Friday, June 21, 2019

Edward Robinson on the Alleged Discrepancies in Some of the Elements of the Empty Tomb Accounts


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)