If Mark is the original gospel written and there was no post resurrected Jesus in his gospel, how did Matthew and Luke come by the information for their endings?

 

Those who turn the question into “the other gospels made that up” are not taking into account the literary character of Mark’s gospel.

There is a literary theory called reader response criticism which focuses more on the reader and their response to what they are reading. In biblical studies one can go so far as to say part of the meaning of the text is how readers respond to the text. Although one can apply reader response criticism to the other gospels it works especially well for the gospel of Mark.

Mark tells a story. “This is what happened”. Although of course the writer has an agenda, wants to emphasize certain aspects of the person and work of Jesus, and so on, and this influences *how* the writer tells the story.

Save “emphasize certain aspects” for later. This is crucial.

Mark especially wants readers to examine themselves in light of the story. “What about you? Do you recognize who Jesus is? Do you understand what kind of Messiah he is? Do you follow him on the way which is the way of the cross?”

Which brings us to the not-quite-resurrection in Mark.

Jesus in the Markan gospel consistently predicts both his passion and his resurrection. This is why the Historical Jesus types who say the other gospel writers just made up the resurrection and stuck it at the end miss the point. Yeah sure they can say all the predictions along the way are also made up. But that raises the question of how Luke and Matthew and John just made up the resurrection. Whereas Mark did not but has Jesus repeatedly predict he will rise from the dead.

So why would Mark show Jesus repeatedly predict he will suffer, be rejected, betrayed, killed, and after three days rise again if - as far as the writer knew - there was no resurrection?

Is there a better interpretation that accounts for *all* the evidence and not just some?

The evidence suggests that the writer was convinced Jesus rose from the dead but (unlike the other gospel writers) chose not to include a “complete” resurrection narrative.

Why not? This brings us to reader-response criticism.

Throughout the gospel of Mark Jesus makes several predictions. Those predictions consistently come true. Everything Jesus says will happen is what happened. With one notable exception. The resurrection.

Sort of. We get Mark 16:1–8. The stone is rolled away. There’s a dude in white in the tomb who says don’t be afraid, you’re looking for Jesus who was crucified, he was raised, he’s not here, see for yourselves, go tell his disciples they will see him in Galilee. We get every piece of a resurrection narrative except for a post-resurrection appearance. The women leave because εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις they had tromos kai ekstasis fear and amazement.

Mark invites the reader to finish the story. It is our job to go and tell.

Let me put it to you this way. Someone puts together a one-hundred piece puzzle. Eventually finishes the puzzle *except* for one missing piece in the lower right corner. We could theorize there was never such a piece. *Or* we can reasonably infer there is a corner piece which goes in that spot. We know how to finish the puzzle.

We have all the pieces. We have everything Jesus says and does. We have all the predictions. With one possible exception they all come true. We have an empty tomb and a dude in white who says Jesus was raised, he ain’t here, go and tell, you will see him. The only thing we do not have is a post-resurrection appearance. That does not mean there was none. It means the gospel writer chose not to include it. A discerning reader will understand why and add that last piece of the puzzle.