Is this interesting?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:
TedM wrote:I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.
If it's part of a larger story, the boy has two brothers, and his sister is missing after being seen near the sinkhole, and this boy is talking to the parents after all the children separated from them, and if the story is otherwise constructed in a way that it is more or less some kind of a mirror image of John's... well, then it almost actually just makes sense, as a story... doesn't it? (Feel free to disagree, but come on... it's just not that weird.)
TedM wrote:
TedM wrote:
But that wouldn't be a mirror image of John. The mirror image of John would be if the boy had two brothers and a sister and they all had some toys in the backyard, the wakes up early and goes out by himself to play with his toys and to his horror discovers that the yard has collapsed and all of his toys and his siblings toys are gone and then he goes in and wakes up his parents and says "there's a big hole in the backyard. All of the toys are gone and we don't know where they are".
Peter Kirby wrote:Honestly, I don't even know what your point is here. Like, completely no idea.

No clue at all what you think is so important and distinctive about your edition, or what is wrong (according to you) about what I said.

Don't know why you felt motivated to change the story from what I suggested. Did you think it made some sense, and so this other one was constructed because you think it makes less sense... or is this just some kind of pedantry, trying to show (somehow, I don't know how) that I've misunderstood the story of GJohn and failed in the technical details of making a similar yarn?
Wow, we are on different wavelengths for sure. You gave a story that you said was a mirror image of John. I thought your point was that with the background you provided, a comment by the boy of "we don't know what happened" would have made sense in the story. I would agree that it could have made sense, but I don't see how it applies here because I don't agree that it was a mirror image of John, or nearly one. Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents. John's version (and mine) has the boy revealing something extra-ordinary to the parents, and if I were to I apply your hypothesis then the boy would immediately voice his parent's response right back to them "we don't know what happened" before the parents have even displayed a reaction in the story. That just doesn't sound like like any fiction I would find very compelling because it is illogical with regard to how people talk, so I don't think a fiction writer would do that typically.

So, I provided my expanded version of my original story which I think WOULD be much closer to being a mirror image of John. In that version, "we don't know...." still doesn't make sense. Would you agree that my version is much more analagous to John's story than yours?
Much more? Actually, no... I don't get it, in general, and I'd tend to classify this as more along the pedantry spectrum, than anything very illuminating (sorry!). The only morsel I was thrown above -- "Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents. John's version (and mine) has the boy revealing something extra-ordinary to the parents" -- really just has me more bewildered than ever, even as it seems to communicate your belief that my version is not involving the extraordinary, your version is involving the extraordinary, and that this is relevant to "how people talk" in some way, I guess, because you "agree that it [my example] could have made sense," but it's too far off base and not a good representation of what happens in the Gospel of John (apparently, because of the difference of "extraordinary" vs non-"extraordinary," which I never considered a possible factor in this outcome).

In the words of Alice in Wonderland, "Curiouser and curiouser!"

It's probably time just to agree to disagree.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Peter Kirby »

[And, if I may be so bold, is Mary's naturalistic-sounding suspicion of movement/theft of the body really something completely out of the ordinary in whatever sense required? I didn't want to say this because I'm begging for a continuation of the debate by doing so, and I don't really get the whole concept of the supposed difference here, honestly... but there it is. Personally, I thought a missing daughter was a lot closer to the impact of the Gospel of John - a missing body of their beloved Jesus - than your example was... there was a reason I thought of it first... but YMMV.]

Okay, I'll try to shut up now.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

well, I can be pretty stubborn so let me try and explain myself further -- if you just get too bored we can move on because I have plenty to do but I do want to address what you just wrote. Do what you wish with it.
Peter wrote: The only morsel I was thrown above -- "Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents.
Just to make sure we are even talking about the same thing. You are saying that the boy could be voicing the parents response to his revealing that the sister is missing..."ie I don't know what happened - you don't know what happened either? Wow, then we just don't know what happened". Right?

Assuming yes, then I'm saying the above makes sense but only because the boy had seen the parents reaction or heard their response. But in GJohn's story that's not the case with Mary. It reads not as though she is summarizing how Peter and John responded to her telling them that the tomb is empty. Rather it reads as though she is telling them something amazing and adding to that her personal response as well as someone else's response. THEN we get a reaction from the disciples. They run to see for themselves.

My bit about the extraordinary being significant is that normally when something extraordinary is revealed, a person doesn't immediately tell someone how to react to it, or summarize their reaction for them. Rather, you wait for their reaction confirming that that it really is something extra-ordinary. It is possible that Mary only said "we don't know where they have taken them" after a getting their reaction but there is nothing in the story to suggest that, and I still think it is a strained kind of conversation to have.

Ok, I see you wrote one more thing. I'll respond and then I just gotta quit this. Thanks for hanging in there with me and putting up with the various assertions I am making despite your views on them.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

Peter Kirby wrote:[And, if I may be so bold, is Mary's naturalistic-sounding suspicion of movement/theft of the body really something completely out of the ordinary in whatever sense required? I didn't want to say this because I'm begging for a continuation of the debate by doing so, and I don't really get the whole concept of the supposed difference here, honestly... but there it is. Personally, I thought a missing daughter was a lot closer to the impact of the Gospel of John - a missing body of their beloved Jesus - than your example was... there was a reason I thought of it first... but YMMV.]

Okay, I'll try to shut up now.
agree, missing body is closer than missing toys. I was focusing on the conversation about it - maybe reading too much into what you wrote, or being too quick to judge it.

Suspicion of theft seems not out of the ordinary at all, Not sure what you are getting at on that. I'm really just stuck her saying "we" while telling them what she experienced.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Peter Kirby »

TedM wrote:well, I can be pretty stubborn so let me try and explain myself further -- if you just get too bored we can move on because I have plenty to do but I do want to address what you just wrote. Do what you wish with it.
Peter wrote: The only morsel I was thrown above -- "Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents.
Just to make sure we are even talking about the same thing. You are saying that the boy could be voicing the parents response to his revealing that the sister is missing..."ie I don't know what happened - you don't know what happened either? Wow, then we just don't know what happened". Right?
No. (Don't know where that came from!)

I guess, in that case, we then have less agreement too about whether it "makes sense." Okay, that's fine.
I was focusing on the conversation about it
The conversation you saw... it wasn't in what I wrote (IMO).
Suspicion of theft seems not out of the ordinary at all, Not sure what you are getting at on that.
Uh... the whole extra-ordinary (vs not extra-ordinary?) thing, you brought up, whatever that was?
Ok, I see you wrote one more thing. I'll respond and then I just gotta quit this. Thanks for hanging in there with me and putting up with the various assertions I am making despite your views on them.
Yeah, let's put it to bed.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

Peter Kirby wrote:
TedM wrote:well, I can be pretty stubborn so let me try and explain myself further -- if you just get too bored we can move on because I have plenty to do but I do want to address what you just wrote. Do what you wish with it.
Peter wrote: The only morsel I was thrown above -- "Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents.
Just to make sure we are even talking about the same thing. You are saying that the boy could be voicing the parents response to his revealing that the sister is missing..."ie I don't know what happened - you don't know what happened either? Wow, then we just don't know what happened". Right?
No. (Don't know where that came from!)
Ok, I thought you were speculating that even though you think 'we' refers to the women, a writer could have been referring to Peter and John there, so I was extending that idea to your version of my story. I don't have the will to go back and check that out now..clearly this thread needs to die now.. :)
Post Reply