83. Did the women visit the tomb "toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1), or "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.

- Matthew 28:1: 'At dawn...*went *to look at the tomb'.

- Mark 16:2 'Very early...just after sunrise, they were *on their way *to the tomb'.

- Luke 24:1: 'Very early *in the morning...went *to the tomb'.

- John 20:1: 'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark's statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. The wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction between the stories just because the wife mentions clothing stores but the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simple adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens quite often in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John talks only about Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Suppose further that someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,” and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes—supplementation not contradiction.

Under this heading falls many an alleged discrepancy. Take, for instance, the situation between 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9.

“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand” (1 Corinthians 10:8).

“And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand” (Numbers 25:9).

We must remember that we are not asking whether these two verses say different things. We are asking whether the different things that they say can be reconciled without violating any logical boundaries. The answer is a resounding “yes.” If 24,000 died, is it not the case that 23,000 died as well? Once again, applying the principle of supplementation dissolves the problem immediately.

The supposed contradiction between these two verses is further repudiated when it is realized that 1 Corinthians 10:8 mentions a specific time—“one day”—while in Numbers 25:9 the time is not limited to a single day. The fact is, 23,000 could have died in one day and 1,000 could have died the day after. Once again, after looking closely at the verses under discussion, it becomes evident that no discrepancy exists.

INTRODUCTION—THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE MOST
HISTORICALLY ACCURATE BOOK OF ANTIQUITY

Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated, because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of modeling clay. Take, for instance, the plight of Sir William Ramsay. His extensive education had engrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. Along with that sense of scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (especially the book of Acts). Ramsay noted: “… [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts” (1915, p. 38).

As might be expected of a person trained by such “scholars,” Ramsay held the same view—for a little while. He held the view for only a brief time, because he decided to do what few people of his time dared to do. He decided to explore the actual Bible lands with an open Bible—with the intention of proving the inaccuracy of Luke’s history in the book of Acts. However, much to his surprise, the book of Acts passed every test that any historical narrative could be asked to pass. After his investigation of the Bible lands, he was forced to conclude:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).

Renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (1959, p. 31).

Considering the fact that the land of Palestine in the days of the New Testament writers tossed and turned on a sea of political, economical, and social unrest, I would say that its historical accuracy is pretty amazing. But please remember, this argument is not being used in this discussion to claim that the New Testament is inspired (although some have used it in this way quite effectively). It is inserted at this point in the discussion to show that the books that discuss the Resurrection the most have proven to be true when confronted with any checkable fact. Travel to the Holy Lands and see for yourself if you doubt New Testament accuracy. Carry with you an honest, open mind and a New Testament, and I assure you that you will respect the New Testament writers as accurate historians.

ON SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOSPELS

So, maybe the New Testament documents are accurate when they discuss historical and geographical information. But what about all the alleged contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection? Charles Templeton, in his book Farewell to God, devoted several pages to comparisons among the statements from the four Gospels, at the end of which he stated: “The entire resurrection story is not credible” (1996, p. 122). Another well-known preacher-turned-skeptic, Dan Barker, delights in attempting to find contradictions in the different accounts of the resurrection. In his book Loosing Faith in Faith, he filled seven pages with a list of “contradictions” that he found among the narratives. Eventually he stated: “Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let’s leave the Jesus myth buried…” (1992, p. 181) Interestingly, it should be noted that the fact that Barker asks for “exact” details about a day in ancient history that happened almost 2,000 years ago speaks loudly of the legitimacy of the resurrection story. Since no other day in ancient history could ever be examined with such scrutiny. Historians today cannot tell “exactly” what happened on July 4, 1776 or April 12, 1861, but Christians are asked to give the “exact” details of Christ’s resurrection? Furthermore, these requested details can be (and have been) supplied by the Gospel writers—without contradiction. Let’s examine the evidence.

HEAD ON COLLUSION

Collusion: “A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose” (page 363, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition, 2000, p. 363). Even if we have not heard the word before, most of us understand the situation it describes. Suppose four bank robbers don their nylon-hose masks, rob the city bank, stash the cash away in a nearby cave, and each go back to his own house until the police search blows over. The first robber hears a knock on his door. He opens it to find a policeman who “just wants to ask him a few questions.” The officer asks, “Where were you and what where you doing on the night of June 1, 2001?” The thief promptly answers, “I was at Joe Smith’s house watching television with three other friends.” The policeman gets the three friends’ names and addresses and visits each one of their homes. Every robber tells the exact same story. Was it true? Absolutely not! But did the stories all sound exactly the same, with seemingly no contradictions? Yes.

Now, let’s fit this principle into our discussion of the resurrection narratives. If every single narrative describing the resurrection sounded exactly the same, what do you think would be said about the narratives? “They must have copied each other.” In fact, in other areas of Christ’s life besides the resurrection story, when the books of Matthew and Luke give the same information as the book of Mark, many people today claim that they must have copied Mark, because it is thought to be the earliest of the three books. Another raging question in today’s upper echelons of biblical scholarship is whether Peter copied Jude in 2 Peter 2:4-17, or whether Jude copied Peter, because the two segments of scripture sound so similar.

Amazingly, however, the Bible has not left the prospect of collusion open to the resurrection narratives. Indeed, legitimately it cannot be denied that the resurrection accounts come to us from various independent sources. Tad S. Clements, in his book Science Versus Religion , vigorously denied that there is enough evidence to believe in the resurrection. However, he acknowledged: “There isn’t merely one account of Christ’s resurrection but rather an embarrassing multitude of stories that disagree in significant respects” (1990, p. 193). And he makes it clear that the Gospels are separate accounts of the same story. Dan Barker admitted the same when he boldly stated: “Since Easter [the resurrection story—KB] is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity” (1992, p. 179). One door, which everyone involved in the resurrection discussion admits has been locked forever by the resurrection accounts, is the dead-bolted door of collusion.

DEALING WITH “DISCREPANCIES”

Of course it will not be possible, in these few paragraphs, to deal with every alleged discrepancy between the resurrection accounts. But some helpful principles will be set forth that can be used to show that no genuine contradiction between the resurrection narratives has been found.

Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make

Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. But the wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction just because the wife mentions clothing stores while the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simply adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens in the resurrection accounts quite often.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). (Dan Barker cites these different names as discrepancies and contradictions on page 182 of his book.) Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,” and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes—supplementation not contradiction.

Also fitting into this supplementation discussion are the angels, men, and young man described in the different resurrection accounts. Two “problems” arise with the entrance of the “holy heralds” at the empty tomb of Christ. First, how many were there? Second, were they angels or men? Since the former question deals with supplementation, we will discuss it first. The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them [the women—KB] in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Do any of these accounts contradict any of the others as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? Factoring in the supplementation rule, we must answer, “No.” Although the accounts are quite different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man,” nor does Luke say there were “exactly two angels, no less or no more.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes. Were two there as well, Yes. No contradiction here.

The second question concerning the messengers is their identity: Were they angels or were they men? Most people who are familiar with the Old Testament have no problem answering this question. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these “men” were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom came to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy. They looked like, talked like, walked like, and sounded like men. Were they men? Yes. Were they angels? Yes.

To illustrate, suppose you saw a man sit down at a park bench and take off his right shoe. As you watched, he began to pull out an antenna from the toe of the shoe and a number pad from the heel. He proceeded to dial a number and began to talk to someone over his “shoe phone.” If you were going to write down what you saw, could you accurately say that the man dialed a number on his shoe? Yes. Could you say that he dialed a number on his phone? Indeed you could. The shoe had a heel, a sole, a toe, and everything else germane to a shoe, but it was much more than a shoe. In the same way, the messengers at the tomb would accurately be described as men—they had a head held in place by a neck, perched on two shoulders, a body complete with arms and legs, etc. Thus, they were men, but they were much more than men, so they were just as accurately described as angels, holy messengers sent from God to deliver an announcement to certain people. Taking into account the fact that the Old Testament often uses the term “men” to describe angels, it is fairly easy to show that no contradiction exists concerning the identity of the messengers.

Perspective Plays a Part

What we continue to see in the independent resurrection narratives is not contradiction, but merely a difference in perspective. For instance, suppose a man had a 4×6-inch index card that was solid red on one side and solid white on the other. Further suppose that he stood in front of a large crowd, asked all the men to close their eyes, showed the women in the audience the red side of the card, and then had them write down what they saw. Suppose, further, that he had all the women close their eyes, showed the men the white side of the card, and had them write down what they saw. One group saw a red card, and one group saw a white card. When their answers are compared, it looks at first like they are contradictory, yet they are not. The reason the descriptions look contradictory is because the two groups had a different perspective, each looking at a different side of the card. The perspective phenomenon plays a big part in everyday life. In the same way that no two witnesses ever see a car accident the exact same way, none of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus saw the activities from the same angle as the others.

I have not dealt with every alleged discrepancy in the resurrection accounts in this section. However, I have discussed some of the major ones that can be shown to be supplementation or items viewed from a difference of perspective. An honest study of the remaining “problems” reveals that not a single legitimate contradiction exists among the narratives—they are different, but they are not contradictory. Furthermore, the differences prove that no collusion took place, and instead offer the diversity that would be expected from different individuals relating the same event.

# Was Jesus' Tomb Open or Closed?

According to Mark, Luke, and John, by the time Mary Magdalene and the other women reached the sepulcher of Jesus on the first day of the week after Christ’s crucifixion, the great stone covering the entrance to His tomb already had rolled away (16:4; 24:2; 20:1). Matthew, on the other hand, mentions the rolling away of the stone after writing that the women “came to see the tomb.” In fact, at first glance it seems that Matthew 28:1-6 indicates several significant things took place in the presence of the women.

> Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”

How is this passage explained in light of the fact that the other gospel writers clearly affirmed that the great stone blocking the entrance to the tomb had rolled away before the women arrived?

The explanation to this “problem” is that the events recorded in Matthew 28:1-6 were not written chronologically. Matthew did not intend for his readers to conclude from this section of Scripture that the women actually saw the stone roll away from the door of Jesus’ sepulcher. On the contrary, verse 6 implies “Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration” (Robinson, 1993, p. 17). Verses 2-4 serve more as a footnote to the reader (explaining events that took place prior to the women’s arrival), and are in no way an indication that Matthew believed the women arrived at the tomb while it still was closed.

The simple fact is, Bible writers did not always record information in a strictly chronological sequence. The first book of the Bible contains several examples where events are recorded more topically than chronologically. Genesis 2:5-25 does not pick up where Genesis 1 left off, rather it provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Some of the things recorded in Genesis 10 occurred after the incident involving the tower of Babel (recorded in chapter 11). And a number of the events in Genesis 38 involving Judah and Tamar occurred while the things recorded in chapters 39ff. took place. Similar to a teacher who is telling her class a story, and inserts information into it about something the main character did in the past or will do in the future, Bible writers occasionally “jump” ahead of themselves by inserting pertinent parenthetical material.

As a person studies the narrative technique of Matthew (and other Bible writers), he quickly realizes that the writer of first gospel sometimes arranged his account in topical order rather than in a strictly chronological order. Matthew 28:1-6 is just one example. (For another example of where Matthew arranged his narrative topically, see “Of Times and Figs.”)

According to Mark, Luke, and John, by the time Mary Magdalene and the other women reached the sepulcher of Jesus on the first day of the week after Christ’s crucifixion, the great stone covering the entrance to His tomb already had rolled away (16:4; 24:2; 20:1). Matthew, on the other hand, mentions the rolling away of the stone after writing that the women “came to see the tomb.” In fact, at first glance it seems that Matthew 28:1-6 indicates several significant things took place in the presence of the women.

Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”

How is this passage explained in light of the fact that the other gospel writers clearly affirmed that the great stone blocking the entrance to the tomb had rolled away before the women arrived?

The explanation to this “problem” is that the events recorded in Matthew 28:1-6 were not written chronologically. Matthew did not intend for his readers to conclude from this section of Scripture that the women actually saw the stone roll away from the door of Jesus’ sepulcher. On the contrary, verse 6 implies “Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration” (Robinson, 1993, p. 17). Verses 2-4 serve more as a footnote to the reader (explaining events that took place prior to the women’s arrival), and are in no way an indication that Matthew believed the women arrived at the tomb while it still was closed.

The simple fact is, Bible writers did not always record information in a strictly chronological sequence. The first book of the Bible contains several examples where events are recorded more topically than chronologically. Genesis 2:5-25 does not pick up where Genesis 1 left off, rather it provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Some of the things recorded in Genesis 10 occurred after the incident involving the tower of Babel (recorded in chapter 11). And a number of the events in Genesis 38 involving Judah and Tamar occurred while the things recorded in chapters 39ff. took place. Similar to a teacher who is telling her class a story, and inserts information into it about something the main character did in the past or will do in the future, Bible writers occasionally “jump” ahead of themselves by inserting pertinent parenthetical material.

As a person studies the narrative technique of Matthew (and other Bible writers), he quickly realizes that the writer of first gospel sometimes arranged his account in topical order rather than in a strictly chronological order. Matthew 28:1-6 is just one example. (For another example of where Matthew arranged his narrative topically, see “Of Times and Figs.”)

Attempting to cite contradictions between the resurrection accounts of the four Gospels consistently has been an endeavor long on effort and Scripture-twisting but short on evidence and valid reasoning. For example, some Bible critics demand that the time of day at which the women visited the empty tomb of Jesus is different when the Gospel of John is compared with the other three accounts. Please read for yourself the four different accounts that follow (emphasis has been added to underscore the time of day under discussion).

Matthew 28:1: Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Luke 24:1: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

Mark 16:2: And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

John 20:1: Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb.

First, please understand that if these four accounts were in any ancient book other than the Bible, they hardly would be questioned as contradictory. In fact, they most likely would be considered to be in perfect agreement. Yet the Bible often is scrutinized much more strictly than any other book that records ancient history. Consider this: if the above accounts were read to a group of third graders could they understand what time of day was under discussion? To ask is to answer. Everyone who reads the accounts can see quite plainly that the women visited the tomb sometime very early on the first day of the week.

Second, it is not difficult to understand how Mary Magdalene could have arrived at the tomb while it was yet dark, and as it began to dawn, and at early dawn. The fact is, it was so early that the Sun had not fully come up, and thus a hint of darkness lingered over the scene.

This alleged contradiction is easily reconciled, proving once again that the sum of God’s Word is truth (Psalm 119:160).