1. I suggest you add a sentence or 2 before you talk about Mark to explain why he is so important. I.e. the first ever voice we have on the tomb and it being found empty. Certainly M & L heavily used him as a source and J perhaps too. So Mark is the one that matters.
2. When I am confronted with this I immediately point out that Mark can't try any harder to undermine the women as witnesses, so the argument ceases there. They are said to have told no one so they didn't act as witnesses at all.
3. Can I try out my theory on you?
a) Before Mark there was no tradition of a tomb burial and hence empty tomb.
b) Mark wrote it as a literary trope - as you report scholars suggesting.
c) Mark was worried that it wouldn't land well because of (a)
d) So he included in the story elements to explain why (a). I.e The women told no one and the burial was done by a Sanhedrin member who wasn't ever in the Christian group.
I am doing a small debate in my local Sceptics in the Pub with Max Baker-Hytch. It's on the resurrection and all this will come up. I guess you know Max. He seems are really good guy.
Thank you for engaging, Ed, and for your support for BTG. Your theory does sound feasible. However, it's really difficult to adjudicate on these matters. An alternative scenario might be:
1. The empty tomb tradition was known but was not mentioned in, say, 1 Corinthians 15, because that material is credal/epistolary, not episodic.
2. Joseph of Arimathea was remembered by (his very obscure) name precisely because he had done something extraordinary for Christ. (Some possible reasons for this are unpacked on my other post on Christ's burial.)
3. The saying about the women 'telling no one' is not a statement of fact (for apparently the author did find out) but rather as a challenge now to the reader to proclaim the risen Christ - a kind of reversal of the Messianic Secret.
That debate sounds great! I have been invited on Facebook; I would like to come if I can.
Also, you say that embarrassment criteria is an important historical tool. I guess I've gotten the impression that it's actually a rarely used one outside of the Bible scholarship/debates. And using the principal properly seems fraught given it's may not be clear what is and isn't embarrassing to an author in history. Not to mention that I understand that the use of literary devices to surprise the reader's normal expectations are found in ancient writings (and seemingly so throughout the NT). How can a historian really be certain of the difference in any given case? It reminds me of -- being a litigator for decades -- of the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule for the admissibility of statements. It can be invoked, but the bar is a high one, requiring a tangible interest, like property or money, and not something merely reputational or embarrassing, otherwise it becomes a flimsy exception for the same reasons as I would think the "historical tool" would be quite flimsy in practice. I'm not a historian, so I pose this really as a question more than as an argument.
Thanks for your comment. A small point of clarification: I didn't say the *criterion* of embarrassment is an important historical tool; I say that embarrassment is an important *principle* when reasoning historically. To the best of my knowledge, a criteriological approach is distinctive to historical Jesus scholarship - or, I should say, a particular phase of Jesus research - but the field is now moving past it. The principle is used more widely and I think it has value (although perhaps not in this particular case.)
In response to your main question: it is never possible to be certain. And I think it was in response to this lack of certainty that the field produced 'criteria' in the first place; because it desired to overcome that uncertainty - which, for many in this field, is not only a historical uncertainty but a theological and existential one as well. I do think that the evangelists were aiming at some degree of historical truth, yet where they got their sources from and to what extent any particular anecdote can be deemed 'plausible' (never certain) has to some degree to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you for sharing that point on 'embarrassment' from your litigation experience. Often I don't find such parallels so relevant to the study of the Gospel literature, but in this case, it illustrates the point about embarrassment well: it may get a conversation going but it certainly isn't the only thing we should take into account.
Curious as to why you make no mention that it would have been natural in those times and in that culture for women to be the ones at the tomb: "Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty." Bart Ehrman (on his blog, April 4, 2014. He refers to his book How Jesus Became God. So basically, why wouldn't the author of Mark write something that was known to be within burial customs? From the same reasoning, it shouldn't have been anything particularly "embarrassing."
Thanks for your great comment! I very much agree with Ehrman (and you) here.
I initially did have a comment on the women's role as mourners in my first paragraph, but I must have cut out in the editing stages! When the post goes live to non-paid subscribers, I will add my comment. I think it is an important point you raise!
Thanks John, great work!
1. I suggest you add a sentence or 2 before you talk about Mark to explain why he is so important. I.e. the first ever voice we have on the tomb and it being found empty. Certainly M & L heavily used him as a source and J perhaps too. So Mark is the one that matters.
2. When I am confronted with this I immediately point out that Mark can't try any harder to undermine the women as witnesses, so the argument ceases there. They are said to have told no one so they didn't act as witnesses at all.
3. Can I try out my theory on you?
a) Before Mark there was no tradition of a tomb burial and hence empty tomb.
b) Mark wrote it as a literary trope - as you report scholars suggesting.
c) Mark was worried that it wouldn't land well because of (a)
d) So he included in the story elements to explain why (a). I.e The women told no one and the burial was done by a Sanhedrin member who wasn't ever in the Christian group.
I am doing a small debate in my local Sceptics in the Pub with Max Baker-Hytch. It's on the resurrection and all this will come up. I guess you know Max. He seems are really good guy.
Thank you for engaging, Ed, and for your support for BTG. Your theory does sound feasible. However, it's really difficult to adjudicate on these matters. An alternative scenario might be:
1. The empty tomb tradition was known but was not mentioned in, say, 1 Corinthians 15, because that material is credal/epistolary, not episodic.
2. Joseph of Arimathea was remembered by (his very obscure) name precisely because he had done something extraordinary for Christ. (Some possible reasons for this are unpacked on my other post on Christ's burial.)
3. The saying about the women 'telling no one' is not a statement of fact (for apparently the author did find out) but rather as a challenge now to the reader to proclaim the risen Christ - a kind of reversal of the Messianic Secret.
That debate sounds great! I have been invited on Facebook; I would like to come if I can.
Also, you say that embarrassment criteria is an important historical tool. I guess I've gotten the impression that it's actually a rarely used one outside of the Bible scholarship/debates. And using the principal properly seems fraught given it's may not be clear what is and isn't embarrassing to an author in history. Not to mention that I understand that the use of literary devices to surprise the reader's normal expectations are found in ancient writings (and seemingly so throughout the NT). How can a historian really be certain of the difference in any given case? It reminds me of -- being a litigator for decades -- of the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule for the admissibility of statements. It can be invoked, but the bar is a high one, requiring a tangible interest, like property or money, and not something merely reputational or embarrassing, otherwise it becomes a flimsy exception for the same reasons as I would think the "historical tool" would be quite flimsy in practice. I'm not a historian, so I pose this really as a question more than as an argument.
Hi Maytree,
Thanks for your comment. A small point of clarification: I didn't say the *criterion* of embarrassment is an important historical tool; I say that embarrassment is an important *principle* when reasoning historically. To the best of my knowledge, a criteriological approach is distinctive to historical Jesus scholarship - or, I should say, a particular phase of Jesus research - but the field is now moving past it. The principle is used more widely and I think it has value (although perhaps not in this particular case.)
In response to your main question: it is never possible to be certain. And I think it was in response to this lack of certainty that the field produced 'criteria' in the first place; because it desired to overcome that uncertainty - which, for many in this field, is not only a historical uncertainty but a theological and existential one as well. I do think that the evangelists were aiming at some degree of historical truth, yet where they got their sources from and to what extent any particular anecdote can be deemed 'plausible' (never certain) has to some degree to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you for sharing that point on 'embarrassment' from your litigation experience. Often I don't find such parallels so relevant to the study of the Gospel literature, but in this case, it illustrates the point about embarrassment well: it may get a conversation going but it certainly isn't the only thing we should take into account.
Curious as to why you make no mention that it would have been natural in those times and in that culture for women to be the ones at the tomb: "Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty." Bart Ehrman (on his blog, April 4, 2014. He refers to his book How Jesus Became God. So basically, why wouldn't the author of Mark write something that was known to be within burial customs? From the same reasoning, it shouldn't have been anything particularly "embarrassing."
Hi Maytree,
Thanks for your great comment! I very much agree with Ehrman (and you) here.
I initially did have a comment on the women's role as mourners in my first paragraph, but I must have cut out in the editing stages! When the post goes live to non-paid subscribers, I will add my comment. I think it is an important point you raise!
Warm wishes,
John