In an article entitled Was Mary Magdalene Far from or Near the Cross? A Case Study in Gospel Differences, one apologist for biblical inerrancy defended the gospels from the charge of containing an inconsistency on this issue (cf. Matt 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49; 24:10 and John 19:25). Notwithstanding, in the article, we read the following:
Might
the Synoptics or John Have Made an Error?
Before concluding that this harmonization of the
accounts should be accepted, however, we should ask whether a better type of
explanation is available. The simplest alternative explanation is that either
the Synoptics or John made a mistake. Perhaps the Synoptics are right about the
women standing at a distance, whereas John mistakenly thought they were
standing near the cross. Or perhaps it was John who got it right and the
Synoptics who got it wrong (though it is rare to find anyone taking this view).
Why not just admit that someone erred?
It
is, of course, possible that one or more of
the Gospels is mistaken in this matter. However, just as we ought to scrutinize
a proposed harmonization to see if it accounts well for the evidence, we also
ought to scrutinize the proposal that one or more of the Gospels made an error.
That is, for both proposed harmonizations and proposed errors, we should ask
what evidence there is to support these proposals.
With regard to the location of the women relative to
the cross, the evidence of an “error” is nothing more than the verbal difference
between John and the Synoptics taken out of context. In order to substantiate
the alleged error, we would need to show that the passage of six hours is
irrelevant and that even during such a protracted period of time it is unlikely
that the women would have moved. There does not appear to be any rational way
to make such a case. By contrast, we were able to adduce three distinct pieces
of evidence that form the basis of a converging argument for the proposal that
the women moved locations.
If one’s goal is to show that a contradiction may be
present, this is a low bar that is easily navigated. However, if one’s goal is
to show that a particular difference is best explained as a contradiction, the
bar is higher and the difficulty of making the case increases. Here, there is
really no contest: the case for harmonization is much better than the case for
error.
It was this section that led to another advocate of inerrancy (and presuppositional apologetics) to argue against the apologist on this point. The following screenshots are taken from the thread on Bowman's facebook page (as he has tried to pit LDS against one another in the past, I do find it particularly entertaining):
