Bridge

Last January the Evangelical Textual Critics directed their readership to Peter Rodgers 2021, reconstructing Mark's longer ending.

Matthew used Mark up to Mark's ending 16:8... and keeps going. Most would assume that Matthew relied upon a side-tradition "M", as he does for so much other material not in Mark. Much of this tends to be included in "Q" but Rodgers doesn't care about Q here, just Marcan Priority. Rodgers instead points to Markan themes which Matthew, normally, edits-out; but Matthew is now at the end of his Gospel, so isn't as careful as usual.

First step: in the seventh verse of both Mark 16 and Matthew 28, the women are instructed to tell the disciples "and", for Mark, Peter (who there considers himself disgraced from the company); in the eighth shared verse the women flee Jesus' Empty Tomb, afraid. In Mark the women "told no-one". Then/instead at Matthew 28:8b the women ran to tell "his disciples".

Rodgers notes that this "his" (autou) qualifier was vital in relating Jesus' early career when various Pharisees and John of the Jordan-baptism have their own disciples. But once Jesus isn't in a competition with other group-leaders anymore, "his" is redundant; accordingly, Matthew from chapter 13 on prefers to drop it. Also, it turns out that some Matthew MSS have "and when they went to tell his disciples..." in 28:9. Rodgers sees this variant as a typically-Marcan redundancy which copyists - including Matthew himself - would normally drop. He proposes that Matthew this time did not drop it. It is therefore a witness to *Mark 16:9a.

A mild problematic comes inasmuch as, for canon Mark 16:1-8, although the white-robed youth (angel?) has instructed the women to tell the disciples, they implicitly don't. I've supposed a harmonist would assure us that the women did not tell anyone as they were running toward the disciples. [ACTUAL FACT 4/8/23 It happens the Arabic harmony brings Mark 16:9 to introduce the Magdalene; Tatian having set John's Mary at the tomb, which Mary Ephrem interprets as Jesus' mother. For Tatian's school: Mark 16:1-8 is the spurious side of Scripture, and it is from v. 9 where Mark 16 counts!]

I don't know to what degree canon Matthew 28:9-10 reflects any Mark; although here Jesus' request to go to Galilee and "be not afraid" seem like the sort of thing Mark's Jesus would say. Mark, we remember from Evan Powell, is chiastic; we expect Jesus and the disciples - especially Peter - to meet again in Galilee. Is Peter with Matthew's group of disciples? I suspect Matthew is being coy here. Which puts another Problematic on Matthew 28:9-10 as an honest transcription of its source, a more-serious one I think.

Rodgers makes his strongest case for Matthew 28:11-15 as a "sandwich", between the women informing some subset of His disciples and the final meeting in Galilee. This, Matthew has backdated to the time of the womens' run. Here at v. 13 is where the chief-priests order the soldiers say: that (hoti) his disciples came during the night .... First are invoked "his disciples" again but - hey, it fits here. More the point hoti is redundant, normally excised by Matthew.

As noted Rodgers doesn't engage Powell, not over John 21 and not over Powell's Mark>Luke>Matthew alternative to Q. But Rodgers doesn't have to. Rodgers, I think, makes a fair case that Matthew has transmitted some authentic Mark up to Matthew 28:15. (Rodgers and I assuredly would agree that "Pilate to Claudius" is a forgery postMarcan probably postMatthean.)

Mark 16:9f., per Rodgers' reconstruction, didn't have the women scattering madly in Peter-like cowardice; the women went as instructed, to some core of Jesus' still-loyal disciples. Meanwhile Mark, and not Matthew, posed the earlier defence against claims that the disciples had burgled Jesus' tomb - viz. that the impartial witnesses got instructed toward perjury. Rodgers would add that the Commission for "baptism into (eis) the Name" be Marcan.

Even assuming Rodgers be right, other aspects of the Markan minus I submit we do not know, where the elements in Matthew 28 aren't specifically Marcan. I don't know which disciples the women met - the "and Peter" in Mark 16:7 rather implies that Peter is self-separated from them. I don't know if the women met these men in Jerusalem or in Galilee or at some waypoint between. (It follows, from both, there's no question of an interdisciplinary footrace.) I don't know if - meanwhile - the potential outside witnesses were bribed by the chief-priests of the Jews; or if the Romans' commander had simply delivered a command - in fact I don't know if Mark ever suggested any direct witnesses since, Matthew 27:62-6 owns no Marcan backup. Also I don't know if Mark's baptismal formula was Trinitarian.