Expert: Cooper P. Abrams III - 1/17/2006

Question
It sounds like your a busy man so I'll make this short.  The resurrection accounts in the four gospels show the quality of being written independently.  I've looked at all four accounts and am still confused about what Mary Magdalene really did during the resurrection.  Matthew makes it sound like Mary saw angels before running back to tell the disciples "we don't know where they have put him!"  People try to harmonize the accounts and say Mary Magdalene didn't see the angel but ran from the tomb before everyone else saw the angels.  Can you clear up how I should interpret these accounts?  -Also it seems strange that Mary Magdalene would be filled with great joy and fear, and say "we don't know where they've put the body."  Can you help me clear up this apparent discrepancy?

Answer
Andrew,
   I remembered that John Waldvoord mentions this in one of his commentaries on the resurrection.  Following is what he states and seems to anwer you question.

1. According to Matthew 28:2–4, the guards saw an angel roll away the stone from the tomb, and because of this they were terrified. The Scriptures in this way account for the illegal act of breaking the Roman seal placed on the door of the tomb, and for the ineffectiveness of the guard to prevent removal of the body.  The report of the soldiers suggested by the chief priest (Matt 28:11–15) that someone stole the body while they slept is false on the face of it. The probability is that Christ was raised from the tomb shortly after sundown the night before and the opening of the tomb was not to allow Christ to come out, but was a means of permitting others to enter and see the empty tomb.

2. Shortly after the stone was rolled away, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and others arrived at the tomb (Matt 28:1,5–7; Mark 16:1–11; Luke 24:1–10; John 20:1).

3. Upon learning that the stone was rolled away and hearing the announcement of the angel that Christ was raised from the dead, Mary Magdalene runs to tell the apostles with the other women following more slowly (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:8–10; John 20:2).

4. Upon informing the apostles, Mary Magdalene returns preceded by Peter and John and sees the empty tomb (John 20:2–10). She apparently does not understand at this time that Christ was actually raised from the dead, even though she has been told this by the angel.

5. The first appearance of Christ was to Mary Magdalene as she remained at the site of the tomb after Peter and John had left. Here she sees Christ and first mistakes Him for the gardener but immediately recognizes Him when He speaks to her (John 20:11–17; cf. Mark 16:9–11).

6. After she had seen the risen Lord, Mary Magdalene returns to report the appearance of Christ to her (Mark 16:10–11; John 20:18).

7. The second appearance of Christ was to the other women who are also returning to the tomb and see Christ on the way (Matt 28:9–10). The text seem to indicate that the phrase “as they went to tell his disciples” is an interpolation, and they were actually returning after telling the disciples.

8. The report of the guards watching the tomb concerning the angel rolling away the stone is another testimony to the resurrection of Christ from unwilling witnesses (Matt 28:11–15).

9. The third appearance was to Peter in the afternoon of the resurrection day. Concerning this there are no details, but it is most significant that Christ sought out Peter, the denier, first, of all the twelve (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5).

(BSac Vol 120 #478—Apr–Jun 1963 "The Person and Work of Christ" Part XIV:Christ in His Resurrection, by John F. Walvoord)

THE FOLLOWING IS ALSO FROM BSac AND IS BY ZANE HODGES.  HE ADDRESSES THE MATTER IN SOME DETAIL;

The Women and the Empty Tomb
(BSac—V123  #492—Oct 66—301)
Zane C. Hodges
[Zane C. Hodges, Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.]

  The central fact of the Christian faith is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning the reality of this pivotal event, all of the New Testament Gospel writers are in complete agreement. Yet, despite their agreement about the fact itself, a superficial reading of their accounts suggests that their records present many discrepancies in detail. In no area of the resurrection narratives is this more evident than when they are describing the women's discovery of, and testimony about, the empty tomb. It is important, therefore, in the context of modern unbelief to give special attention to the precise relationship the women had to the triumphant events of Easter morning.
  In approaching such a study, at least two important considerations must be kept in mind. First, it needs to be remembered that the resurrection was a complete surprise to those who became the initial witnesses to it. As such it constituted so great an emotional shock, after the tragic events of the cross, that its effects at times seem almost traumatic. The emotional reactions of the women, and of the disciples as well, are often irrational and are constantly fluctuating. For a time they seem to be imprisoned on an emotional roller coaster—now reaching a pinnacle of joy only to plunge into the depths of fear, now rising to the heights of faith only to fall precipitously into the abyss of unbelief. As a result, some of the actions these rampant feelings prompted are seriously misunderstood by modern scholars who have only studied them in the abstract, from a safe emotional distance.
  A second fact which must be kept in mind is a frequently ignored literary device of the Gospel writers. Scholars often mistakenly assume that, when these writers are silent about details given in the other accounts, this is prima-facie evidence that these details were unknown to them. Or again, they may assume that the sources—whether written or oral—used by each author constitute the most crucial limiting factor in his selection of details. But neither supposition can withstand scrutiny in the face of an interesting technique which the evangelists employ in Gospel composition. This technique, simply stated, is the moulding of scattered incidents into a connected story in which the absence of unmentioned details is not allowed to mar the flow of the narrative.
Perhaps the most obvious instance of this is to be seen at Luke 24:50ff where it would be possible to infer (though Luke does not say so) that the ascension occurred on the same day as the resurrection. But in fact, between Luke 24:49 and 24:50 {Luke 24:50} there is an unspecified hiatus of forty days filled with the appearings and teachings of a Risen Christ. Since Luke is himself the source of this information in his second volume, he can hardly be charged with ignorance in his Gospel. It seems clear, therefore, that for the conclusion of his “former treatise” the smoothness of narrative achieved by passing over these substantive matters in silence is preferred by him to a pedantic completeness. Moreover, traces of this same technique are discernible elsewhere in the gospel accounts, one of the most interesting instances being found in Matthew 8. Here, where thematic arrangement of a series of miracle stories is the evident intention of the evangelist, he nevertheless succeeds in making them read as though they were successive. That he really thought they were—he does not, of course, say they were—can only be supposed if we imagine him writing in ignorance of, or in contradiction to, the rest of the tradition. But since all of the material in Matthew 8:1—9:8 {Matt 9:8} is clearly intended to verify Jesus' authority as announced in 7:29 {Matt 7:29}, the simplest solution is that this motif, and not chronology, determines the arrangement. Nevertheless, the evangelist makes his material both smooth and readable.
  With these preparatory considerations in mind, it is possible to seek a reconstruction of events as they were experienced by the women on the resurrection morning. The simplest approach will be to set forth this reconstruction step by step and to defend its validity as each major element in it is introduced.1 Accordingly, the proposed harmony of the four evangelists is as follows.

The Time of the Trip to the Tomb
Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1

  A study of the opening statements of the four resurrection accounts suggests that the women began their trip to the tomb while it was still dark and arrived almost exactly as the first rays of dawn spread over the sky.2 Although the Authorized Version uses forms of the English verb to come in all four accounts, the underlying Greek verb (ercomai) may equally well be rendered by forms of the verb to go. The decision must always depend on whether the perspective of the statement is from the point of departure (e.g, “he went”) or from the point of arrival (e.g., “he came”). Indeed, the Greek verb is in itself ambiguous on this question and it is likely a Greek writer thought little about it. Thus it would be wrong to insist that when John speaks of Mary Magdalene as “coming” (or, “going”) to the sepulchre “when it was yet dark” that he contradicts Mark's statement that the women “came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” So far as the verb ercomai is concerned either statement is valid if, as proposed, it was dark when the trip began and light when it ended.

The Earthquake
Matthew 28:2-4; Mark 16:3-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1

  Matthew alone records the supernatural earthquake which actually opened the Savior's tomb. The other writers merely state that the women find the stone rolled away from the door. It must not be supposed that Matthew believed the women to have been present when this occurred. Matthew 28:1 records the fact of their journey, Matthew 28:2 an occurrence as they are en route. Of course, as noted above, the Greek verb (rendered “came” in Matt 28:1) is ambiguous as to whether the starting point or arrival point is in view, but this consideration need not have concerned Matthew. If the earthquake took place after the women started for the sepulchre it was logical for him to state the fact of their trip first and then to proceed to describe the supernatural opening of the tomb. Without a further word he continues with the words of the angel to the women, but he does not state that they saw what the keepers saw. Since Matthew alone records the false story perpetuated by the guards (28:11-15 {Matt 28}), he alone is concerned with what they had really seen.

The Angelic Pronouncements
Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:3-8

  In the initial encounter between the women and the angels, it is Luke alone who notes a twofold angelic presence. This additional fact is not, of course, contradicted by Matthew and Mark who only record the presence of one.3 It is perhaps idle to speculate whether one angel became visible to them before the other, but it would be equally idle to pretend to know the exact fashion in which such supernatural phenomena are apprehended by the human consciousness. Inasmuch as Luke makes plain that the actual size of the group of women was larger than we would guess from Matthew or Mark alone

(cf. Luke 24:1,10), it is not impossible that some saw but one angel and others two.4
It ought also to be observed that Matthew ignores the women's entrance into the tomb. That this is where they actually saw the angels, Mark and Luke both make clear. From Matthew it would be possible to deduce that the angelic pronouncement was made from the top of the stone where the keepers had seen him, but the other Synoptics show that this deduction would be wrong. Again the literary device of condensation combined with fluidity of narration is in evidence. The ultimate in condensation, of course, is found in John who ignores all of the facts considered in this section.

The Flight from the Tomb
Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:8; John 20:2

  The mixture of joy and fear which gripped the women as they left the sepulchre is explicitly stated by Matthew. But Mark adds a fact which we would not otherwise know, namely, that their fear soon got the better of them and prevented their obeying the angelic command. How long they were actually paralyzed into silence or exactly where they went at this time, we cannot any longer determine. Eventually, however, Mary Magdalene apparently breaks away from the group to carry word to Peter. But her message is not the message of the angels about which, according to Mark, they said nothing to anyone.5

  According to John her report is that the body has been removed and its location is now unknown. If it should be objected that Mary would hardly have suppressed in her report to Peter the supernatural events at the tomb, the objection will only have force for those who are convinced they would have done differently under the same circumstances. Since fear had now overcome all of the women, one must suppose that a substantial measure of unbelief had come with it. The more would this be likely with a former demoniac like Mary who would easily be suspected, as well as suspect herself, of having hallucinations. Even had she been totally convinced the visions at the tomb were real, she might have deemed it prudent not to relate them. But it is likely enough that, at this point, the women had convinced themselves that the only fact of which they could be certain was that the tomb was empty. Perhaps, in fact, they had been talking to the very men who had removed the body, and not to angels at all. In this connection it is worth noting that John subtly betrays his awareness that other women are involved by the way he reports the words of Mary: “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” Thus we may gather it was in the company of the women themselves that the first rationalistic explanation of the “Easter event” was propounded.

The Appearance to Mary
Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18

  Mary returns to the sepulchre in the wake of Peter and John and remains there after those two have left. A new vision of angels is vouchsafed to her, not now to announce the resurrection as they had done earlier but to express puzzlement at her sorrow. “Woman, why weepest thou?” (John 20:13) are words that must surely contain genuine angelic surprise, for no moment of human history had ever been less appropriate for tears. Overcome by the sorrow of her unbelief, Mary now evinces no fear of the angelic presence. She wants only to know where the body has been laid.

   It is just here that, according to Mark, the first resurrection appearance takes place.6 There is an appropriateness to
BSac—V123  #492—Oct 66—307
the Savior's choice of Mary to be the first to see Him risen, for out of her, Mark notes, He had cast seven demons. How fitting that one who knew already Jesus' power over the forces of darkness should be the first to witness the reality of His victory over the one who had the might of death (Heb 2:14). And what angels could not do, the personal presence of her Lord does for her, and she becomes the first human messenger to proclaim “He lives!”

The Appearance to All the Women and Their Report
Matthew 28:9-10; (Mark 16:10-11); Luke 24:9-11; (John 20:18)

  It is not certain whether Mary Magdalene now goes alone to the disciples with her message or whether at this point she rejoins the other women.7 The evidence of Mark and John on this point leaves, indeed, a prima-facie impression that she goes alone, but since they are concerned only with her own personal vision and witness this inference cannot be pressed. Certain it is, however, that in any case she is disbelieved and, if this came as a rebuff to her individual report, we may well surmise that her first instinct was to go find the other women whose experience with the angels would buttress her claims.

  This solution seems somewhat the more probable, but the alternative that she deliberately rejoins or accidentally encounters the other women first cannot be conclusively ruled out. In any case, after she rejoins them and they have begun anew their journey to report to the apostles, a second appearance of the risen Savior occurs. It will be observed that Matthew, who alone records this appearance, introduces it with the words, “And as they went to tell his disciples…” (Matt 28:9). But since the fact of their going has just been noted in verse 8 {Matt 28:8}, the initial phrase of verse 9 {Matt 28:9} has seemed redundant to many modern critics and is omitted in modern critical editions on the authority of a few ancient manuscripts. Perhaps, however, the repetition is due to Matthew's consciousness that he is passing over significant material that lies between the two verses and is a conscious or unconscious reflection of the fact that the women's trip to report to the disciples had two distinct phases.

  There remains only Luke's treatment of the women's report. Luke 24:9-11 offers no indication that the women report any appearances of the Lord, nor do the words of the two travelling to Emmaus in Luke 24:22-24. But this circumstance is due to Luke's deliberate suppression of all such testimony to the resurrection by women.8 That he was conscious of more details than he records is hinted at by the statement of the travellers that “certain of them that were with us went to the sepulchre…” (24:24 {Luke 24:24}), though he himself records only Peter as doing so (24:12 {Luke 24:12}).9 It seems probable, therefore, that the Johnannine story in some form was known to Luke, but he is recording only what suits his purpose. Inasmuch as the women's report was received by all with the utmost skepticism, the Emmaus road companions may well have regarded their claim to have seen the Lord Himself as too far-fetched even to mention. For Luke, the extended manifestation to two male witnesses at once is the heart of his resurrection narrative and its effect is not to be diminished by even an allusion to prior female witness. Accordingly, the evangelist's silence cannot credibly be set against the harmony just proposed, for it is due to a literary tendency.

Conclusion

  It will be seen from what has been said that there are no insuperable difficulties to harmonization of the women's role in the resurrection narratives, so long as the evangelists are allowed to pass over unnoticed those facts which did not serve their purpose. If this privilege be denied to them, it will only be because the modern mind assumes gratuitously that they would not, or should not, have done so. But, in fact, writing for circles where the living voice of tradition was still to be heard, the gospel authors had no need to be compendious. Since many of their readers already knew more facts than each of the writers presents, the challenge of each gospel account was the spiritual insight it afforded by a divinely guided selection and condensation of details. And this is precisely the challenge they afford today to every student of the Word who studies them with spiritual diligence and with genuine confidence in their divine integrity and reliablity.

   Cooper Abrams
   http://bible-truth.org