I discuss this in the “Legend of the Empty Tomb” section of The Empty Tomb. It’s hard to discern because Mark is so deliberately concealing and non-literal. He could be intentionally not picking a side by appeasing both. Or he could be literally representing the sarcicists or figuratively representing the pneumaticists. One can present evidence for all three positions, leaving the matter undecidable.

But IMO, what tips the scale is prior probability: Mark is absolutely a Pauline and everywhere else reifies the letters of Paul. So in the absence of deciding evidence, priors prevail: we should assume Mark is a pneumaticist, and therefore the empty tomb is a metaphor, not a literal event (which is further supported by Mark essentially telling us this). I outline there how that works. But I have a summary online here as Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?

As to the question of what Mark would do if the theft accusation was circulating, that would entail he did not invent the empty tomb story, so he would be more constrained in how he told that story. He would be forced in that case either to scrap his planned metaphor and construct an overtly pneumaticist fable (e.g. refuting the theft accusation by actually having the body found in the tomb and the angel teaching that the others don’t understand, he has left this body for a new one) or a more polemical metaphorical fable (e.g. have the Jews steal the body to try and frame Christians for it, thus indirectly illustrating the unimportance of the corpseflesh) or something in between (e.g. mentioning the theft accusation but cryptically declaring that those who say that “do not understand”).

Instead he appears to have no knowledge even that anyone would come up with the idea of theft. Mark did not even anticipate that. Which means it didn’t exist until after Mark invented the empty tomb.

But it’s also not clear what Matthew wants us to believe. Because he could be following the same two truths methodology (the literal is meant for the outsider to not understand while insiders will be told it’s all metaphor and not literal) and thus contrived the theft tale as a misdirect (and therefore so could Mark have done that if their roles were reversed): a way of “answering the accusation” that satisfies outsiders or lower ranks with a “literal” critique of the Jewish elite while never actually expecting insiders to believe there even was an empty tomb in the first place.

Luke is the first author to explicitly make his story support sarcicism over pneumaticism (and John doubles down on Luke). Matthew is actually vague about that. You can compare Luke, Matthew, and Mark about the marriage-angels analogy, and see that Mathew seems to endorse Mark’s almost obviously pneumaticist take on that (no one has sex in the afterlife because you won’t even have genitals because you’ll be angelically embodied) while Luke tries to distance it by making the no sex thing more about being immortal and God’s children, rather than having entirely new bodies. He then has the risen eating-cuddling-touching Jesus declare he’s not a pneuma. So Luke has that as an explicit agenda. Matthew conceals what their agenda was (is the overt story a fakeout or meant to be taken as real?). So we can’t tell.

In your opinion, do you think that the original writer of “Mark” thought that the resurrected Jesus HAD the same body in which he was RAISED?

When looking at Marks predictions about resurrection, I don’t see any evidence that the body that was killed was going to be the same body which would be raised.

so is it probable that for Mark that a missing or stolen body would not matter to his gospel message?

I just realised that Matthew desperately needs the resurrection in the same body because he places guards at the tomb, by the time Luke is written the threat of stolen body must have been neutralised because xtians already swallowed Matthews claim that Jesus’ body was guarded.

If the body was stolen and Mark believed that the resurrection is not contingent upon the same body which was killed, then he would not be forced to address claims of stolen body.

can you tell me what do you think

I agree.

At the risk of sounding like a groupie, love the way your mind works and cannot fault your presentation of complex arguments as simple unequivocal statements. (Big fan of Karl Popper as well by the way).

I don’t have the knowledge to argue like you and so canot refute the other side’s often tortuous and confusing arguments. (Just when you think you grasp something, they throw another curved ball, which leads down a new labyrinth.)

It is refreshing to have someone to present the naked facts, stripped of all the theology BS and confusion, and say- “This is the data, you decide.”

That’s the difference betwen education and indoctrination.