In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

81 Chapter 3 The Synoptic Gospels and Acts The Synoptic Gospels, which probably came into being between A.D. 70 and 90, can as Martin Kähler put it be regarded as “passion narratives with extended introductions.”1 They bear the impression of the fundamental eschatological significance of the resurrection of the crucified one every bit as much as the Pauline letters. They also, however, wish to tell who this Jesus of Nazareth was, and how it happened that he was murdered by crucifixion. This does not mean, however, that the Gospels are completely absorbed with questions of historical interest. That Jesus’ proclamation of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God, and above all his parables pertaining to the kingdom of God, should be understood in continuity with the God who raised him from the dead is clear from the scriptural foundation of the Gospels’ Christian memory. God’s merciful and just action in the resurrection becomes comprehensible as the identification of God with Jesus’ own portrayal of God. In his eschatological act of raising Jesus from the dead, God is shown as the one about whom Jesus of Nazareth spoke. Moreover, through the resurrection God gives Jesus justice. The Gospels fulfill yet another task. They accomplish what Paul also said about his own proclamation: they portray Jesus as the Resurrected One who was crucified, the Son of God exalted to the Lord and active for believers in the present. In significant ways the Gospels also represent the absent body of the Resurrected One who was crucified. In this way the Gospels are themselves signs of his resurrection. That the proclamation of the resurrection of the Crucified One and not just the memory of the words and deeds of Jesus stands at the theological 82—The Reality of the Resurrection center of Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, however, points clearly to the theological intention of Christianity’s first church historian. In any event, the differences among the Synoptics cannot be overlooked , for they narrate the Jesus-Christ-Story with rather differing conceptions , something which in turn is seen in their respective presentations of resurrection theology. The Gospel of Mark For the interpretation of the gospel of Mark and especially for the present question of its resurrection discourse, the question of where the gospel ends plays an important role. The text-critical witness points to the problem of Mark’s ending: If we follow the most ancient witnesses, then Mark 16:9-20 does not belong to the earliest text of the gospel. Verses 9-20 complete the gospel of Mark by adding references to stories about encounters with the resurrected “Jesus” (cf. 16:9). We find similar accounts in other gospels but not in the original Mark. The gospel of Mark thus originally ended with the tantalizingly abrupt comment of verse 8: “And they”—the women—“went out” from the tomb of Jesus “and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Can a gospel end with the message that the women were seized with paralyzing fear at the tomb of the Crucified One, fear that prevented them from understanding the empty tomb as a sign of good news rather than their proclaiming this fact with joy? Can a gospel conclude without stories of encounters with the one raised from the dead? These questions probably confronted readers already in the second century,2 and they answered them by annexing stories culled from reading other gospels. From then on the gospel of Mark was more often than not handed down with this longer ending (16:9-20). Thus it stands recorded even today in many contemporary editions of the Bible. There is also a shorter addition to the original conclusion to Mark. It reads, “And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation . Amen.” This variant ending of the gospel of Mark, attested by an old Latin manuscript, also shows how intolerable the original ending of Mark has appeared to many readers. Several manuscripts even combine both additions. Readers of the first centuries are not the only ones who have had problems with the original ending of Mark. Academic exegesis of the [3.145.42.94] Project MUSE...

Share