If Schmithals is correct, then his analysis begs the question, Why would Mk do all this surgery to his source?
Here's an obvious answer: Mk knew that the third-day Jerusalem appearance legends were just that, and that the appearances of Jesus in fact occurred in Galilee, some time after Jesus' death. He walks a redactical tightrope by including the (legendary, I believe) empty tomb story without an appearance of Jesus taking place!
Rev. Chuck Jones
Schmithals is cool. He thinks that there was no ending, but that Mk added Mk
14:28 and 16:7 to remind the readers of something like 1Co 15:5. The two
verses are superfluous if the appearances to Peter and the Twelve are
actually told at the end of the Gospel. Compare:
Mark 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you
to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."
Schmithals continues with the idea that Mk nevertheless knew the stories
about Jesus appearance to Peter and the Twelve from his source, but inserted
them in a pre-Easter context.
Peter: Mk 9:2-8 (the transfiguration), the Twelve: Mk 3:13-19 (the
appointment of the disciples).
He further knew Mk 16:15-20 from his source! Thus, according to Schmithals
the complete ending in Mark's *source* was:
16:1-6, 8 + 9:2-8a + 3:13-19 + 16:15-20 (not literally, but the basic
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]