Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Interesting that Mark's Gospel is ambiguous about the ultimate fate of Jesus' body, yet includes conjecture about Jesus being the resurrection of John of Baptist. Clearly resurrection was in the author's frame of reference. Anyone have any insights on the resurrection theme in GMark?

Interesting that Mark's Gospel is ambiguous about the ultimate fate of Jesus' body, yet includes conjecture about Jesus being the resurrection of John of Baptist. Clearly resurrection was in the author's frame of reference. Anyone have any insights on the resurrection theme in GMark?

If the empty tomb passage is an addition by somebody other than "Mark" (which I strongly think: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html), then "Mark" could not care less about the corpse of Jesus: for him the Resurrection was about Jesus' spirit going to heaven. Why? the body of Jesus was likely thrown to the trash, buried or burnt, by people other than his disciples or followers (who did not know what happened ultimately to Jesus' corpse). After all, Paul never wrote Jesus resurrected in his body, nor the author of Hebrews.

We have some clues in the gospel of "Mark":
1) At the end of the parable of the tenants (Mk 12:1-9), about the son's body (the son standing for Jesus); "And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard" (Mk 12:8).
Here it seems "Mark" knew that the body of Jesus was discarded (thrown away) by the same people that killed him.
2) "Mark" had Jesus anointed for burial (Mk 14:8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.") before his death!
Let's notice how odd and unrealistic (even ridiculous) is that anointment for burial (14:3-9):
- It happens day(s) before the crucifixion! But normally that is performed on a corpse.
- It is done by pouring the "pure nard" (an entire jar!) on the head! However the "perfume" should be rubbed on the whole body.
- The anointing would render Jesus highly fragrant & sticky when still alive!
It seems that "Mark" "forced" a fictitious anointment for burial on a living Jesus. Why? Probably because he knew none could have been done after Jesus' death (conflicting with Jn 19:39b-40).

Furthermore, Paul earlier wrote that the long dead Christians would resurrect in some spiritual bodies (not flesh & blood) ("like angels in heaven" Mk 12:25) and be in the image of the Son in heaven. The same would apply to Jesus, in Paul's mind (& also "Mark"'s one).
And Philo of Alexandria wrote about Abraham and Moses' souls going to heaven (but not their body).
Finally, "Mark" had Jesus saying (Mk 12:26-27) that Abraham, Isaac & Jacob are still alive, despite having suffered death (and be buried).

Cordially, Bernard

gilgul - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul

Bernard Muller wrote:

Interesting that Mark's Gospel is ambiguous about the ultimate fate of Jesus' body, yet includes conjecture about Jesus being the resurrection of John of Baptist. Clearly resurrection was in the author's frame of reference. Anyone have any insights on the resurrection theme in GMark?

If the empty tomb passage is an addition by somebody other than "Mark" (which I strongly think: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html), then "Mark" could not care less about the corpse of Jesus: for him the Resurrection was about Jesus' spirit going to heaven.

Bernard, firstly, your understanding of Mark's view of resurrection (that is, belief in a purely spiritual resurrection) is IMO out of step with Mark 6:14. Mark is clearly familiar with the concept of physical resurrection...

Mark 6:14 wrote:King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Secondly, your idea that GMark originally ended at 15:39 is interesting (is it your idea? -- genuine inquiry)... as there is a clear narrative break at that point. Given most scholars accept 16:9-20 as being an ancient addition, it opens the door to your line of inquiry -- "if those 12 verses are secondary, maybe everything after the passion narrative is secondary?". However, if one accepts a pre-Markan passion narrative, and the passion narrative ended with the centurion's confession, then isn't it reasonable to assume that Mark would start a new narrative element immediately following his inclusion of the passion narrative?

The fact that the two most common endings of Mark's gospel (at 16:8 or 16:20) are both widely attested in the 5th century, and given that the external evidence suggests the longer ending was added in the early 2nd century at the latest, it is quite remarkable that "the church" was unable to harmonize the manuscript tradition in the intervening centuries. It was clearly a conundrum for the early church, and I think it speaks strongly in support of the hypothesis that the original ending (following 16:8) was lost.

gmx wrote:Bernard, firstly, your understanding of Mark's view of resurrection (that is, belief in a purely spiritual resurrection) is IMO out of step with Mark 6:14. Mark is clearly familiar with the concept of physical resurrection...

I think this line of thought is misguided, as the concepts of "spiritual" and "physical" resurrection are not mutually exclusive. If you look at 1Cor 15, a spirit was supposed to have a body. The difference was that a spirit had a body of matter from the spirit realm, which allows for a few more tricks than a body from the earthly realm. The idea was that the earthly body "dissolves" during resurrection and is replaced by a brand new body from spirit matter, which may or may not look similar to the former person.