The Historical Life of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan (New York: Harper Collins, 1991) p 415 - 416
My theory, then, is that canonical Mark dismembered Secret Mark's story of the young man's resurrection and initiation so that only Mark 14:51–52 residually evidenced the initiation and Mark 16:1–8 residually evidenced the resurrection. Thus, for example, the “tomb” in Mark 16:2, 3, 5, 8 comes from the “tomb” in Secret Mark 1v26; 2rl, 2, 6; “who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb” in Mark 16:3 comes from “rolled away the stone from the door of of the tomb” in Secret Mark 2r1–2; and, especially, the “young man” in the tomb in Mark 16:5 comes from the “young man” in the tomb in Secret Mark 2r3,4,6. But that raises a question I did not realize earlier (1976; 1988a:283–284). When you remove those elements, what is actually left for a conclusion to Secret Mark? How did Secret Mark, the first version of Mark's Gospel, actually end? If the young man in the tomb was created by canonical Mark, what was there before that creation? Did Secret Mark conclude with any story about finding the empty tomb?
The obvious answer is that of course it did. There are still the women. But now I notice a curious coincidence that I missed before. There are three women identified in Secret Mark 2r14–16 as “the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome. There are also three women mentioned in Mark 15:40 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” in 15:47 as “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses,” and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.” Is that too much coincidence?
There are, obviously, far more names given in canonical Mark, but it and Secret Mark agree, respectively, on a triad involving, first, a named or unnamed woman, second, a named or unnamed mother, and, third, Salome. I think that, once again, canonical Mark has simply relocated the textual debris of a censored incident from Secret Mark. So do even the three women, inaugurally and therapeutically enveloped among many other women in 15:40–41, come from the creativity of canonical Mark? The three women were not, any more than the young man in the tomb, part of the conclusion to Secret Mark. The question presses, then, how did it end?
My proposal is that the original version of Mark's Gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems from canonical Mark. I realize, of course, that such a claim lacks any external or manuscript evidence unless one retrojects the fact that redoing the ending of Mark became a small industry in the early church. The evidence for it is internal and circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial. But it fits very well with a Markan theology in which faith and hope despite persecution and death is much more important than visions, apparitions and even revelations. [John Dominic Crossan The Historical Life of Jesus p. 415 - 416]
The obvious answer is that of course it did. There are still the women. But now I notice a curious coincidence that I missed before. There are three women identified in Secret Mark 2r14–16 as “the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome. There are also three women mentioned in Mark 15:40 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” in 15:47 as “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses,” and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.” Is that too much coincidence?
There are, obviously, far more names given in canonical Mark, but it and Secret Mark agree, respectively, on a triad involving, first, a named or unnamed woman, second, a named or unnamed mother, and, third, Salome. I think that, once again, canonical Mark has simply relocated the textual debris of a censored incident from Secret Mark. So do even the three women, inaugurally and therapeutically enveloped among many other women in 15:40–41, come from the creativity of canonical Mark? The three women were not, any more than the young man in the tomb, part of the conclusion to Secret Mark. The question presses, then, how did it end?
My proposal is that the original version of Mark's Gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems from canonical Mark. I realize, of course, that such a claim lacks any external or manuscript evidence unless one retrojects the fact that redoing the ending of Mark became a small industry in the early church. The evidence for it is internal and circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial. But it fits very well with a Markan theology in which faith and hope despite persecution and death is much more important than visions, apparitions and even revelations. [John Dominic Crossan The Historical Life of Jesus p. 415 - 416]
Comments
Post a Comment