Is this interesting?

[outhouse]

- ie what actually happened - without the need for there to be a theological purpose too?

It only has the possibility of showing they believed it to be true, not that it was a real event. big difference

[Peter Kirby]

I don't see the point you are making here. Of course 'we' would include other people, and of course the most logical inference is that it includes the other women. What exactly is your point here?

The Gospel of John has a narrative where this statement by Mary doesn't imply that the other women were at the tomb. Because, well, facts:

(A) Mary says that "we don't know" and
(B) The story only has Mary going to the tomb.

This might be impossible to explain (what's this "we" business, kimosabe?) if the Gospel of John didn't talk about the women as a previous referent for the pronoun, "we." But the Gospel of John does: the women were at the crucifixion.

The disciples weren't involved in the burial of Jesus (it was Nicodemus and Joseph). In the story, they don't really know what the other women, other than Mary, might or might not have known about the burial of Jesus (and theft of the body), by rumor or direct knowledge.

In the story, when Mary says that "we do not know," she isn't emphasizing her personal knowledge or ignorance. She is emphasizing a more objective state of knowledge or ignorance; i.e., whether she or the others know. There's nothing wrong with this being the author's intention. You've made some totally disconnected statements showing that you have appear to have no idea what I'm talking about here, but it's really very simple.

FWIW, when the author later emphasizes Mary's personal knowledge or ignorance (the later "I do not know where they have lain him"), the audience is different, and the emphasis is different. Instead of the audience being the disciples, who would want to know the whereabouts of the body if possible, it's apparently a stranger who she is talking to. She shifts to the singular first person personal pronoun. Why? It's an expression of grief and personal loss, while previously it was an explanation of the startling facts to the concerned apostles.

At this point, you don't have to believe any of it -- interpretations are hard to prove -- but you can kindly stop claiming this is a bad interpretation. It's an interpretation that uses only the text of John (instead of the synoptics and contrafactuals regarding the motions of the other women regarding the tomb), and it's more than merely possible; it is plausible, and it is sensible. You can have your opinion, but it can't be shown by claiming this interpretation is wrong, just because you believe it is.

If you had shown any real interest in trying to make sense of the story as written, your intuitions might matter a bit more.

[TedM]

I don't see the point you are making here. Of course 'we' would include other people, and of course the most logical inference is that it includes the other women. What exactly is your point here?

The Gospel of John has a narrative where this statement by Mary doesn't imply that the other women were at the tomb. Because, well, facts:

(A) Mary says that "we don't know" and
(B) The story only has Mary going to the tomb.

This might be impossible to explain (what's this "we" business, kimosabe?) if the Gospel of John didn't talk about the women as a previous referent for the pronoun, "we." But the Gospel of John does: the women were at the crucifixion.

The disciples weren't involved in the burial of Jesus (it was Nicodemus and Joseph). In the story, they don't really know what the other women, other than Mary, might or might not have known about the burial of Jesus (and theft of the body), by rumor or direct knowledge.

In the story, when Mary says that "we do not know," she isn't emphasizing her personal knowledge or ignorance. She is emphasizing a more objective state of knowledge or ignorance; i.e., whether she or the others know. There's nothing wrong with this being the author's intention. You've made some totally disconnected statements showing that you have no appear to have idea what I'm talking about here, but it's really very simple.

I must admit I don't understand what point you are making that you think I don't get. Nothing you can say removes the fact that the author didn't state his reason for having Mary say 'we'. You and I can make various assumptions about that reason, but that isn't my point. My point is that it is an omission and for a fictional writer it is a strange omission because it depends on events having occurred that the imaginative writer forgot or decided were not important enough to put in as an explanation for his intentional usages of 'we'. You apparently don't see it is being as odd as I do. More odd than a person who wasn't making it up but felt no need to explain it because he already believed it to have happened that way.

[Peter Kirby]

I must admit I don't understand what point you are making that you think I don't get.

You'd said lots of things in this thread that showed you did not get what I was talking about as an interpretation. Glad to have you on board...

Nothing you can say removes the fact that the author didn't state his reason for having Mary say 'we'. You and I can make various assumptions about that reason, but that isn't my point. My point is that it is an omission and for a fictional writer it is a strange omission because it depends on events having occurred that the imaginative writer forgot or decided were not important enough to put in as an explanation for his intentional usages of 'we'. You apparently don't see it is being as odd as I do. More odd than a person who wasn't making it up but felt no need to explain it because he already believed it to have happened that way.

There's absolutely nothing odd about it. That you find it odd, tells us more about you, than it tells us about the Gospel of John. You're obsessed with this detail, so you crave something more about it, some explanation, and then you blame the author when it's not there. This makes him a bad writer of fiction, if he's writing fiction. Which, by some twist, makes it more likely that he isn't writing fiction.

FWIW, I agree with you that the author of the Gospel of John isn't writing "fiction," as I said previously. This is just a tremendously bad argument.

...believed it to have happened that way.

Your view is less coherent, because it has the author simultaneously affirm that Mary went alone and that Mary did not go alone.

She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.

Your explanation of what the author of the Gospel of John "believed to have happened" was utterly incoherent and not based on the text. If he believed so sincerely that other women went to the tomb, in fact, with Mary or separately, what the hell is this story doing there in his "beliefs about what happened," without saying anything about the peregrinations of the other women? This is several more orders of magnitude ODD not to say anything about...

Whatever lack of explanation problem might be here, it gets worse when you have the text your way.

[TedM]

I must admit I don't understand what point you are making that you think I don't get. Nothing you can say removes the fact that the author didn't state his reason for having Mary say 'we'. You and I can make various assumptions about that reason, but that isn't my point. My point is that it is an omission and for a fictional writer it is a strange omission because it depends on events having occurred that the imaginative writer forgot or decided were not important enough to put in as an explanation for his intentional usages of 'we'. You apparently don't see it is being as odd as I do. More odd than a person who wasn't making it up but felt no need to explain it because he already believed it to have happened that way.

There's absolutely nothing odd about it. That you find it odd, tells us more about you, than it tells us about the Gospel of John. You're obsessed with this detail, so you crave something more about it, some explanation, and then you blame the author when it's not there. This makes him a bad writer of fiction, if he's writing fiction. Which, by some twist, makes it more likely that he isn't writing fiction.

FWIW, I agree with you that the author of the Gospel of John isn't writing "fiction," as I said previously. This is just a tremendously bad argument.

You are entitled to your flawed opinion. It is obvious to me that there is something odd about Mary using the word 'we' where there is nothing in the text to suggest that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb, but you don't see that - perhaps you don't want to see that. Maybe we should do a poll to see who is right on this. If I was writing a story and said that Billy went into his backyard and was shocked to discover that a sinkhole had sucked up the entire backyard which was now 100 feet down, I certainly wouldn't have him go inside and wake up his parents to say "I just went into the backyard and it is missing. WE don't know what happened." But to you that wouldn't be an odd thing to say at all apparently...How is the account in John much different?

Your view is less coherent, because it has the author simultaneously affirm that Mary went alone and that Mary did not go alone.

She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.

Your explanation of what the author of the Gospel of John "believed to have happened" was utterly incoherent and not based on the text. If he believed so sincerely that other women went to the tomb, in fact, with Mary or separately, what the hell is this story doing there in his "beliefs about what happened," without saying anything about the peregrinations of the other women? This is several more orders of magnitude ODD not to say anything about.

I've already stated that Mary is the featured person throughout the narrative, but if someone is writing history or what he thinks is history there would be nothing odd about reporting - wait for it - his understanding of what Mary said to Peter and John, although it may seem odd to you or me, because there is a perfectly logical explanation for it. IF it helps any, he could have been pulling that from his subconscious even.

[Peter Kirby]

It is obvious to me that there is something odd about Mary using the word 'we' where there is nothing in the text to suggest that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb

It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.

We both think there is no explicit statement in the text that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb.

Your predicament is almost the same is mine; the difference is where you look to resolve it.

You look to resolve it by postulating some facts outside of and behind the text, some historical (but unstated) thing. Originally you claimed it was the visit of the other women to the tomb; later you expanded the option to Mary telling the other women. The visit of other women to the tomb flies in the face of the narrative of GJohn. There's also nothing in there about Mary running to tell the other women. Your view has big, gaping oddness in terms of what the text says. As in, it is practically impossible for this to be the story of GJohn, if the author thought those things were also in the story.

My view involves only the subjective ignorance of the disciples regarding what the women were up to. This is clearly implied IN THE STORY. The disciples were not on the scene. They were ignorant of what was going on. Geez, I've explained this enough times now. I'm going to end up repeating myself again. By using the word "we," the author is saying that Mary is saying something to the disciples that informs them of the state of knowledge on the matter, in the story. You've claimed to understand this. But since you find it so fantastically odd, I'm not so sure.

I've already stated that Mary is the featured person throughout the narrative, but if someone is writing history or what he thinks is history there would be nothing odd about reporting - wait for it - his understanding of what Mary said to Peter and John, although it may seem odd to you or me, because there is a perfectly logical explanation for it.

It is his understanding of Mary said to Peter and John in the context of his story. Either way. Your claims about weird stuff in a story making more sense because the author thought "it really happened" make exactly zero sense. In fact the story is not weird, and in fact it being thought to have happened can't make it any less weird. Anything crying out for an explanation, does so either way.

[Peter Kirby]

You are entitled to your flawed opinion.

Just about sums up both of these threads of yours, doesn't it? What have you got besides opinion?

[TedM]

It is obvious to me that there is something odd about Mary using the word 'we' where there is nothing in the text to suggest that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb

It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.

We both think there is no explicit statement in the text that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb.

Your predicament is almost the same is mine; the difference is where you look to resolve it.

You look to resolve it by postulating some facts outside of and behind the text, some historical (but unstated) thing. Originally you claimed it was the visit of the other women to the tomb; later you expanded the option to Mary telling the other women.

I'll reply later, but that's not accurate. From the OP:

but either it is implied that others went to the tomb with her and the author left that out, that she reported the missing Jesus to the women before running to the disciples and the author left that out, or that other women ran with her to the tomb and the author left that out.

[Peter Kirby]

It is obvious to me that there is something odd about Mary using the word 'we' where there is nothing in the text to suggest that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb

It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.

We both think there is no explicit statement in the text that anyone other than her was aware of the empty tomb.

Your predicament is almost the same is mine; the difference is where you look to resolve it.

You look to resolve it by postulating some facts outside of and behind the text, some historical (but unstated) thing. Originally you claimed it was the visit of the other women to the tomb; later you expanded the option to Mary telling the other women.

I'll reply later, but that's not accurate.

What's not accurate? I'm sure you had something in mind, but it's not clear which part exactly you're claiming inaccuracy about.

but either it is implied that others went to the tomb with her and the author left that out, that she reported the missing Jesus to the women before running to the disciples and the author left that out, or that other women ran with her to the tomb and the author left that out.

This doesn't exactly say which part you find inaccurate. (Of course, since you're the author of the OP, I'm just wondering what you're saying about what it is you're saying... what are you trying to say here, that you're saying I didn't catch?)

Oh...is it the "original" and "later" thing? ... Okay. You win that one.

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe we should do a poll to see who is right on this.

Maybe we should. I've run out of new things to say about the text here, that's for sure. There's very limited scope for talking about such a narrow issue that's based only on an interpretation of a small part of the text. It's a crappy argument to get into. If it helps any, I've only ever needed a plausible interpretation here, in order to respond to the OP's argument, which is based on the idea that the text doesn't make sense as written. You have maintained that it's not plausible. That's where I can't agree at all.

I also can't agree to the mandate that the reading I have is plausible only except that the author must explain everrrything. Explicitly.

The fact that I find your opinion/interpretation to be essentially incoherent and disconnected from the text... that's just, like, my opinion, man. Maybe you can find a way to make sense of it, but that's not sufficient to float the argument of the OP. The other readings need to be implausible or just much less probable, for the OP's argument to work.

IF it helps any, he could have been pulling that from his subconscious even.

I do find it coherent and plausible to consider the author to be a "bungler" (my word) who made an "subconscious" (your word) mistake, but you haven't committed to this idea. Maybe that's because other people jumped on the same idea, but it makes just as much sense under the so-called "fiction" view.