Is Matthew in error concerning the
NUMBER of women who went to the tomb on Easter morning?
Matthew 28:1—After the
Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
The critics charge that here Matthew reports two women
went to the tomb at dawn. The critics allege that this conflicts with
the parallel accounts in the other Gospels.
Does Mark contradict Matthew when he
reports a DIFFERENT number of women going to the tomb on Easter morning
at a DIFFERENT time?
Mark 16:1, 2—When the
Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’
body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise,
they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who
will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
The critics charge that Mark says three women
went to the tomb after sunrise. The critics claim this is a
contradiction because the persons involved and the time of the event
differs. Matthew says there were two women at dawn. Mark says there were
three women, not two, and he didn’t say "at dawn" but "just after
sunrise."
Because Luke
does not identify the women, does he contradict both Matthew and Mark
concerning the NUMBER of women who went to the tomb and WHEN this event
occurred?
Luke 24:1—On the first day
of the week, very early in the morning, the women took
the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
The critics charge that Luke’s account differs from
Matthew’s and Mark’s. The women are not identified, and the time
given is not Matthew’s "at dawn" or Mark’s "just after sunrise" but "very
early in the morning."
Does John contradict the other Gospel
writers in reporting only ONE woman went to the tomb at a DIFFERENT
time?
John 20:1—Early on the
first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to
the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
The critics charge that John’s account disagrees with
that of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew says two women went to
the tomb. Mark says three women went to the tomb; Luke does
not identify the number of women. John says only Mary Magdalene, one
woman, went to the tomb. Further, John does not say that they went to
the tomb "at dawn" (Matthew), or "just after sunrise" (Mark), or "very
early in the morning" (Luke), but "while it was still dark."
Do Mark and
Luke contradict Matthew and John concerning the ACTIONS of the women?
Mark 16:1—When the Sabbath was over [the women]
bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
Luke 24:1—... the women
took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
John 19:39b-40—[Joseph and] Nicodemus brought
[spices]... Taking Jesus’ body [from the cross]
the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen.
The critics charge that both Mark and Luke mention the
women procured spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body on Sunday
morning. But Matthew gives no indication of this. Further, John records
it was Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who supplied the spices and
anointed Jesus’ body on Friday evening (John 19:39).
Do all the Gospel writers contradict
each other concerning the NUMBER of women, the TIME they went to the
tomb and the ACTIONS of the women?
After examining the above verses, the critics conclude
that the Gospel writers conflict in their accounts of 1) who
first came to the tomb (the number and identity of the women) and 2)
what time this occurred and 3) who supplied the spices to
anoint Jesus’ body and when this anointing occurred.
Answering
the Objections of the Critics Concerning the Number of Women.
The first objection of the critics is that there are
contradictions concerning the number of women who went to the
tomb. Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, i.e., two
women; Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, i.e., three women; Luke simply mentions "the women," while John
mentions only Mary Magdalene, i.e., one woman.
But writers have every right to select facts according
to their purposes. Mark obviously feels it is important to report that
Salome was also at the tomb while Matthew does not. Perhaps Salome was
the woman, or one of the two women, who reported the events to Mark.
Or, because Matthew learned of this event from a
different source which may not have included Salome, he does not mention
her. We cannot know the reason why one author selects information
another author does not. Such information is simply not given, nor does
anyone have the right to expect that it should be. It would make any
writer’s job virtually impossible for him to meticulously list all the
specific reasons for including the details he did and why he did not
include other details.
The critics charge that Luke disagrees with Matthew
and Mark because Luke merely mentions "the women." But this is absurd.
Notice, none of the Gospel writers say it was only two women, or
only one woman, or only these three women. Each writer
describes those he wants to recognize—either because of a specific
emphasis he has or because that is all the information he knows. But
none of the writers give wrong or contradictory information. If one of
the four writers had said only so and so went to the tomb and
another writer said only somebody else specifically went to the
tomb, then we would have a contradiction.
Today, it is perfectly reasonable for two modern
newspaper reporters to describe a women’s gathering honoring three
particular ladies, and to either name the specific individuals present
or to refer to one woman representative of the entire group, or to just
cite the "honored women" of the occasion. Similarly, in referring only
to "the women," Luke does not contradict Matthew and Mark; he is simply
less specific.
The critics charge that John contradicts Matthew, Mark
and Luke because he mentions only one woman, Mary Magdalene, who went to
the tomb.
There are two possibilities. First, as we discuss
elsewhere (See Q. 19, 33), all the women set out for the tomb, and Mary
arrived first. John simply records the fact of Mary arriving first. We
explain why below. Or second, it may be as simple as stating John only
chooses to write about Mary even though he could have written about all
of them.
But again, John didn’t say only Mary Magdalene went to
the tomb and no other women. There is no reason why John should not
concentrate upon Mary Magdalene if he has reason to do so.
Probably the reasons John concentrates upon Mary
Magdalene are because 1) Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance was to
Mary Magdalene, not one of the apostles according to Mark’s appendix
(Mark 16:9). 2) Mary had looked into the tomb and seen the two angels
(John 20:11-12). 3) Jesus may have appeared to Mary first because He
knew of her complete dedication and earnestness in following Him. John
has already recorded in 19:25 that Mary was at the cross while Jesus was
dying. In John 20:1, she went to His tomb early on Sunday morning. In
20:10-14, Mary remained outside the tomb crying. All of these things
reveal how much Mary loved Jesus. 4) In 20:17, Mary was personally
commissioned by Jesus to go and tell the disciples the good news.
Anyone who reads John 20:1-18 will see that the entire
section stresses the importance of Mary Magdalene: What she did, how she
came running to Peter and John, how Mary subsequently met Jesus at the
tomb, and how she was commissioned to give a message to the apostles. It
is not surprising then that the Apostle John should choose to single out
Mary Magdalene in his reporting of these events.
We must also keep in mind that each of the writers
learned their information from different sources. Luke records, "It was
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with
them who told this [knowledge of the fact of the empty tomb and the
angels’ message concerning Jesus’ Resurrection] to the apostles" (Luke
24:10).
Picture the different women, immediately after their
dramatic encounter with the angels, each explaining what she had seen
and what she thought was important to any one of the eleven apostles who
happened to be standing by her at the moment. This would explain why
certain facts are mentioned and other facts are omitted. Luke might have
heard a little bit from each of the women or most of it from just one.
Cambridge graduate John Wenham in his book, The
Easter Enigma, lists the following reasons why Luke and Mark, for
example, might have presented different pieces of the total story.
Probably, "...Luke’s is a straightforward account written from Joanna’s
point of view [Joanna was a wealthy supporter of Jesus whose husband was
‘steward’ to Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee.] (Luke 8:3; 24:10),
whereas Mark is an account written from the point of view of the other
three women".…1
Similarly, John’s account could be written strictly from Mary’s
viewpoint.
John might have correctly assumed that the majority of
Christians already knew that this group of women went to the tomb. But
he decided to share additional details of what had happened to Mary
Magdalene which others may not have known.
Indeed, when Luke mentions "the others with them"
(Luke 24:10), one could even assume that at that first Easter morning
visit to the tomb, more than three women were present. If Luke is
describing the women who were actually at the tomb, then there were at
least five women (Joanna and "the others," signifying at least one more
person than Salome). It is also possible that the "other women"
mentioned by Luke were present and part of those who collectively "told
this [event] to the apostles."
In conclusion, we know that at least three women were
present, possibly more. We also can see none of the accounts contradict.
None of the writers state "only" a specific number of women were present
at the tomb. No modern critic can give a good reason why each writer was
not free to select the details he, in fact, chose to record.
Answering the
Objections of the Critics Concerning Who First Came to the Tomb.
As noted earlier, John may have concentrated on Mary
Magdalene to the exclusion of the other women. But it is more probable
that Mary was actually the first person to the tomb. Thus, we believe
this second option is preferable. Let’s say all the women had planned to
meet at the tomb and left their homes at approximately the same time.
Mary arrived first, observed the empty tomb and before her companions
arrived, ran to tell Peter and John that the tomb was empty (See Q. 19,
33). Matthew, Mark and Luke could talk generally about all of the women
going to the tomb. They would be correct. John could report the fact
that Mary reached the tomb first. He would be correct.
If our assumption is valid, this explains John’s
account as it stands. Nor does it conflict with anything the other
Gospel writers assert. But here we must observe there are unannounced
breaks in two of the Gospels. These occur in Mark 16 between verses 1
and 2 and in Matthew 28 between verses 1 and 2 and again between verses
4 and 5. For proof that the Gospel writers employ this abbreviated
writing style see Question 16. Acknowledging these breaks permits us to
see that Mary was first to the tomb and that the other women came
shortly after she left. Further, in Luke 24:9-11, Luke’s inclusion of
Mary with the other women who report what happened at the tomb is not in
conflict with our reconstruction. (For a probable chronological sequence
of events here, see that offered by Geldenhuys in Q. 35).
But there are other views. For example, noted Roman
Catholic scholar John Lilly believes that Mary was first to arrive
(while it was still dark), but that she was still present when the other
women arrived at the tomb. Lilly adopts the view that all the women
mentioned by the Gospel writers were, as a group, first to arrive at the
tomb. Answering the general question, "Who discovered the empty tomb?",
he states:
We say without a moment’s hesitation: All of them!
And perhaps others besides. Each evangelist tells the story in his own
particular way with his own particular plan and purpose in view.
St. John evidently wants to lead up to the discovery
of the empty tomb by [Peter] and himself, and as these got the first
inkling of what had happened from Magdalene, he introduces her alone,
passing over her companions in silence, for there would be no
particular point in mentioning them....
St. Matthew does not introduce details which are not
strictly necessary, and since according to the Mosaic Law two
witnesses were enough to establish a fact, he mentions no others,
although he does not deny that others shared in the startling
discovery of the empty tomb.
Mark adds the name of Salome to the group of women
who went early Sunday morning to the tomb of Jesus. The reason for
Mark’s mentioning these three women is probably that he has already
told us that they assisted at a distance at the crucifixion of Jesus,
and his mention of them at the tomb on Sunday morning is designed to
show that their love and devotion were not extinguished by the
horrible death of their Master on the cross.2
Answering
the Objections of the Critics Concerning When the Tomb Was Visited.
The critics allege that contradictions exist
concerning the specific time the women went to the tomb. After
all, didn’t Matthew say "at dawn," while Mark says "just after sunrise"?
But consider modern reporting of Easter "Sunrise"
Services. Who would charge a reporter with error because he stated the
events began "at dawn" while another reporter said that they began "just
after sunrise"? "At dawn" includes "just after sunrise." Even 20th
century reporters do not use scientifically precise chronology in their
reporting; why should we expect it of the Gospel authors? Further, what
if the two reporters are discussing different "beginnings"—preliminary
events vs. the official start of the service? Both phrases, "at dawn"
and "just after sunrise," can involve a significant time span. If we say
we went to the beach "at dawn," the hearer understands that we could
mean anything from several minutes before sunrise till several minutes
after sunrise. Thus, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Mark.
The critics next charge that Luke disagrees with
Matthew and Mark because Luke says, "very early in the morning," not "at
dawn" per Matthew or "just after sunrise" per Mark. But again, "very
early in the morning" includes the descriptions given by both Matthew
and Mark. In fact, the phrase could refer to any time after 1 a.m.! When
one gets up "very early in the morning," this can include a significant
span of time, certainly at least half an hour before dawn until just
after sunrise. Therefore, Luke does not contradict anything Matthew or
Mark says.
But the critics charge that with John we certainly
have a contradiction. John says, "While it was still dark." This phrase
the critics allege is certainly not compatible with "at dawn" or "just
after sunrise" when obviously it would not be "still dark." But consider
again the normal use of language. "While it was still dark" can
describe conditions that exist "at dawn." Everyone who has been up "at
dawn" certainly knows it is not yet the full light of day. In fact,
depending on weather conditions, it can be quite dark even "at dawn" or
"just after sunrise."
If we only consider the manner in which language is
typically used, we can see that there is no necessary contradiction
between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even the most "discrepant" of the
accounts—"just after sunrise" and "while it was still dark"—can easily
refer to the same period of time.
There are other facts that must be considered which
further indicate there is no contradiction between these accounts. What
if each writer is describing a certain period of time at which the women
either left their houses, or traveled, or the point in time when they
actually arrived at the tomb? Dr. Gleason Archer carefully examined the
original language used by the writers and concluded:
They [the women] apparently started their journey
from the house in Jerusalem while it was still dark (skotias eti
ouses), even though it was already early morning (proi)
(John 20:1). But by the time they arrived [at the tomb], dawn was
glimmering in the East (te epiphoskouse) that Sunday morning
(eis mian sabbaton) (Matthew 28:1). (Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John
20:1 all use the dative: te mia ton sabbaton.) Mark 16:2 adds
that the tip of the sun had actually appeared above the horizon (anateilantos
tou heliou—aorist participle; the Bezae codex uses the present
participle, anatellontos, implying "while the sun was rising").3
So, if one reads the accounts carefully and takes note
of the fact that the women were on a journey to the tomb, not only is
there no basis to assume a contradiction, one actually wonders why
anyone would accuse these writers of such a thing. Obviously, there
could be many unstated reasons why each writer would include different
details of the same event. Because he does, this does not show
contradiction; rather, it shows truthfulness in his reporting.
Lilly not only observes the harmony existing among the
four accounts but also supplies an additional reason explaining why they
differ: the delay of certain of the women to purchase spices. This would
require additional time and explain the difference between John’s Gospel
and the others. In this event, Mary herself would have arrived at the
tomb alone, before the other women.
It should be noted that all four evangelists agree
on the day: it was Sunday; that they all agree on the time: it was
very early in the morning. The only discrepancy is that Mark tells us
that the sun had already risen, while John says that Mary Magdalene
went to the sepulcher while it was still dark. Pere Lagrange has an
obvious solution: "It is clear that in Mark’s account the women are
delayed by the purchase of spices. We may suppose then that Magdalene,
leaving this matter to the other women, went alone and much in advance
of the other women to the tomb," even while it was yet dark, and that
the other women who had stopped to purchase ointments did not reach
the sepulcher until the sun had risen.4
John Wenham provides an overall succinct summary,
proving that there is no contradiction concerning the time element in
the four narratives:
There is perhaps no need to insist upon any
distinction between Matthew’s "toward the dawn", Mark’s "very early",
Luke’s "early dawn" and John’s "while it was still dark." Darkness and
light are relative terms and it would be perfectly possible, and not
inaccurate, for one person to describe the time as "early dawn" which
another described as "still dark."
It needs to be remembered, however, that it could
have been undeniably dark on the women’s departure and undeniably
light on their arrival, particularly if their starting point were
Bethany.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the words
"went" in Matthew, Mark and Luke translate the same verb as the "came"
in John and that either translation would be possible in any of the
cases, it depending on what standpoint the writer is thought to be
adopting. If John is thinking of Mary Magdalene setting off from
Bethany, the translation "went to the tomb early, while it was still
dark" would be precisely accurate.
Similarly, Matthew’s "toward the dawn... went"
suggests the same Bethany standpoint—the two Marys started their
journey just before dawn. Mark’s "very early" could well represent
Peter’s recollection of the Marys and Salome leaving John’s house and
Luke’s "at early dawn" would fit well enough the departure of Joanna
and "Susanna" from the Hasmonean palace.
These distinctions may be too fine, but we
undoubtedly get a consistent and coherent picture if we see the first
departures as being in the dark and the last arrivals as being before
[full] sunrise.5
Whether we are considering the number of women at the
tomb or the time element, it is clear that there is no contradiction
between the Gospel accounts.
Answering the
Objections of the Critics Concerning Who Supplied the Spices to Anoint
Jesus’ Body and When This Occurred.
When Mark and Luke report that the women bought spices
for anointing Jesus’ body on Sunday morning, and John records that
Nicodemus supplied the spices and applied them to Jesus’ body on Friday
evening, the critics claim this is another contradiction.
John records that on Friday evening (before the
Sabbath began), "Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about
75 pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the
spices, and strips of linen. This was in accordance with the Jewish
burial custom" (John 19:39-40).
But according to Luke certain unnamed women had
followed Jesus from Galilee. They saw Him crucified, saw the tomb and
how the body was laid and "went home and prepared spices and perfumes"
(Luke 23:56). They rested on the Sabbath, but on Sunday morning they
brought the spices to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 24:1).
According to Mark 16:1-2, Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James, and Salome purchased additional spices and went to the
tomb on Sunday morning to anoint Jesus’ body.
This is not a contradiction because although the women
were intending to anoint Jesus’ body with the spices, they never had the
opportunity to do so. When they arrived at the grave, the body was
already absent and Christ was resurrected.
Why the women wanted to anoint Jesus’ body after
Joseph had already done so is probably easily answered. Lilly observes,
"Decent burial according to the standards of the day was the most highly
cherished and ardently desired lot of every Jew; its privation was
deemed a frightful misfortune. Relatives and friends of the deceased
considered it a grave obligation to discharge this office on behalf of
their departed."6
Most likely, the women felt that in the rush after the crucifixion to
move Jesus’ body, it was not properly prepared before the Sabbath had
started. They feared some important element might have been overlooked.
Further, the critic charges that only Mark and Luke
mention that the women brought spices, whereas Matthew and John do not
mention this at all. But why should anyone consider this a
contradiction?
All four Gospel writers would have known that the body
of Jesus required anointing according to Jewish burial custom. It is
perfectly reasonable for two to mention this fact and the other two to
assume it.
There is no contradiction concerning the anointing of
Jesus’ body. Both Wenham7
and Lilly8
further discuss these passages and prove that there is no error or
contradiction in them.
We must also remember that the Gospel writers are
independent reporters of these events. The hallmark of independent
reporting is differences in content.
For example, in a court of law, it is always true that
four witnesses describing a traffic accident (or a crime) will each
supply different information. Characteristically, witnesses notice and
report matters which are unique, relevant or important to them. But no
judge would ever instruct a jury to ignore what a dependable witness
says merely because different details were reported.
The same is true for the Gospel writers. Each one
devotes differing amounts of space and detail to the women coming to the
tomb. Matthew and Mark supply 8 verses each (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark
16:1-8), yet both mention things the other does not. Luke gives 10
verses (Luke 24:1-10) while John gives only 2 verses (John 20:1-2).
It is unreasonable to assume that every Gospel writer
would record the event in precisely the same way, giving precisely the
same details. This would be evidence of collusion, not independent
testimony.
Consider the illustration of a group of employees at
an important business luncheon. Ask each employee to file a report of
the event later that day. One may recount how taken he was with the
day’s speaker. Another may recall how impressed she was with the good
service and quality of the food. One other individual may remember the
important things discussed over lunch; another only how pretty the
waitresses were. If we were to take all the reports of the employees and
compare them, would we charge that they contradicted one another merely
because they listed different details according to what impressed them
most?
There is no reason to demand that the Gospel writers
must report the same detail. When the critic charges contradictions
exist merely because the accounts differ, he is being unfair. He is
holding the Gospel writers to a standard to which he would not subject
anyone else, least of all himself.
