Toto

A simple google search found this:

Re: [Synoptic-L] A discussion of the different endings of Mark by John Lupia

I can't find any other instance of the use of "deumbilication", so I don't know if this is generally accepted.

Toto

There is a disagreement with Lupia here and a reply here , with more on scroll technology.

mike_decock

Doesn't that all assume that GMark was as long when the ending was lost/edited as it is now?

-Mike...

Koyaanisqatsi

You also need to take into account the clear delineation between a bodily resurrection and a spiritual resurrection.

Not in the slightest, if whoever wrote Mark meant to first imply that a bodily resurrection had occured, contradicting Paul.

Remember, in Mark's story the tomb is not empty. There is a "young man" in a white robe sitting within. The body of Jesus is not there, but what is untenable is to suggest that the body itself rose.

This would be a significant change in Paul's clear delineation in 1 Corinthians 15 that you referrence later.

If Mark intended to introduce a new concept--a bodily resurrection--then ending at 8 in this abrupt manner makes perfect sense, since it would be the first time such a concept was introduced; a radically new concept, no less, that contradicts what Paul declared, so a vague or even uncertain ending would naturally reflect the genesis of a completely new doctrinal inclusion. Like tentative first steps toward a new concept.

Therefore the amazement and fear, likewise, makes perfect sense.

As a vision or a spiritual essence.

No, not as the other gospels do at all! In Mark's version, the tomb is not empty. There is a young man sitting there whose presence and vaguaries implies a bodily resurrection; again, directly contradicting what Paul declared to the brothers and marking a radical new concept in the cult mythology.

What is in question, however, is whether or not Mark "marked" (if you will) the first introduction of a bodily resurrection or not.

If so, then this marks a completely new concept first introduced by Mark into the cult mythology and as such, understandably would be left at an "abrupt" or vague ending for those within the cult at that time (80 C.E.?) to adjust to and debate what this change in doctrine may be or mean for the cult.

Thus, amazement and fear and what this new concept meant and thus the subsequent interpolations and extensions on this theme by later authors (Matthew and Luke and even John) to more fully investigate and expand upon, once the initial hints of a doctrinal change were introduced.

Would the author of Mark be so bold as to flat out contradict Paul? Probably not, so a vague and tentative introduction of this doctrinal shift, based more in implication than anything direct, makes sense.

If the cult believed as Paul believed, then one couldn't just say, "No, the body itself rose," one would have to imply this to be the case, yes?

This would also explain why a new ending was tacked onto Mark at a later date. Once Mark's initial, tentative introduction of this shift from Paul became accepted by the cult, then going back and adding on a fuller doctrinal extension in kind, likewise, makes perfect sense.

Toto

I think that the point that Lupia is trying to make is that if the scroll were the full length, it would be mounted on 2 umbilici, which would provide an explanation for the last page being lost.

The shorter version is, however, not that much shorter.

It looks to me like this is a possible physical explanation, but it's not very convincing on literary grounds.

Layman

The idea that Paul did not believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus is an old, and refuted, canard. Yes, Paul speaks of a "spiritual" body and a "natural" body. What you miss though, is that both phrases are talking about the same thing--the body. The same word is used for both--soma. We do not have here the distinction between a human body and a a ghost or an angel. But between different types of material bodies.

Now, it is a natural body. But, after the resurrection, it will be a spiritual body. In both cases, it remains a body (soma). The difference is not between physical and nonphysical, but between soulish and spiritual. Between, as the verses begins, corruptible and incorruptible.

The body is sown (dies) as a soma pyschikon but is raised as a soma pneumatikon. That Paul does not intend pyschikon to mean, simply, physical, is clear.

In 1 Cor. 2:14-15, Paul distinguishes between the "pyschikos" person and the "pneumatikos" person. The difference is not between a physical and a nonphysical person. Rather, it is between the "natural" man and the "spiritual" man. The difference is not materiality, but acceptance of the workings of the spirit of God. The natural man is common and unable to understand the things of God. The spiritual man, while a physial being, is able to understand the things of God.

Especially helpful is Paul's use of the term "pneumatikoi" in 1 Corinthians 10. He speaks of the Israelites following Moses in the wilderness as eating "spiritual" food," drinking "spiritual" drink, and getting the drink from a "spiritual" rock. 1 Cor. 10:3-4. This drink and food was, of course, material, but it was also spiritual because its source was God. ("for they were drinking from a spiritual rock, which followed them; and the rock was Christ").

Paul uses the word similarly here. The distinction is clear. Both bodies are material, but one is animated by the spirit of God (and thus transformed), while the other is not.

Unfortunately, you cut off the verses too early. After "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" Paul goes on to make clear that there is a physical resurrection and a continuity between the physical body before and after death. There is not an abrupt end, but a transformation of the physical body into something more.

1 Cor. 15:50-53.

It is naive to take the reference to "flesh and blood" to mean, merely, physicality or materiality. As the following verses clearly demonstrate, Paul is speaking of a "change" from the current body to a new one. From a soulish, corruptible body to a spiritual, incorruptible body. But it is still a body.

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 359.

You should take a cue from Paul's other undisputed letters, which speak to a transformation or change of the present body into another kind of body.

Philipians 3:20-21:

Both times Paul again uses soma to refer to body, the same as he does for the present bodies of those to whom he writes. This body will be "transformed" into an improved, incorruptible body. One that is animated by the spirit of God.

And, Romans 8:11:

Again Paul use soma here. Jesus will give life to the mortal soma, not end it so that his followers can be freed into a nonphysical existence. Again Paul is speaking of a change to the existing body. And the reason it becomes spiritual is because of the change brought about by the spirit of God.

In fact, the entire notion that there existed in early Jewish Christianity an idea of the resurrection that had nothing to do with the body is itself a dubious position. It becomes completely untenable when it further requires that, as Christianity became more and more hellenistic, there was more and more pressure to change the concept of a nonbodily resurrection into a bodily one. This is the opposite of reality. Jews believed in bodily resurrection. Greeks rejected it.

Moving on to Mark.

Even if you had any semblence of a point about Paul, you still fail to address the crux of the argument. Mark carefully narrates the fulfillment of Jesus' foretellings. He specifically has Jesus foretell his resurrection appearences. Whether you think these are merely visions or actual appearances is irrelevant. They are foretold. Mark has the young man at the tomb remind the disciples of this an reiterate that he will meet them in Galilee.

Yes, the idea of any resurrection of a failed messiah was probably frightening to the women. Even if this was a "new" idea--a doubtful proposition--to Mark's readers, this creates no reason to stop there. If anything, it would need additional reinforcement--by fulfilling Jesus' prediciton of post-resurrection appearances.

Toto

Layman and NT Wright make a brave attempt to ignore the gnostic vocabulary of Paul's letters, as if Paul were a modern rationalist (except for believing in a bodily resurrection.) A resurrection in a "pneumatic" body is not comparable to a resurrection of the physical body; it is a resurrection of something close to a soul. This is despite the usage of psychic and pneumatic to refer to unelightened versus enlightened classes of people. (No one ever said the gnostics made a lot of sense.)

I don't have time for a lengthy discussion, but I will just quote this:

from The Orthodox Movement Formulates "Anti - Christian - Gnostic" Theology

and this:

(emphasis added)

from Origen of Alexandria and The Golden Age of Christian Theology

Layman

Were you actually going to address my arguments?

I'm not sure why you find Justin and Origen, neither of which were a Pharisiac Jew like Paul, relevant to beliefs that preceded them by a century and a half or more. Especially when I discuss what Paul actually wrote and how he used the same terms in other verses. None of which you do. That there existed gnostics in the second century is rather likely. That Paul, a Pharisiac Jew, believed in a nonphysical resurrection is not.

Toto

I tend to doubt that Paul was a Pharisaic Jew. I don't know that the letters attributed to him were written a century before Justin - they use the same vocabulary and concepts as the 2nd c. gnostics, and may have been written or revised closer to that time. Are you contending that Paul's vocabulary was taken over and redefined by the gnostics?

Your argument is that the pneumatic body is a physical body, but you have no real evidence of that, and it flies in the face of the interpretation by commentators who do not have a vested interest in forcing Paul into an orthodox mode.

Paul and the gnostics do differentiate between a pneumatic and a sarkic person, as exhibiting different levels of enlightenment. Your argument would seem to imply that because some people can be described as spiritual, that spirits are solid bodies. This does not make sense in English, and I don't think it can be teased out of Paul's writing, however hard you try.

Was there more substance to your argument than I have addresssed?

Layman

Then you are already at odds with the evidence. Paul tells us that is he was such a Jew. But even if he was lying, he still wants to be thought of as one. He was clearly linking his beliefs to theirs. And Pharisees believed in the physical resurrection of the believers. Paul, though distinguishing his current beliefs from those of the pharisees on other matters, sounds just like what he claims to be when talking about the general resurrection--a Pharisiac Jew who believed in the resurrection of the body.

You haven't proved any of this, just asserted it. Moreoever, your last statement conceals some truth. The gnostics-wanna-be's, such as Marcion, did appropriate Paul's letters--thought they hacked out as many Jewish references as they possibly could. Why? Because, unlike you, they know that the Jewish references all imply bodily resurrection and an appreciation for the physical world. Even John Knox concedes that Marcion hacked away all the Jewish elements he could from Paul's letters and the Gospel of Luke (or, it's forerunner).

Which commentators? The term "soma" literally means material body. I recommend that you read Robert Gundry's book devoted to this very topic.

No, my argument is not that all spirits are material bodies, but that spiritual bodies are material bodies. Again back to "soma." Paul never tells Christians that they will be spirits. He tells them their natural bodies will be raised as spiritual bodies.

And do you think that Paul meant that the food that the Israelites ate was "enlightened" food? Or "enlightened" drink? Or that the rock it came form was an "enlightened" rock? Of course not. The source of those material objects was spiritual. God's spirit animated them, transformed them, made them what they were. There is no basis for simply treating "spiritual" as "enlightened."

Can you be more anachronistic and naive? Apparently not. But Paul did not say that spirits have material bodies. He said that there are natural bodies and spiritual bodies.

Yes. Plenty. But you don't appear to have any desire to actually confront the evidence. As usual. You ignored the various Pauline passages that explictly refer to a "transformation" or "change"--not an end--to our present bodies. This is not the language of those who find the material world evil, but of a belief that stresses continuity between our present bodies and our future, resurrected bodies.

Tell me, what do you think Paul meant by this:

Romans 8:9-11.

Paul is clear. The "body" that will be raised is our current "mortal body." The raising of our "mortal body" is linked to the raising of Jesus' own body, indicating a parrallel of bodily resurrection between what happened to Jesus and what happene to us.