Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1 and 2.

[rstrats]

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?

 

[Willy]

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?

Accounts by different people, … they wrote what they wrote, … add it all together …

 

[rstrats]

Accounts by different people, … they wrote what they wrote, … add it all together …

Show how those two accounts can be added together.

 

[Willy]

Accounts by different people, … they wrote what they wrote, … add it all together …

Show how those two accounts can be added together.

In 1847, Harvard Law professor and attorney Simon Greenleaf published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice, with a later edition in 1874, The Testimony of the Evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice, available in its entirety online courtesy of the University of Michigan here ...

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice,

quod.lib.umich.edu

In addition to demonstrating why the Gospel accounts would be acceptable in a court of law, the 1874 edition featured a section called “Harmony of the Gospels,” which chronologically reconciled the testimonies from the King James Bible and addressed alleged discrepancies.

Regarding the differences in the accounts, Greenleaf wrote, “The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing -- as Dr. [William] Paley observes -- substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. [From A View of the Evidences of Christianity, 1794. See Appendix 2.] There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred.”

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

www.classicapologetics.com

 

[rstrats]

Willy,

So you're saying that the Matthew account is referring to the second time that Mary M. came to the tomb?

 

[Willy]

Willy,

So you're saying that the Matthew account is referring to the second time that Mary M. came to the tomb?

That is what I thought possible going over it, researching your post, … but my position is still one of independent recollection, … this is not God talking verbatim, this is the memory of 4 independent players, … as Luke puts it, …

Luke 1:1-4

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


This is not necessary to salvation, it is peripheral, … good to ponder and to understand within what is given …

 

[rstrats]

Willy,

So you're saying that the Matthew account is referring to the second time that Mary M. came to the tomb?

That is what I thought possible going over it, researching your post, … but my position is still one of independent recollection, …

But what if one independent recollection seems to contradict an other independent recollection?