TedM wrote:- 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
TedM wrote:- ie what actually happened - without the need for there to be a theological purpose too?
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:TedM wrote: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?
Peter Kirby wrote: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:TedM wrote: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?
(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.
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...TedM wrote:I must admit I don't understand what point you are making that you think I don't get.
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.TedM wrote: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.
TedM wrote:...believed it to have happened that way.
Peter Kirby wrote:Your view is less coherent, because it has the author simultaneously affirm that Mary went alone and that Mary did not go alone.
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...TedM wrote:She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.
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?Peter Kirby wrote: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.TedM wrote: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.
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.
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 wrote:Your view is less coherent, because it has the author simultaneously affirm that Mary went alone and that Mary did not go alone.
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.TedM wrote:She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.
It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.TedM wrote: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 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.TedM wrote: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.
Just about sums up both of these threads of yours, doesn't it? What have you got besides opinion?You are entitled to your flawed opinion.
I'll reply later, but that's not accurate. From the OP:Peter Kirby wrote:It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.TedM wrote: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
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.
me wrote: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.
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.TedM wrote:I'll reply later, but that's not accurate.Peter Kirby wrote:It includes the other women, which is something we agree on.TedM wrote: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
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.
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?)TedM wrote: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.
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.TedM wrote:Maybe we should do a poll to see who is right on this.
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.TedM wrote:IF it helps any, he could have been pulling that from his subconscious even.