Originally posted by seanD
View Post
You point out that there is a succession of embellished theology from Mark to John not just with the resurrection scenes but the origins of Christ, but this isn’t at all evident during the crucifixion scene. John’s crucifixion scene is the most "non-supernatural" event out of the other three. I also argue that there is no succession of Jesus’ supernatural powers displayed throughout the gospels from Mark to John. There is no virgin birth in John; no satanic temptation; no divine voices proclaiming Jesus is the "begotten son"; no casting out demons with authority; no walking on the water or calming the storm; no Mount of Transfiguration; no ascension. The raising of Lazarus is also not unique as there are other times Jesus raised the dead that are not recorded by John. The only miracle unique in John is turning water into wine. There is another discrepancy in regards to the church issues and problems brought up by Paul and the other epistle writers that are completely absent or not addressed at all in the gospels (which is a much more elaborate apologetic so I won't go into detail); also an indication against embellishment tendencies they had.
There is no virgin birth in John because it is not important in his theology. For John, Jesus was always the Son of God, so instead we see the logos thing. The progression here is about when Jesus became the Son of God, going further and further back in time from the Baptism in Mark, to his birth in Luke and Matthew and then the beginning of time in John. This is also why there is no divine voice proclaiming Jesus is the begotten son; that was fundamental to Mark's theology, as that was when Jesus became the Son of God, but irrelevant to John. Similarly, in John's theology, Jesus did not need to undergo a Transfiguration, and it may be that the Temptation likewise did not fit John's divine view of Jesus.
Why John missed various other events, I do not know. Do you? The absence of the ascension is certainly odd (but it is also missing from Mark).
So if we don’t see this embellishment in a consistent way in the gospels, it just becomes speculation on how you assume there is an embellished resurrection progression in the gospels. However, I do agree that there were editing omissions in order to solve certain problems and issues at the time (such as I pointed out in my response to BP) and even highlighting certain theological aspects for more emphasis. But embellishing scenes the way you believe is a whole different ballgame and requires much more evidence to support, at the very least consistency throughout the gospels that doesn’t exist.
At the end of the day, we do not know what happened. All we can do is consider the likelihood of each hypothesis given the evidence we have.
Comment