Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-13-2005, 09:19 AM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Yeah, the John 21 appearance is so Johannine in many respects that, if it has any connection to the lost ending of Mark, it would have to be a near-total rewrite.
We're not out of luck, however. Luke 5 seems to preserve another form of the appearance. Do you see anything Markan underlying that? Stephen Carlson |
04-14-2005, 03:25 AM | #23 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
David Ross who also argues that John 21 is the lost ending of Mark (scroll halfway down to "the Missing ending of Mark" says this was transported into John by the later redactor. Ross writes:
I don't think there is an original ending here. I have often thought about the original ending of Mark (OEM) in the context of a giant gospel chiasm. There has to be something to match the beginning, just as John announces the Word into the world, so the disciples must now bear the Word out into at the end. That's why Matthew's ending is probably closer to the one Mark must have had. It makes sense, since Matt follows Mark closely, that his ending would too. But Matt's ending reads like a summary of something, especially v17 and v20. Perhaps Goodacre's theory of fatigue in the Synoptics in action...Matt got to the end of the Mark and just chucked in the towel, and wrote a quick sketch rather than a reproduction of it.
Vorkosigan |
04-14-2005, 08:20 AM | #24 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
How would the author maintain the image of disciples that didn't understand Jesus while depicting them as accurately spreading the gospel? And why wouldn't it have been preserved if it was consistent with the extant endings? Lost early and by accident? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|