In another example of a Protestant apologist and defender of inerrancy of the autographs of the Bible sounding like an LDS apologist addressing the differences in the accounts of the First Vision, we read the following on the number of angels at the tomb and the New Testament gospels:
The Empty Tomb Is
Open and Angels Are Present
While only Matthew
reports how the tomb was opened (Matt 28:2-4, an angel rolled the stone away),
the other Gospels all comment that the stone was found removed from the door of
Jesus’ tomb (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1). Clearly silence on how
the tomb was opened is not mean to be a denial of it being opened (Selection
Is Not Denial)! Furthermore, all four Gospels report angelic appearances on
the morning of the resurrection but their reporting of slightly different
activities cannot be taken as denials of each other’s reports (Matt 28:2-7;
Mark 16:4-7; Luke 24:2-8; cf. John 20:12-13) (Different Is Not Discrepant,
Selection Is Not Denial). Luke reports two angels present, but neither Matthew
nor Mark reports “one-and-only-one” angel; their focus on the speaking angel
and their silence about a second figure need not be construed as denial (Selection
Is Not Denial, Unacknowledged Attention) (“Where, out of two or
more, only one is spokesman, he is necessarily remembered. The other or others
may easily be ignored or forgotten. It is an exaggeration to call such differences
absolute discrepancies” [Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to Luke, 5th
ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 1957]. ON this Wenham colorfuly remarks, “It
should be said once and for all that the mention by one evangelist of two angels
and by another of one does not constitute a contradiction or discrepancy. If
there were two, there was one. When learned critics make heavy weather about
the accuracy of such accounts, they lack common sense” [Wenham, Easter Enigma,
87]). John confirms the presence of two angels at the tomb, although John
reports only their appearance to Mary after she returns to the tomb with Peter
and the beloved disciple (Different Is Not Discrepant). Even the
slightly differing Synoptic paraphrases of the angelic pronouncement to the
women are unproblematic (Paraphrase is Not Quotation). “There is nothing
in any of the three messages which is contradictory to anything in either of
the others, the matter is complementary. All that is recorded could have been
uttered without hurry in a couple of minutes” (Wenham, Easter Enigma,
85). In all this, there is no necessary contradiction between accounts here (Indeed,
even the noted New Testament scholar-skeptic Ehrman demonstrates that the
accounts of angelic appearances in the resurrection narratives need not be considered
contradictory at all. Ehrman is clear that he does not like such truly workable
solutions: none of the Gospels is as complete as he would have them and they
don’t all use the same simple vocabulary he wishes of them. Nevertheless, he
has to admit that there are no contradictions in the accounts of the angel appearances.
See Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, 8). (Douglas S. Huffman, “Are There Contradictions
in the Bible?” in Steven B; Cowan and Terry L. Wilder, eds., In Defense of
the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture [Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2013], 267-93, here, pp. 285-86)
Further Reading