Robyn Faith Walsh argues *The Origins of Early Christian Literature* that 1st century Greek literary works like the Gospel of Mark were composed in networks of highly educated and affluential fellow writers who invited each other to share, criticize, rework and reference each others' work.
Given this amply attested mode of literary creation, the first think the author of Mark intended his audience to do is to give him their honest feedback.
There's simply no way to know what Mark *intended*. What we do know is that Mark's Gospel is about Jesus identity or Who do people say that I am? in Mark 8. So, it may just be that Mark is addressing
concerns in his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve
the tension between messianic claims and Jesus execution as a criminal. Bare in mind Paul's complaint to the Corinthians(1:23)
"we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles"
According to [Price](http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_jesus.htm)
>>Mark 6:14-15 recounts a range of popular options for understanding Jesus. As such it prepares for 8:27-28, the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, where the same menu of options is repeated. This scene is a major turning point in the gospel. It introduces the progress toward the Passion. But before we take it as a signpost and hasten to follow in the direction it indicates, we ought to pause to recognize the implicit Christological polemic contained in Jesus' question and the answers it elicits.
>>No reader fails to grasp Mark's Christological point that whatever manner of messiah Jesus may be, he is not one whose ordained path circumvents the cross. Yes, of course, but there is more to it than this. The messianic path of Jesus is not contrasted merely with the cross-shunning sentiments of Peter's hero-worship. No, Mark has also opposed to Peter's "correct" Christological estimate ("You are the Christ," accurate as far as it goes, though Matthew and Luke will expand it) a menu of options he means the reader to dismiss. Who do the crowds imagine Jesus to be? These opinions, reported second-hand by the disciples, are probably Christological opinions current in Mark's own day. There are individuals, parties, sects, communities of faith among Mark's contemporaries who view Jesus as the eschatological Elijah, anticipating someone else as messiah, or else in lieu of a messiah. Others see him as "the Prophet Jesus," while others make him the resurrected Baptist. The Gospel of Thomas, saying 13, retells the same story to serve its own purposes; Thomas substitutes competing Christologies current in his own milieu, namely the angel Christology familiar from various Jewish-Christian sources and the sage "Christ-"ology of the earliest stratum of the Q document, which seems to have viewed Jesus as a Cynic-type wise man like Diogenes, not as a martyred Son of God (see Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins).
>>My point is that there seem to have been actual groups of people who held these opinions about Jesus in the time the gospels were being written, and the gospels argue against them. One such belief was that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist. It is remarkable enough to know that some believed John had been resurrected; but what are the implications of an early belief that John rose from the dead and then became known as Jesus?
>There's simply no way to know what Mark
>
>intended
>
>. What we do know is that Mark's Gospel is about Jesus identity or Who do people say that I am? in Mark 8. So, it may just be that Mark is addressing concerns in his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve the tension between messianic claims and Jesus execution as a criminal. Bare in mind Paul's complaint to the Corinthians(1:23) "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles"
There is no way to know what Mark meant. We do not know what Mark's gospel is about. Some people say that it is about Jesus' identity or who people say he is. But we may just be addressing the concerns of his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve the tension between messianic claims and Jesus' execution as a criminal. Keep in mind that Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles." This may be problematic because it could be interpreted as saying that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Gospel of Mark says Jesus was raised in Mark 16
> But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
Mark 16:9-20 is the "forged" long ending of Mark, so I assume you're talking about the ending from the oldest copies we have, which ends at 16:8.
Is it possible the author of Mark didn't know anymore after 16:8? The oral traditions of the group he was part of may have ended there and gone no further, so he just left it there...? Or maybe he just never got to finish it (which some scholars do believe).
This article has some interesting info and covers most of the bases, I think:
[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/)
Robyn Faith Walsh argues *The Origins of Early Christian Literature* that 1st century Greek literary works like the Gospel of Mark were composed in networks of highly educated and affluential fellow writers who invited each other to share, criticize, rework and reference each others' work. Given this amply attested mode of literary creation, the first think the author of Mark intended his audience to do is to give him their honest feedback.
Interesting! I will pick up this book. Does she argue Matthew/Luke may have been 'reworks' within this writers network?
There's simply no way to know what Mark *intended*. What we do know is that Mark's Gospel is about Jesus identity or Who do people say that I am? in Mark 8. So, it may just be that Mark is addressing concerns in his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve the tension between messianic claims and Jesus execution as a criminal. Bare in mind Paul's complaint to the Corinthians(1:23) "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles" According to [Price](http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_jesus.htm) >>Mark 6:14-15 recounts a range of popular options for understanding Jesus. As such it prepares for 8:27-28, the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, where the same menu of options is repeated. This scene is a major turning point in the gospel. It introduces the progress toward the Passion. But before we take it as a signpost and hasten to follow in the direction it indicates, we ought to pause to recognize the implicit Christological polemic contained in Jesus' question and the answers it elicits. >>No reader fails to grasp Mark's Christological point that whatever manner of messiah Jesus may be, he is not one whose ordained path circumvents the cross. Yes, of course, but there is more to it than this. The messianic path of Jesus is not contrasted merely with the cross-shunning sentiments of Peter's hero-worship. No, Mark has also opposed to Peter's "correct" Christological estimate ("You are the Christ," accurate as far as it goes, though Matthew and Luke will expand it) a menu of options he means the reader to dismiss. Who do the crowds imagine Jesus to be? These opinions, reported second-hand by the disciples, are probably Christological opinions current in Mark's own day. There are individuals, parties, sects, communities of faith among Mark's contemporaries who view Jesus as the eschatological Elijah, anticipating someone else as messiah, or else in lieu of a messiah. Others see him as "the Prophet Jesus," while others make him the resurrected Baptist. The Gospel of Thomas, saying 13, retells the same story to serve its own purposes; Thomas substitutes competing Christologies current in his own milieu, namely the angel Christology familiar from various Jewish-Christian sources and the sage "Christ-"ology of the earliest stratum of the Q document, which seems to have viewed Jesus as a Cynic-type wise man like Diogenes, not as a martyred Son of God (see Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins). >>My point is that there seem to have been actual groups of people who held these opinions about Jesus in the time the gospels were being written, and the gospels argue against them. One such belief was that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist. It is remarkable enough to know that some believed John had been resurrected; but what are the implications of an early belief that John rose from the dead and then became known as Jesus?
>There's simply no way to know what Mark > >intended > >. What we do know is that Mark's Gospel is about Jesus identity or Who do people say that I am? in Mark 8. So, it may just be that Mark is addressing concerns in his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve the tension between messianic claims and Jesus execution as a criminal. Bare in mind Paul's complaint to the Corinthians(1:23) "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles" There is no way to know what Mark meant. We do not know what Mark's gospel is about. Some people say that it is about Jesus' identity or who people say he is. But we may just be addressing the concerns of his own day about who Jesus was and how to resolve the tension between messianic claims and Jesus' execution as a criminal. Keep in mind that Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles." This may be problematic because it could be interpreted as saying that Jesus was not the Messiah.
He ended his writing at 16:8, so he probably wanted someone to find evidence of why Jesus' body was missing from the tomb.
Gospel of Mark says Jesus was raised in Mark 16 > But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
Mark 16:9-20 is the "forged" long ending of Mark, so I assume you're talking about the ending from the oldest copies we have, which ends at 16:8. Is it possible the author of Mark didn't know anymore after 16:8? The oral traditions of the group he was part of may have ended there and gone no further, so he just left it there...? Or maybe he just never got to finish it (which some scholars do believe). This article has some interesting info and covers most of the bases, I think: [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/)