Is this interesting?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

GJOHN:
1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
I find it interesting that it is only reported that Mary, went to the tomb, and only reported that Mary ran to the disciples, yet she says WE do not know where they have laid Him. It was previously mentioned that Mary was with other women at the crucifixion the night before, so the comment isn't non-sensical, 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. But, why would an author do that when he was the one who specifically used the word "WE"?

All 3 of those implications do not seem to me to be something one would expect from a fictional account, and it is from that perspective that I find this interesting.

Does anybody else agree with me, or do you have a different perspective on this?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Peter Kirby »

"All 3 of those implications do not seem to me to be something one would expect from a fictional account"

Please explain? I don't know what the connection here is supposed to be.
"... 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:"All 3 of those implications do not seem to me to be something one would expect from a fictional account"

Please explain? I don't know what the connection here is supposed to be.
Ok, here's what I was thinking:

The writer intentionally had mentioned only Mary as going to the tomb and seeing it empty. He also intentionally has only Mary running to tell the disciples. Sure, others could have been in both scenarios, but the writer only mentioned Mary.

It seems to me that a person who is not a historian but who is nonetheless intending to write historical facts is more prone to errors, slip ups, and omissions, than a person who has set out to write a fictional account having theological great importance. It therefore seems more likely to me that the former would have omitted anything that explains WHY other women would have known about the empty tomb than the latter. In the case of the former the explanation would simply be that he knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb. But in the case of the latter the the writer IMO is being more deliberate - he intentionally only focused on Mary being at the tomb and on Mary running to tell the disciples and on Mary running back with them and on Mary being the first to see Jesus. Because of this it seems a less likely omission for him to not explain why other women knew about the missing tomb. How can he focus so much on Mary - have in mind another sequence of events where the other women also discover the missing tomb - and not include ANYTHING about that in his story? It seems less likely to me. If it wasn't important enough to explain, then why would have have included it? With the 'factual' account there is a better reason - he knew or heard other women saw or knew about the empty tomb before the disciples did. With the 'fictional' account the only reason is that he forgot to follow through on a fabricated account in his mind.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Could also be a copyist was harmonizing in his head and thus "we" got in there.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

TedM wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:"All 3 of those implications do not seem to me to be something one would expect from a fictional account"

Please explain? I don't know what the connection here is supposed to be.
Ok, here's what I was thinking:

The writer intentionally had mentioned only Mary as going to the tomb and seeing it empty. He also intentionally has only Mary running to tell the disciples. Sure, others could have been in both scenarios, but the writer only mentioned Mary.

It seems to me that a person who is not a historian but who is nonetheless intending to write historical facts is more prone to errors, slip ups, and omissions, than a person who has set out to write a fictional account having theological great importance. It therefore seems more likely to me that the former would have omitted anything that explains WHY other women would have known about the empty tomb than the latter. In the case of the former the explanation would simply be that he knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb. But in the case of the latter the the writer IMO is being more deliberate - he intentionally only focused on Mary being at the tomb and on Mary running to tell the disciples and on Mary running back with them and on Mary being the first to see Jesus. Because of this it seems a less likely omission for him to not explain why other women knew about the missing tomb. How can he focus so much on Mary - have in mind another sequence of events where the other women also discover the missing tomb - and not include ANYTHING about that in his story? It seems less likely to me. If it wasn't important enough to explain, then why would have have included it? With the 'factual' account there is a better reason - he knew or heard other women saw or knew about the empty tomb before the disciples did. With the 'fictional' account the only reason is that he forgot to follow through on a fabricated account in his mind.
Is it possible, in your estimation, that John included the "we" because he was thinking of the other gospels, all of which feature a plurality of women at the tomb? Can Matthew, Mark, and/or Luke be the "history" that you feel John is more likely to have followed to have produced such an inconcinnity? If so, is there anything in your argument that would assure us that John can have stumbled in this way only if the other gospels represent history, and not if they themselves are fiction or legend?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

Yep. The history he was relying on could have been prior gospel fictions. It may be that the only thing interesting about this is that it is an argument for John's awareness and acceptance of other traditions/accounts about what happened. This is certainly no big breakthrough, but I thought it was an interesting unintentional corroboration of the other accounts.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by Peter Kirby »

TedM wrote:It seems to me that a person who is not a historian but who is nonetheless intending to write historical facts is more prone to errors, slip ups, and omissions, than a person who has set out to write a fictional account having theological great importance. It therefore seems more likely to me that the former would have omitted anything that explains WHY other women would have known about the empty tomb than the latter. In the case of the former the explanation would simply be that he knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb. But in the case of the latter the the writer IMO is being more deliberate - he intentionally only focused on Mary being at the tomb and on Mary running to tell the disciples and on Mary running back with them and on Mary being the first to see Jesus. Because of this it seems a less likely omission for him to not explain why other women knew about the missing tomb. How can he focus so much on Mary - have in mind another sequence of events where the other women also discover the missing tomb - and not include ANYTHING about that in his story? It seems less likely to me. If it wasn't important enough to explain, then why would have have included it? With the 'factual' account there is a better reason - he knew or heard other women saw or knew about the empty tomb before the disciples did. With the 'fictional' account the only reason is that he forgot to follow through on a fabricated account in his mind.
It's an intriguing idea, but I'm a little confused about it because the author "knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb" either way, unless we subscribe to the priority of John or its ignorance of the synoptics.

What makes us actually believe that this kind of error is "less likely" when intertextuality is the cause for someone who is a "fictional account" writer rather than a "historical facts" writer? What makes the problem "go away" when the person is trying to relate historical facts? It seems like the same problem; the narrative has a hole (or "seems to").

The above is really for the sake of entertaining the argument, though...

(1) I have my own reasons to believe that the author of the Gospel of John is not writing a "fictional account having great theological importance." So it's not my position. I don't know if my view of the author differs from yours, but that's not my view of the author(s) of GJohn.

(2) I do not agree that there is a narrative hole here (that we can show). I think we wouldn't detect one without the synoptics side by side. On its own, the reader of the GJohn would make sense of it.

The "we" here has a previous reference in the Gospel of John. It's just not the one you're expecting, based on the synoptics.

The "we" has a reference back to the description of the women together at the cross:
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
You can disagree with the author's choice to write this way. If it doesn't make sense according to the standards being set on the author, perhaps it made sense to the author in another way, using different expectations of the author's intent. I see at least one way it could have made sense to the author.

The author could have assumed that the disciples would have wanted to know more than whether Mary Magdalene was personally ignorant or whether the other women might have known something. Just because Mary went alone, doesn't mean that the other women could not have known anything, notwithstanding that they didn't go with Mary. In the terms of the story, it is the statement that this isn't personal ignorance (and the state of ignorance of the disciples regarding the sequence of events) that would make someone want to use the "we," or that would make an author assume that they would. (At least, this is one possibility.)

I'm not really trying to be persuasive about that explanation. If you think it's just a goof, that's fine too.

(Sidenote - The Gospel of John and 1 John has several other instances of "we" speech that might be interesting, for those wanting to explore these ideas further.)
"... 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 »

Thanks, as I wrote to Ben I think the use of 'we' indicates that the author was probably not fabricating this part of the account. And I think it therefore means he either knew the other women had seen the empty tomb (personally? or from other accounts?) or believed it, despite his emphasis on Mary. I don't see the prior reference to other women as weakening my point though because their existence doesn't automatically make it true that they knew about the empty tomb by the time Mary was first telling the disciples about it. There''s a whole scene missing. Them standing together before the burial isn't a valid substitute.

Peter Kirby wrote:
TedM wrote:It seems to me that a person who is not a historian but who is nonetheless intending to write historical facts is more prone to errors, slip ups, and omissions, than a person who has set out to write a fictional account having theological great importance. It therefore seems more likely to me that the former would have omitted anything that explains WHY other women would have known about the empty tomb than the latter. In the case of the former the explanation would simply be that he knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb. But in the case of the latter the the writer IMO is being more deliberate - he intentionally only focused on Mary being at the tomb and on Mary running to tell the disciples and on Mary running back with them and on Mary being the first to see Jesus. Because of this it seems a less likely omission for him to not explain why other women knew about the missing tomb. How can he focus so much on Mary - have in mind another sequence of events where the other women also discover the missing tomb - and not include ANYTHING about that in his story? It seems less likely to me. If it wasn't important enough to explain, then why would have have included it? With the 'factual' account there is a better reason - he knew or heard other women saw or knew about the empty tomb before the disciples did. With the 'fictional' account the only reason is that he forgot to follow through on a fabricated account in his mind.
It's an intriguing idea, but I'm a little confused about it because the author "knew the story that Mary wasn't the only one who knew about the empty tomb" either way, unless we subscribe to the priority of John or its ignorance of the synoptics.

What makes us actually believe that this kind of error is "less likely" when intertextuality is the cause for someone who is a "fictional account" writer rather than a "historical facts" writer? What makes the problem "go away" when the person is trying to relate historical facts? It seems like the same problem; the narrative has a hole (or "seems to").

The above is really for the sake of entertaining the argument, though...

(1) I have my own reasons to believe that the author of the Gospel of John is not writing a "fictional account having great theological importance." So it's not my position. I don't know if my view of the author differs from yours, but that's not my view of the author(s) of GJohn.

(2) I do not agree that there is a narrative hole here (that we can show). I think we wouldn't detect one without the synoptics side by side. On its own, the reader of the GJohn would make sense of it.

The "we" here has a previous reference in the Gospel of John. It's just not the one you're expecting, based on the synoptics.

The "we" has a reference back to the description of the women together at the cross:
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
You can disagree with the author's choice to write this way. If it doesn't make sense according to the standards being set on the author, perhaps it made sense to the author in another way, using different expectations of the author's intent. I see at least one way it could have made sense to the author.

The author could have assumed that the disciples would have wanted to know more than whether Mary Magdalene was personally ignorant or whether the other women might have known something. Just because Mary went alone, doesn't mean that the other women could not have known anything, notwithstanding that they didn't go with Mary. In the terms of the story, it is the statement that this isn't personal ignorance (and the state of ignorance of the disciples regarding the sequence of events) that would make someone want to use the "we," or that would make an author assume that they would. (At least, this is one possibility.)

I'm not really trying to be persuasive about that explanation. If you think it's just a goof, that's fine too.

(Sidenote - The Gospel of John and 1 John has several other instances of "we" speech that might be interesting, for those wanting to explore these ideas further.)
Last edited by TedM on Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by spin »

TedM wrote:intending to write historical facts
Historians write historical facts, ie they gather evidence from the past to establish what happened. Non-historians tend to write what they believe happened. Ancient writers usually did not have the historiographical training to write "historical facts", leaving only writing of what they believed happened. They usually believe what happened because that is the tradition they received. Trusting the source leads to passing on the tradition.

The dichotomizing of received information as "factual" and "fictional" is what I'd call a simpletonification. That's on top of the fact that calling anything which is not factual "fictional" is a modern simpletonification.

Storytelling—be it based on real events or not—is prone to variation. The longer the circulation life of the story, the wider the range of variation. The tradent receives a tradition and passes it on, but in the process, mediates the tradition, for when it is received it is automatically interpreted into the experiential world of the tradent and then in passing it on, it is done through the transforming means of the tradent's reproductive skill. A very simple example of the process is seen in the game of Chinese whispers, a game in which a message is passed on person to person along a chain until the last person reports the message before hearing the original message which is invariably quite different from the end version. Every mediation potentially changes the message. Talking about fact and fiction in this process is quite meaningless.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Is this interesting?

Post by TedM »

I agree. I find the other thread more interesting for that reason. Who is going to be whispering about which women were at the cross when nobody has ever heard of these women until just recently after Genius Mark wrote his story? And then why would the names change? We have an account to keep the story straight. Why conjure up a make-believe nobody Joanna when you already have a make believe nobody Salome? Sure, it can happen over time. But are we wiling to say enough time passed between Mark's account and Lukes or Matthew's so that these kinds of things occurred? Or would it be more believable to say that Luke and Matthew or John made up the name changes themselves? Buy why would they do that?

spin wrote:
TedM wrote:intending to write historical facts
Historians write historical facts, ie they gather evidence from the past to establish what happened. Non-historians tend to write what they believe happened. Ancient writers usually did not have the historiographical training to write "historical facts", leaving only writing of what they believed happened. They usually believe what happened because that is the tradition they received. Trusting the source leads to passing on the tradition.

The dichotomizing of received information as "factual" and "fictional" is what I'd call a simpletonification. That's on top of the fact that calling anything which is not factual "fictional" is a modern simpletonification.

Storytelling—be it based on real events or not—is prone to variation. The longer the circulation life of the story, the wider the range of variation. The tradent receives a tradition and passes it on, but in the process, mediates the tradition, for when it is received it is automatically interpreted into the experiential world of the tradent and then in passing it on, it is done through the transforming means of the tradent's reproductive skill. A very simple example of the process is seen in the game of Chinese whispers, a game in which a message is passed on person to person along a chain until the last person reports the message before hearing the original message which is invariably quite different from the end version. Every mediation potentially changes the message. Talking about fact and fiction in this process is quite meaningless.
Post Reply