Here's a page that argues the history of the gospel Mark as well as the hypothesis that John 21, a recognized appendage to John is an interpolated version of the ending to gospel Mark.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/
thoughts?
John 21 the ending of Mark?
by peacefulpete 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
It gives a pretty competent analysis of the data. The foreshadowing of a Galilean post-resurrection appearance in Mark 14:27-28, 16:7 was one reason I always thought John 21 and Gospel of Peter 14:60 reflect the content of the missing ending of Mark, if such an ending is really missing. There are a few more facts that the author did not mention which are quite pertinent. Most important is the allusion in 2 Peter 1:14 of the prophecy attested in John 21:18. Since 2 Peter was likely written between AD 100-150, this may well be the earliest reference to the material in ch. 21 of John, and yet the allusion in v. 14 appears alongside another gospel tradition that happens to be absent in John: namely, the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17-18 = Mark 9:2-8). This might be a clue that the author of 2 Peter used a written gospel that included both pericopes, and this may well have been an edition of Mark with the ending represented in John 21. Also recall the tradition from Papias onward that Mark was associated with the Petrine tradition; an ending containing such strongly Petrine concerns as found in John 21 would go a long way to explain Papias' tradition. On the other hand, Baukham's analysis of the wording of 2 Peter 1:17-18 gives support to the theory that 2 Peter used an independent tradition. One striking piece of evidence is the eis hon "into whom" in 2 Peter 1:17, which is a very rare construction absent in all the synoptic gospels but attested in the allusion to the Transfiguration story in the Pseudo-Clementines (Hom. 3.53) and in one manuscript of Matthew 12:18. Also both 2 Peter 1:17 and the Pseudo-Clementines describe the divine voice as ex ouranou "from heaven" (while the synoptics have the voice coming "from the cloud") and this is another feature that puts 2 Peter in the same company with the Ebionite Jewish-Christian gospels (which figure into the textual corruptions of Matthew) as opposed to the canonical synoptics. This is a fascinating link because the Syrian Ebionties were squarely within the Petrine tradition (as amply shown in the various documents collated into the Pseudo-Clementines, such as the Epistula Petri, the Itinerary of Peter, the Kerygmata Petrou). On such a slender basis, I might speculate that the simplest explanation is that one of the lost Jewish-Christian gospels was a direct source for 2 Peter, and this gospel preserves the original ending to Mark (which traditionally was also placed in the Petrine tradition). JD Crossan has an interesting theory that Mark and the Gospel of Peter are both dependent on an earlier literary source for the Passion narrative and the post-resurrection stories (the so-called Cross Gospel), and it may be this text that included the ending which was lost in Mark, preserved in the Gospel of Peter, and dislocated to John. Another complicating issue is the fact that Mark went through several editions. Secret Mark provides great confirming evidence of this, but even without it there is sufficient evidence to show that the present text which has a strong baptism = death/resurrection motif (a more spiritual, mystical motif) is secondary to the more original text. This is especially clear from Mark 10:38-39 which represents a later redaction from the edition used by the authors of Matthew and Luke (cf. Matthew 20:20-23), and if the baptismal imagery resulted from a secondary redaction of the gospel, then the baptismal/resurrection circularity described by Robert Price (in which the missing resurrection epiphany is intended to be Jesus' baptism in Galilee at the outset of the gospel) is also likely secondary.
Anyway, it's a mystery and I would like to see a cache of Jewish-Christian manuscripts as we have been getting from the Egyptian gnostics. That would be really awesome!
-
Leolaia
BTW, the present text of John 21 has Johannine touches, such as John 21:24 = 3 John 12 and the usage of ean in John 21:25 (= 1 John 3:20), and the unusual use of phaneroó in John 21:1, 14 to describe a resurrection appearance is distinct from the four canonical gospels but present in the Longer Ending to Mark (cf. Mark 16:12, 14). Since there is other evidence that both the final redaction of John and the Longer Ending to Mark are connected to the Asiatic presbyters, the verbal links could constitute further supporting evidence. The pronoun shift in John 21:24 of course is another indicator of a post-Johannine redaction.
Another piece of evidence suggesting that the tradition about the Beloved Disciple in John 21 was associated with the synoptic gospels is the logion in Mark 9:1 (= Luke 9:27, Matthew 16:28), which provides a counterpoint to John 21:23.
-
peacefulpete
As a thought, the GPeter has no Judas betrayal. All 12 are involved in appearances. This is suggestive to me that mark may not have originallyt contained this othewise suspicious detail.
-
Narkissos
Nothing to add for the moment, but thanks for a very interesting link and comments.
-
Leolaia
I don't know if the allusion to the Twelve in Gospel of Peter 14:59 is a sufficient basis for concluding that it knew of no Judas betrayal plot. The phrase "the Twelve" was a stereotyped phrase referring to the inner circle of disciples (Matthew 10:1-2, 4, 26:14; Mark 3:14, 4:10, 6:7, 9:35, 10:32, 11:11, 14:10-20; Luke 8:1, 9:1, 12, 22:3; John 6:67, 70-71, 20:24; Acts 6:2; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Revelation 21:14), and the alternate phrase "the Eleven" referring to the apostles remaining after Judas' suicide appears only in the synoptics and the Longer Ending to Mark (cf. Matthew 28:16; Pseudo-Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 1:26, 2:14). Thus John continues to use "the Twelve" in John 20:24, which pertains to the time after Jesus started making his post-resurrection appearances. This usage reflects the fact that no narrative of Judas' suicide appears in the Fourth Gospel. But it does contain a betrayal narrative involving Judas (John 18:2-6). So it is entirely possible that the Gospel of Peter had a Judas betrayal story while lacking a Judas suicide story. The stereotyped usage of "the Twelve" also accounts for the "weeping and mourning" in 14:59. Moreover, some gospel traditions held that Judas did not die by hanging but lingered on some time longer (as attested by Papias of Hierapolis). Since the text is fragmentary and begins only after Jesus' trial, and thus after the betrayal pericope in the parallel versions (i.e. Gospel of Peter 1:1-2 = Matthew 27:15-26, Luke 23:13-25; Gospel of Peter 2:3-5 = John 19:38-42), there is no reason to expect a betrayal story in the extant text. And it quite isn't the case that "all twelve" were involved in apperances; Gospel of Peter 14:58 only mentions three apostles, and there the text breaks off again.
Meanwhile, here's another detail to chew on. As I mentioned in my previous post, the distinctive use of phaneroó in John 21:1, 14 is paralleled only in Pseudo-Mark 16:12, 14. But considering our previous discussions on docetism, I am surprised we didn't take Pseudo-Mark into account, as it has a very striking reference to the resurrected Jesus as ephaneróthé en hetera morphé "appearing in another form". I would be very interested in finding a word study on this passage -- as it has suggestive docetic overtones -- and it may have connections to early liturgical material, cf. ephaneróthé en sarki "manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and en morphé theou "in the form of God" in Philippians 2:6. I think the key thing to research here would be the use of hetera and what is typically meant by "different forms" of manifestation. The only parallel I can think of is the sarkos heteras "different flesh" of Jude 7 (contrasting between angels and humans) and more pertinently, the use of hetera in 1 Corinthians 15:40 to refer to differences between heavenly and earthly somata "bodies" in the resurrection. And isn't phaneroó itself somewhat suggestive of spiritual appearances rather than fleshly ones? Maybe Narkissos could help out here....this seems to be an intriguing question of whether Pseudo-Mark 16:12 assumes a full-fleged docetism or not.
-
peacefulpete
Sorry Leolaia I am not convinced about the 12 being used meaning 11. None of the occasons in the Synoptics or John has that meaning. The 12 always means the group of 12. Even John 20 where Thomas is called "one of the 12" requires this interpretation. GPeter of the other hand has "the 12" grieving Jesus' death which has taken them by surprise. 1 Cor 15 of course does parallel GPeter in this way. if I remembr you felt that those words were original with glosses added later. That fits my hypothesis.
-
Leolaia
What do you think about the issue with Mark 16:12?
Regarding the Gospel of Peter, I was not suggesting that "twelve" here has the sense of "eleven", but rather that the "twelve" has a monolithic sense referring to the whole group with the author not caring whether or not Judas himself was among those grieving. Judas may well no longer be in view in the mind of the author at this point in the narrative -- resulting in a technical inconsistency (in the event of an earlier betrayal pericope in the gospel). My only point is that the portion of the gospel that would indicate whether such a pericope was included or not just happens to be missing, and the reference to the "twelve" grieving may suggest the absence of the betrayal pericope earlier in the text, but the evidence is far too equivocal to support an outright claim that "GPeter has no Judas betrayal" -- this is simply not known.
-
jst2laws
OK, you guys,
I want the three of you to know I don't comment much on these because I often have to print them out, read and underline and then formulate my thoughts. By the time I do this the thread is dead.
Leolaia, you especially amaze me with your quick responses. By the time I have read something you have already posted an extensive commentary with documentation.
Jst2laws
-
Leolaia
Thanks jst2laws....And if you want to comment on an older thread btw, feel free to do so, that may help revive it.