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

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?”

Incorrect. Matthew 28:1 says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were together. The very next line is when the earthquake happens and the angel rolls away the stone. There is nothing whatsoever to separate the two Marys.

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.

Incorrect. The angel sitting on the stone told the women to look inside the tomb and see Jesus was gone. They did so and quickly ran to tell the disciples. There is nothing in Matthew that says these women spoke to a lone figure in the tomb.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

Mule muffins! The person awkwardly welding together the story has to have the women in the tomb speak to a lone figure, then after briefly looking down find two men. Read Luke 24, which is where the quote from the angels come from. They step inside and see the tomb empty. While wondering what happened with the empty tomb the two angels appeared. It’s at this point the text says they became frightened. They weren’t frightened when some strange man was there in Jesus’ place. There’s not even a mention of him in Luke. What’s funny is that in Luke it says after speaking to these two they go out and tell the eleven plus all the others. In this attempted harmonization the author said they told no one and were afraid. Why? Because otherwise Mark 16:8 would be a loose end. By referencing that verse the story makes less sense, but it is one less checkbox to cover.

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.

Incorrect. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene was with the other Mary when the angel moved away the stone. She was part of this group and not separate from it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

Just so we’re clear, while this does conform with John it conflicts with Matthew (as he says she saw the stone rolled away) and Mark (who said she saw the lone figure in the tomb). To say Mary was not part of that is to say not only that the text is inaccurate but that the truth is the exact opoosite of what the text says (thus burying the whole “different witnesses” argument to the ground).

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.

Scripture says she saw the two angels the first time, so she would be able to say for certain.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

There is no mention of two separate groups of women. Mark and Matthew specifically state she was with other women and saw the events the author you’re quoting said the alleged first group of women saw.

I snipped the rest, but it’s more of the same. As I’ve said before in other threads to say that A in the Bible means not-A greatly undercuts any force when we’re told that the Bible says B, C, D, etc.

One final thing to add. The Bible does warn about adding to Scripture:

“Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Proverbs 30:6

That’s just one example. Yet these harmonizations and rationalizations always seem to involve adding or taking away from Scripture.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

As I mentioned in my first response there is a certain range for disagreement among witnesses. There comes a point where the differences go from being reasonable to straining credulity.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

That chapter uses words to deliniate time in other parts. No, it doesn’t specifically state that the women arrived at the time the stone was moved, but verse 1 does say the women went to the tomb, 2-4 say the stone was moved, then verse 5 saysthe angel spoke to the women. If there was only one telling of this story, as opposed to four, your reading would certainly be that the women saw it moved. It’s only with the conflicting stories that we now have to play fast and loose with the words.

And that sets a bad precedent because the more one bends language to desired ends the weaker that language becomes. If we can say that any passage in the Bible that doesn’t explicitly state the position of the events can allow for any sort of unspoke time gap, then I’m sure there are other passages that would be greatly altered by such a practice. I haven’t looked at the text so it might not be apropos, but imagine if the tale of the loaves and fishes allowed for a time gap between when Jesus gave the food to his disciples and when the masses were fed.

And again, Matthew is the only one of the gospel writers to include the moving of the stone and the angel outside the tomb speaking to the women. If we go with the fiction that the conflicting stories are due to the writers having different intended audiences, then we have problem. Somehow each author made sure to include that the stone had rolled away, but only one felt it important to show how (even though that would back up the ultimate intended goal of demonstrating Jesus had risen). It would be like four different people telling the story of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, and each of the four showed George saw how good and important his life had been, but only one of them talked about George seeing what would have happened if he were never born.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I found your response, tedious,

Accuracy can often be 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.

The angels were secondary only to the missing body in terms of the story. They were the exposition. Yet somehow each of the four gospel writers felt that some angels were important to the story, but none of them thought all of the angels were important to the story? Matthew thought the angel who had rolled the stone away and spoke to the woman outside the tomb was vital to the narrative, but not either the single angel or the two angels inside? Luke made sure to talk about the two angels in the tomb, but not the single one inside or the one outside sitting on the stone?

Here’s the kicker: You said that the four writers told the exact same story, that the tomb was empty and that Jesus had risen from the dead. Ignoring the strange use of the word “exact” there, we can easily see that this is not the case. If it was so important in each story to demonstrate the Christ had risen, surely all four gospels (and not just two) would have told of a risen Jesus speaking to Mary Magdalene just outside the tomb. She told the disciples what she saw, so it’s not even a matter of who was a witness or not. Yet this miraculous event, the alleged focal point of the story, is conspicuously missing from 50% of the tellings (with Mark 16:9-20 a later addition, perhaps to try and square it with the parallel passages).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?).

The link you gave notes that the 3:1 ratio is not stating that 75% of historians and scholars believe the empty tomb occurred, but that when Gary R. Habermas divided up the papers he found on the topic of a possibly historical Jesus the number of those taking what he calls a “moderate conservative” viewpoint were triple that of those with “more skeptical positions”. It is not a polling of historians and scholars in general, but specifically those who have written papers on the matter. As a whole this statistic may be skewed or it might be very accurate. Either way is not important, since a) opinions are not facts and b) at no point did I make this thread as a referendum to whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. It was simply asking if there was a solid answer to the question as to how many entities were in the tomb when the women came in: o, 1, or 2. The attempted harmonization even gave the number as 3 (even though I showed the flaws in that harmonization).

It’s telling that no one can give a definitive answer.

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.

There in no way to prove or disprove the resurrection of Jesus (apart from his return). I disagree strongly that I’m being intellectually dishonest. I’m the one using the quotes from the Bible. I’m not adding to Scripture. I’m not making excuses for contradictory tales. I’m not saying that a story to tell people Jesus has risen would leave out a walking talking resurrected Jesus. I’m not delving neck-deep into Orwellian doublespeak to try say passages mean the opposite of what they actually say.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

I am not one of the people on CAF concerned with this. Non-believers don’t have the gift of faith. I can’t argue them into believing or convince them of it if they are not predisposed to open their hearts and believe. So if they want to get all hung up over something in the Bible, or anything else, then that is their hang-up. I can pray for them to be given the gift of faith and better understanding of what really matters.

As for your other comment about how the Bible doesn’t make it easier to believe, that’s not the job of the Bible. The Bible was not written to make it easy for people. It’s not “Jesus for Dummies”. There are a lot of layers, contexts, and depths to the Bible. Faith is what makes you believe, not a nice neat analysis of the Bible.

 

[HarryStotle]

Incorrect. Matthew 28:1 says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were together. The very next line is when the earthquake happens and the angel rolls away the stone. There is nothing whatsoever to separate the two Marys.

Actually, Matthew doesn’t say they were together.

It says they both went to the tomb.

After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. (Matt 28:1)

That need not imply they went together. It could simply be true that they BOTH went to the tomb.

The Gospel of John says Mary Magdalene went on her own

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, … (John 20:1)

So John does separate Mary Magdalene from the other women, therefore, if we are melding eye witness accounts, we have good reason to infer that Matthew is truncating the story to save on papyrus, while John is filling in a detail that Matthew glossed over.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The link you gave notes that the 3:1 ratio is not stating that 75% of historians and scholars believe the empty tomb occurred, but that when Gary R. Habermas divided up the papers he found on the top of a possibly historical Jesus the number of those taking what he calls a “moderate conservative” viewpoint were triple that of those with “more skeptical positions”. It is not a polling of historians and scholars in general, but specifically those who have written papers on the matter. As a whole this statistic may be skewed or it might be very accurate. Either way is not important, since a) opinions are not facts and b) at no point did I make this thread as a referendum to whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. It was simply asking if there was a solid answer to the question as to how many entities were in the tomb when the women came in: o, 1, or 2. The attempted harmonization even gave the number as 3 (even though I showed the flaws in that harmonization).

It’s telling that no one can give a definitive answer

The very reason I made sure to add in the word “scholar” was to specify it was of individuals who study the field. Of course it’s not of historians in general else you’d have persons speaking on an issue that they’re not completely qualified to speak on. There are different fields of history historians are trained in including Roman history, Egyptian history, Chinese history, etc. Sure, they overlap, but expertise is what really counts. Habermas is taking into account the scholars of this field and their research.

Now, Habermas admits he is using the term “moderately conservative” very loosely. He indicates this by defining it as individuals who in some way shape or form believe something happened to Jesus. This should then include scholars like, say, E.P. Sanders, who denies the virgin birth and thinks Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, yet admits an empty tomb and resurrection appearances. It may also include someone like Dale Allison, a skeptical scholar who also admits of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances. And again, it may include someone like the late Geza Vermes (died 2013), a liberal Jewish scholar who admitted of the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. Habermas is showing us that moderate conservationism is the “direction of current research trends.” This is why the entire article is about specific research trends on the whole. It’s not only about where research has lead, but also about where current research on the resurrection is heading.

 

[thephilosopher6]

It must be noted of the scholars who deny the empty tomb, many of them don’t believe there was a tomb in the first place, this is what someone like John D. Crossan would propose.

One last quick note that isn’t 100% related but, just for the heck of it, Professor Lidija Novakovic, who writes on the empty tomb in their work, “Resurrection: A Guide for the Perplexed”, offers up the best neutral views as possible by examining each side of the argument wholly neutrally and then concluding on the empty tomb:

“What, then, can we conclude about the historicity of the empty tomb? One obvious conclusion is that no argument is completely convincing. On the whole, however, the arguments for the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb by a group of women appear more persuasive…”

 

[thephilosopher6]

There in no way to prove or disprove the resurrection of Jesus (apart from his return). I disagree strongly that I’m being intellectually dishonest. I’m the one using the quotes from the Bible. I’m not adding to Scripture. I’m not making excuses for contradictory tales. I’m not saying that a story to tell people Jesus has risen would leave out a walking talking resurrected Jesus. I’m not delving neck-deep into Orwellian doublespeak to try say passages mean the opposite of what they actually say.

History has its own domain, and I’m certainly not saying with a definite that the resurrection can be proved or disproved; I am only laying down facts best I can. You have to decide how you want to interpret it.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is no mention of two separate groups of women. Mark and Matthew specifically state she was with other women and saw the events the author you’re quoting said the alleged first group of women saw.

I snipped the rest, but it’s more of the same. As I’ve said before in other threads to say that A in the Bible means not-A greatly undercuts any force when we’re told that the Bible says B, C, D, etc.

One final thing to add. The Bible does warn about adding to Scripture:

“Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Proverbs 30:6

That’s just one example. Yet these harmonizations and rationalizations always seem to involve adding or taking away from Scripture.

Actually, you are “adding” by claiming that Matthew necessarily implies Mary Magdalene and the other Mary “went together.” It doesn’t say that.

Matthew’s account is consistent with them both going to the tomb, but separately. There is no reason to force a particular perspective. And the account from John, implies they went separately. Also implied by the other Gospels is that other women (Joanna, Salome and Mary, the mother of James) were there at some point in time. Matthew doesn’t specify when precisely. He is more concerned about the big picture.

There is actually nothing in my melded account that conflicts with any of the four Gospel accounts. I have “added” nothing since I only used snippets of text from the actual Gospels and aligned them in a way that they fit together while not contradicting any of the individual accounts. There are no words in my version which did not come from one or other of the four Gospels. I did add bracketed text to specify who was possibly meant by ”the women” in one instance and there may have been one other time. But even those came from the Gospels directly.

You should be more concerned about “adding to Scripture” since you add your presumptions in order to call Scripture false or contradictory. I’ll let God decide which of us is doing the greater disservice.

You are assuming the writers had to include every detail in each account and that is why they seem to conflict. I see no need to assume that. Each account gives a version, possibly from different sources or from some of the same sources to provide an account - each with missing details. My melded version attempts to fill in the gaps in some accounts from details in the others.

You are being disingenuous when you claim A means not-A in the text. Your difficulty comes from imposing your view of A on the passage, when it doesn’t specifically have to be A.

My concern is getting at the actual event through the details provided in the four accounts. Those accounts don’t claim to give the full story, so provided none of the accounts are falsified or contradicted, the actual story behind the accounts can be pieced together.

Your concern seems to be simply to discredit the accounts by holding each to a standard that you impose on it In order to find issues with the event itself.

 

[James817]

Mary says “we don’t know where they put Him.” in John, which heavily implies that she was with the women when she saw the angels, but didn’t quite comprehend the situation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Mary says “we don’t know where they put Him.” in John, which heavily implies that she was with the women when she saw the angels, but didn’t quite comprehend the situation.

Actually this is a good point.

It doesn’t mean it is irreconcilable, however.

There seems to be two distinct “visits” (at least by Mary Magdalene) to the tomb that need to be sorted out. The first when the body of Jesus is gone and that report goes to the disciples via Mary and the others. The second is after the resurrected Jesus appears, first to Mary (according to the longer ending of Mark) and to the other women later.

This is separate from your issue here, because, in your reference to John, Mary and the “we” she refers to are reporting that “they” (some persons) have taken the body and “we” don’t know where they put him. Obviously this must have occurred prior to Jesus appearing first to Mary and then the other women, because then they understood Jesus had resurrected. The situation is more complicated than a cursory reading might indicate.

The two visits need to be sorted out and which details (reports to the disciples, appearances of angels, etc.) go with which visit.

This is precisely why I tried to meld the four accounts to try to at least begin to shed light on which events go with which visit.

 

[Kei]

There is a difference between saying there were 0 people in a tomb and neglecting to mention who were there. Similarly, saying an angel was there is not the same as saying there was only 1.

Remember, the women were who were there for the tomb, the apostles weren’t eyewitnesses to the first time they went to the tomb.

Also, to answer, there was one who rolled back the stone and one who was inside telling them Jesus was not there.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I am not one of the people on CAF concerned with this. Non-believers don’t have the gift of faith. I can’t argue them into believing or convince them of it if they are not predisposed to open their hearts and believe. So if they want to get all hung up over something in the Bible, or anything else, then that is their hang-up. I can pray for them to be given the gift of faith and better understanding of what really matters.

I appreciate that this is not your intention on CAF. When I get into these discussions here where I’m writing back and forth with a half-dozen or so other people what I’ll do is compile the posts I’m responding to and then write up my responses. This helps me in a few way since 1) I can reduce repition as best as possible (there will always be some just my the nature of each poster working off the same topic), 2) getting all the responses out at once, 3) sometimes cutting to the chase quicker.

In doing so while the responses I make are primarily for the person being responded to it’s also for all of the other posters as well as anyone watching the thread. My point about believers not understanding why non-believers hold doubts (and there are plenty of believers like that here), wasn’t just for you but a natural seque after a part of my response to you for all to see.

As for your other comment about how the Bible doesn’t make it easier to believe, that’s not the job of the Bible. The Bible was not written to make it easy for people. It’s not “Jesus for Dummies”. There are a lot of layers, contexts, and depths to the Bible. Faith is what makes you believe, not a nice neat analysis of the Bible.

You and I will have to disagree on this part. I don’t want to go too deep on this, since I’d rather focus on the question in the title of the thread, but it seems like even if reading the Bible doesn’t automatically bring one to the faith it shouldn’t provide repeated stumbling blocks to the faith.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually, you are “adding” by claiming that Matthew necessarily implies Mary Magdalene and the other Mary “went together.” It doesn’t say that.

Matthew’s account is consistent with them both going to the tomb, but separately. There is no reason to force a particular perspective. And the account from John, implies they went separately. Also implied by the other Gospels is that other women (Joanna, Salome and Mary, the mother of James) were there at some point in time. Matthew doesn’t specify when precisely. He is more concerned about the big picture.

Let’s see what Matthew 28 says:
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.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women…

So in verse 1 he lists two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. He says they went to the tomb. You say they didn’t go together. The plain reading of the text said they did. There are no other portions that said they went separately.

Verses 2 though 4 talking about the angel who moved away the stone and scared the guards.

Verse 5 starts with “the women”. Similar to a pronoun, the use of “the women” indicates that the reader/listener has been introduced who makes up the women. The only two women mentioned are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. What are you adding to the text:

1. That the twp Marys went to the tomb separately.
2. That the angel is not speaking to Mary Magdalene, but the other Mary.
3. That Mary Magdalene met up with at least one other woman (since both verses 5 and 8 refer to “the women” plural).

Now, you point to your attempted harmonization. Ignoring the multiple inconsistencies I pointed out with that harmonization in the earlier post, we have to take into consideration something else: The fact you are rendering Matthew 28 internally inconsistent.

Each gospel was intended to be read individually. When the various NT books were written this was well before there was an official Canon. Many people didn’t have access to all the various versions of the gospel. Each book was intended to tell a story without the need of reading or hearing other gospels. In short, Matthew should make sense to those who only read Matthew. The same with the other books.

(continued in next part)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And in that regard they do. If you read the gospels vertically they do tell a complete story. But let’s go to Matthew and read based on your attempted harmonization. You want us to believe that the author of Matthew wanted to convey to his readers that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went separately, that the other Mary met up with at least one other woman, and it was this group that the angel spoke to – and that he did so with the words that he specifically chose. If an author wanted to convey that he could have easily written it to say so. Yet, the words used tell the readers (who are solely based off of Matthew) that the two Marys went to the tomb together and both heard from the angel on the stone.

There is actually nothing in my melded account that conflicts with any of the four Gospel accounts. I have “added” nothing since I only used snippets of text from the actual Gospels and aligned them in a way that they fit together while not contradicting any of the individual accounts. There are no words in my version which did not come from one or other of the four Gospels. I did add bracketed text to specify who was possibly meant by ”the women” in one instance and there may have been one other time. But even those came from the Gospels directly.

I do not dispute that each item in your attempt at harmonization comes from the various verses. The problem is that some of those verses contradict other verses, which I pointed out in multiple points.

Those are called contradictions, of which there are several.

You should be more concerned about “adding to Scripture” since you add your presumptions in order to call Scripture false or contradictory. I’ll let God decide which of us is doing the greater disservice.

You are assuming the writers had to include every detail in each account and that is why they seem to conflict. I see no need to assume that. Each account gives a version, possibly from different sources or from some of the same sources to provide an account - each with missing details. My melded version attempts to fill in the gaps in some accounts from details in the others.

As I mention in one of my earlier responses not only are there missing details but there are conflicting details. And with regard to the missing details I’ve been told that the main point of the story is to let people know Jesus had risen, yet some of the gospel writers would leave out the element that says Jesus’ body wasn’t stolen he’s alive (Jesus speaking to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb).