hammodius

(As I write this, there's running through my head an old song from church, the words of which go, "And the angel rolled the stone away...")

In the house where I grew up, the Bible was it. Today I still wonder if it's just possible that the Bible is entirely correct. If so, I'd better come to that conclusion for the good of my soul. This thread is an exploration of Biblical inerrancy via the gospel accounts of what happened on Easter. This hugely controversial and much-argued topic should make for a fruitful investigation. I know there are web sites enumerating hundreds of so-called Bible errors, but many of these so-called errors are quickly dismissible after some reflection, and at any rate I can only think about things thoroughly one at a time. So here's focusing my attention on the Easter accounts.

I am the final arbiter of success or failure. I invite comments and scrutiny because I know that I, for one, am not inerrant, but in the end I'm trying to achieve some personal peace on the issue, not convince anyone else. Also, there's an element of seeing-for-myself to this investigation. I know others have done harmonizations and debated them endlessly elsewhere, but please don't offer a link and expect me to read a 100K website on the subject. There's lots out there, and I'm open to input, but I want to rely for the most part on the primary text itself, my wits, and the feedback of those willing to take the time to cross-examine me.

To narrow the range of the problem, today's post will only consider the gospels of Mark and John. If they are reconcilable, I'll add Matthew and Luke to the mix one at a time. If all four harmonize beautifully, I'll send the result to Dan Barker. On the other hand, I may become convinced there are irreconcilable contradictions, and thus find freedom from the doctrine of inerrancy.

"inerrant" = exempt from error, free from mistake (Webster's Colleg. Dict., Fifth Ed.)

Mark describes one visit to the tomb and then has a sort of summary of the rest of the events before Jesus' ascension. I'll only consider the first visit for the purposes of this post.

Mark A

Mark 16:1-8. On the first day of the week at sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome come bringing sweet spices to annoint Jesus. As they go, they say among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone?" They arrive to find the stone rolled away. They go inside and see a man sitting on the right side, wearing white. The man says, (roughly) "you seek Jesus, he's not here, he's risen, look at the spot where he was lying. Go and tell the disciples and Peter that he's going to Galilee and they'll see him there." The women leave quickly, trembling and afraid, and say nothing to anyone.

John gives much more detail than Mark, and relates more than one event at the tomb.

John A

John 20:1-2. While it's still dark, on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb and finds the stone rolled away. She runs to Peter and "the other disciple" and tells them, "they've taken the Lord from the sepulchre and we don't know wehre they put him."

John B

John 20:3-18. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb, Peter falling behind. They investigate and see the burial cloths. They "believe" but do not understand that Jesus had to rise from the dead to satisfy scripture. They leave, but Mary lingers behind outside the tomb, weeping. She peers into the tomb and sees two angels, one at the head and one at the foot of the place where Jesus. lay. They ask her why she's weeping. She turns and sees Jesus outside the tomb, but doesn't recognize him. He say, "Why are you crying?" --"They've taken him." "Mary"--and she recognizes him....she returns to the disciples with the news.

MAKING IT FIT TOGETHER

So if these accounts are both exactly accurate, as far as they go, they must fit together in some fashion without contradiction. My first question is, when did Mark A happen in relation to John A and John B? I'll consider a few theories. We can be sure the accounts are referring to the same day: the first day of the week, after the Sabbath.

Theory I, Mark A = John A

Discrepancy: There's Mary and Mary and Salome vs. just Mary. This could be a Johanian omission.
Unity: They saw the stone rolled away.
Discrepancy: Mark relates extra events not mentioned in John, specifically the angelic appearance with instructions about meeting Jesus. This could be a Johanian omission.
Discrepancy: Mary ran to tell Peter vs. they said nothing to anyone. (Possible resolution: Mark's "they" refer to everyone but Mary.)
Discrepancy: Mary says "We don't know where they've put him" displays ignorance of the information the angel told them according to John.

Conclusion, Mark A is NOT John A.

Theory II, Mark A = John B

There are barely any surface resemblances to make one suppose these two might be the same; I only consider it for the sake of thoroughness.
Discrepancy: Three women vs. Mary and Peter and another disciple.
Discrepancy: Mark describes one angel, John two angels plus Jesus.
Discrepancy: "They" saw the angel vs. Mary saw the angels plus Jesus.

Conclusion, Mark A is NOT John B.

Theory III, Mark A happened before John A

Discrepancy: Mark happened "very early" around sunrise. John happened "while it was still dark."
Unity: Mark says the women said nothing. It's quite reasonable that Mary would have made a later trip (in John) to see things again.
Discrepancy: Mark A has an angelic revelation, while John A has Mary report her ignorance to Peter. She would not have done so assuming the Mark trip had already happened.

Conclusion, Mark A did NOT happen before John A.

Theory IV, Mark A happened after John A, before John B

Discrepancy: Mary would have known the tomb was empty; why would they discuss among themselves how to move the stone? (Possible resolution: Mary didn't tell the other women, or they didn't believe her.)
Discrepancy: Timeframe in the John accounts is too tight. Mary ran back from John A and Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb upon hearing her news. No time for Mark A, complete with an angelic revelation.

Conclusion, Mark A did NOT happen between John A and John B.

Theory V, Mark A happened after John B
Discrepancy: (same discrepancy as for Theory IV) Mary would have known the tomb was empty; why would they discuss among themselves how to move the stone? (Possible resolution: Mary didn't tell the other women, or they didn't believe her.)
Discrepancy: Mary would have already seen the risen Jesus prior to the angelic revelation, making it unnecessary.
Discrepancy: The Markan plan to annoint the body with spices is ludicrous considering the risen Jesus has already been seen.

Conclusion, Mark A did NOT happen after John B.

Theory VI, Mark A and John A Hybrid

This one takes some describing. Mary M. and Mary mother of James and Salome come together to annoint Jesus. Mary M. gets ahead of the others, sees the rolled stone, and runs off to tell Peter and the other disciple as John A relates. Meanwhile, the other Mary and Salome go inside the tomb, see the angel, hear the declaration, and keep silent about it as Mark says. Then Peter et al. come running as John B describes.

Discrepancy: Mark A happens around sunrise, John A while it's still dark. (Resolution: that's just too quibbling a complaint to count. Both could be true. Maybe they leave while its dark and arrive while the sun's rising.)
Discrepancy: John A only mentions Mary M. (Resolution: John A is not obligated to list everyone. Someone might be present and yet not mentioned. Furthermore, it's consistent with our scenario for Mary M. to be alone when she spots the moved stone and runs.)
Unity: John A has Mary M. say to Peter "we don't know where they've put him." That supports the notion that Mary M. was initially in a group, and lends credence to the hybrid account.
Discrepancy: Mark A's pronoun "they" requires creative interpretation. Instead of taking it at face value, to mean the three persons he listed in the first verse, one has to assume Mary M. can drop out of the pronoun without a note being made. (However, the John A account which describes just one person and then she uses the plural pronoun "we." That argues that these pronouns might indeed be a bit slippery.)

Conclusion: Inconclusive. A hybrid account might work, provided we're relaxed about our pronouns.

Tentative Conclusion

All right. I'm just about ready to add another gospel (probably Luke) considering that the Theory VI is plausible. No doubt Luke will require expanding it a bit and maybe the proposal of some new theories. But before I continue, can anyone point to a discrepancy I've missed so far, or an argument why one of the theories I dismissed is actually tenable?

Roland

They "they" must include Mary M if you want to harmonize Matthew with the rest, since Matthew, by limiting his antecedent to two women doesn't leave any other possibility.

Roland

I will freely admit that I will never get the hang of quoting other people's comments on here. I can do it when I need to quote the whole thing, but when it comes to just quoting a portion of what someone has written, I clearly don't know what I am doing.

Llyricist

You just need an opening bracket --> [ on your /QUOTE command.

hammodius

Thanks, Roland. You're right that interpreting "they" will get more complicated as we add Matthew to the mix. (And of course, Matthew will add lots of other complications too!) One resolution to the problem you raise is that Matthew might have omitted some names from his list. In fact, even the Hybrid Theory in my OP relies on the assumption that some people were present in spite of not being mentioned in John's account. I think I'm willing to make that concession, fully aware that it opens the door their having been, say, a dozen women in the party, even if only one or two are mentioned in each gospel.

If this becomes absurd, I might be convinced Occam's Razor supports errancy. But that's getting ahead of myself.

Vinnie

In the passion narrative I already compared Mark and John event by event here

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/easter1.html

I compared Jesus prayer in the Garden here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/gethsemane.html

Both of those document easter gospel errancy as they are all of them a part of the passion narrative.

I think you forgot about the "we" in John 20.

"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

WHy does Mary say "we" rather than I? John seems to presuppose a fuller narrative with more than one woman.

Of course logically possibl harmonization is certainly not even close to being historical reconstruction. The Passion Narratives are fictions made from 2 goats and Psalms. See Crossan in The Cross that Spoke or Who Killed Jesus. Harmonization only has merit if it can be shown both accounts are history remembered. Very little in the passion narratives can be called history remebered.

Rather, we have authority traditions and the prioritizing of the beloved disciple over Peter, Mary Magdalen and Thomas in the Gospel of John.

You are also engaging in eisegesis. Uncritically reading diverse texts against one another rather than letting each work speak for itself is a faulty practice. It assumes the texts should be merged in such ways.

"""""""""""""Mary M. and Mary mother of James and Salome come together to annoint Jesus. Mary M. gets ahead of the others, sees the rolled stone, and runs off to tell Peter and the other disciple as John A relates. Meanwhile, the other Mary and Salome go inside the tomb, see the angel, hear the declaration, and keep silent about it as Mark says. Then Peter et al. come running as John B describes."""""""""""""

There is no indication Mark knows any of the events in John with Peter and the beloved disciple. Reading them together is uncritical harmonization and nothing more.

Furthermore, Mary says "we don't now where they put him" which poresumes the other women saw the empty tomb with her.

John is not concerned with history. He knew of another narrative with more women than Mary going to the tomb. He is concerned with authority traditions as his prioritizing of the beloved disciple clearly demonstrates.

Also don't forget to include the Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews which records an apearance to Jame as does Paul. GHebrews says Jesus appeared to James first I believe. As noted, the point is "authority" of apostolic figures via resurrectin claims, not history.

Harmonization is a red herring here.


Vinnie

hammodius

Vinnie, the links provided are a bit outside of the scope of what I'm considering here, as both deal with events prior to the death and not Easter morning. However, it's clear you're familiar with the sort of investigation I'm performing, so I value your feedback.

I did not overlook the "we"! It's in the OP at least twice. I acknowledge it lends support to the notion that more women were present than John names, and also to the general principle of loose interpretation of pronouns instead of requiring them to refer back to lists immediately preceding them. (Dangerous can of worms, that.)

I may encounter Crossan on this path I'm on; thanks for the tip.

Ummm, that's quite an accusation. Actually, if I can demonstrate inter-gospel inconsistency, that suffices to debunk inerrancy. Whether or not I'm reading something into the text that isn't there to begin with is a moot point. I'm answering those who've told me all my life that the four gospels are the Word of God. If that is the case, then this current activity is entirely appropriate; and since determining whether or not that is the case is part of the whole point of this exercise, it would be premature for me to assume it's not the case. Therefore for the time being I attempt to take an agnostic position on inerrancy, which entails at least the possibility that the gospels are relevant to each other.

If you like, I'm giving them enough rope to hang. And in the process opening myself to the possibility that they will instead hang together.

Since the Gospel of Peter and Hebrews are absent from my church-and-parents-endorsed Bible, I don't feel obligated to debunk them. I'm facing some personal demons here.

Roland

Making this assumption renders Matthew as one of the most incompetent writers of all time. Since he provides ONLY the two Marys as antecedents for his "women" and his pronoun "they," he forces us into only one possible interpretation - which is that Mary M went into the tomb and encountered the angel who told them Jesus had risen. He certainly expects his reader to understand it this way. So was he incompetent, dishonest or merely badly informed?

hammodius

The pronoun-antecetent sloppiness necessarily assumed in order to create a functional harmonization might indeed persuade me to discard the whole inerrancy doctrine. However, there may be other sticking points first, so I'm witholding judgement, and trying to remain impartial.

Also: is it fair to hold the gospel writers to a modern editorial grammatical standard? Even I (gasp) make pronoun-antecedent errors from time to time. I consider such errors technical glitches on a par with typos. They just might slip beneath the error threshold on the inerrancy question.

Roland

It's not just a "grammatical glitch;" it goes to the very heart of the comprehensibility of the scene. If Matthew thought there were other women around and knew that Mary M. HADN'T gone into the tomb and met the angel (as you would have to assume if the document is "inerrant" and in line with John), then why would he have written it the way he did, IMPLYING to the reader that she most certainly did? Again, I ask the question: was he incompetent, dishonest or wrongly informed?

If you assume other women were there and that Mary left the scene before meeting the angel, then you have basically made Matthew's account both useless and absurd.