The
following is from an Evangelical Protestant attempting to harmonise the Gospels’
accounts of the events of Easter Sunday. Do note that, in attempting to
harmonise the purported contradictions between the accounts they sound like a
typical Latter-day Saint apologist when we defend the alleged discrepancies in
the various accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Also, note that many
Evangelicals, while accepting the following apologetic, would never accept LDS
apologetic works on the First Vision and/or purported contradictions between
the Bible and Book of Mormon, even if the responses are better (showing a
blatant double-standard):
The Number of Women
Matthew mentioned Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary (Matt. 28:1). Mark referred to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
James, and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke wrote of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the
mother of James, and others with them (Luke 24:10). John spoke of Mary
Magdalene alone and said nothing of any other (John 20:1). The first three
Evangelists are in accord with respect to the two Marys but no further, while
John differed from them all. Is there a discrepancy here?
No. Though John, in narrating circumstances
with which he was personally connected, saw fit to mention Mary Magdalene, it
does not at all follow that others were not present. Nor did Matthew, writing
only of the two Marys, mean to exclude the presence of others. Indeed the very
words John put into the mouth of Mary Magdalene (ουκ οιδαμεν, “we do not know,” John 20:2)
presuppose the fact that others had gone with her to the tomb. That there was
something with respect to Mary Magdalene that gave her a peculiar prominence in
these transactions may be inferred from the fact that not only did John mention
her alone, but also the other Evangelists named her first.
This parallels that of the demoniacs of
Gardara and the blind men at Jericho; in both cases Matthew wrote of two
persons, while Mar and Luke mentioned only one (Matt. 8:28; 20:30; Mark 5:2;
10:46; Luke 8:27; 18:35). Something peculiar in the station or character of one
of the persons rendered him in each case more prominent and led the other two
Evangelists to speak of him particularly. But their language was not exclusive
nor is there in it anything that contradicts the statements of Matthew . . .
The Arrival at the
Sepulcher
According to Mark, Luke, and John, the women,
on reaching the tomb, found the great stone with which it had been closed
already rolled away. Matthew, on the other hand, after narrating that the women
went out to see the sepulchre, proceeded to mention the earthquake, the descent
of the angel, his rolling away the stone and sitting on it, and the terror of
the watch, as if all these things took place in the presence of the women. Such
at least is the usual force of ιδου. The angel too (Matt. 28:4) addressed the women as if he were
still sitting on the stone that had been rolled away.
The apparent discrepancy, if any, arises
simply from Matthew’s brevity in omitting to state in full what his own
narrative presupposes. According to verse 6, Christ was already risen, and therefore
the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place earlier, to which
the sacred writer returned in his narration. And though Matthew did not say the
women entered the sepulchre, yet in verse 8 he spoke of them going out of it (εξελθουσαι) so that their interview with
the angel took place not outside the sepulcer but in it, as narrated by the
other Evangelists. When therefore the angel said to them, “Come, see the place
where He was lying” (v. 6), this was not spoken outside the tomb to induce them
to enter but within the sepulchre, just as in Mark 16:6.
The Vision of Angels
in the Sepulcher
Of this John wrote nothing. Matthew and Mark
referred to one angel; Luke referred to two. Mark said he was writing; Luke
spoke of them as standing (επεστησαν). This difference in respect to numbers is
parallel to the case of the women. The other alleged difficulty as to the position
of the angel also vanishes when επεστησαν in Luke 24:4 is understood in its
appropriate and acknowledged meaning “to appear suddenly” without reference to
its etymology.
Some diversity also exists in the language
addressed to the women by the angels. Matthew and Mark recorded the angels’
charge to tell the disciples to depart into Galilee (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). In
Luke this is not referred to, but the women were reminded of the Lord’s
declaration that He would rise again on the third day. Neither of the
Evangelists here professed to report all that was said by the angels, and so
there is no room for contradiction. (Edward Robinson, “The Resurrection and
Ascension of Christ” in Roy B. Zuck, ed. Vital
Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns [Vital
Issues Series; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1997], 121-43, here,
pp. 126-28)