I know that Paul doesn’t mention it. Matthew and Luke copied Mark so that leaves us with John. Can John’s empty tomb narrative be separated from Mark or Mark’s sources? I’m inclined to think that the empty tomb story had been well in circulation in the Christian communities by the time John wrote his gospel and therefore he would have been familiar with it. This would weigh in favor of the empty tomb not being multiply attested in the end. Anyone see it differently?
Professor Ehrman discusses “independent attestation” in “How Jesus Became God” at pages 94-96. He considers John independent from the synoptic Gospels. He says “In other words, we have numerous streams of tradition that independently all go back, ultimately, to the life of Jesus. In light of this fact – taken as a fact by almost all critical scholars – we are in a position to evaluate which of the gospel stories are more likely to be more authentic than others. If a story is found in several of these independent traditions, then it is far more likely that this story goes back to the ultimate source of the tradition, the life of Jesus itself.” I interpret this to mean that John may be based on a different oral tradition than the synoptic Gospels. If that is true, then the empty tomb is multiply attested.
What is your point? Why do you ask the question?
I was debating on another forum where a Christian was trying to argue for multiple attestation of the empty tomb. This is standard apologetic fare from people such as William Lane Craig and Mike Licona.
I did some more research myself and have concluded that John’s empty tomb story cannot be demonstrated to be independent of Markan influence.
Even though John does not follow the exact language of Mark, there are still clear parallels and adaptations between the texts, as shown by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
John Dominic Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) argues that all of the post-Markan references to the empty tomb can be shown to derive from Mark and are thus not independently attested.
Adela Yarbro Collins allows that Mark indirectly influenced John in the context of its re-oralization. She argues that Mark’s narrative source was in a transitional stage between oral and literary production, that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark yet knew other ongoing oral traditions, and John indirectly depended on Mark though modified it in the context of re-oralization with other traditions known to him. She concludes:
“The author of the Gospel of John probably made use of the passion narrative of Mark in its role as part of early Christian oral literature.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Celsus and Robert2.
You both know more about the subject than I do. I had to Google “re-oralization” to figure out what it means. I have a more simplistic way of looking at the question in relation to apologetics.
The term “independent attestation” is more useful than “multiple attestation”, but neither term recognizes the fact that there can be degrees of independence. John is obviously more independent of Mark than either Matthew or Luke, but so what? The Johnny Weissmuller version of Tarzan is more independent from Burroughs’ original book than the Disney animated version. The 1932 screenplay concocted a different story. Seems to me the apologetic issue is why Luke differs sharply from the Synoptics.
Apologists do not claim that John was ignorant of the synoptic Gospels, and many accept Eusebius’ claim that “The three written Gospels in general circulation also came to John’s hands.” Eusebius, The Church History Book 3, Chapter 24. Apologists claim that John differs from the Synoptics because John, an eyewitness, chose to emphasize different facts. In my humble opinion, John is different for the same reason the Johnny Weissmuller version of Tarzan is different. John’s author concocted a different story. I am grossly oversimplifying, but is that not pretty much what Prof. Ehrman said in Jesus, Interrupted, the chapter on “A Mass of Variant Views”?
In any event, I have no problem agreeing that the empty tomb is more likely than any postmortem appearance. Evangelical scholar N.T. Wright agrees that, without Jesus’ subsequent appearances, the empty tomb “would have proved nothing; it would have suggested nothing, except the fairly common practice of grave-robbery.” N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God 688 (Fortress Press 2003). Just as it is very likely that Jesus lived and was crucified, it is possible his tomb was empty at some point.
The issue to discuss with your apologetic adversaries is whether any appearance is independently attested.
Robert2
Your comment reveals a huge gap in my knowlege of early Christianity. I do not understand how John’s author could have been completely ignorant of the first three Gospels. The Gospels are called Gospels because they spread the good news, and the first three had been around at least 10 or 20 years before John’s author wrote his. John’s author is believed to have been a literate and sophisticated writer, so I would expect him to know more than the average Christian.
I really know nothing about exactly how the Gospels circulated in the early years. Were the Gospels copied, recopied and spread to all Christian communities? Did Theophilus keep Luke on his bookshelf for 30 years? What is the basic scenario for John’s author knowing nothing of the first three Gospels?
Robert2 said
We don’t really know the answers to these questions. Note that while Ehrman and others believe that the author of John’s gospel did not have any knowledge of any of the synoptic gospels, that is not my opinion. I follow the view of CK Barrett, Frans Neirynck, Gilbert Van Belle, et al, who do think that the author of John’s gospel probably knew one or more of the synoptic gospels.
I have not read CK Barrett, Frans Neirynck or Gilbert Van Belle, but I can understand how it is possible to find evidence that John’s author read one or more of the synoptic Gospels. It is much more difficult to prove a negative, that John’s author never read any earlier gospel. Unless you accept the position that John, an illiterate fishermen, actually wrote the Gospel of John, John’s author must have learned some information from someone. How would it ever be possible to prove that one of the Synoptics was not among the many things he might have read or heard?
The fact that John does not copy a synoptic Gospel verbatim is no evidence that John’s author did not know about them. To the best of my knowledge, no one can explain exactly why Matthew and Luke copied so much of Mark.
Celsus said
I was debating on another forum where a Christian was trying to argue for multiple attestation of the empty tomb. This is standard apologetic fare from people such as William Lane Craig and Mike Licona.
What forum? What is a good place to engage in civil discussion with Christian apologists?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)