Who spoke to the women at the tomb?

Robert Bowman, in an attempt to defend the consistency of the Gospels with respect to who spoke to the women at the tomb, wrote the following:

Who spoke to the women at the tomb? The Gospels identify one or two figures whom the women found at the tomb, giving verbally different descriptions:

·       “an angel of the Lord” whose “appearance was as lightning, and his clothing as white as snow” (Matt. 28:2, 5-6)

·       “a young man . . . dressed in a white robe” (Mark 16:5)

·       “two men . . . in dazzling apparel” (Luke 24:4)

·       “two angels in white” (John 20:12)

Only by looking in a superficial way at the words in these passages one might suppose that they disagree about whether the messengers were human or angelic beings. Let’s start with the Gospel of Mark, which describes the young man at the tomb as wearing “a white robe.” This detail itself suggests something unusual about the figure. The only other use of the term “white” (leukos) in Mark is in his description of Jesus’ garments in his transfiguration (Mark 9:3), in which Jesus’ true status as a person of heavenly glory was temporarily revealed. Adela Yarbro Collins, in her academic commentary on Mark, explains: “The motif of white or shining clothing typically characterizes angels and other heavenly beings. In Second Temple Jewish texts, it was a widespread convention to speak of angels as ‘men’ or ‘young men’” (Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], 795). The women encounter this “young man,” they are “amazed” when they see him, he delivers a message from God, and he is not heard from again (Mark 16:5-7). Ancient readers, especially those steeped in Jewish culture, would have had no trouble at all recognizing the “young man” of Mark’s account as an angel. (Robert M. Bowman Jr., Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism [Tampa, Fla.: DeWard Publishing Company, 2020], 88-89)

It is true that Collins, in her commentary on Mark, argues that in the Second Temple period, “[young] man” was often used of an “angel.” As she notes:

The OG of Dan 8:15-16 refers to Gabriel and to another heavenly being, respectively, as ανθρωπος (“a man” or “a human being”); Θ uses the term ανηρ (“a man”) instead. Both versions refer to Gabriel as ανηρ in 9:21. A mighty angel, probably Gabriel, is referred to in 10:5 in the OG as ανθρωπος (“a man” or “a human being”) and in Θ as ανηρ (“a man”). Two heavenly messengers of God are referred to as νεανιαι (“young men”) in 2 Macc 3:26, 33. In rewriting Judges 13, Josephus said that “an apparition” (φαντασμα) appeared to the wife of Manoah, an angel or messenger of God (αγγελος του θεου), in the likeness of a young man (νεανιας) (Ant. 5.8.2 §277). In describing the heavenly being’s second visit, he refers to the angel as a νεανισκος (“young man”) (5.8.3 §279). (pp. 795-96 n. 222)

Notwithstanding, it should be noted, according to Collins, the “young man” (note the singular) was a literary invention by Mark (something Bowman does not [1] mention and [2] interact with):

John Dominic Crossan concluded more plausibly that Mark created the tradition of the empty tomb. Verses 1- 8 constitute a unified and effective composition. The author of Mark was heir to the astounding but terse proclamation that God had raised Jesus from the dead, an announcement supported by traditions that the risen Jesus had appeared at least to Peter and the Twelve. His aim in composing what we know as the Gospel according to Mark was to provide an extended narrative expressing the good news (ευαγγελιον [1:1, 14-15]) of God’s activity through Jesus, God’s eschatological agent. As the first to write such an extended account, Mark was faced with the challenge of expressing the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection in narrative form. He chose to do so by narrating the discovery of the absence of Jesus’ body in the tomb because his understanding of resurrection, unlike Paul’s, involved the revival and transformation of Jesus’ earthly body, as well as the exaltation of his inner self. Thus, Paul’s idea of the provision of a new spiritual body is rendered superfluous. Since the absence of Jesus’ body could be explained in a variety of ways, Mark chose to express the significance of that absence by portraying a “young man” taking the role of an interpreting angel. This standard apocalyptic character makes clear that the women have come to the right tomb and that Jesus’ body has not been removed or stolen. Rather, the crucified one is risen (ηγερθη). (pp. 781-82)

And elsewhere she notes:

The young man of 14:51-52 is a character constructed in contrast to Jesus. The young man here is portrayed as symbolically similar to the risen Jesus. Just as the risen Jesus is enthroned at the right hand of God, as 12:35-37 implies (καθου εκ δεξιων μου), so this young man is described as “sitting on the right” (καθημενον εν τοις δεξιοις). Since this description has little or no realistic significance in the narrative, the audiences are led to reflect on its symbolic import and to recall the citation of Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX) earlier in the narrative. The white robe worn by the young man here (στολη λευκη) recalls the clothing of Jesus during his transfiguration: “and his clothes became very white and they shone” (και τα ιματια αυτου εγενετο στιλβονα λευκα λιαν). One way of interpreting the transfiguration is to say that it anticipates Jesus’ glorified state after his death. The women do not see the risen Jesus, but the young man communicates to them his resurrected status, both in words and in his person.

Besides representing Jesus symbolically, the young man is a character in the narrative best defined as an angel. The motif of white or shining clothing typically characterizes angels and other heavenly beings. In Second Temple Jewish texts it was a widespread convention to speak of angels as “men” or “young men.” Certain characteristics of the narrative reinforce the impression that the “young man” is an angel. When the women see him, they are amazed (εξεθαμβηθησαν).

Awe, fear or being overwhelmed is a typical reaction ascribed to human beings in accounts of epiphanies of heavenly beings. In such cases, the heavenly being often strengthens or reassures the recipient of the epiphany, as the young man does here: “Do not be amazed” (μη εκθαμβεισθε).

As noted above, the young man is portrayed here as taking the role of the interpreting angel, a stock character in apocalypses and works influenced by them. This role sometimes involves the interpretation of a vision. In other texts, as here, it involves the explanation of a situation. In Acts 1:10-11, the same device is used to comment on the significance of Jesus’ ascension.

After comforting the women, the young man says “you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth who has been crucified” ('Ιησουν ζητειτε τον Ναζαρηνον τον εσταυρωμενον). The angel thus reveals that he knows the motivation of the women for coming to the tomb. Indirectly, he also affirms that the tomb in which they find themselves is indeed the one in which Jesus was buried. Then comes the proclamation, in narrative context, of the resurrection of Jesus, “He is risen” (ηγερθη). The following two statements elaborate the proclamation: “he is not here. Look, the place where they put him” (ουκ εστιν ωδε ιδε ο τοπος οπου εθηκαν αυτον). They also may be understood as proofs of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. (pp. 795-96)

I am sure if a Latter-day Saint scholar or apologist used Collins in this manner, Bowman would claim they were not being entirely honest with their use of sources.

Continuing, Bowman writes the following (ask yourself the following: if a LDS apologist were to argue like this for the First Vision, would Bowman or any other Evangelical agree with the following?):

The other three accounts also draw specific attention to the bright or white garments of the messengers. This otherwise extraneous detail makes it quite clear in Luke, as we have just seen in Mark, that the “men” were in fact angels, heavenly beings. The women respond to seeing these two figures by being “frightened,” and they “bowed their heads to the ground” (Luke 24:5a). This response rather clearly indicates that the two figures are angels exhibiting a supernatural or numinous presence, not ordinary men. Indeed, later Luke explicitly quotes the two disciples on the road to Emmaus as referring to the messengers as “angels” (Luke 24:23). This one fact proves that Luke is not contradicting Matthew regarding what sort of being spoke to the women.

Whether one angel or two angels spoke to the women is a notorious question but does not involve contradiction or conflict among the accounts. Neither Matthew nor Mark says there was “one angel” or “one young man.” They simply do not mention that there was a second figure alongside the angel the texts do mention. The importance of the angel(s) in the logic of the narratives is unaffected by whether one or two angels appeared. It is entirely plausible that the women saw two angels but that only one of the angels actually spoke . . . None of the differences in the empty tomb accounts has any significance for whether the tomb was empty, or for whether Jesus rose from the dead, or for any theological issue. At worst they are minor discrepancies over incidental aspects of what happened (e.g., whether the women saw one angel or two). More likely, the differences are merely variations in perspective or the way the same events were reported from different sources. Such variations do not in any way undermine the historical reliability of the accounts. (Bowman, Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions, 89-90, emphasis added)

While one agrees with Bowman that, even allowing for some discrepancies in the gospel accounts does not detract from the historicity of the resurrection, do note that Bowman is at least open to the possibility that there were “minor discrepancies over incidental aspects” in the autographs of the Bible, a refutation of the inerrancy of scripture (unless Bowman thinks that such errors crept into the copies of the gospels, not the autographs thereof [though he favours there being differences due to perspectives, not true discrepancies]).