Is this interesting?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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"?

Interesting observation.

It might be not completely impossible that Mary meant with the "we" herself and the disciples in the sense of "they have taken him away and now we all do not know ..."

[TedM]

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

It does not fly that way.

It could only be they believed it was true, that does not show historicity, only a possible belief held at best. This was simply something the community found important and valuable.

Why? Why would Luke find Joanna important enough to mention as being at the cross, while dropping Salome at the same time if there were not some basis for believing these people were real? What basis would there be if Mark only mentioned Salome say 10 year prior? Of what value would this Joanna be to the community if these people never even existed? Why would they create them and then not indicate that they were important? MIght it be possible that Luke was NOT writing as a theologian here - regurgitating the importance of Joanna, but really had gone around and gotten an actual historical report. Isn't it very possible that HISTORY was important to these people - ie what actually happened - without the need for there to be a theological purpose too?

[Peter Kirby]

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.

The question was why the author would write this way. You believe it is X. But it could also be Y. You don't believe it could be Y. But it could be Y. The writer could have Mary saying "we" because the author wanted to the character to say something more than their personal ignorance. The "we" certainly can have this reference in the Gospel of John, to include the other women besides Mary. You can disagree, but the author doesn't have to agree with your expectation of how the story should be written and what is "valid." Your comments above involve reading it in terms of your expectations (based on the Synoptic gospels) and not giving the author of the Gospel of John a chance to have a different take on it.

Your view is less coherent, because it has the author simultaneously affirm that Mary went alone and that Mary did not go alone. Your ideas regarding the inconsistency of those trying to tell the truth have meant that you don't believe this is odd at all. You've attributed the incoherency of this view to the author's bungled handling of prior tellings. But if there is something that doesn't require the author to be a bungler holding contradictory ideas in the very same passage, that should be an option to consider.

There's no way to prove that your opinion is correct, when there are ways to read the story as a coherent story. You don't like them, but there they are.

It might be not completely impossible that Mary meant with the "we" herself and the disciples in the sense of "they have taken him away and now we all do not know ..."

This is also possible.

[TedM]

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.

The question was why the author would write this way. You believe it is X. But it could also be Y. You don't believe it could be Y. But it could be Y. The writer could have Mary saying "we" because the author wanted to the character to say something more than their personal ignorance.

Fiction authors normally like to add such explanations (ie for Mary was feeling embarrassed, scared, alone, etc..). Otherwise it seems sloppy.

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

Not necessarily. She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.

Your ideas regarding the inconsistency of those trying to tell the truth have meant that you don't believe this is odd at all. You've attributed the incoherency of this view to the author's bungled handling of prior tellings.

I do think it is odd because clearly a needed explanation wasn't given. Op makes clear I at least think it is interesting. But I think it is more odd if it is coming from one's imagination than from one's belief or memory of events. There is no need to assume a bungled handling, as my options just stated show. But the author may simply have thought that the other women were much less important figures for the origin of the resurrection story, since Mary saw Jesus first in his story, only Mary ran to Peter and John, and then Mary was the first to realize when Jesus appeared to her right after that. And even moreso if the source of this story really was Peter or John.

There's no way to prove that your opinion is correct, when there are ways to read the story as a coherent story. You don't like them, but there they are.

Your example is way out there IMO. For Mary to blurt out 'we' due to some pschological issue going on inside of her (perhaps her demons had come back) without providing the typical explanation that fiction writers like to provide, doesn't ring likely to me at all. But, different opinions are a good thing.

It might be not completely impossible that Mary meant with the "we" herself and the disciples in the sense of "they have taken him away and now we all do not know ..."

This is also possible.

Again, to me not likely at all. Who tells someone something really surprising that they clearly would want to verify, and then immediately includes their opinion/fears as if they already knew and before they even have had a chance to respond? Highly unlikely. Very awkward interpretation.

[Peter Kirby]

Fiction authors normally like to add such explanations (ie for Mary was feeling embarrassed, scared, alone, etc..). Otherwise it seems sloppy.

For Mary to blurt out 'we' due to some pschological issue going on inside of her (perhaps her demons had come back)

You don't appear to understand the option I provided -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with a heightened emotional state or psychological issue.

This is what I said:

The writer could have Mary saying "we" because the author wanted to the character to say something more than their personal ignorance. The "we" certainly can have this reference in the Gospel of John, to include the other women besides Mary.

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.)

Might help to read and understand the option before dismissing it.

without providing the typical explanation that fiction writers like to provide

But you don't appear to know much of anything about what is "typical" for "fiction," which appears to be a category regarding which you have a very warped and narrow view of what it can be.

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

Not necessarily. She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.

You're not interpreting the Gospel of John. You're interpreting something else: John + Synoptics + your additional assumptions. Give the text a chance to speak first. You appear to be struggling to do anything but.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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

Not necessarily. She could have gone alone and then told them, or gone alone and then brought them back to see for themselves.

Your ideas regarding the inconsistency of those trying to tell the truth have meant that you don't believe this is odd at all. You've attributed the incoherency of this view to the author's bungled handling of prior tellings.

I do think it is odd because clearly a needed explanation wasn't given. Op makes clear I at least think it is interesting. But I think it is more odd if it is coming from one's imagination than from one's belief or memory of events. There is no need to assume a bungled handling, as my options just stated show. But the author may simply have thought that the other women were much less important figures for the origin of the resurrection story, since Mary saw Jesus first in his story, only Mary ran to Peter and John, and then Mary was the first to realize when Jesus appeared to her right after that. And even moreso if the source of this story really was Peter or John.

There's no way to prove that your opinion is correct, when there are ways to read the story as a coherent story. You don't like them, but there they are.

Your example is way out there IMO. For Mary to blurt out 'we' due to some pschological issue going on inside of her (perhaps her demons had come back) without providing the typical explanation that fiction writers like to provide, doesn't ring likely to me at all. But, different opinions are a good thing.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin: It might be not completely impossible that Mary meant with the "we" herself and the disciples in the sense of "they have taken him away and now we all do not know ..."

This is also possible.

Again, to me not likely at all. Who tells someone something really surprising that they clearly would want to verify, and then immediately includes their opinion/fears as if they already knew and before they even have had a chance to respond? Highly unlikely. Very awkward interpretation.

Maybe we can agree that there is no solution that fits perfectly. So far as I can see all interpretations have their problems. I assumed this is starting point of the thread.

I found it interesting that with the exception of Peter there were only “synoptic” solutions, based on influence of the story (you) or textual influence (Ben, David Brainerd). But why not give John a chance to stand on his own feet? It seems to me that the “laying down of Jesus” was a “thing” for John to characterize “his” Mary whatever he meant by this. The probality that there are “errors, slip ups, and omissions” may therefore not very high.

20:2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

20:13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

20:15 Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

[DCHindley]

It is interesting that this discussion now seems to be focusing on what is "typical" of fiction as opposed to "history" as a way of painting the entire NT Gospel/Acts story line as somehow false, made up, and thus safe to ignore.

Do any of you (TedM & Peter in particular) have any erudite basis for determining what is "typical" in historical explanation or in fiction? I mean something other than anectdotal Ranke-Raglan type scales, which are not very scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

The expert on literary theory and criticism who I tend to pay attention to is Hayden V. White and the method he applies is in the 42 page introduction to his still-in-print book Metahistory (1974). White is dealing with post-Renaissance historiography, although to apply it to earlier periods, such as classical antiquity, requires learning what passed as plot, argumentative strategy, etc., in those earlier times. Since much of what was expanded upon in the period of interest to White was based on medieval reworking of classical themes, there is an overlap and his principals can be immediately applied in some way.

The fact is, White and many other literary critics point out that historical explanation and fiction are both forms of narrative, and all narratives use EXACTLY THE SAME elements to make their points! This fact is now widely recognized among secular students of literature. Emplotment, argumentative strategy, tropes, etc, even inclusion of ideological implications, are common to both. Detecting plot elements like tragedy or irony do not alone determine whether a narrative is "fiction" or "explanation".

When will we catch up?

DCH

[Peter Kirby]

Do any of you (TedM & Peter in particular) have any erudite basis for determining what is "typical" in historical explanation or in fiction?

Ted's claim, not mine. It's his thread, his argument, and his ideas about what "fiction" entails and what is "typical" of "fiction."

It is interesting that this discussion now seems to be focusing on what is "typical" of fiction as opposed to "history" as a way of painting the entire NT Gospel/Acts story line as somehow false, made up, and thus safe to ignore.

No, it's been about using some claims about what is "typical" of "fiction" (???) to argue that the Gospel of John is not "fiction."

... all narratives use EXACTLY THE SAME elements to make their points!

That almost sounds like something I might say.

I've found most of this discussion to be pretty surreal. Like you, apparently.

[TedM]

This is what I said:

The writer could have Mary saying "we" because the author wanted to the character to say something more than their personal ignorance. The "we" certainly can have this reference in the Gospel of John, to include the other women besides Mary.

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 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.)

Might help to read and understand the option before dismissing it.

Peter, this is not really saying anything that isn't obvious. Of course the author had a REASON for saying 'we' if it wasn't an interpretation. My contention is not complicated: He didn't tell us his reason. That is less likely to me for someone who is making up stuff out of his imagination than someone who is accessing his own memory. 'Less likely' is subjective. You can certainly disagree but I trust my intuition on this more than anything I've heard to the contrary here.

[TedM]

It is interesting that this discussion now seems to be focusing on what is "typical" of fiction as opposed to "history" as a way of painting the entire NT Gospel/Acts story line as somehow false, made up, and thus safe to ignore.

All our questions would be answered if we could determine what is typical of fiction verses history. Seems like a fairly important focus to me. NO need to get bogged down on my possible motivation since the answers - if they are possible to determine - should lead to the truth.

The fact is, White and many other literary critics point out that historical explanation and fiction are both forms of narrative, and all narratives use EXACTLY THE SAME elements to make their points! This fact is now widely recognized among secular students of literature. Emplotment, argumentative strategy, tropes, etc, even inclusion of ideological implications, are common to both. Detecting plot elements like tragedy or irony do not alone determine whether a narrative is "fiction" or "explanation".

I strongly believe this is wrong. Every human action that has different starting motivations will be subject to different application. People will slip and make mistakes, but in different ways. The better they are at their craft the less obvious and more difficult it will be to interpret, but I think it is simply wrong to conclude that because they have the same kinds of elements that they are ALL the same and with no variation. IOW the above paragraph is a simplification that only serves as a deterrant and an obstacle for determining the Truth. Peter valiantly tried to test my hypothesis on the other thread. That's the kind of thing that should be done. If someone can do so successfully, then they will have refuted my arguments here. I'll be surprised if it can done.