How many entities in Jesus' tomb: 0, 1, or 2?

[petra22]

The passage in Mark that has one figure (sometimes considered to be Jesus) does not say there was at least one person sitting in the tomb. What that figure said in Mark doesn’t match what was said in the other passages. When the angel moves the stone in Matthew and tells the women to look inside and see it was empty, it doesn’t say there was no one inside but there could have been people inside.

Here is what Mark says…
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

 

[petra22]

And that’s the key. It’s not a matter of leaving out information but giving information such that either all but one is true or none are true. A person telling the story wouldn’t tell another that the stone had already been rolled away, yet tell a third person that they saw an angel roll the stone away. The idea of difference audiences mean some were told 0 angels, 1 angel, or 2 angels withers under the very mildes of scrutiny.

This in NOT what Mark says…

 

[BartholomewB]

The fourth says the stone wasn’t rolled away when Mary arrived and that an angel then rolled it away.

Which gospel was this?

On this point, the OP is correct. In three of the Gospels, Mary Magdalene, either alone or with other women, arrives in the garden and is surprised to find the stone has already been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1).

In one Gospel, however, the women do see an angel moving the stone aside: And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (Matt 28:2)

None of the evangelists claims to have been an eyewitness. All four of them are reporting, either at second or third hand, a sequence of events that was described to them by other people, who may or may not have included Mary Magdalene herself. They are writing their reports twenty years or more after the events. I think the OP is overstating the significance of the discrepancies.

 

[HarryStotle]

First, I apologize for the length of this series of posts. You asked the question, and it can’t be properly answered without getting into the details.

I have cut and pasted snippets from all four Gospels. These are so scattered in the conjoined account (below) that it would have added considerably to the length to cite the source of each snippet. I do have a colour coded version, however.

Let’s start by noting that the following detail, recorded in several Gospels might leave some with the impression that all the women stayed together throughout the Resurrection story. That is not true. They bought the spices together when Sabbath was over, I.e, after sundown.

When the sabbath was over, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

From here there are two separate threads to the story. The one from the point of view of Mary Magdalene and the other from the OTHER women including Mary, the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and possibly several others not mentioned at every turn. So we start with the other women while it was still dark

At early dawn, they [Mary the mother of James, and Salome] went to see the tomb while it was still dark, Mary, taking the spices that they had prepared. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”

And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. When they looked up, they found that the large stone had already been rolled back away from the tomb.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But when they went in, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” Then they remembered his words. "But go, quickly and tell his disciples and Peter that he has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you. This is my message for you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

So these women witnessed the earthquake and the angel who rolled the stone from the entrance of the tomb. There was a young man (not Jesus – “he is not here”) dressed in white and later on two men in dazzling clothes standing beside them. The angel and the young man could be the “two men in dazzling clothes” or it could have been four different angels, this is not specified. Mary Magdalene would later see the same two men in dazzling white. It would seem that the women were so bedazzled by these events that they likely wandered around for a time outside the tomb not knowing what to do. They said nothing to anyone at this time.

Now we turn to Mary Magdalene’s narrative. Mary, too, left for the tomb while it was still dark, but arrived after the other women, after the sun had risen.

And very early, when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. Mary Magdalene went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

So Mary came to the tomb after the other women had left. The sun had now risen. The stone had been rolled away, and she went to tell the Apostles, (perhaps only Peter and John at this point.) Likely, they were incredulous and didn’t take her seriously, so she returned to the tomb, where she stood weeping outside of it.

After he [Jesus] rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Notice, Mary saw the two angels in white, very likely the same two that the other women had seen.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Mary Magdalene announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her, But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it, these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.

Notice, the disciples didn’t believe Mary the first time she reported that the stone had been rolled away and the body taken, and now that she reports Jesus is alive they think she has lost her mind, until the other women arrive to support her story.

After they [Mary the mother of James, and Salome] had left the tomb with fear and great joy, they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Now the two narratives come together as the women are all with the Apostles. With the two separate accounts being delivered to the Apostles, they begin to accept that there might be something to the story of the empty tomb, but they still had a difficult time accepting that Jesus might be alive. Peter was the first to take action, followed possibly by John (the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.)

They told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. But then Peter got up and the other disciple set out and went and ran toward the tomb; The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb, stooping and looking in. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the linen cloths by themselves. Then he went home, amazed at what had happened. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

 

[Mintaka]

Good harmonization.

 

[Elf01]

If the accounts agreed perfectly you’d likely accuse them of being copied.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Valiant job of harmonization, Harry.

Found another couple on the web. They are almost certainly from Protestant Bible scholars, so as I have said before, not all that important to my understanding/ acceptance of the Bible, but they are interesting to read.

Christ’s Resurrection—Four Accounts, One Reality | Answers in Genesis

Also this one

How Many Angels Were Present At Jesus’ Tomb? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[James817]

You could say the angel in Matthew 28 and the young man in Mark 16 are the same.

There’s nothing in Matthew 16 to suggest the women were at the tomb when the angel rolled away the stone. So the earthquake happened while the 3+ women were on their way to the tomb. The angel could have rolled away the stone and moved to sit where Jesus was. Then, when the Magdalene and her companions came inside, the young man could have stood up with his other companion.

 

[Mary888]

I know that the idea that God died on the cross has been declared heresy by the Chruch. So minus one. The Creed states that the Holy Spirit is Lord life giver. But this would imply that Christ resurrected through intervention and not His sacrifice. So this I think is wrong too. So minus one again. So Christ resurrected but during the Eucharist the Altar is His tomb. So He can be resurrected and still be in a tomb.
I conclude the correct answer is one. The Son. Christ.

 

[BartholomewB]

There’s nothing in Matthew 16 to suggest the women were at the tomb when the angel rolled away the stone. So the earthquake happened while the 3+ women were on their way to the tomb. The angel could have rolled away the stone and moved to sit where Jesus was. Then, when the Magdalene and her companions came inside, the young man could have stood up with his other companion.

James, I take it you’re referring here to Matt 28:2, not Matt 16, okay?

Can I please ask you a follow-up question. Are you saying that the verbs here are ambiguous, and the verse could mean the earthquake had occurred, and the angel had moved the stone, before the women arrived but that it could equally well mean that those events occurred when the women were already there to witness them?

Or can it only mean that both events had already happened earlier?

The first verb is εγενετο, meaning something like “there occurred [an earthquake],” and the second verb, translated as “rolled away,” is απεκυλισεν, but my Greek isn’t good enough to answer the question about the tenses.

Thanks

 

[James817]

I mean that Matthew doesn’t give that impression that the women saw the stone.

My reasoning is summed up here:

Now, the sentence order of this section seems to insinuate that all of these events happened right after Jesus’ death, especially since Matthew uses the word ‘Behold’ to draw our attention. But if you look at the section about the tombs of the saints opening, the Gospel says that they came out of their tombs “after His resurrection”; ie, three days later at least. But Matthew puts this event in the same section as the centurion’s act of faith and the splitting of the temple curtain, both of which occurred at the time Christ died.

Now, applying this to the stone, we see that it is not necessary to maintain that the stone was rolled away by an earthquake in the presence of the women. Mark, Luke and John all say that they found the stone rolled away when they got there. Probably we ought to interpret Matthew as saying that while the women were setting out, or while they were on the way there, the earthquake happened, leaving the stone rolled away for them to find. Using our principle, we see that Mark, Luke and John all specifically mention that the stone was moved when the women got there, and so this we must believe. Matthew is ambiguous on the time, and so we interpret the gap in Matthew using the information provided by the other three Gospels.

Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Resurrection Appearances

 

[BartholomewB]

Okay, James, thank you for clearing up that doubt.

 

[joeybaggz]

No matter who a person is speaking to if A happened then he or she is going to tell whomever that A occurred, not that not A occurred. Take my analogy at the top of the thread. The two people in the car will say they got hit by a car whether talking to a policeman, a judge, a reporter, an insurance company, or a friend. Sure, a person may stress certain details when talking to one person versus another; but they won’t give conflicting details based on the audience…

I found your response, tedious, then I realized that it was my fault I didn’t fully explain my words. When I said the gospels were written by different men to different audiences, I should have indicated what the writers were trying to convey, based on the audience. The Jews, to whom Matthew wrote, were interested in events insofar they related to Jewish traditional beliefs. Mark’s gospel was written to the Romans who were not interested in details, but just the facts. It is the least detailed of the gospels, Luke was writing to the Greeks who were interested in the arts, literature, style, etc. His gospel would include things not in the two previous. And John, in writing to the early Church was interested only in Jesus as the main thrust of his writing. Details were not as important as the basic message he was trying to convey. Add that to the fact that the gospels were (as I said in my earlier post) written by non-eyewitnesses, twenty to fifty years after the events described, and the variance in details may vary slightly, simply based on faulty memory or incorrect recall of what the originator (and not necessarily the actual scribe) had heard years before.
The four gospel writers were not describing what they saw in a photograph; the moment in time captured on film, or tape, or whatever. The message, not the details are what is important. All four gospel writers tell the exact same story that the tomb was empty, and Christ had risen from the dead.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What are you talking about? The fact that we find independent variants of tradition regarding the empty tomb, yet still a basic underlying account, point to the historicity of the event. You would expect variant traditions if something like this actually took place. This is in fact one of the reason 75% of historians/scholar accept the discovery of the empty tomb as fact (see Gary Habermas’ “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present” Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?).

You’re attempting (quite unsuccessfully) to throw this whole thing out of balance which is due in part to your ignoring of actual historical investigation. I find your argument intellectually dishonest to say the least.

 

[fhansen]

On top of that the Catechism says that all scripture is true in either a literal way or three figurative ways. These passages suggest such a claim is inaccurate.

Not all matters in Scripture need necessarily be accurate, but only those truths that involve man’s salvation:
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

Details such as times and dates are trivial, and easily mistaken, while witnessing the risen Lord would be unmistakable. And we can pretty much factor out collusion here, as you’ve mentioned.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Bible is written under divine inspiration. We do not take every word in it literally.

I know and that’s something that I mentioned earlier. Still it has to be true in a literal or spiritual way. As I noted in an earlier post this idea of conflicting reports means that elements are not literally or figuratively true – they’re just wrong.

I and a couple other posters have given reasonable explanations for what may have happened that morning that resulted in slightly different accounts of basically the same event, which was Jesus’ friends arrived to find an empty tomb with supernatural beings greeting them. Whether there was one angel or two men or the stone was rolled away by the angel in front of them or already rolled away when the people arrived, is not really important to the main concept which is that Jesus was risen and not in the tomb.

I don’t disagree with you that the point of each of the four versions is to point to the idea that Jesus had risen. This is a matter of credulity. As I noted before, there are passages in the Bible that don’t have parralel versions to compare and contrast. A person from neutral perspective (i.e. someone going in without preconceived notions) is going to wonder which of those single reference passages are the exact opposite as to what is written.

On this crucial main point, all the Gospels agree.

And look back to the joke I referenced earlier. The most curcial main point is that there was a flat tire. Ignore the part where they can’t agree on which tire. When the stories have to be blurred and so many expository points have to be set aside it’s not particularly convincing.

You keep using the term “slight difference”, but these are (again) mutually exclusive detials concerning important plot points (e.g. who moved the stone, how many angels in the tomb, did they see Jesus just outside the tomb or when they met up with the disciples, what the angels said). Again I’m NOT saying that the resurrection absolutely didn’t happen nor mocking anyone for believing in it. What I am saying is that to look at the gospels and being sure the resurrection happened requires believing it beforehand, since the gospels themselves make it harder to believe – not easier.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Jesus is risen from the dead - RISEN FROM THE DEAD - and you’re quibbling over whether somebody saw one angel or two and the exact words they said?
Do you not see that this is very petty stuff when someone has just risen from the dead?

We can’t verify that Jesus rose from the dead. I’m not saying it’s impossible for that to have occurred, but one of the most pointed-to items to demonstrate that (the Gospels) is actually a detriment in proving that it was a real event.

Every so often CAF has a thread where believers lament why non-believers aren’t convinced into belief, and it’s things like this that help explain why.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here is what Mark says…
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

Read again the words I wrote that you’re responding to: “What that figure said in Mark doesn’t match what was said in the other passages.” I was talking about what the angel said in Mark as compared to what the angel(s) said in the parallel passages.

Mark 16:6-7
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

For example in John 20 the angels asked Mary Magdalene, “Why are you crying?” then instead of explaining to her that Jesus has risen she immediately turns around and sees Jesus (who she doesn’t recognize at first). These aren’t minor differences.