Matt's Website

I've found it troubling that the resurrection was not present in the oldest manuscripts of Mark's gospel.

I've come across the opinion that perhaps the final section just happened to be torn off and lost but I don't find that convincing at all.

Here is something that I found on reddit whilst researching this:

First off, none of the canonical gospels contain the actual resurrection: as in Jesus unwrapping himself of burial cloths and rolling the stone away kind of thing. The gospel of Peter does have an actual resurrection but what we have in the canonical gospels are what follows the resurrection: stone already rolled away, tomb empty, Jesus appearing to people etc..

Second, Mark does mention the resurrection (Mark 16:6). What Mark does not have compared to the the other three canonical gospels are the appearances themselves. These are the ones added in the longer ending of Mark.

And finally to answer your question as to why that is the case: there are a number of views. One view is that the gospel was unfinished, another, like you said, that it was removed during transition.

The view that I'm very convinced of though is this: the ending is intentional because Mark wants to put forward this idea that the true glory of Christ is him crucified and not in the resurrection. And so he has a very brief and unimpressive mention of the resurrection in order not to steal focus from the passion.

Mark was writing to Romans and Gentiles. The imagery of crucifixion would, particularly to the Romans, be a vivid and powerful thing. Knowing the torment that Christ would have had to have gone through would certainly speak to them. Arguably more so than a bodily resurrection which is more of a aribtrary/spiritual idea. As someone who has recently become interested in Christianity, the documented historical events [referring to the actual crucifixion event] give you something much more to hold on to (at first) because they are, by nature, more human (thus, relatable). Adding to that: they would have lacked the cultural significance of resurrection as they didn't believe in it.

Mark is very keen on this messianic secret idea. No one knows who Jesus is, he is misunderstood, etc.. even though the reader of course knows because Mark 1:1. Jesus is revealed to be the Messiah halfway through the Gospel in Mark 8 with Peter's confession: "Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him." Jesus is not the kind of Messiah people were expecting and Mark knows this and is trying to re-orient his readers to Jesus as a crucified Messiah. Immediately after Peter's confession "he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again". Jesus's passion is directly linked to him being the Messiah.

And these next two points are deep and allegorical. I ought to do more research into whether this was a plausible and/or common style of writing at the time Mark was written. I often forget though, that ancient writing tended to be more figurative so in a general sense I think it's possible. It's hard to develop a habit of good exegetical reading after so many years of rational and literal reading.

Mark 16 ends with the angel telling the women to "go to Galilee" and I think in that, Mark too is instructing his readers to go back to Galilee; the Galilee in Mark 1. I think Mark is trying to push the reader to really see behind the narrative and see Jesus glorified on the cross and not see him in the usual way: looking for the impressive appearances, etc..

In Mark 15:16-19 is filled with rich, dark, dramatic irony, where the soldiers are humiliating Jesus but at the same time, the reader is pushed to think of the events as Jesus's coronoation:

• Soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (16)
• Clothed him in a purple cloak (17)
• They put [a crown] on him (17)
• They began saluting him "Hail, King of the Jews" (18)
• [They] knelt down in homage to him (19)

The reader is pushed to think "Ah yes, he is King of the Jews, yes they should be kneeling to him". Mark uses the soldiers's ignorance of the identity of Jesus as motifs that show who Jesus really is.

And on the point as to whether Mark knew about or believed in the resurrection:

It might be important to us, 21st century thinkers, but to Mark, maybe not so much.

As for Mark not believing it or not knowing about it? It's very unlikely. Paul is our earliest witness to the resurrection appearances. And Paul doesn't even use his own words, he uses what what is recognized as a pre-Pauline creed (in 1st Corinthians 15). The creed goes back to only within a few years of Jesus. This is the part that scholars think was creedal:

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

It's unlikely that Mark does not know about the appearances some 30-40 years later after the creed.

So this opinion doesn't change the meaning or outcome of Mark at all. Nor is it implying the resurrection didn't happen. I feel like it just gives a more plausible explanation for why the resurrection, in particular, wasn't so much the focus. It's like how John's gospel doesn't include all the same events as the Synoptic gospels. That's not to say they didn't happen but that they aren't as relevant to the message John was trying to portray.