Was there a lost ending of Mark?

[ABuddhist]

Docetism predated Christianity.

I certainly agree that Docetism exists outside of Christianity - various Mahayana Buddhist sutras teach ideas that are docetistic, such as the idea that a Buddha is really immortal, has a body larger than the world, and, in the case of Gautama Buddha, only pretended to seek enlightenment and become enlightened (because he already had been enlightened for long before he appeared on earth as Gautama). Whether these texts and ideas predate Christianity, though, I have no idea. Typically they are dated to around the same time period - 1st century CE - at the earliest.

[perseusomega9]

You got to quit believing the church fathers, Mark has nothing to do with Peter other than tearing him down and making all of Peter's words and actions condemned by Jesus' own preaching.

[davidlau17]

Since the other gospels emphasize Jesus' physical body, I don't see why Mark couldn't have emphasized that Jesus had a spiritual body. 1 Peter does it clearly enough with one sentence.

"He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" is an intentionally enigmatic statement subject to various interpretations.

Also, I think it should be noted that GLuke does include a passage that could be interpreted as post-resurrection Jesus having a spiritual body:

Luke 24:31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

Yet Jesus later makes an offer of proof to his disciples that he does not have a spiritual body. So why wasn't Luke 24:31 tossed? Probably because the implications are not explicit. In other words, the Gospel would have to categorically state "For Jesus was no longer flesh and blood, but had a spiritual body" (or something to that effect) for it to raise enough concerns to be censored. And even then, it wouldn't necessarily be censored (as 1 Corinthians demonstrates).

And perhaps docetic interpretations weren't the concern here. Were the early Christians who believed in a physical resurrection (as indicated by 1 Cor, 15:5) anti-docetic[/i]? Did docetism even exist at that point? Perhaps a spiritual resurrection was rejected because the physical resurrection camp won the day, motivated by whatever had motivated them in 1 Cor. 15:5.

Well seeing as docetists believed Jesus never even had a physical body before his death, I would imagine those who believed in a physical resurrection would not think much of docetism. That being said, since we're only referring to Jesus' existence after resurrection here, I admit that my use of the word "docetism" was probably misplaced.

[John2]

Since the other gospels emphasize Jesus' physical body, I don't see why Mark couldn't have emphasized that Jesus had a spiritual body. 1 Peter does it clearly enough with one sentence.

"He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" is an intentionally enigmatic statement subject to various interpretations.

I don't know if it is intentionally enigmatic, but yes, it is subject to various interpretations. My understanding is that a more literal translation would be, "killed indeed in flesh, made alive however in spirit." And this suggests to me that the resurrected Jesus had a spiritual body, since it uses a form of the same word used in 3:19 to describe the dead that Jesus was thought to have visited after his death ("in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison") and that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 15:44 in contrast to a natural body ("If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body").

Also, I think it should be noted that GLuke does include a passage that could be interpreted as post-resurrection Jesus having a spiritual body:

Luke 24:31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

Josephus uses the same word for "vanished" to describe the Egyptian prophet in Ant. 20.8.6 ("the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more"). Does this mean the Egyptian was a phantom, or did he just simply depart from the scene like a commenter elsewhere suggests that Jesus did ("It does not appear that there was anything miraculous in this, but, during their surprise, he took the opportunity suddenly to withdraw from them")?

But I suppose it could be (and figure it has been) interpreted differently, but I'd be curious to see if anyone who does so also applies it to the Egyptian.