| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
Table of contents within this page
〈1. Why are the Gospels in narrative form?〉
〈2. Is the ending of the Gospel of Mark missing?〉
〈1. Why are the Gospels in narrative form?〉
Why was Jesus of the historical fact written about in the form of a story?
Wouldn’t it have been just as valid to pass down the story of Jesus to future generations not in the form of the Gospels, but through a collection of Jesus’ sayings or a compilation of fragments of his life based on the apostles’ sermons? In fact, might that approach not be closer to the true image of the historical Jesus? This is because classical biblical criticism has already established that the Gospels were compiled using such fragments as source material.
Why must we read the Gospels — which present the "life of Jesus" in a chronological format significantly reconstructed by the early Christian community — in order to understand the historical Jesus? Is there an inherent necessity for this? This is the first question to be addressed here.
Regarding the fact that the Gospels were written in a style resembling historical narrative, E. Käsemann of the Bultmann school states the following. The following is a partial summary of the section "Ⅰ Jesus: 2. The question of the significance of the historical Jesus" from Shin'yaku shingaku no kigen [The Origins of New Testament Theology].
---------------------
(78-79).
The history of Jesus and the kerygma are situated under the overarching concept of the "Gospel". John, the author of the Gospel of John, clothed the kerygma in the guise of the earthly Jesus' Gospel. The form of the Gospel is not an early form of proclamation in primitive Christianity, but rather a relatively late one. It was established as a reaction to some fanatics in early Christianity who thought that there was no need for an earthly Jesus. If, as Bultmann claims, the historical Jesus was not a matter of importance, why was it necessary to write Gospels rather than letters or collections of sayings?
(90-91).
When one attempts to argue that the kerygma preserves the earthly image of Jesus, Bultmann counters that the legitimacy of the kerygma does not have to be guaranteed by historical facts. I (Käsemann) agree with this view, and given the divine nature of the kerygma, attempting to prove that it conveys historical facts is, in fact, a desecration of the kerygma itself. However, my focus on the relationship between the kerygma and the historical Jesus is not based on such an intention, but rather on the question of whether the earthly Jesus is the standard of kerygma, and to what extent this can be said to be the case.
(92-93).
The reason the earthly Jesus appears to be accorded little importance in the writings of Paul and John (Käsemann does not acknowledge the historicity of the Gospel of John) is that, in their time, it was the "Holy Spirit" that served as the norm for their message. However, because the Holy Spirit is open to various interpretations, it requires its own separate standard. Accordingly, Paul and John — each in their own way — prevent the Christian message from veering off course by linking the Holy Spirit to the earthly Jesus: Paul through the event of Jesus’ crucifixion, and John through the words of Jesus. John wrote the Gospel of John with the controversial intention of contrasting the historical Jesus with the church’s teachings of the time (which were largely guided by claims of spiritual authority that seemed rather unrestrained).
(95-96).
The authors of the Synoptic Gospels, who belonged to Hellenistic Christian communities, faced a similar issue. The driving force behind the composition of the Gospels was the growing theological significance of the traditions of the original disciples—serving as a countermeasure to enthusiastic proclamation by distinguishing between authentic and false messages and by scrutinizing claims to spiritual authority. The Holy Spirit (of Pentecost), who was the source of the kerygma, had to be gradually replaced by the standard provided by the Gospels—namely, the Jesus portrayed in historical tradition. Therefore, the Jesus recorded in these Gospels has little historical credibility or value as a document, but only as a standard for preserving the first Christian mission. This is how the "historical Jesus" established the Gospels as a presentation in a historical format.
(99) Quote the text.
"It is not that the historical Jesus himself produced the later kerygma or the Gospel in its entirety; nevertheless, his words, deeds, and the events of his life point toward the central focus of the later Gospel. In this sense, it implies that for the early church struggling against enthusiasm, the historical Jesus was something that could be utilized as the standard of the gospel."
(105-107).
Bultmann believes that the history of Jesus that should be recorded in the Gospels is that of Jesus as the messenger of "the demands of God’s will". However, even if this claim were correct, it would follow that a collection of Jesus' didactic sayings would suffice for that purpose; it does not explain the motivation behind the formation of the Gospels as narrative works. The theological question of how the Gospels are more than mere collections of tradition remains a mystery. The answer must lie in the theological validity of the historical form in the debate against enthusiasm.
---------------------
Käsemann’s argument is that the reason the Gospels are written in narrative form is that the historical credibility inherent in the narrative form was necessary given the circumstances of the church at that time.
It became necessary to fix the traditions concerning Jesus held by the apostles in order to address various tendencies emerging among groups within the church—such as claims of being led by the Spirit of Pentecost (2Cor. 11:4) and a reversion to Jewish legalism (Acts 15:1). For this reason, the church sought to establish “standards of faith” rooted in Jesus; and, it was Jesus in his historical form —that is, the narrative-style Gospel —that provided the fixed norms that could not be altered by the “spiritual interpretations” of believers.
However, while Käsemann’s argument can be affirmed as one of the grounds for the necessity of the historical Jesus, it is weak as an explanation for why the Gospels had to be written as narratives. Indeed, the Pauline Epistles reveal that early Hellenistic Christian communities — which had points of contact with Greek thought — were exposed to the risk of succumbing to Docetism under Gnostic influence or shifting toward philosophies of enlightenment such as Stoicism.
Focusing particularly on the spiritual enthusiasm of the Corinthian church, Käsemann argues that the Gospels were written to counter this tendency by fixing the image of Jesus. However, what follows from this is that it was necessary to preserve the historical Jesus in some form, not that the historical Jesus had to be preserved in the form of a narrative. This is because it can be argued that, as a set of norms that do not allow for free interpretation, the sayings of Jesus, for example, would have functioned effectively.
Moreover the following point is important: Käsemann cites the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John as evidence that such currents of thought were sweeping through the early church. However, if the Epistles are evidence of the early church's unrestrained nature, then it is precisely these Epistles that must be emphasized as documents written with the purpose of warning against the various tendencies into which the early church was in danger of falling — "to avoid falling into gnosticism", "to avoid falling into rationalism", "to avoid falling into spiritual fanaticism", and "to avoid falling into legalism".
Therefore, as an explanation of the historical circumstances within the church regarding what was done "to avoid falling into...", it is more appropriate to point to the fact that these epistles were written as direct admonitions rather than to cite the composition of the narrative Gospels. Here, the criticism Käsemann leveled against Bultmann in the final paragraph of the preceding summary applies equally to Käsemann himself.
To view the Gospels as having been written to steer people away from these erroneous paths is to greatly understate their role. Given the volume and qualitative significance of the Gospels within the New Testament, there is no way to properly assess their role other than to view them as having been written for the overarching purpose of "proclaiming the One in whom we are to believe" — that is, as a presentation of the object of faith indicated by the kerygma. Needless to add, since no single matter has only one purpose, the Gospels likely served various purposes as well — such as "to avoid falling into...", but, that is not their primary purpose.
Furthermore, if — as Käsemann argues — the reason the Gospels were written in a narrative form was to avoid succumbing to enthusiasm, there appears to be a fundamental contradiction in that position. First, let us note that Käsemann denies the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels and, in particular, the Gospel of John.
"(Even among the authors of the Synoptic Gospels), the traditions of the earliest disciples make it possible to critically distinguish between authentic and false messages and to test the various spirits. ... Here, too, it must be said that such traditions possess little value for us as documentary evidence regarding their historical authenticity..."
"John framed the material as words spoken by Jesus during his earthly ministry, shaping it into the form of a Gospel — a structure inherited from tradition that comprises miracle stories, the Passion narrative, and the story of the Resurrection. The fact that nothing historical — in the sense of being authentic — is contained therein is of no consequence here. It is the overall structure of the attempt at historicization that requires explanation. Incidentally, is there any way to explain this other than by positing a polemical intent to contrast "Jesus" with the church's proclamation of that time?"
"It is no coincidence that John gave the kerygma the guise of a gospel of the earthly Jesus — even though he did not attempt to present anything written therein as historical fact."
I will not address these negative views regarding the historical accuracy of the Gospels here. What I wish to point out here as a contradiction in Käsemann’s argument is the following.
To argue that presenting the historical Jesus is an effective way to counter various forms of fanaticism and spiritual licentiousness within the church, and that for this purpose the image of Jesus was portrayed in a manner disguised as historical fact, amounts to claiming that non-historical elements were used to assert Jesus’ historical significance. However, doesn’t that perspective undermine something fundamentally important about the early church’s approach to evangelism?
If being historical saves faith from fanaticism, then it stands to reason that whatever presents that "historical nature" must not be a work of fiction or invention. For "being historical" can fulfill its role only by virtue of being fact.
However, as is evident from the quotation above, Käsemann does not regard the Gospel narratives as historical fact. If "being historical" is permitted to be a matter of outward appearance or fabrication—that is, if what matters in "being historical" is not factual accuracy but the effect produced — then shouldn't we call this act of the early religious community a calculated maneuver rather than a testimony or evangelism?
Rather, we ought to view their actions not as such machinations, but within the context of a historical continuity that carries on Jesus' ministry. If the true intention is merely to exploit that effect by thrusting a "historical Jesus" — dressed up to resemble actual history — upon spiritual enthusiasts as if he were an established historical fact, then what can such a scheme be called but an act of dishonesty?
Therefore, in order to justify the form of the Gospels — which "pretend to be historical facts even though they are not — a separate reason must be found, even though this fact should be acknowledged to some extent. That historical guise must not be intended to present historical facts. That would be a contradiction.
If one adopts the perspective — like Käsemann — that this is not a contradiction, but rather the very purpose itself, then one comes to understand the mission of the early Christian community as a merely calculated effort to win people's faith. This is the sense in which I previously stated that Käsemann’s view fundamentally undermines the mission of the early church. For these reasons, Käsemann’s argument is difficult to support.
The reason why the primary purpose of the Gospels is not asserted to be — what seems perfectly natural and obvious to everyone — "making known the object of faith" is not simply because that view is too self-evident. This is because the meaning and role of the "object of faith" in the Christian faith are not clearly understood. For this reason, theologians tend to look for particular kind of reason behind the composition of the Gospels.
The first and foremost reason why the existence of Jesus, the object of faith, must be made known is that if Jesus did not actually exist, there could be no interpretation of Jesus—that is, no faith in Jesus (Chapter 3 - Ricercare). The belief that Jesus is the Savior is the Christian interpretation of Jesus. However, without the historical fact of Jesus’s existence, such an interpretation could not possibly exist. Therefore, people living after Jesus’s ascension must first be taught about the existence of Jesus as the object of their faith. Only then can they consider whether or not to accept the interpretation of Jesus.
The most suitable form for this purpose was — not a biography of Jesus in the strict sense, nor a documentary (though I think it would have been ideal had communication in those forms been possible) — a collection of episodes concerning Jesus' teachings and deeds.
In today's terms, it is a "reenactment drama" of incidents and gossip that you see on so-called "informational variety shows" on TV. I feel that this concept of "reenactment drama" is the modern concept that best describes the narrative form of the Gospels. After Jesus' ascension, people will be able to face the interpretive judgment of Jesus as to whether he is the Savior or the divine Christ through the "reenactment drama" of Jesus.
Therefore, the content of each individual "reenactment drama" must be factual. However, the connections between these "reenactment drama" need not strictly adhere to the actual facts; therein lies the difference in structure between the Gospels and genres such as documentaries or biographies. This is also the reason why I understand the Gospels not to be exact records of historical fact.
The second reason why the existence of Jesus, the object of faith, must be known is because Christian faith is a two-stage faith (Chapter 4 - Review). To arrive at apostolic faith, one must first — as a primary step — know the works and teachings of Jesus. At the very least, acquiring faith solely from the apostolic kerygma — the proclamation that "Jesus is the Christ" — without that prior knowledge was not the way the apostles themselves attained their faith.
They spent more than three years with Jesus. During that time, they came to hold a faith in Him that was irreplaceable, yet still fell short of the apostolic faith that would emerge later. This marked the first stage of their faith. For people of later generations, too, this stage of spontaneous faith in Jesus is likewise necessary.
To achieve this, it is desirable to come to know Jesus in a manner similar to how the disciples experienced him. The narrative form is precisely the mode of presenting Jesus that makes this possible. With other forms of presentation — such as collections of sayings — it would likely be difficult to enable people to relive the disciples' experience of Jesus.
Let's summarize this one more time. To provide the basis for a judgment on whether to accept the Christian faith — that is, an interpretation of Jesus — it is not Jesus' claims or teachings but rather his actions that must be presented (see Mt. 11:3-4, Chapter 3 - Proposition 5). Moreover, it is desirable that this be known not merely as knowledge, but as an experience.
Here, as Käsemann notes, the effect produced by the Gospels is anticipated. That is, just as is the case with literary works such as novels, when it comes to proclaiming the message of Jesus, presenting it in narrative form — while maintaining the minimum level of truthfulness required to ensure that the facts are accurate — yields the most effective results. This is the primary reason why the story of Jesus is conveyed through the narrative form of the Gospels.
The second reason is that, in order to lead people to the first stage of a two-stage Christian faith, Jesus must be presented in a way that allows readers to come to know him experientially. Because the Gospels take the form of a "reenactment drama", it is possible for Jesus to be repeatedly reconstructed in mediums such as paintings and "kamishibai (paper-theater storytelling". Through these experiences, just as Jesus’s disciples spent over three years with Him, we too — whether children or adults — enter the school of Jesus for a certain period. The faith in Jesus nurtured there forms the first stage of Christian faith for us who live in the post-apostolic era.
Furthermore, there is a third reason regarding the Gospel of Mark.
〈2. Is the ending of the Gospel of Mark missing?〉⇧
The greatest mystery of the Gospel of Mark is that its ending appears to be missing. Among the four Gospels, Mark alone lacks an account of Jesus' appearances after the resurrection; it concludes with the report that the tomb containing Jesus' body was empty. This has long been viewed as a lacuna in the text—the idea being that the Gospel of Mark originally contained an account of Jesus' appearances, but that it was lost for some reason.
G.N. Stanton discusses the possibility that the current ending is the original conclusion of the Gospel of Mark.
"A considerable number of modern scholars ... argue that the final page of the Gospel of Mark must have been lost. While such a solution to the puzzle is possible, it is more probable that Mark intended to conclude the narrative with a record of awe and astonishment."
However, the argument is that there was no need to explicitly state this, as it is evident that the events following the discovery of the empty tomb represented the fulfillment of Jesus’s earlier prediction — made prior to his Passion — that he would reunite in Galilee with the disciples who had abandoned him and scattered. In the same passage, Stanton states, "the promise made shortly before Jesus' arrest is now being fulfilled; what more need be said?" — yet this is far too weak an argument to explain the awkwardness at the end of the Gospel of Mark. While it is certainly to be expected that the reunion between the Master and his disciples in Galilee would take place — even if not explicitly recorded — Mark's intention in deliberately omitting it remains difficult to fathom.
What this study demonstrated in Part 1 - Chapter 3, is that Christian faith has its beginnings in the kerygma of Peter.
"Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead."――You deemed Jesus deserving of execution, but God regarded him as worthy of being resurrected. ―― (Acts 2:23-24, 3:15, 4:10, 10:39-40).
With this appeal, Peter preached to the people. It represents the answer they discovered regarding Jesus—a figure who had been an enigma even to the apostles.
Mark is a figure who appears in the New Testament, and it is well known that he had a close relationship with the apostles, including Peter. Furthermore, according to the Papias-Eusebius tradition, the Gospel of Mark is said to be a record of Peter's preaching, written by Mark himself.
In Chapter 3 - Proposition 1 of this study, it was discovered that the various kerygmata of Peter recorded in Acts consistently preserve the resurrection proposition; this sheds new light on the problem of the ending of the Gospel of Mark. My view is that the Gospel of Mark was written as a book of questions to which the Petrine kerygma serves as the answer.
As demonstrated in the relevant section, the apostolic kerygma is not a new teaching promulgated by the apostles, but rather a testimony to the reason why the apostles believed in Jesus. Then, doesn't it follow that there ought to exist a prior question to which this apostolic kerygma serves as the answer?
In fact, Peter delivered his sermons proclaiming Jesus in the form of questions addressed to the people. This is evident from the Gospel of Mark, which is considered to be a record of his preaching. Peter conveys the deeds and words of Jesus during his lifetime to the people, asking them, "Who, then, is this Jesus of Nazareth of whom I speak?" This is the very same question that Jesus himself once put to Peter: "Who do you say I am?" (Mk. 8:29).
After Jesus' resurrection, Peter placed at the heart of his preaching — as the resurrection kerygma — the fact that he had found grounds to be convinced that Jesus was the Christ. In other words, while the Jesus he spoke of in his sermons represented the posing of the question "Who is Jesus?", the kerygma he proclaimed was the answer he had discovered.
Mark turned that portion of Peter's preaching into a Gospel. As will be discussed later, the content of that Gospel is structured around the motif of the uncertainty Peter harbored regarding Jesus — specifically, the question, "Are you the Christ?" This creates a relationship between Mark's Gospel as a question and Peter's kerygma as an answer, and the view that Mark's Gospel is a question whose answer is Peter's kerygma is established.
The structure of resurrection faith in the Gospel of Mark lies in the presentation of Jesus as a mystery and the discovery of the answer to that mystery within the Petrine kerygma. Consequently, the Gospel of Mark is a book that invites faith in Jesus; it is not intended to establish that faith on its own.
At this point, I would like to return to the question raised earlier: why do the Gospels take the form of historical narrative, yet need not be strictly factual history? The reason is that, in order for the Gospels to function effectively as a challenge addressed to people, Jesus must be presented not as a fragmented collection of bullet points, but as a coherent, unified figure.
It is likely difficult to make people perceive a figure who has long since passed away as a mystery demanding their engagement—relying merely on scattered sayings or fragments of oral tradition. Much like a literary documentary that seeks to pose a question to its audience, Jesus must be recounted not as a collection of fragmentary data or a bulleted list of aphorisms, but as a complete, coherent story that unfolds from beginning to end.
If that individual possessed no significance during their lifetime—such as that which might be grounded in the public's astonishment—and the situation amounted to nothing more than a dead person coming back to life, then asserting an interpretation of "divine approval" regarding that resurrection would likely carry no weight with the people. The persuasiveness of Peter's kerygma as an interpretation of Jesus must be ensured by people's interest in "What exactly was he?" The purpose of Mark's Gospel was to create this interest, to get people to ask, "Who is Jesus?"
Furthermore, if the Gospel of Mark is not a narrative but rather a compilation of source fragments or sayings, it would naturally direct people's attention to the very image of Jesus that the text sought to convey—specifically, the question of what kind of person Jesus was to have taught in such a distinctive manner. However, if Jesus is portrayed sufficiently and the contours of his character are clearly defined, the figure of Jesus himself ceases to be the point of inquiry, allowing the reader's interest to move beyond that point. In other words, it becomes possible to prompt the reader to ask, "Who, exactly, was this person?"
For this reason, the story of Jesus had to be told in a narrative format. Consequently, chronological and geographical details were incorporated into the accounts of his appearance, resulting in the creation of Gospels that took on the guise of historical records. In other words, the historical style of the Gospels was not intended to feign historical fact; rather, the aim was to present Jesus as a narrative in order to bring a specific question to completion, which is the third reason — mentioned earlier — why the Gospel of Mark takes the form of a narrative.
In the Gospel of Mark, when transitioning from one scene to the next, simple connecting phrases are used to link them, establishing the framework of time and place. However, to regard the connections between scenes established by such very brief phrases — such as "immediately", "as", "then", "in those days", "withdraw", or "go out" — as indicating a correct historical sequence corresponding to the chronological order of the Gospel narrative would likely be asking too much of those connecting phrases.
The purpose of those phrases is not to convince the reader that the sequence of events in the scene corresponds to actual historical fact (though we previously saw Käsemann identify this as the very purpose for which the Gospels were written); rather, these phrases serve merely to present various episodes from Jesus's life in a narrative format. In this regard, I agree with Bultmann’s statement that "Mark handled the traditions through simple juxtaposition, as well as spatial and temporal linking",
However, just to be on the safe side, I would like to add the following: In this context, while it is permissible for a scene to appear historical but not actually be based on historical fact, this applies only to the connecting phrases that link these scenes in terms of time and place; the scenes themselves, as linked by those phrases, must be based on historical fact to a significant degree. If it is certain that the majority of these scenes are entirely baseless when measured against historical fact (as Bultmann states in The History of the Synoptic Tradition), then my interpretation must be dismissed as utterly naive.
Now, I believe that anyone who has actually read the Gospel of Mark and experienced the unique impression it leaves will readily understand the validity of my view that the Gospel of Mark is a question — one whose answer is the Petrine kerygma.
The latter part of each of the four Gospels consists of accounts relating to the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, although there are many differences in detail within the latter halves of the Gospels, the Passion and Resurrection are elements common to all four. It follows, then, that the distinctive characteristics of each Gospel are to be found in its first half. The thematic characteristics of the Gospel of Mark, too, are concentrated in its first half.
Up to Chapter 9, Verse 32, the Gospel of Mark is permeated by the theme of "people asking, 'Who are you, exactly?' and the disciples who fail to understand". Up to this point, there are few of what might be called "Christian" teachings from Jesus. The recorded words of Jesus consist of disputes with religious figures—sparked by his actions—and instructive admonitions directed at his disciples, who remained persistently uncomprehending.
Chapter 4, a collection of parables, is based on motifs such as "seeing but not understanding, hearing but not comprehending", "what is hidden is to be revealed", and "explanation", and is structured as a metaphor for the reader regarding the content on how to understand Jesus through Chapter 9.
Unlike the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — which contain a wealth of independent material comprising the sayings of Jesus (known as "Q") — these sayings of Jesus found in the first half of the Gospel of Mark can be described as byproducts arising from the negative assessments and disbelief that accompanied his astonishing actions. The focus there is placed not on Jesus's words, but on his actions.
The Gospel of Mark is a veritable parade of miracles, featuring a succession of bewildered disciples and astonished onlookers. The highlight is Chapter 5, which is ushered in by the final phrase of Chapter 4: "What manner of man is This?"
After confronting a multitude of demons near the tombs in the land of the Gadarenes, Jesus is asked to leave the area by the local people, who are terrified of him. After crossing to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus set out to visit a synagogue official who had pleaded with him to heal his sick daughter; however, on the way, amidst the crowd pressing in on him, he "felt power go out from him" and looked around, asking, "Who touched me?" The disciples wonder, "you ask that, even though everyone is pressing in on you?" but as He continues to look around, a woman steps forward and confesses that she touched his garment, seeking healing for her illness. While he was speaking to the woman, a message arrived from the synagogue official saying, your daughter has died; there is no need for the teacher to come. Jesus went and told the distraught people, "The child is not dead" — drawing their mockery — but after entering the place where the body lay and sending the people out, he spoke to the child and raised her up.
Mark notes the response at that time as follows. Drawing on the context where Jesus removed the commotion, one commentary portrays it as a speechless silence filled with admiration and awe.
"And they were overcome with great amazement." (Mk. 5:42).
In Chapter 5 alone, the astonishment and fear of the people regarding Jesus' actions are recorded four times (the Gadarenes, the people of the Decapolis, the sick woman, and the members of the synagogue official's household), while the disciples' bewilderment is noted once (amidst the pressing crowd). Other direct references to "astonishment" at Jesus can be found in 1:21, 1:27, 2:12, 4:41, 6:2, 6:51, 7:37, and 9:6. Marking a turning point at Peter's confession of Christ in Chapter 8, Verse 29, the account of the Gospel of Mark shifts from Jesus's actions to his teachings. From that point on, there is no mention of "astonishment"; it is only in the final chapter that we read — regarding the women who visited the empty tomb, fled in silence, and told no one — that "they were afraid" (16:8). This marks the end of the Gospel.
Alongside the phenomenon of "astonishment" at Jesus, the Gospel of Mark repeatedly records in its first half the speculation and confusion surrounding Jesus’ true identity (2:6, 3:21, 3:22, 3:30, 6:3, 6:14). In particular, Chapter 6, Verse 14 states that many people were speculating about Jesus, calling him "John the Baptist", "Elijah", or "the prophet, or like one of the prophets of old".
Following the appointment of the twelve disciples in Chapter 3, the section concerning the "uncomprehending disciples" begins immediately after the miracle of calming the storm (4:41), which succeeds the parables of enlightenment in Chapter 4. A characteristic feature of the passages based on this motif is that they appear following a stupendous miracle. Accounts of the "uncomprehending disciples" are recorded after the miracle of walking on the water, which follows the feeding of the five thousand in Chapter 6 (6:52), and again after the feeding of the four thousand in Chapter 8 (8:17–21).
The scene of Peter’s confession of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (Chapter 8, Verse 29) represents a high point in the Gospel of Mark; however, the passage immediately following — in which Peter rebukes Jesus — demonstrates that the "insight" behind his confession is utterly inadequate. This situation continues until Chapter 9, Verse 32, after which the focus of the Gospel of Mark shifts to the teachings of Jesus.
That is to say, with the question of "who Jesus is"—voiced throughout the texts regarding the crowd’s wonder and skepticism and the disciples’ confusion and spiritual blindness—remaining entirely unanswered, the account proceeds directly to the entry into Jerusalem in Chapter 11, moving relentlessly toward the Passion.
The current Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16, contains 20 verses, but based on manuscript evidence, it is known that verses 9 and following were written in the 2nd century. Thus, verse 8 of Chapter 16 constitutes the original ending of the Gospel of Mark; however, the fact that the concluding phrase of that verse — "for they were afraid" — feels like an abrupt termination is evident from the later addition of the text following verse 9.
As mentioned earlier, a common explanation for this seemingly abrupt ending is that, since the manuscript had been in that condition from an early period — back when it was still a scroll rather than a bound book — the physical nature of the scroll may have caused only the concluding portion to be lost. For conservative theology, the explanation that "the true ending has been lost" appears to present a difficulty: it is hard to reconcile with the view that the Bible was written as the "Word of God" under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit — raising the question of why God did not preserve its text. Nevertheless, the theory that the ending is missing is adopted even in the annotations of the Shinkaiyaku [New Japanese Bible], a translation compiled by conservatives.
However, considering the characteristics of the Gospel of Mark examined above, it is evident that the conclusion—stating "for they were afraid" in the face of the empty tomb—represents a return to the motif of "astonishment" on the part of the people and the disciples, a motif that consistently accompanied the theme of "Who is Jesus?" throughout the first half of the Gospel. In this respect, I agree with Stanton’s view, cited earlier, that “it is more probable that Mark intended to conclude with a record of awe and astonishment.”
However, I believe that Mark’s decision to break off his narrative here is not due to the flimsy reasoning offered by Stanton — namely, that the events that follow are obvious even without being written — but rather because Mark intended for the Gospel to conclude as a question directed at Jesus by reintroducing the motif of “astonishment” at the very end of the Gospel.
That verse leaves the reader with a sense of emptiness, much like a grave with a gaping hole, and prompts them to ask questions after reading it. Thus, if this Gospel was intended to end in the form of a question, the closing phrase of Mark 16:8 — "for they were afraid" — may be the true ending of the Gospel of Mark.
In addition, a characteristic of the Gospel of Mark known to everyone is likely its brevity compared to the other three Gospels. In the New Japanese Bible I have at hand, the Gospel of Mark spans 36 pages, whereas Matthew covers 58 pages, Luke 61, and John 51; thus, Mark is only 60 to 70 percent the length of the other Gospels. Why is the Gospel of Mark so much shorter?
Needless to say, the answer lies in the fact that Mark's Gospel lacks both the Q source — a collection of Jesus’ sayings — and the post-resurrection appearance narratives. So why are these sayings and appearance narratives absent? Is it simply because, due to historical circumstances stemming from the fact that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, Mark did not have access to those sources?
However, if the tradition that this Gospel was written by Mark, the scribe of Peter’s sermons, is correct, then the actual situation is likely the exact opposite. Therefore, assuming that Mark did not have access to a collection of Jesus’ sayings or accounts of his appearances would not be a reasonable explanation for the brevity of this Gospel, since he would have been able to incorporate such material from Peter’s sermons.
To reiterate, this essay—undertaken from the standpoint of Christian philosophy—seeks not to address historical circumstances, but rather to provide a logical and rational explanation of the issue. For instance, regarding the issue of the necessity of the historical Jesus, I raise no objection to citing the historical circumstance that the writing of the Gospels coincided with the period when those who had known Jesus personally were passing away; this necessitated the recording of historical material about Jesus before the memories of his witnesses were lost to the world. The same phenomenon was frequently observed in Japan during the early 21st century in connection with witnesses to World War II, and this is likely the most common-sense understanding of the matter.
However, what is required for this elucidation is not a psychological or historical explanation of why people thought they had to be recorded, but rather a logical explanation. Psychological and historical explanations do not necessarily explain why the records left by them have significance in the present, but if a logical and rational explanation can be found, it will indicate their significance to us in the present.
This clarification is more important for those who receive the record in later generations than for the individuals who sought to create it. It can be said that the people of the time fulfilled their responsibility by leaving records because they believed that their experiences should not be lost, but unless the recipients find a rational and necessary meaning for their preservation, they will not be able to understand them as anything more than mere historical records.
Therefore, regarding the issue of continuity between the kerygma and the historical Jesus (Chapter 3 - Review 1), the question was not how to explain their factual connection (which naturally connects), but rather why the historical Jesus is also necessary even though the kerygma is said to convey the "Christ of Faith"; a rational explanation for this was sought.
Regarding the reason why the Gospel of Mark is less substantial in content compared to the other Gospels — specifically the absence of extensive sermons by Jesus and post - resurrection appearances—we must not be satisfied with explanations citing the author's lack of source material; instead, we must identify reasons why the exclusion of such content makes sense within the context of the document itself.
Unlike the era prior to modern biblical scholarship — when the Gospel of Mark was viewed as a crude copy of the other Gospels — in contemporary biblical scholarship, it has established an unshakable position as a primary source for the other Gospels. However, that assessment pertains to its value as a historical source; it cannot necessarily be said that its significance as a Gospel has been understood. To view Mark as having composed a Gospel with a unique purpose — despite the constraints of having fewer source materials than the other Evangelists — is to see the content of his Gospel as the inevitable result of historical circumstances; and this understanding may well be correct. However, if one is fully satisfied with this perspective alone, one risks overlooking Mark's own active intentions.
Therefore, my understanding is that the reason the Gospel of Mark does not contain a collection of Jesus’ sayings or accounts of his appearances is that these elements would detract from the nature of the “question” that Mark intended the Gospel to pose.
The story of the resurrection's manifestation provides a kind of conclusion to Jesus, who was presented as a mystery. Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine that the conclusion could easily be interpreted as a resurrection myth of a hero who lived a tragic life.
The Gospels present Jesus to the reader — yet, paradoxically, it is essential that this Jesus does not serve as a solution for the reader. This is because that was precisely the case for the disciples when they were with Jesus; for them, Jesus during his lifetime remained a mystery that brought not answers, but questions. Therefore, during Jesus' lifetime, they had not yet attained apostolic faith. As clarified in Chapter 3, the process of losing Jesus and subsequently finding the answer is precisely how the apostles came to acquire their faith.
Thus, following the question "Who is Jesus?" posed by the Gospel of Mark, the resurrection of Jesus must be proclaimed not merely as the fact of his rising again, but necessarily within the framework of the Petrine kerygma — specifically, the understanding of the two judgments passed upon Jesus. If Jesus' resurrection is discussed without this interpretation, it will likely be accepted by people as an answer in and of itself — that is, "Jesus was killed by the malice of the masses but rose again; hallelujah, hallelujah."
However, while Peter testified to the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, he also spoke of an interpretation of the resurrection as God’s judgment upon him. This was because it had become the foundation of his faith. It was for this kerygma of Peter that the Gospel of Mark was used. In other words, one possible interpretation is that the Gospel of Mark served as a handout distributed in advance to set the stage for Peter’s sermon on the resurrection. In fact, although the Gospel of Mark was completed in its present form after Peter's death, a prototype of it had already been written by Mark during Peter's lifetime.
the fact that the Gospel of Mark does not contain Jesus’ sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, can also be seen as stemming from the same reason. Jesus’s beautiful sermons offer people guidance and comfort regarding life. This combination of guidance and comfort provides the reader with a sense of conviction, leading them to accept it as the message of the Gospels. Readers seek both life lessons and encouragement in the words of Jesus, and they find both.
However, this way of interpreting Jesus' words actually gives rise to a moralistic understanding of Christianity. It illustrates the danger inherent in attempting to understand Christianity solely through the Gospels.
Since the teachings of Jesus cannot be literally put into practice by sinners, they must fundamentally be understood as a difficulty fraught with contradiction. Thus, the answer must be found not in an ethical or voluntary sense, but in a religious sense, that is, in Paul's doctrine of justification and in the pneumatology found in the Gospel of John and other texts.
In contrast, it can be said that the Gospel of Mark, by not including any sustained discourses by Jesus, avoids the danger of deriving a definitive answer about life from its pages. This is because, in order to understand the Gospel of Mark — which ends with the account of the empty tomb — one must seek the answer outside of this Gospel.
Therefore, for the sake of attaining apostolic faith, recording accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances is of no direct help, just as recording the life of Jesus is not. This aligns with the fact that the establishment of apostolic faith among the apostles did not stem from the event of Jesus' resurrection itself. In fact, recording Jesus' resurrection and appearances in the Gospels risks providing readers with a simplistic solution to the mystery of Jesus' death. The remarkable event of the Resurrection blocks the path to the Petrine kerygma.
It is only when the life and resurrection of Jesus are linked to Peter's resurrection kerygma that people are led to the faith of the apostles. In addition, it is only when the life and resurrection of Jesus are linked to Paul’s theological proposition regarding Christ crucified that people are led to an apostolic faith. In any case, the Gospels alone cannot lead one to that point. Indeed, the resurrection narratives could even hinder the path to the Petrine kerygma — the mainstream of Christian proclamation in the early church. In fact, that is precisely what happened in the history of the church.
As stated in Chapter 3 - Succession, no trace of the resurrection proposition of Peter — which gave birth to the Christian church — remains in any of the historical creeds handed down to the present day. While this must be regarded as a baffling enigma, the understanding of the Gospel of Mark outlined above also explains why Peter’s resurrection proposition vanished from history so abruptly.
This is because the fact that the three Gospels following Mark eloquently convey the sayings of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances undermined the effectiveness of the principle of faith establishment of the early church — namely, "the Gospel of Mark as the question regarding Jesus, and the resurrection proposition of Peter as the answer".
People who have read the three Gospels other than Mark end up arriving at an answer that was not originally intended. It is as follows:
First, the Gospel of Matthew can be said to be a direct expansion of the overall structure of the apostolic kerygma. While the apostolic kerygma uses the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus as evidence for his Christology, the Gospel of Matthew quotes Old Testament prophecies in many passages to explain the significance of Jesus' deeds. Therefore, just as the apostolic kerygma was directed at the Jews, it can be said that the Gospel of Matthew also presented Jesus to people with a Jewish background. However, in the Gospel of Matthew, the nature of the question that Mark had posed has disappeared, and the text no longer requires the Apostolic Kerygma as its answer. This is because the Gospels themselves constitute a vast kerygma by Matthew that fully elaborates on each of the elements — such as Old Testament prophecies, Jesus’ miracles, his teachings, and his resurrection and appearances — with the exception of the resurrection proposition of the Petrine kerygma.
Next, while the Gospel of Luke is often described as a Hellenistic gospel, it does not contain any Greek-style argumentation that would correspond to the Jewish-style argumentation found in the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke does not seem to focus primarily on Jesus' arguments; rather, as stated in its opening, it appears to be entirely devoted to "making it known that the teaching is true". In that sense, it can be said that this Gospel is the one most faithful to the logical rationale for the necessity of the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is necessary not because faith is directly established through him, but so that we may know what it is we believe in. Luke is not concerned with reasons or arguments for believing, but rather with presenting the one who is to be believed in. That is why his Gospel offers the richest portrait of Jesus among the four Gospels. Ironically, however, people find satisfaction in that portrait of Jesus.
Finally, the Gospel of John is unique in that it reveals Jesus’ true identity right from the very beginning. Jesus is described using concepts such as "word", "God", "light", "life", "way", and "truth". If Mark is the "hidden Gospel", then John is the "revealed Gospel". What was concealed in Mark is brought to light in John. John states, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ" (20:31), thereby clarifying his purpose; to that end, he describes seven "works" of Jesus as "signs". That is, although John presents Jesus as a divine being through various concepts from the very beginning, he maintains that belief in Jesus as such a divine being should be based on Jesus’ miracles. In terms of using deeds to demonstrate faith in Jesus, the Gospel of John — despite its mystical tone — can be said to be similar in approach to the Gospel of Mark. However, by revealing the answer from the very beginning, the Gospel of John glosses over the very core of the formation of faith — namely, why we can believe that answer which is precisely what the Petrine kerygma sought to convey.
When reading these three Gospels — excluding the Gospel of Mark — one gets the impression that each is a complete work in its own right as a religious text. The Gospel of Matthew can be read as a book of the new law given by Jesus, while the Gospel of John can be read as a contemporary eschatology. The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as an ideal teacher to the people.
These present "Jesus, the One to be believed in", and from the perspective of this essay, they provide information that is essential for the formation of the first stage of faith. However, it cannot be denied that the richness of those Gospels had the effect of causing people to lose sight of the questions about Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark.
Alternatively, the fact that the three Gospels following Mark had to undergo such “development” may have been a response to the diminishing effectiveness of the Petrine kerygma, which the Gospel of Mark had presented as the answer.
As shown in Chapter 3 - Succession, the Petrine Kerygma is a principle of faith formation intended for Jews. Although the argument presented in "The Gospel of Mark + Petrine Kerygma" differs from the argument based on Old Testament prophecies — which is quintessentially Jewish — it nonetheless presupposes the Jewish belief in "God's righteous judgment".
After realizing the limitations of Jewish reasoning during his ministry in Athens, Greece, Paul began to speak only of Jesus’ death — that is, the doctrine of the cross — as if he did not know about the resurrection.It may well be that the role of Peter's resurrection kerygma was limited to the very earliest stages of the Church's inception, and that thereafter, the role of proclamation was ceded to the doctrine of the atonement of the cross. That is why it seems as though the Petrine kerygma was allowed to be lost to history.
However, given that Israel continues to exist today as a Jewish state, this view cannot be supported. This is because Petrine kerygma regarding Jesus' resurrection should still be valid for the people of Israel who adhere to the Old Testament. Christian evangelism to Jews today, just as Peter did in the past, should focus on the message that Jesus' resurrection is God's affirmation of Jesus.
Therefore, the fact that Peter's proposition regarding the resurrection was lost to history for over twenty centuries — much like Paul's proposition regarding the cross was lost until the sixteenth century — must be attributed to the way the Church reads the Bible; the Church bears a grave responsibility in this regard.
The Gospel of Mark is a “Gospel without answers” that requires the Petrine kerygma. Based on the Gospel of Mark alone, we cannot arrive at an answer regarding Jesus, just as those who were around him during his lifetime were unable to do so. It can be said that this is where the role of the other Gospels comes into play, and that they were consequently written as texts capable of inspiring faith even without the Petrine kerygma. However, the richness and self-contained nature that these Gospels came to possess also served as the source of a one-dimensional Christian faith.
Furthermore, unless the ethical dimensions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are properly contextualized, they will be understood as a substitute for faith (Enlightenment Christianity), a supplement to faith (Catholic theology), or even an obstacle to faith (Protestant theology). The model of Christian ethics presented in "Supplement 2" of this treatise resolves this issue and correctly contextualizes the ethics of Jesus as conveyed in these Gospels.