The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #+5: Mary Magdalene was Convinced Jesus Appeared to Her
I don't know how widely believed this is among skeptical scholars. However, Ehrman believes it, as he explains it is supported by good evidence. Also I read about this elsewhere. Mary Magdalene's conviction is strongly related to the empty tomb, which was previously established, so this is no surprise.
His argument in Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdelene from 2006
"Just with respect to the empty tomb, the Gospels differ on who went to the tomb, what they found there, whom they encountered, what they were told, and what they did in response. ...Mary Magdalene is a key figure in them." (1)
Elsewhere he observes: "Still, there are several points on which the sources do agree, for example, that Jesus was buried and that on the third day his body was no longer in the tomb, and that Mary Magdalene was the first to find out. This is found independently in Mark, in John, and in the Gospel of Peter. Moreover, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which are independent of one another, indicate that Mary (by herself or with other women) went and informed some, or all, of the male disciples." (2)
Here is the criterion of dissimilarity:
"And what about Mary? She was scarcely known and little talked about. So if storytellers were to make up, or at least modify, the stories of Christianity's beginnings, would they invent the story that it was a woman who started it? ... Why would someone make up a story about a virtually unknown woman discovering the empty tomb and proclaiming the resurrection? ...would the 'idle tale' [Luke 24:11] of a woman be invented as evidence for the resurrection?" (3)
In a note, Ehrman acknowledges his reason given for Mark possibly inventing his story, but also its core with Mary and the empty tomb appears everywhere else there is such a narrative. "It is hard to imagine so many Christian storytellers coming up with the same story about Mary, independently of one another, if it were not historical." (4) Explicit use of the criterion of multiple independent attestation!
I think that differences in reports (be them contradictions or just variants) just further support independent attestation, as long as the primary details are the same. That's why I bothered to include the first quote. I touched on that a bit in my post trying to explain the apparent contradictions in the four Gospel accounts(5). But still, for being able to agree with Ehrman on the historical conclusion, this is trivial(6).
Other critical scholars analysis's
Craig points out that "the women" being the first witnesses of the resurrection "is both multiply attested and established by the criterion of embarrassment, as we have seen [with the empty tomb]." (7)
He quotes: "For this reason, as Kremer reports [in 1993], there is an increasing tendency in recent research to regard this appearance as 'anchored in history.' Ludemann himself calls it 'historically certain[.]'" (8)
What Ehrman believed when writing How Jesus Became God
I wonder how Ehrman can accept the vision of Mary Magdalene but not the empty tomb. He says that when researching for How Jesus Became God, some of his views on the resurrection changed(9). And it was published 8 years after Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
To be sure, at least at the time of his later writing he still did think that Mary thought she saw Jesus alive again(10). He describes her being very significant in all the Gospels accounts of the resurrection, although she is only mentioned (by name, I point out) in Luke 8:1-3. Maybe he thinks she was there to begin with because it was fact, so they had to add the story on later. But of course there could be later invention, like when Peter and an unnamed Disciple went to the tomb in John. Legend writers don't need to stick to the facts. And she only otherwise appears in Luke, where seven demons had been cast out... I don't need to know. This isn't an argument for the empty tomb.
What did Mary believe?
An actual appearance of Jesus to Mary is only reported twice in the Gospels: Matthew and John (John being supposedly the most legendary Gospel). Albeit as Ehrman acknowledged (and critical bible scholars in general acknowledge), Mark and John have the greatest amount of time between them when all the Gospels are compared, and John didn't have that much to do with the synoptics (that's why he's not one of them). John's account so deviates from the synoptic presentation, some evangelical scholars think virtually all of it happened before the rest of the women got there! Furthermore, Mary reportedly saw someone in the tomb every time, and she goes away believing in Jesus in all accounts. Even without explicit appearance narratives, it's obvious that Mary Magdalene believed.
Matthew's account comes the closest to allowing the women -- or for my purposes, just specifically Mary -- to still be holding onto faith that He would rise from the dead, as He said. But in Mark, they come to anoint the body, wonder who will move the stone, and have to be told that He had risen (Mark 16:1-6). Luke is similar, and they are explicitly asked, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5) Even in John, she had two chances to believe, and didn't take them (John 20:2, 13). It isn't until Jesus makes Himself clear that she does (20:16).
As the young man said to Mary in Mark 16:6, "You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen!" Mary experienced something strong enough to convince her that Jesus, her crucified friend -- proven to have horribly offended God -- had actually been raised from the dead by Him.
Citations/notes:
1. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 50.
2. Ibid., 229.
3. Ibid., 255.
4. Ibid., 272, emphasis original.
6. In a debate between Ehrman and Craig, he gave his argument from his interpretation of Mark to fit the invention. One response Craig had was that the tomb being vacant is independently reported throughout the Gospels. Craig said the exact same thing Ehrman did in Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene! AND, the debate took place in early 2006, when it was published! This reminds me of when apologists Kostenberger, Bock, and Chatraw observed: "At times it seems the interpretation of the same evidence changes, depending on whom Ehrman is debating." But this is a complaint for other purposes; I just couldn't help but bring this up because I'm happy I got to make this connection.
Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN. 2014), 165.
7. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 192.
8. Ibid. He cites Lexikon fur Theologie and Kirche (1993), s.v. "Auferstehung Christi I. Im Neuen Testament," by Jacob Kremer; Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox 1995), p. 66.
9. Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne: 2014), 7. Having been provoked by a quote denouncing Jesus as God on the book jacket from the introduction, I opened to the part of the book which was near the first page to see what is in the introduction, and as soon as I open the book, I'm there -- on that exact page. The one that has some answer to my question. I couldn't even have tried to look for this, because I only read his two chapters on the resurrection. I probably would have remembered it had I read the whole book. This happens every once in a while. I fairly recently wrote in my journal how I am some sort of prophet that way (I say this humorously and very loosely). You can read about more examples in this post.
10. Ibid., 192.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.