2-J

I always saw it like this in my (non-expert) opinion:-

The response to the empty tomb 'well obviously someone stole the body, possibly the disciples' is a really obvious one. You don't even need to have had it suggested to you by reading that passage in Matthew. Whoever wrote / compiled Matthew had probably heard that criticism of the story (or was incorporating someone else's response who had heard it). It was probably as obvious a response to the ancients as it is to us in this day and age.

So maybe Mark had just not anticipated the response initially, or didn't think it was important or relevant to address it.

show_no_mercy

Mark was probably written as allegory/theology and not history. The later gospel writers thought Mark was supposed to be history and did their improvements to the story.

dog-on

This.

spamandham

Exactly. Mark was not writing a history report. Mark knew his Jesus was a theological construction, and so did his target audience, so there was no need to add details to preempt potential criticism.

YHWH's promised anointed salvation was not a human being of history, but a different way of looking at the Jewish scriptures. They were seeking spiritual resurrection - an internal rebirth - not physical resurrection. The stories of Mark are all parables, even though only a few are explicitly stated to be such.

JoeWallack

JW:
Mark 16

JW:
Note that "Mark" Reveals that Jesus has been resurrected. There is no direct evidence:

1) No resurrected Jesus.

2) No witness claiming they saw resurrected Jesus.

3) No name witness claiming that Jesus was resurrected.

This is Paul. Believe resurrection based on Faith. "Mark" has created a diechotomy of Faith verses Evidence, which contrast and are enemies of each other. "Mark's" theme is that you have to have Faith to believe. No amount of evidence creates belief if you lack faith. Evidence is an obstacle to belief. "Mark" does not present any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. "Mark" does not want any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. Believe based on Faith. If a resurrected Jesus starts talking and eating with you than you are not really believing he was resurrected based on faith, are you?

"John", the final Gospel, has the opposite theology. Evidence creates faith:

John 2

Note again that as time goes by Christian assertian of the age of historical witness increases:

"Mark" = no claim of historical witness

"Matthew" = Claim at the end that named disciples were historical witnesses but no claim of source for Gospel.

"Luke" = Claim that eyewitnesses were the source for the Gospel.

"John" = Claim that a disciple was the source for the Gospel.

Exactly what we would expect for a story that had no historical witness. Historical events have the inverse relationship. As time goes by the source for the current author must be farther from the historical event.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

aa5874

The gMark in the NT is a later improved version.