Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

There is a contradiction, in the earliest evidence.

From a side we are said (righlty, I think) that the Pillars considered the death of Jesus an expiatory sacrifice.

From another side, it is absolutely evident that in proto-Mark we see a Separationist Christology where the resurrection of Jesus (the man as distinct from the divine Christ) is vanishing behind the General Resurrection of the Dead.


Is there a conflict between the two views?


For the Pillars, the body of Jesus is useful insofar it has to serve as expiatory sacrifice.


For the Separationist Mark, the body of Jesus is not useful to serve to that goal. His death is like the death of any other person.

Hence the goal of Mark is to point that the Pillars are not purified by the sacrifice of Jesus. HIs sacrifice is vain. The Pillars are doomed.


Matthew, against Mark, has the Pillars too much purified by the blood of Jesus (cfr Matthew 27:25).

Why did Mark do this change?

Because he realized that the blood of Jesus, for the Pillars, served to distinguish who was purified (only the followers of the Pillars) from who was not purified (all the other peoples): just as the blood on the door, in Exodus, served to distinguish who had to be killed (the Egyptians) and who not (the Jews).

By falling that distinction, then one is justified only by the faith in the coming soon of the Messiah (just as Joseph of Arimathea).

Hence Mark had to separate the divine Christ (the real saviour) from the man Jesus (the vain expiatory sacrifice for the only Pillars).