Early
on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to
the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So
she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and
said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they
have put him!” (John 20:1-2)
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. (Matthew 28:1-7)
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. (Matthew 28:1-7)
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the
women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They
found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they
entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were
wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning
stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the
ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the
dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you,
while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over
to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then
they remembered his words.
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these
things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary
the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But
they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like
nonsense. (Luke 24:1-11)
Three different accounts of the women going to the tomb and discovering that it was empty. Was there one woman there, two, or three? Is this a contradiction? Should we be wringing our hands and hanging out heads?
Three different accounts of the women going to the tomb and discovering that it was empty. Was there one woman there, two, or three? Is this a contradiction? Should we be wringing our hands and hanging out heads?
I don’t think there’s need for concern
because there are a number of factors that reasonable to conclude that all
three are true. First, none of them claim that the others are in error. They
don’t dispute one another. For instance, John does not say “only Mary Magdalene
was present,” or “neither Joanna, nor Mary the mother of James was there.”
Secondly, each of the three accounts includes a common participant: Mary Magdalene. She was the prominent member of the women involved. Contrary to popular depictions of recent years, her prominence can be explained by the culturally appropriate factor of age. She was likely older than the other women, possibly old enough to be contemporary with Jesus’s mother. Whole groups can be referred to by the actions of the leader. (After all, Hitler didn’t personally exterminate 6 million Jews and millions more non-Jews. He wouldn’t have had time.)
There are three other reasons why names might either be named, or not med in Gospel accounts. The first is relevancy. Would the intended audience be familiar with Mary Magdalene, but not with Joanna or Mary the mother of James? If the audience wasn’t likely to know who they were, why mention them? It just clogs up the narrative, takes up space. Secondly, what was the author’s purpose? Matthew and John were focused on revealing Jesus as the Messiah. Their accounts are forms of arguments. Luke, on the other hand, was writing a history. He needed more detailed accuracy. Thirdly, there is the question of the safety of the witnesses. When these gospels were written, naming names was incriminating them in what the Jews and Romans considered illegal. It is likely that by the time the gospels were written (70-90s AD) that Mary Magdalene was dead, so giving her name didn’t matter. Other names might have been withheld in order to protect them if they happened to be alive.
Those who wish to discredit the gospels will say that I have provided possibilities without proving any of them. They’re right. That is precisely what they do as well. I can’t prove that these things were the case any more than they can prove that their suppositions are facts, but they are in line with the culture in that time and they are plausible. I have been given no good reason to conclude that they are less likely than the alternatives that have been presented.
Secondly, each of the three accounts includes a common participant: Mary Magdalene. She was the prominent member of the women involved. Contrary to popular depictions of recent years, her prominence can be explained by the culturally appropriate factor of age. She was likely older than the other women, possibly old enough to be contemporary with Jesus’s mother. Whole groups can be referred to by the actions of the leader. (After all, Hitler didn’t personally exterminate 6 million Jews and millions more non-Jews. He wouldn’t have had time.)
There are three other reasons why names might either be named, or not med in Gospel accounts. The first is relevancy. Would the intended audience be familiar with Mary Magdalene, but not with Joanna or Mary the mother of James? If the audience wasn’t likely to know who they were, why mention them? It just clogs up the narrative, takes up space. Secondly, what was the author’s purpose? Matthew and John were focused on revealing Jesus as the Messiah. Their accounts are forms of arguments. Luke, on the other hand, was writing a history. He needed more detailed accuracy. Thirdly, there is the question of the safety of the witnesses. When these gospels were written, naming names was incriminating them in what the Jews and Romans considered illegal. It is likely that by the time the gospels were written (70-90s AD) that Mary Magdalene was dead, so giving her name didn’t matter. Other names might have been withheld in order to protect them if they happened to be alive.
Those who wish to discredit the gospels will say that I have provided possibilities without proving any of them. They’re right. That is precisely what they do as well. I can’t prove that these things were the case any more than they can prove that their suppositions are facts, but they are in line with the culture in that time and they are plausible. I have been given no good reason to conclude that they are less likely than the alternatives that have been presented.
Comments
Post a Comment