The Lost Ending of GMk: Conclusion

In my last post, I presented a completed ending to original GMk.

So what happened to it?

The Lost Ending of GMk, pt. 4

In the last post, we completed a chiasm for the original ending of GMk--two chiasms, actually, including the pericope begun by Mk 16:1-8.  Although we completed each bracket using material shared among the sea-miracles in GMt (the Water-Walking and the Fish and the Coin), GLk (the Calling of the Disciples/the Catch of Fish), and GJn (the Appearance in Galilee/the Catch of Fish), the end result seemed a bit brief, as though there were still more material to add.  In this post, we'll find that remaining material in the same manner, by searching for shared material among GMt, GLk, and GJn.  We'll find that it fits nicely into chiastic brackets, thus completing the original ending of GMk.

Again, here is what we have so far:

The Lost Ending of GMk, pt. 3

Before I proceed, I wanted to mention this article that James McGrath published in February of this year, essentially on the same subject: the probable existence of a missing ending to GMk based on the internal, textual evidence of GMk up to Mk 16:8, and the witness of GPet to the content of that missing ending. 

At any rate, in the last post, we got a kind of rough outline of what a missing ending of GMk might have originally looked like, based on the principle that the first verses of Mk 1 would form a kind of super-chiasm bracket with it--that is, that we should expect to find the specific themes of Mk 1 replicated at the end of the Markan gospel.

And I argue we can go even further with this, and figure out the specific details found in this final pericope.  In a previous post on the signs in GMk, I provided two lists from Raymond Brown’s Anchor Bible commentary on GJn: one of parallels between Lk 5:1-11 and Jn 21, and another of parallels between Mt 14:28-32 and Jn 21. 

The list of Lukan parallels is as follows (with triple parallels in the Matthean Water-Walking underlined)

The Lost Ending of GMk, pt. 2

Now consider the idea that the entire Markan gospel was originally one big super-chiasm.  This idea has been best put forward by M. Philip Scott, in Biblical Theology Bulletin ("Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark's Gospel", BTB 15.1, pp. 17-26), laid out in rather intriguing detail.  Pairs of opposed ideas do seem to be spread throughout the gospel, in nested conceptual brackets, just like they are within individual pericopes.  For example, Scott characterizes the beginning and end of the gospel (ibid, p. 18) as "An angel witnesses to his coming" with "An angel witnesses to his going", though I would amend the second half slightly to “An angel witnesses to his returning”.

So once we recognize the overall chiastic structure of Mark's gospel in general, the remaining pieces of the missing ending fall into place, along with the original super-structure.  Notice that what we have at the beginning of Mark’s gospel is not just John’s announcement of the coming of a messiah, but also some substantial baptism imagery.  Not only do we have the baptisms of John's followers, but we also notably have the baptism of Jesus.  Furthermore, we have John's promise that Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit--and, following Mark's adoptionist theology, we also have Jesus' own baptism in the spirit.

The Lost Ending of GMk, pt. 1

I did promise a post on the lost ending of GMk, didn't I?  Well, alright, here it is.  This will be a series of two or three posts, I think.  Then we'll get back to describing the final sign in the Signs Gospel.

The key to understanding the lost ending of GMk lies in understanding the chiasmic nature of the original GMk.  As I have often mentioned, Michael Turton (following principally John Dart, but others as well of course) has helped show how each authentically Markan pericope has achiastic structure with a twinned or paired center.  I don’t think Turton gets every one quite right (and in fact I’m probably going to do my own version of GMk, chiasm by chiasm), but he at least makes a good go at it, and some are very insightful.   

Turton tries his hand at constructing a chiasm for Mk 16:1-8, showing that it seems to be missing an A' bracket, ending enigmatically--and infamously--with "they were afraid, for" (EFOBOUNTO GAR).  There is a strenuous debate in the scholarly literature about whether this is a sentence fragment or not, focusing in particular on the question of whether GAR can serve as the end of a sentence, as well as at the end of an entire work.  To summarize, yes, sentences can occasionally end with GAR in ancient Greek (including the Septuagint), but only one other work, the Third Treatise of Plotinus, ends in GAR.

There is also the problem of why the Markan author would predict an appearance of the risen Jesus in Galilee, but fail to describe it, or why he would leave the reader hanging on the questions of whether the women would tell the disciples about what they saw, whether the young man's prediction would come true, whether Jesus were truly risen at all, etc.

Here is Turton's attempt at a chiasm: