Part of Mark's Long Ending may not come from other gospels

[Paul the Uncertain]

The incidents of the first 6 verses of the Long Ending match other gospels in subject matter (Mary Magdalene's vistation in John, her exorcism from several demons in Luke, the two disciples on the road with Jesus in a new form in Luke, and all the other gospels' grand reunion of Jesus and the Eleven). However, the structure of the six verses parallel the dispatch of apostles in undisputed chapters 5 and 6.

Mark's first "apostle," the Gadarene/Gerasene demoniac, greets Jesus fresh from adventure among tombs, is delivered from several demons, and is sent by Jesus to tell others about his deliverance. Later, the Twelve are sent out on the road in pairs. Their success introduces a passage where Antipas thinks that John has been raised and now sports a new form in Jesus. Finally, all twelve gather as a group with Jesus.

The structural and detail parallels do not mean that the first half of the Long Ending is as old as the rest of GMark. It does, however, expand the universe of well-founded possibilities for the authorship and interpretation of the first half of the Long Ending without impinging on the long-established consensus about Marcan priority.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... uted-mark/

[JoeWallack]

The incidents of the first 6 verses of the Long Ending match other gospels in subject matter (Mary Magdalene's vistation in John, her exorcism from several demons in Luke, the two disciples on the road with Jesus in a new form in Luke, and all the other gospels' grand reunion of Jesus and the Eleven). However, the structure of the six verses parallel the dispatch of apostles in undisputed chapters 5 and 6.

Mark's first "apostle," the Gadarene/Gerasene demoniac, greets Jesus fresh from adventure among tombs, is delivered from several demons, and is sent by Jesus to tell others about his deliverance. Later, the Twelve are sent out on the road in pairs. Their success introduces a passage where Antipas thinks that John has been raised and now sports a new form in Jesus. Finally, all twelve gather as a group with Jesus.

The structural and detail parallels do not mean that the first half of the Long Ending is as old as the rest of GMark. It does, however, expand the universe of well-founded possibilities for the authorship and interpretation of the first half of the Long Ending without impinging on the long-established consensus about Marcan priority.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... uted-mark/

JW:
As we sometimes say in stand up comedy when we introduce a bit as "interesting" and the result is less than expected, "Interesting, not necessarily funny." As KK and I have pointed out here Ad Nazorean, the style of all the LE is completely different from the rest of GMark. No negatives, chiasms, unorthodox grammar, irony and most importantly, reversal of theme (successful disciples verses failure).

Analysis of paratextual commentary before the LE was added indicates that Patristics was looking for implications in the body of GMark that would support the endings in the other Gospels. The key that differentiates all the Gospels is the development and difference between the source of support for the belief that Jesus was resurrected, revelation verses evidence. GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery). Subsequent Gospels = supposed historical witness
(evidence).

As you have noted GMark presents the structure of supposed historical witness in the Teaching & Healing Ministry and does not use it in The Passion Ministry. This highlights the difference and illustrates the primary point of the Gospel, belief in Jesus passion is based on Revelation (faith) and not supposed historical witness (evidence). Thus it makes since that Patristics would gradually add the same structure to the forged ending. The structure was what and where they were looking for it.


Joseph

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thank you for the reply.

the style of all the LE is completely different from the rest of GMark. No negatives, chiasms, unorthodox grammar, irony and most importantly, reversal of theme (successful disciples verses failure).

I have argued that the first six and last six verses of the Long Ending are remarkably different from each other. I have no interest in advocating either the originality or the authenticity of 16:15-20. I'm not going to treat verses 16:9-20 as a singly-authored unit of prose, because I don't believe they are.

I don't dispute that low-level feature (word choice, wordplay, etc.) distinctions can be made between the bulk of the gospel and 16:9-14. Then again, so, too, 1:1-6 and the rest of the gospel. The beginnings and endings of performance works often are syntactically different from the rest of the work.

I think there is irony in the six verses. I also think that the treatment of visionary experiences is strictly parallel to how undisputed Mark treats other visionary experiences. I gave a paper about that handling of visionary experience last March at the SBL GV meeting. The slides are on the blog; the paper is on offer for free among the Unlinks.

As to reversal of theme, 16:14 cannot be construed as promoting "disciples' success," nor does it "reverse" Jesus's opinion of them. He's been complaining about their sluggish uptake all along.

So, we seem to have some material disagreements of fact to resolve before we can compare opinions.

Analysis of paratextual commentary before the LE was added indicates that Patristics was looking for implications in the body of GMark that would support the endings in the other Gospels.

When do you propose that the first six verses of the LE were composed, and which patristic authors do you consider to have been writing before then?

The key that differentiates all the Gospels is the development and difference between the source of support for the belief that Jesus was resurrected, revelation verses evidence. GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery). Subsequent Gospels = supposed historical witness (evidence).

We seem to agree here. The only "physical" evidence for the resurrection in Mark through 16:14 is the empty tomb. That's in undisputed Mark. The three appearances in verses 9-14 are exactly that, appearances. As you say, "GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery)."

As you have noted GMark presents the structure of supposed historical witness in the Teaching & Healing Ministry and does not use it in The Passion Ministry.

What have I written that you interpret that way? Perhaps we have a misunderstanding.

My position for the entire work without distinction as to type of ministry is that Mark is narrated by somebody whose knowledge of the events a generation earlier suggests natural rather than supernatural acquisition of information. Mark claims no source, nor is any specific source needed to maintain the conceit of a naturalistically well-informed narrator. This is a work of literature, not a work of academic history. It suffices that the story include possible naturalistic channels of information.

For most of the gospel, the disciple characters (reputed to have become teachers later on) will serve as a potential natural source. Once they flee the scene, however, the burden of possible sources shifts to characters who are young people or parents, through whom information can survive the generation that separates the narrator from the events.

This highlights the difference and illustrates the primary point of the Gospel, belief in Jesus passion is based on Revelation (faith) and not supposed historical witness (evidence). Thus it makes since that Patristics would gradually add the same structure to the forged ending. The structure was what and where they were looking for it.

And? It is not in dispute that somebody wrote verses 16:9-14. Whoever they were, whether Mark himself, a colleague, an early producer, ..., an early patrisitic to be named later, ... and unlike the author of verses 16:15-20, they chose to write something consonant with the undisputed gospel.

We agree on that. Alas, it doesn't distinguish among the seriously possible hypotheses. In the uncertainty management business, we say "interesting, but not useful for deciding among the contending hypotheses."

[Paul the Uncertain]

Just a clarification

The key that differentiates all the Gospels is the development and difference between the source of support for the belief that Jesus was resurrected, revelation verses evidence. GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery). Subsequent Gospels = supposed historical witness (evidence).

While it is true that GMark through verse 16:14 presents the foundation for belief in Jesus's resurrection as "revelation versus evidence," verses 16:15-20 propose that belief in Jesus's resurrection and ascension is based on evidence.

[16:20] They went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.

The term "signs" presumably refers to such observables as are enumerated in verses 16:17-18 (successful exorcisms using Jesus's name, healings, preternatural language acquisition, etc.). None of these belief-supporting observables (in a word, evidence) involves revelation nor do any involve scripture. Living Christians in our own time cite these phenomena as proof that their "savior liveth," despite his having died long ago (or so they profess).

It is irrelevant whether or not such phenomena carry much weight with you or with me. Verses 16:15-20 aren't speaking to the likes of us. For those who believe that Jesus rose from the dead and who are looking for some concrete foundation beneath their belief, then recently answered prayers, etc. serves as proof.