The Resurrection Contradiction-Case 2

[Matthew]

I also thought that there was a contradiction in the Resurrection accounts.

I thought that Matthew 28:1-10 and Luke 24:10 contradicted John 20:1-16.

I thought that in Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the women went with her to the tomb, saw the angels. I thought I read that in both Matthew and Luke that the women saw the angels at the tomb. When they were off to tell Peter and John what happened, Jesus interrupted them and they recognized him and beheld his feet in worship. Then they go to John's account where they tell Peter and John that "They have taken the body of the lord and we don't know where they have put him"

I heard of an explanation which was termed on the Errancy list as "The Panicking Mary Theory". This states that Mary panicked, ran off and told Peter and John while the other women were left to encounter the angels. I really didn't buy into this because in Luke 24:10, it says that Mary Magdalene was among the women "who told all these things to the disciples". I therefore assumed that it was Mary Magdalene who had been with them since they women first arrived. Farrell Till kept on pouding on grammatical coherency, but I thought a much deeper problem was not so much Matthew alone contradicting John, but a combination of Matthew and Luke combined contradicting John.

This is what I thought I had gleaned from Farrel Till's article "The Resurrection Maze".

This is the second example of a contradiction I found...

[GrayPilgrim]

Matthew,

This discussion is under way athttp://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169
It's tortured, but under consideration

[Matthew]

As I read this, I am aware that Till and Jalstus discussed the Resurrection in New Testament Greek. I have with me a couple of translations of the Bible, both the KJV and the NIV. I read Matthew 28: 8-9 and they both read as if the flow of the narrative is interrupted. In the NIV, Matthew reads "So they woman hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.Suddenly, Jesus met them, "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him."

The King James translation reads very similarly. The wording of the King James suggests that Mary Magdalene and whoever was with her were interrupted. In fact, Matthew reads like a continuous narrative. I am no expert in Greek, but I am definitely interested in hearing what the original New Testament Greek reads like. I know that Jalstus and Till argued, each with their experts seeming to disagree with each other.

If the Greek behind this narrative in Matthew does read continuously, meaning that the encounter with Jesus didn't happen on the way back to the tomb to tell the disciples, then I have to retract any charge of contradiction. But if the flow in Matthew is interrupted, that is, if on the way back from the tomb, the women did meet Jesus in transit, then I would have to regard the discrepency as real.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew:

I am interested in Jaltus input, but let me tell you that even without his assertion on the aorist situation there, there simply is not any contradiction. Till's charges of grammatical consistency are anachronistic. We know from other accounts that it was a party of women, certainly more than three. Matthew names the two prominent members, and then just refers to "the women." We may scream and holler today that "the women" must only refer to the two Marys but this type of A-retentiveness in the compression of historical narratives just did not exist at that time. We cannot read the text through the eyes of modern prejudices and declare "ah ah!" Contradiction!

Notice in John 20:1-2 ONLY Mary is mentioned as going to the tomb, yet when she runs to tell Simon Peter, she says, "WE do not know where they have laid Him." Well let's play this modern grammatical BRUTE consistency game.. who in the world was Mary referring to? She, herself, and I? No, it is an allusion to the other (unmentioned in the text!!) women who were with her. There is no problem with Matthew doing the same. This is a reasonable explanation.

[Jaltus]

There is no "suddenly" in the Greek text.

The NASB has, "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

[Matthew]

Hello Jaltus,

There was a something I wanted to clarify on my part..


There is no "suddenly" in the Greek text.

Does the Greek text having any wording that indicated to the translators that the the women were interrupted? Are the words in the Greek such as that the the NIV translators would translate as "Suddenly" and in NASB as "And Behold...". The impression that I got from reading the text is that the Greek wording argued for a interruption by Christ as the women were leaving the tomb in which the translators then would then (would improvise be a good word?) put in the words "Suddenly.."(NIV) or "And Behold.."..The King James says "And while they were on their way, Jesus met them saying, Hail!.."

So..this is my question..just more refined..

Matthew

[Jaltus]

It has KAI IDOU, which is literally "and see!" or "and behold!" It is a mark of amazment, not interruption. The NASB has this one right, but no other version seems to.

[Gavin]

Dear Matthew:

I am interested in Jaltus input, but let me tell you that even without his assertion on the aorist situation there, there simply is not any contradiction. Till's charges of grammatical consistency are anachronistic. We know from other accounts that it was a party of women, certainly more than three. Matthew names the two prominent members, and then just refers to "the women." We may scream and holler today that "the women" must only refer to the two Marys but this type of A-retentiveness in the compression of historical narratives just did not exist at that time. We cannot read the text through the eyes of modern prejudices and declare "ah ah!" Contradiction!

Notice in John 20:1-2 ONLY Mary is mentioned as going to the tomb, yet when she runs to tell Simon Peter, she says, "WE do not know where they have laid Him." Well let's play this modern grammatical BRUTE consistency game.. who in the world was Mary referring to? She, herself, and I? No, it is an allusion to the other (unmentioned in the text!!) women who were with her. There is no problem with Matthew doing the same. This is a reasonable explanation.

Wise words, Dee Dee. :thumb:

[Jaltus]

Actually, Dee Dee is missing that point of the problem.

The problem is not that there were other women (Till admitted it was not one), instead he pointed out that in John they ran to the disciples first, came back, and THEN met Jesus, whereas in Matthew they were at the tomb, went to go tell the disciples, but WERE INTERRUPTED by Jesus, showing that they talked to Him BEFORE EVER GETTING TO THE 12.

[Gavin]

I think the number of women was the issue Matthew was raising, though. I may be wrong, someone ask him.

[Matthew]

I noticed that Jaltus proposed a harmonization of the resurrection accounts that I have seen a few apologists do. It's a variation on the Panicking Mary theme. They equate the resurrection epiphanies of Jesus in the synoptics with the resurrection epiphany of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in the gospel of John on her second visit. The Synoptics seem to imply only one visit to the tomb, whereas John's gospel suggests that there were two visits by Mary Magdalene. I, for one, find this difficult to accept. I explain my incredulty below:

The main problem I have with this seems to be that both in Mark and Luke's gospels, it seems that Mary Magdalene never left; she seems to be there the whole time. Let me explain: In Mark we read that the women were on their way to the empty tomb "after sunrise". We read (Mark 16: 1-8):

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that THEY might annoint Jesus' body. (2) Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to see the tomb (3) and THEY asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the enterance of the tomb?

(4)"When they looked up, they saw that the tomb, which was very large, had been rolled away.(5) As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
(6)'Don't be afraid' he said, 'You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.(7) But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahed of you into Galilee. there youwill see him, just as he told you.'"

(8)"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

In this narrative from Mark, we read that Mary Magdalene was among the women who was there the whole time on the first visit. She along with a few others was wondering who would roll away the tomb's stone. Luke's gospel reads the exact same way.

In Luke 24: 1-10, we read:

"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. (2)They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, (3) but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (4) While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening stood besides them (5) In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them , "Why do you look for the living among the dead? (6) He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: (7) 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again'(8) Then they remembered his words.

"(9)When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven, and to all the others. (10)It was Mary Magdalene , Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and others with them who told this to the apostles."

Thus we see from Mark and Luke that Mary Magdalene was there the whole time. In fact, if Mary panicked and ran off from the tomb to tell the disciples, all the women would have to had gone with her because otherwise if the Synoptics record only the second visit to the tomb, why would Mark record the women asking each other who would roll away the tomb, if that records the second visit Mary Magdalene made and the first of the other women? Or if it's their second visit altogether, why the reaction if they knew the tomb was empty the first time they visited it "while it was yet dark?"

Luke seems to suggest that all the women were there the whole way through, like in vs. 9-10. In fact it seems to me that all the references to the "women" (vs 1,5) and "they" (vs 1-4, 7-9). We are told that it was Mary Magdalene and "and others" along with the other Mary and Joanna, who told the disciples "all these things". It was Mary Magdalene who was among the women in vs 1,5 and who was the "they" addressed in vs 1-4,7-9. I think we can equate the messge of the angels in vs 5-7, with that in Mark 16:6-7 and Matthew 28: 5-7.

So, hence, Mary Magdalene seems to have been there the whole time; she appears to have never left as John 20:1-5 records her as having done. If she returned along to the tomb on a second vist..did she meet up with the other women who were going to the tomb for the first time? If other women were with her..then why is that they seem to be wondering who was going to roll away the tomb in Mark if it's their second visit (along with Matthew 28:1-7 and Luke 24:1-8 also recording the same SECOND visit?) If Mary is returning to the tomb for a second visit, wouldn't the women inform her that they had seen angels?

It just doesn't add up to me. I will leave it to you folks here!

[Jaltus]

I think you are STILL missing the point.

Mary was there until they all left to go tell the disciples. They all left, told the disciples, then came back.

There happens to be a gap of time between Matthew 28:8 and Matthew 28:9, which we are clued to be grammatical reasons in the Greek (KAI IDOU and the use of the aorist).

Matthew anticipates a break between 28:8 and 28:9, but he feels no need to tell us what happened there. Oh, there is no "suddenly" in the Greek at Matthew 28:9.

[Matthew]

Jaltus,

I wasn't arguing against a gap in Matthew necessarily. I was only arguing using primarily Luke and Mark. I only used Matthew to equate the epiphanies of the angels in Matthew's account to that in Mark and Luke. I don't know anything about the Greek so I am not going to stick my foot in my mouth and rant about something I have exactly no knowledge of.

I have read over and over again the accounts in both the Synoptics and John and I really don't see how the women collectively could've gone to John and Peter in John's gospel and then collectively have gone back to the tomb and then meet the angels. If I am STILL not getting the point, then what I would have to ask is for someone here to help me reconstruct the resurrection story with all the verses in the appropriate places. I have seen JP's attempt at Tektonics and I don't see how it jives. I am not trying to be intellectually dishonest or difficult, it just seems very incredulous. I am honestly testing every explanation I come across.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus:
Actually, Dee Dee is missing that point of the problem.

The problem is not that there were other women (Till admitted it was not one), instead he pointed out that in John they ran to the disciples first, came back, and THEN met Jesus, whereas in Matthew they were at the tomb, went to go tell the disciples, but WERE INTERRUPTED by Jesus, showing that they talked to Him BEFORE EVER GETTING TO THE 12.

No actually Jaltus I am not. I have no problem with them meeting Jesus before running to the disciples, though I understand that you may have proven that they did not. However, to me, that would simply be icing on the cake. Till objection is that if Mary Mag met Jesus on the way to the disciples then she would not have the comment that she did not know where the body was laid. My point was that Mary does not necessarily have to be part of the "women" or the "they" that is being referred to in the latter part of the text of Matthew. She very well could have ran off ahead of them, thus, there is no contradiction in the typical compression of NT narratives, even if Jesus met the group before they went to the disciples. Mary Mag need not by absolute necessity be part of that group. That is my whole point in my prior post here, and I believe that point remains.

[jpholding]

Matthew:
I have seen JP's attempt at Tektonics and I don't see how it jives. I am not trying to be intellectually dishonest or difficult, it just seems very incredulous. I am honestly testing every explanation I come across.

I don't doubt your honesty. :) Esp. since I know how a typical Westerner would react to such an explanation. My explanation WOULD seem incredible to someone who has only been exposed to Western thoughtlife. It was only after I dug into works like Rihbany's that I began to read the texts in a new light.

I know, I know, you don't need more reading assignments! :D

If you want to read Rihbany you will have to get it special loan from a library.