Thread: How the resurrection accounts agree in speech details.
This suggests they didn’t make those bits up.
**********
As is well known, the Easter narratives in the 4 gospels differ considerably.
This suggests they didn’t make those bits up.
**********
As is well known, the Easter narratives in the 4 gospels differ considerably.
On certain things they agree:
-1st person(s) to tomb = female
-Tomb seen before Jesus
-Brightly clad being(s) met at tomb
But they differ on number of women, angels/men, sequence, positions, speech, etc.
That’s what makes their agreement in some small details more striking.
-1st person(s) to tomb = female
-Tomb seen before Jesus
-Brightly clad being(s) met at tomb
But they differ on number of women, angels/men, sequence, positions, speech, etc.
That’s what makes their agreement in some small details more striking.
Comparing Matthew with Mark we see the tendency throughout the gospels for them to agree more when speech is quoted than when the narrator is talking.
Narrators naturally have more freedom in choosing their own wording, than in truthfully reporting that of others.
Narrators naturally have more freedom in choosing their own wording, than in truthfully reporting that of others.
1st line below is narrator so Matt & Mark differ.
Lines 3, 4, 6 & 7 could be viewed as differing principally because one gospel omits/adds.
Line 5 has an order reversal, but identical semantic content.
Overall speech is remarkably similar given other narrative differences.
Lines 3, 4, 6 & 7 could be viewed as differing principally because one gospel omits/adds.
Line 5 has an order reversal, but identical semantic content.
Overall speech is remarkably similar given other narrative differences.
Running Matt against Luke, line 1 gives narrator differences.
Lines 2 & 5 omission/addition
Line 3: agreement on 2pl ‘seek’ + a word for dead/crucified
Line 4: striking ‘minor agreement’ in order contrasting with Mark:
He’s not here / he’s risen
Lines 2 & 5 omission/addition
Line 3: agreement on 2pl ‘seek’ + a word for dead/crucified
Line 4: striking ‘minor agreement’ in order contrasting with Mark:
He’s not here / he’s risen
Working out synoptic relations is not easy, but wording in Matthew has precise correlations in Mark and Luke respectively.
Then we have Matt vs John (here copied from my Can We Trust the Gospels, p. 105).
Suddenly in Matt & John’s substantially contrasting accounts we get a striking agreement as Jesus tells 1 or more females: go + tell + ‘my brothers’, with logic of brothers w common Father in John.
Suddenly in Matt & John’s substantially contrasting accounts we get a striking agreement as Jesus tells 1 or more females: go + tell + ‘my brothers’, with logic of brothers w common Father in John.
So, how can resurrection narratives differ on so many things yet converge in reporting speech?
Supposing gospel writers made up speech will not explain Matthew’s agreement with the other 3.
However, if they inherited tradition/memory their agreement is easily explained.
Supposing gospel writers made up speech will not explain Matthew’s agreement with the other 3.
However, if they inherited tradition/memory their agreement is easily explained.
*Differences* in narratives can be explained many ways.
There are fewer simple ways to explain *agreements* in speech amid narrative differences.
One of the simplest is to attribute agreement to actual memory of speech.
There are fewer simple ways to explain *agreements* in speech amid narrative differences.
One of the simplest is to attribute agreement to actual memory of speech.
Appendix: I omitted to mention the agreement between Luke 24:36 & John 20:19 (& 20:21, 26) that Jesus’s greeting to his disciples on the evening of easter Sunday was ‘peace to you’, set amid narratives with both differences & points of convergence. Same pattern as above.
