct.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

• But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea.
  And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord called as a tax collector, Matthew, Thomas called the Twin, and the sons of Zebedee.
  I [Simon Peter] said to them, "I am going fishing."
  They said to me, "We will go with you."
  They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

Note the change from the first to the third person here. The two lines in the center are additions. The original text probably read without the first person.

• Simon Peter, and Andrew, having taken their nets, went off to the sea.
  And there was with them Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord called as a tax collector, Matthew, Thomas called the Twin, and the sons of Zebedee.
  They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

Of course...where is the verse where Mark moved the whole lot of them back to Galilee?

S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure Mark moved the "whole lot" back to Galilee, but this part of Peter's reconstruction taken from the Epistula Apostulorum is what moves Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee back to Galilee:

Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over.
But <the twelve> were weeping and sorrowful;
and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.

(Note: "we twelve disciples of the Lord" emended to the twelve.)

Other points:

• I agree that the first person stuff would not be original to Mark.
• Levi's own home is a toll booth, so he shouldn't be there. No Thomas, either.
• I agree that this looks Markan: "They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing."
• As for "Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus." -- is this related to the Messianic Secret theme in Mark?
• Peter's reconstruction stripped out the naked Peter. I still have to wonder, though, whether it is connected to Mark 14:50-51...
• The pervasive use of synonyms (feed/tend, sheep/lambs, love/truly love) throughout the dialog between Jesus and Peter is characteristic of the author/redactor of John, not Mark. I expect that it would be a rewrite of a much more direct Markan dialog.

Wallener

Wow. You guys are good. Have you ever considered writing an entire "authentic" gospel and burying it someone's backyard for later "discovery"?

Vorkosigan

But Steve...."each one" departs for his home, yet presumably the sons of Zebedee would have the same home....perhaps you're right. I read this as having a home in Jerusalem....

• 34: And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
  
  11: And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."
  12: And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.
  
  43: And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.
  
  36: And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.
  
  26: And he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village."
  
  30: They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he would not have any one know it;
  31: for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise."

It seems that the thrust of the narration isn't right. That's why it rings false for me as a Markan presentation. The Water Walk:

• 48: And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
  49: but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;
  50: for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
  51: And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,

Jesus passes by but the narrator does not kibbutz like he does here...the reader has to find out as the event occurs that the disciples don't know it is him. Here the narrator is too heavy handed -- instead of letting us discover that the disciples are ironically unaware, he sets up the irony of their unawareness so that the reader has no discovery to make. That doesn't strike me as a Markan approach.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

You've never read Secret Mark?