A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:01 pm

Hi Ben,
My problem with this is that I am quite certain that the Longer Ending was not composed with the rest of Mark in mind; it was never originally intended as the ending to the text (according to various internal considerations). Therefore, the reconciliation is blunt, not fine: it is simply a matter of appending an already composed summary to an already composed gospel.
What clues or/and considerations do you have in order to make that assertion?
Do you suggest the long ending was not done with a knowledge of Mark?
Mark at 16:8 is a real downer and subject to raise doubts.
The long ending, not taking away Mk 16:8, corrects the problem by having Mary Magdalene going back to the tomb and witnessing the resurrected Jesus, and then telling the disciples about it.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8075
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:00 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:01 pm
Hi Ben,
My problem with this is that I am quite certain that the Longer Ending was not composed with the rest of Mark in mind; it was never originally intended as the ending to the text (according to various internal considerations). Therefore, the reconciliation is blunt, not fine: it is simply a matter of appending an already composed summary to an already composed gospel.
What clues or/and considerations do you have in order to make that assertion?
Do you suggest the long ending was not done with a knowledge of Mark?
I suggest that it was done independently of Mark. It originally either stood pretty much on its own or as part of a different text:
  1. Mark 16.9 backtracks chronologically ("when he had arisen") to refer to the time of the resurrection, which would come in between 15.47 and 16.1. (Yet 16.9 uses a different expression, interestingly, than 16.1 for the first day of the week.)
  2. Mary Magdalene is introduced by reference to her seven exorcised demons; this introduction comes off as a fresh narrative start, not as a callback to her most recent mention in the gospel proper. In the parallel in Luke 8.1b-3, this datum fittingly comes as part of her first overall introduction in the text.
  3. If the Longer Ending was originally designed as a deliberate termination for the gospel of Mark, it is striking that nowhere is Galilee mentioned in fulfillment of Mark 14.28; 16.7. Indeed, it is striking that, if the author of the Longer Ending used the other gospels as fodder, only Judean appearances are summarized.
Mark at 16:8 is a real downer and subject to raise doubts.
Agreed.
The long ending, not taking away Mk 16:8, corrects the problem by having Mary Magdalene going back to the tomb and witnessing the resurrected Jesus, and then telling the disciples about it.
The Longer Ending does correct the problem, but not in a bespoke way; it simply adds what was missing (resurrection appearances) without bothering to harmonize them to the body of the gospel.

ETA 1: By way of analogy, it is as if you have a pair of dress shoes whose laces have been lost and I have a pair of worn out tennis shoes with new laces. Me giving my laces to you solves the problem of your shoes not having any, but one will probably be able to tell that my tennis shoe laces were not originally designed for your dress shoes.

ETA 2: I should clarify that reasons 1 and 2 above are really more about the Longer Ending being spurious, which is not in doubt between Bernard and me. I can imagine both of those points even if someone wrote the Longer Ending specifically as an ending for Mark, though they are a bit suggestive of independence. Reason 3, however, is different; one would have to imagine someone writing an ending for Mark while simultaneously ignoring the Galilean predictions: possible but not very probable, IMHO. One could perhaps imagine that the Galilean predictions were not originally there to follow up on, but they were apparently added very early and one would have to argue that the redactor in question used a copy without them. It is easier to notice that nothing in the Longer Ending specifically suggests itself as having been written specifically for Mark; the problems it solves it does so generically, without any necessary reference to Mark; hence my analogy of the shoes and laces.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:42 am

Hi Ben,
I suggest that it was done independently of Mark. It originally either stood pretty much on its own or as part of a different text:
Mark 16.9 backtracks chronologically ("when he had arisen") to refer to the time of the resurrection, which would come in between 15.47 and 16.1. (Yet 16.9 uses a different expression, interestingly, than 16.1 for the first day of the week.)
Yes, 16:9 has a different expression for first day of the week, other than the ones in 16:1 and 16:2. But the expression in 16:1 and 16:2 are different from each other, so it is not surprising the long ending features still a different expression.
As far as the backtracking is concerned, without it the readers would wonder if the first day of the week in 16:9 would be the same day as Jesus' resurrection or one or more weeks later.
BTW, the author of the long ending specified that Jesus resurrected early in that morning. In Mark (before 16:9), there is no indication when Jesus resurrected after his death, before the women found the tomb empty. Problem solved!
Mary Magdalene is introduced by reference to her seven exorcised demons; this introduction comes off as a fresh narrative start, not as a callback to her most recent mention in the gospel proper. In the parallel in Luke 8.1b-3, this datum fittingly comes as part of her first overall introduction in the text.
The author of the long ending picked up the seven devils from Luke's gospel.
If the Longer Ending was originally designed as a deliberate termination for the gospel of Mark, it is striking that nowhere is Galilee mentioned in fulfillment of Mark 14.28; 16.7. Indeed, it is striking that, if the author of the Longer Ending used the other gospels as fodder, only Judean appearances are summarized.
Luke and Acts do not have reappearances in Galilee. Copies of John's gospel were published with or without Jn 21.
As for Matthew, I strongly suspect the reappearance on the high mountain was an early 2nd century interpolation. Anyway, the author of the long ending did nor care or was not aware of Matthew's gospel.
The Longer Ending does correct the problem, but not in a bespoke way; it simply adds what was missing (resurrection appearances) without bothering to harmonize them to the body of the gospel.
What harmonization? I guess it's about reappearance in Galilee missing in the long ending.
But if, in your proposal, the long ending was written before Luke (or pro-Luke), we have the same problem: the ending of Luke does not follow the long ending most of the time on the matter of what the resurrected Jesus said to his disciples.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8075
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:25 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:42 am
What harmonization? I guess it's about reappearance in Galilee missing in the long ending.
Exactly. I doubt that anybody deliberately wrote up an ending to Mark without the promised appearances in Galilee. It is possible, but I do not view it as probable.
But if, in your proposal, the long ending was written before Luke (or pro-Luke), we have the same problem: the ending of Luke does not follow the long ending most of the time on the matter of what the resurrected Jesus said to his disciples.
I am not sure why this is a problem. The main problem at stake in the Longer Ending is the lack of Galilean appearances, if we imagine the Longer Ending as a deliberate addendum specifically to Mark. The lack of Galilean appearances in Luke or in proto-Luke is fine, since that is a whole new gospel.

As for this bit: "the ending of Luke does not follow the long ending most of the time on the matter of what the resurrected Jesus said to his disciples," that is not a problem in my diagram, since both proto-Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark are independent treatments of Aristion.

ETA:
BTW, the author of the long ending specified that Jesus resurrected early in that morning. In Mark (before 16:9), there is no indication when Jesus resurrected after his death, before the women found the tomb empty. Problem solved!
I doubt that this is an intentional solving of the "problem." None of the canonical gospels seems to tell us exactly when Jesus rose from the dead. Even later, when gospels such as the one named after Peter start describing the resurrection itself, the motive seems to be simply to show the glorious event rather than to clarify any issues of timing. I do not think people viewed the timing in this manner; they simply accepted the 3 days and had done.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:52 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:25 pm
... an already composed summary to an already composed gospel.
Summary is an apt word.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:42 am
Hi Ben,
Mark 16.9 backtracks chronologically ("when he had arisen") to refer to the time of the resurrection, which would come in between 15.47 and 16.1. (Yet 16.9 uses a different expression, interestingly, than 16.1 for the first day of the week.)
As far as the backtracking is concerned, without it the readers would wonder if the first day of the week in 16:9 would be the same day as Jesus' resurrection or one or more weeks later.
BTW, the author of the long ending specified that Jesus resurrected early in that morning. In Mark (before 16:9), there is no indication when Jesus resurrected after his death, before the women found the tomb empty. Problem solved!
Another problem may be the loose beginning with Jesus as subject which is not linked to anything in GMark. It reminds me more of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:4-5 than any other appearance story in a known gospel because the focus of the report is initially on Jesus and not on Mary (or the women as in all gospels).

1 Corinthians 15:4-5 PsMark 16:9
that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, And having risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...

Therefore it seems to me somewhat puzzling what - based on reasonable logic - could have been said before PsMark 16:9. One would like to assume that it is the resurrection itself as a narrated event.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:22 pm

Hi Ben,
Exactly. I doubt that anybody deliberately wrote up an ending to Mark without the promised appearances in Galilee. It is possible, but I do not view it as probable.
It is obvious to me the author of the long ending departed from gMark and followed gJohn in order to solve the problem caused by Mk 16:8. That was his main priority.
The author of Mk 10:9-20 then followed gLuke: if the disciples were still in Jerusalem, it makes more sense Jesus would appear to them here (as in Jn 30), rather than 3 to 4 days (or more) later in Galilee.
And the author of gJohn knew about gLuke (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html). So gLuke was available when the long ending was written.
The lack of Galilean appearances in Luke or in proto-Luke is fine, since that is a whole new gospel.
A whole new gospel according to you. But if the author of this gospel knew about the long ending, why that new gospel did not adopt Mary Magdalene witnessing the resurrected Jesus (and the first one at that)? Instead, that's accomplished by two followers on their way to Emmaus, who do not identify the resurrected Jesus in broad daylight for hours?
As for this bit: "the ending of Luke does not follow the long ending most of the time on the matter of what the resurrected Jesus said to his disciples," that is not a problem in my diagram, since both proto-Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark are independent treatments of Aristion.
Independent of each other, but still written by the same author, who would substitute Mary Magdalene by two rather obscure followers and change words of the resurrected Jesus to his disciples. It is very hard to imagine.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8075
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:37 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:22 pm
Hi Ben,
Exactly. I doubt that anybody deliberately wrote up an ending to Mark without the promised appearances in Galilee. It is possible, but I do not view it as probable.
It is obvious to me the author of the long ending departed from gMark and followed gJohn in order to solve the problem caused by Mk 16:8. That was his main priority.
How did your editor/author solve the problem of Mark 16.7 and 14.28? A Galilean prediction with no Galilean appearance.
The author of Mk 10:9-20 then followed gLuke: if the disciples were still in Jerusalem, it makes more sense Jesus would appear to them here (as in Jn 30), rather than 3 to 4 days (or more) later in Galilee.
And the author of gJohn knew about gLuke (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html). So gLuke was available when the long ending was written.
The lack of Galilean appearances in Luke or in proto-Luke is fine, since that is a whole new gospel.
A whole new gospel according to you. But if the author of this gospel knew about the long ending, why that new gospel did not adopt Mary Magdalene witnessing the resurrected Jesus (and the first one at that)? Instead, that's accomplished by two followers on their way to Emmaus, who do not identify the resurrected Jesus in broad daylight for hours?
Well, remember, I am not sure that the author of Luke knew the Longer Ending of Mark. If you want to delete that dotted line from my diagram, I will not be offended.
As for this bit: "the ending of Luke does not follow the long ending most of the time on the matter of what the resurrected Jesus said to his disciples," that is not a problem in my diagram, since both proto-Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark are independent treatments of Aristion.
Independent of each other, but still written by the same author, who would substitute Mary Magdalene by two rather obscure followers and change words of the resurrected Jesus to his disciples. It is very hard to imagine.
This argument does not apply if that dotted line is erased. In that case, both Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark would be following Aristion, with no knowledge of or obligation to account for whatever the other author/editor was doing.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:02 pm

How did your editor/author solve the problem of Mark 16.7 and 14.28? A Galilean prediction with no Galilean appearance.
I already said the reappearance in Galilee in gMatthew is most likely an early 2nd century insertion. Without it, initially gMatthew had no fulfillment of prophecies of Jesus about meeting his disciples in Galilee. My explanation is in http://historical-jesus.info/appdx.html ("find" on great commission in order to get to the relevant passage).
both Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark would be following Aristion, with no knowledge of or obligation to account for whatever the other author/editor was doing.
What did that enigmatic Aristion wrote? We do not know. That's what you wrote yourself in another thread (bolding mine):
I have mentioned before that Armenian Manuscript Etchmiadsin 229 (Matenadaran 2374) has a note between Mark 16.8 and 16.9: "Of Ariston the Elder," which puts one in mind of how Papias refers to Aristion in the same breath as he refers to John the Elder. It has been suggested, therefore, in some quarters that Aristion is the originator of the material in the long ending, and that Papias quoted him by name, and that an Armenian scribe compared what Papias had quoted from Aristion to the contents of the longer ending. Such a suggestion must probably forever remain a suggestion, but the possibility exists.
We are looking at possibilities nested in each other and nothing more.
What Luke and the Longer Ending of Mark would be following from Aristion? This Aristion, relative to the long ending, is most speculative and unevidenced.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:04 pm

Please forgive the intrusion here.

I'm not one to push the relation between Luke and Acts but the LE appears to reference a few items found in Suetonius, Acts and the LE. The LE contains this:

Mark 28: 17 - 18 (RSV):

[17] And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
[18] they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Consider the following:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Titus":

"He [Titus} was brought up at court in company with Britannicus and taught the same subjects by the same masters. At that time, so they say, a physiognomist was brought in by Narcissus, the freedman of Claudius, to examine Britannicus and declared most positively that he would never become emperor; but that Titus, who was standing near by at the time, would surely rule. The boys were so intimate too, that it is believed that when Britannicus drained the fatal draught, Titus, who was reclining at his side, also tasted of the potion and for a long time suffered from an obstinate disorder...

This will be more than a Laundry List of Match-'em-'Ups, at least with me since I can place all of the Events mentioned in Sequence. YMMV.

The Roman Thesis writes of the coming of the Flavians. The Vanguard of this Movement is Mucianus, Procurator of Syria. The Template of "Paul" is Mucianus.

Acts 28: 3 - 5 (RSV):

[3] Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand.
[4] When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live."
[5] He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.

"They will pick up serpents...it will not harm them...": Who would be the Serpent to Mucianus?

Tacitus, Histories, Book 3:

"While with this world-wide convulsion the Imperial power was changing hands, the conduct of Primus Antonius, after the fall of Cremona, was by no means as blameless as before. Either he believed that the necessities of the war had been satisfied, and that all else would follow easily, or, perhaps, success, working on such a temperament, developed his latent pride, rapacity and other vices. He swept through Italy as if it were a conquered country and caressed the legions as if they were his own; by all his words and acts he sought to pave for himself the way to power. To imbue the army with a spirit of licence, he offered to the legions the commissions of the centurions killed in the war. By their vote the most turbulent men were elected. The soldiers in fact were not under the control of the generals, but the generals were themselves constrained to follow the furious impulses of the soldiers. These mutinous proceedings, so ruinous to discipline, Antonius soon turned to his own profit, regardless of the near approach of Mucianus, a neglect more fatal than any contempt for Vespasian...
***
"Antonius and the other generals of the party judged it expedient to send forward the cavalry and explore the whole of Umbria for some point where the Apennines presented a more gentle ascent, and also to bring up the eagles and standards and all the troops at Verona, while they were to cover the Padus and the sea with convoys. Some there were among the generals who were contriving delays, for Antonius in fact was now becoming too great a man, and their hopes from Mucianus were more definite. That commander, troubled at so speedy a success, and imagining that unless he occupied Rome in person he should lose all share in the glory of the war, continued to write in ambiguous terms to Varus and Antonius, enlarging at one time on the necessity of following up their operations, at another on the advantage of delay, and with expressions so worded that he could, according to the event, repudiate a disastrous, or claim a successful policy. To Plotius Griphus, who had lately been raised by Vespasian to the senatorial rank and appointed to command a legion, as well as to all others on whom he could fully rely, he gave plainer instructions. All these men sent replies reflecting unfavourably on the precipitancy of Varus and Antonius, and suiting the wishes of Mucianus. By forwarding these letters to Vespasian he had accomplished this much, that the measures and achievements of Antonius were not valued according to his hopes.

"Antonius was indignant, and blamed Mucianus, whose calumnies had depreciated his own hazardous achievements. Nor was he temperate in his expressions, for he was habitually violent in language, and was unaccustomed to obey. He wrote a letter to Vespasian in terms more arrogant than should be addressed to an Emperor, and not without implied reproach against Mucianus. "It was I," he said, "who brought into the field the legions of Pannonia; my instigations roused the generals in Moesia; my courageous resolution forced a passage through the Alps, seized on Italy, and cut off the succours from Germany and Rhaetia. The discomfiture of the disunited and scattered legions of Vitellius by a fierce charge of cavalry, and afterwards by the steady strength of the infantry in a conflict that lasted for a day and a night, was indeed a most glorious achievement, and it was my work...

"The meaning of all this did not escape Mucianus, and there arose a deadly feud, cherished by Antonius with frankness, by Mucianus with reserve, and therefore with the greater bitterness..."

As I have stated before, assignments of meaning in the assertions of Symbolism are many and varied. There is no guarantee of Veridical Propositions. Nonetheless, there are Clues that this is correct.

Paul picks up a bundle of sticks, echoing the Fasces. He throws them on the fire. The Senate is on notice and see also what happened to various Members, as found in Tacitus, Book 4 and 1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17.

The serpent attaches to "Paul's" hand, Mucianus did approach Rome from the sea by way of The Pontus, and Antonius Primus was successfully eliminated. The "Hand Symbolism" has been seen before, in "The Man with the Withered Hand" in Mark - "Jesus" heals the Man and he is free to write about what he has seen 12 years earlier at the Death of the 3000.

The rest is Flavian material mostly found in Acts. There are many people much more intelligent than I who could find the Match-Ups that are Correlates to Acts in Luke, if that Relationship truly holds.

Thus, I find that the LE has Historical Markers and may be identified with the Flavian Camp after the Ascension. YMMV - Big Time.

Thanx All,

CW

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8075
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:18 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:02 pm
How did your editor/author solve the problem of Mark 16.7 and 14.28? A Galilean prediction with no Galilean appearance.
I already said the reappearance in Galilee in gMatthew is most likely an early 2nd century insertion. Without it, initially gMatthew had no fulfillment of prophecies of Jesus about meeting his disciples in Galilee. My explanation is in http://historical-jesus.info/appdx.html ("find" on great commission in order to get to the relevant passage).
You did not answer my question. I asked how the author of the Longer Ending of Mark solved the problem of there being no Galilean appearance in Mark. Matthew has nothing to do with it.
We are looking at possibilities nested in each other and nothing more.
I totally agree.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply