Quick, name one of the absolute worst movies ever made. If your list included any of the following three classics, you win. Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964) or They Saved Hitler’s Brain (1968). Why? In Plan 9, Bela Lugosi (the star of the movie) died midmovie and was replaced by his body-double who didn’t look anything like him, but he “fooled” the audience by covering his face in every scene with his cape. Classic! The name of the movie alone should land Santa and the Martians on this list; and if that is not enough, the plot is also horrific. And any movie where Hitler’s dead, severed head hopes to rule over a new Third Reich from South America can’t, by definition alone, be any good. All of these could qualify as the worst movie ever. Quicker, name one of the worst TV shows ever made? If your list includes any of the following, you also win. My Mother the Car (1965-66), Manimal (1983) or Cop Rock (1990). His mother was reincarnated as a 1928 touring car (My Mother the Car). He solved crimes by transforming into any animal he wanted (Manimal). They were police who solved crimes and then broke into song and dance (Cop Rock). All of these were really, really bad TV. Quickest, name the worst resurrection account of the four gospels. There is no doubt about this one. It’s . . .
Now, I know it is inappropriate to call any chapter of the Bible, “the worst,” but work with me. When you read the four gospel accounts of the resurrection, it is not hard to spot the differences because there are many, and they all lead to the same general conclusion: Mark is the worst (I know, not the worst, but can we agree that it is not the best; in fact, it is the very opposite of the best?). Let’s start with the obvious difference—the length. Matthew’s account is 20 verses long. Luke’s account is 53 verses long. John’s account is also 53 verses long (the verses in chapters 20 and 21 minus John’s editorial comments). And Mark? Mark’s account is 8 verses short. Consider the emotional impact of the four accounts. Matthew ends his report of that first Easter day with a satisfying, hope-filled, deeply emotional saying of Jesus (Mt. 28:10):
“Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Luke has Jesus speaking to the disciples in what can be described as a glorious commission. There, Jesus says (Lk. 24:46-49):
“This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
John ends his account with Thomas’ powerful confession (“My Lord and my God!”) and Jesus’ response (Jn. 20:29):
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Mark moves in the totally opposite direction (Mk. 16:8):
“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”
Say it with me: “One of these things is not like the other!” Now, I don’t know about you, but that is not how I want my resurrection account to end.
Now, you may counter that Mark 16 doesn’t end with verse 8; that there are 12 other verses that bring the chapter to a much more positive conclusion. That is true, there are other verses, but there is also a thin black line separating those verses from the first 8 and there are these words that explain the nature of these 12 verses:
“The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.”
In other words, most scholars today will argue that these verses are not original to Mark’s Gospel but were added much later (probably from the first half of the second century). Now, an argument based on textual or manuscript evidence may not be enough to convince you (even though to those who have studied such things, it is very convincing), but there is also other evidence that should tilt the scale. For instance, the writing style in verses 9-20 doesn’t match the previous 17 chapters, nor do verses 9-20 flow from verses 1-8. And yet, for a lot of people, excavating 12 verses from Mark’s Gospel doesn’t seem like a wise thing to do (lots of people like quoting Revelation 22:18-19 here). But while they wrestle with subtracting verses from Mark’s Gospel, the real question is why would anyone feel the need to add verses to Mark’s question. But that’s a question for which you already know the answer. Read Mark 16:8 again. Are you content with that being the ending to Mark’s Gospel? Probably not. All four gospels ought to end on the high note of declaring that Jesus is the risen Lord, the victor over sin and death, and the one who reconciled earth and heaven. Mark’s Gospel fails to do that. Instead of boldly going out and announcing that Jesus is Lord, the women say nothing to anyone because they are afraid. And that is why churchmen in the second century decided to help Mark along by fixing Mark’s bad ending so that it hits the emotional tone established by the other three gospels. But they didn’t create this new ending out of thin air. Instead, they took some content from Luke’s gospel, a few ideas from John’s gospel and some miraculous powers from the Book of Acts (drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes, drink deadly poison and the power to heal). It is also likely that these churchmen originally wrote these verses as notes to help the reader understand the implications of Jesus’ resurrection rather than as an attempt at forgery. These churchmen were not trying to deceive anyone, but rather to help the reader understand the bigger picture.
And that makes sense because Mark’s ending is the worst; and from the earliest days, people have had a problem with it. It just seems un-gospel-like. In the other accounts, we witness the women’s grief turn into joy. Here, we leave the women trembling and bewildered. In the other accounts, the women run to go tell the disciples the good news. Here, the women flee the area as fast as they can. In the other accounts, the women run to announce that Jesus has risen to the disciples. Here, they run off but they do not want to say anything to anyone because they are afraid. Go ahead. We all feel it, so you can say it; Mark’s account of the resurrection is the worst!
But that doesn’t seem right. Mark was a great author. The rest of his book is tremendous; and it makes no sense that here, at this critical moment, he ran out of writing steam. And that has brought scholars to embrace one of three possibilities. Maybe Mark’s real ending became separated from the rest of the book and was lost very early in its transmission, never to be found again. Or maybe Mark’s ending was indeed lost, but by doing a little detective work, we can reconstruct it. That sounds hopeful. Or maybe the ending we have is, in fact, Mark’s intended ending, and we are just reading it incorrectly. Imagine all this time we have been thinking that Mark’s ending is the worst, and Mark has been thinking we are simply the worst for not reading his ending in its proper context.
In any case, for better or for worse, those three options will be the subject of our next post.
