Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Matthew_Green · 05-03-2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammodius

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?

Hammodius,

While I commend you for trying to be a critical historian here, you only seem to try to juxtapose Mark and John. You seem to advocate what's known as the "Panicking Mary Hypothesis". The problem with this is that when you add Matthew and Luke into the mix, the hypothesis doesn't work at all.

Consider Matthew. Matthew mentions two women, Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" and refers to they throughout the rest of the narrative until the guards report to Pilate and the Great Commission. The pronoun they must have referents. The reference is to "Mary Magdalene" and the "other Mary". Now, there could always be other women present, but the pronouns have to refer to the referents listed or otherwise the grammatical structure becomes incoherent. While other women could've gone, the pronoun they must at least refer to the antecedent given. For the sake of grammatical coherency, one can substitute "Mary Magdalene" and the "other Mary" through the rest of the text whenever one encounters the pronoun they. This shows that Mary Magdalene never left the tomb without the other women. She saw what they saw.

The same thing is with Mark. Mark lists three women. While more than the three listed could've gone, the grammatical structure demands that any pronoun such as they must at least refer to the women listed although it allows for the presence of more.

Are some inerrancists still not convinced?

The final nail in the coffin for the "Panicking Mary Hypothesis" should be Luke's narrative. We are told in Luke 24:9-10 "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."
To any rational person, this should settle the matter once and for all.

Matthew

hammodius · 05-03-2004, 10:01 PM

Roland, I'm being admittedly stubborn for the moment because I want to add one gospel at a time and see how far I get and I haven't added Matthew yet. I'm unwilling to commit myself now to what may prove a premature dismissal of inerrancy. Perhaps by the time I approach Matthew, I will be working with a quite different harmonization that sidesteps the whole problem.

However, the force of your argument is well taken! I will refer to it again over the course of this week, as I consider the problem of sloppy pronouns in due course.

hammodius · 05-03-2004, 10:09 PM

Matt_the_Freethinker, I didn't know this hybrid hypothesis is so well known as to have it's own nickname ("panicking Mary"). I'll do some Googling on that before I go much farther.

You're right, I'm only trying to Juxtapose Mark and John--for starters. I'm new at this and want to test each step as I go. It may be a bit slow and pedantic for readers, but necessary for me to be satisfied I'm not committing blunders. Tomorrow I'll add Luke to the mix and see what sorts of changes are necessary. Maybe I'll run squarely against that final nail you mention, and that will be the end of it.

If I conclude on the side of errancy, I'm curious just how few gospels it will take. How short and simple an argument can I distill from the mix?

Vinnie · 05-03-2004, 10:10 PM

""""""""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.""""""""

That doesn't mean you can't use them to establish Christian practices common at the time (authority versus history).

Re: the we in John.

I'm sorry, but hwo is theory VI plausible or possible granted the "we" in John. It seems to rule out your hybrid theory, the only one you seemed to list as tenable.

Vinnie

hammodius · 05-03-2004, 11:29 PM

Oddly, I took the "we" in John to be support of the hybrid theory. I see your point, though: if Mary said "we don't know what they did with him" that sounds like the group, whoever it is, is entirely ignorant, which would contradict Mark's angelic message.

However, it could also mean (and this is how I took it) that Mary was speaking for the whole group not knowing about the additional information they had discovered without her. For the gospel of John to be inerrant it is not necessary that Mary herself be inerrant, and her mistake (speaking for the group when her ignorance was her own) is entirely understandable in the circumstances. By this interpretation, the "we" is not contradictory to Mark, but actually supports it by providing Johanian evidence that Mary was not alone on her early trip.

About the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Hebrews--in your first post it sounded like you were telling me that if I'm going to take so much trouble harmonizing the Biblical gospels, I should take equal trouble incorporating these too. As I showed, however, extra-Biblical gospels are irrelevant to my specific purpose here.

Elsewhere I may indeed be interested in what light these non-canonical gospels shed on the resurrection, and the relative historical authority of these texts.

Roland · 05-04-2004, 05:21 AM

Another thing to consider is that THREE of the (supposedly independent) accounts make it appear as if Mary M. goes into the tomb and encounters the young man/angel/two angels, while only one shows her as not.

Doesn't the fact that 75% of the accounts show the event this way make it more likely that that is the way it happened, not the way John portrays it?

Vinnie · 05-04-2004, 08:07 AM

Quote:

While I commend you for trying to be a critical historian here,

As I noted, this is not hsitory of any sort. In fact, historical reconstruction of Jesus ends when he dies on the cross. Anything that happens after isn't even a part of the historical itinerary.

A historian would a) stratify his sources and complex the traditions, b) look for dependency between texts (which certainly exists in three if NOT all four of the texts, c) incorporate intra and extracanonical gospels, d) discuss gPeter, e) discuss the possibility of a pre-Marcan PN, f) use critical tools like (multiple attestation, etc), g) interprete each PN in light of itself first, then others, h) discuss the two goats and possible OT material lading to the creation of this, i) why so many diverse streams are unaware of passion details (they know passion prophecy but they don't tend to know passion narrative and this silence rigns against history remembered in favor of prophecy historicized) j) compare broader streams of passion material in the gospels with one another and see how they create, expand, omit and deviate.

Harmonization is not history. Big difference.

Vinnie

Legion · 05-04-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

As I noted, this is not hsitory of any sort. In fact, historical reconstruction of Jesus ends when he dies on the cross. Anything that happens after isn't even a part of the historical itinerary.

A historian would a) stratify his sources and complex the traditions, b) look for dependency between texts (which certainly exists in three if NOT all four of the texts, c) incorporate intra and extracanonical gospels, d) discuss gPeter, e) discuss the possibility of a pre-Marcan PN, f) use critical tools like (multiple attestation, etc), g) interprete each PN in light of itself first, then others, h) discuss the two goats and possible OT material lading to the creation of this, i) why so many diverse streams are unaware of passion details (they know passion prophecy but they don't tend to know passion narrative and this silence rigns against history remembered in favor of prophecy historicized) j) compare broader streams of passion material in the gospels with one another and see how they create, expand, omit and deviate.

Harmonization is not history. Big difference.

Vinnie

It's true that it's not a great way of doing history, but that isn't what hammodius is trying to do. This seems to me like a pretty good way of feeling out the gospel accounts to see if the conservative Christian claim of inerrancy is even plausible. As long as that is the goal, this is a good and thorough way of going about it; if hammodius wants to later step into the broader and more difficult challenge of investigating what history has to say on the matter of the resurrection, certainly many more testimonies and pieces of evidence will need to be considered and weighed against each other.

Vinnie · 05-04-2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

It's true that it's not a great way of doing history, but that isn't what hammodius is trying to do. This seems to me like a pretty good way of feeling out the gospel accounts to see if the conservative Christian claim of inerrancy is even plausible. As long as that is the goal, this is a good and thorough way of going about it; if hammodius wants to later step into the broader and more difficult challenge of investigating what history has to say on the matter of the resurrection, certainly many more testimonies and pieces of evidence will need to be considered and weighed against each other.

I agree. I was responding to a claim saying he was attempted to do critical history. Just pointing out the difference here between harmonization and history since some people tend to confuse them.

Vinnie

hammodius · 05-04-2004, 09:11 AM

Thanks Legion, you described my approach exactly!

Vinnie, my argument is logical, not historical. It might go either

A. If the gospels are inerrant, they are harmonizable
B. The gospels are not harmonizable
C. Therefore, they are not inerrant

or

A. If the gospels are inerrant, they are harmonizable
B. The gospels are harmonizable
C. Thefore, they may be inerrant

In the second case, I will not have proven anything but a possibility. If at that point I'm still interested in pursuing the matter, I'd have to take a different approach. I don't mind admitting I don't have the expertise to take a historical approach at this time. I'm more likely to take another harmonization approach and apply it to another part of the gospels or the Bible. After all, if this whole book is without error, it must also be 100% consistent, which is a potentially falsifiable claim.

Roland, thanks for another valid point I will have to consider once all four gospels are on the table.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2004, 10:01 PM	#12
hammodius Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest, US Posts: 229	Roland, I'm being admittedly stubborn for the moment because I want to add one gospel at a time and see how far I get and I haven't added Matthew yet. I'm unwilling to commit myself now to what may prove a premature dismissal of inerrancy. Perhaps by the time I approach Matthew, I will be working with a quite different harmonization that sidesteps the whole problem. However, the force of your argument is well taken! I will refer to it again over the course of this week, as I consider the problem of sloppy pronouns in due course.

05-03-2004, 10:09 PM	#13
hammodius Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest, US Posts: 229	Matt_the_Freethinker, I didn't know this hybrid hypothesis is so well known as to have it's own nickname ("panicking Mary"). I'll do some Googling on that before I go much farther. You're right, I'm only trying to Juxtapose Mark and John--for starters. I'm new at this and want to test each step as I go. It may be a bit slow and pedantic for readers, but necessary for me to be satisfied I'm not committing blunders. Tomorrow I'll add Luke to the mix and see what sorts of changes are necessary. Maybe I'll run squarely against that final nail you mention, and that will be the end of it. If I conclude on the side of errancy, I'm curious just how few gospels it will take. How short and simple an argument can I distill from the mix?

05-03-2004, 10:10 PM	#14
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""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."""""""" That doesn't mean you can't use them to establish Christian practices common at the time (authority versus history). Re: the we in John. I'm sorry, but hwo is theory VI plausible or possible granted the "we" in John. It seems to rule out your hybrid theory, the only one you seemed to list as tenable. Vinnie

05-03-2004, 11:29 PM	#15
hammodius Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest, US Posts: 229	Oddly, I took the "we" in John to be support of the hybrid theory. I see your point, though: if Mary said "we don't know what they did with him" that sounds like the group, whoever it is, is entirely ignorant, which would contradict Mark's angelic message. However, it could also mean (and this is how I took it) that Mary was speaking for the whole group not knowing about the additional information they had discovered without her. For the gospel of John to be inerrant it is not necessary that Mary herself be inerrant, and her mistake (speaking for the group when her ignorance was her own) is entirely understandable in the circumstances. By this interpretation, the "we" is not contradictory to Mark, but actually supports it by providing Johanian evidence that Mary was not alone on her early trip. About the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Hebrews--in your first post it sounded like you were telling me that if I'm going to take so much trouble harmonizing the Biblical gospels, I should take equal trouble incorporating these too. As I showed, however, extra-Biblical gospels are irrelevant to my specific purpose here. Elsewhere I may indeed be interested in what light these non-canonical gospels shed on the resurrection, and the relative historical authority of these texts.

05-04-2004, 05:21 AM	#16
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Another thing to consider is that THREE of the (supposedly independent) accounts make it appear as if Mary M. goes into the tomb and encounters the young man/angel/two angels, while only one shows her as not. Doesn't the fact that 75% of the accounts show the event this way make it more likely that that is the way it happened, not the way John portrays it?

05-04-2004, 09:11 AM	#20
hammodius Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest, US Posts: 229	Thanks Legion, you described my approach exactly! Vinnie, my argument is logical, not historical. It might go either A. If the gospels are inerrant, they are harmonizable B. The gospels are not harmonizable C. Therefore, they are not inerrant or A. If the gospels are inerrant, they are harmonizable B. The gospels are harmonizable C. Thefore, they may be inerrant In the second case, I will not have proven anything but a possibility. If at that point I'm still interested in pursuing the matter, I'd have to take a different approach. I don't mind admitting I don't have the expertise to take a historical approach at this time. I'm more likely to take another harmonization approach and apply it to another part of the gospels or the Bible. After all, if this whole book is without error, it must also be 100% consistent, which is a potentially falsifiable claim. Roland, thanks for another valid point I will have to consider once all four gospels are on the table.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.