Journal: Conspectus
Volume: CONSPECTUS 14:1 (Sep 2012)
Article: John Versus The Synoptic Gospels On Mary Magdalene’s Visit To The Tomb
Author: Jake H. O’Connell

---

Conspectus 14:1 (September 2012) p. 123

John Versus The Synoptic Gospels On Mary Magdalene’s Visit To The Tomb

Jake H. O’Connell1

Abstract

In this article, a solution is proposed to an alleged contradiction between the Gospel of John, and the Synoptic Gospels—an apparent contradiction concerning whether or not Mary knew that Jesus was raised when she saw the disciples after her visit to the tomb. John appears to suggest that Mary did not know that Jesus was raised from the dead, whereas the Synoptic Gospels appear to indicate that she did know this. However, it is most likely that Mary Magdalene did not know Jesus was raised from the dead, but the other women did. Therefore, there is no contradiction, because Mary Magdalene and the other women made two different visits to two different groups of disciples. Mary Magdalene left the tomb by herself before the angels had appeared. Before anyone had realised that Jesus had been raised, she reported to Peter and the Beloved Disciple. The other women left the tomb after the angels had appeared, and hence, they did know Jesus was raised, and they reported to another group of disciples.

Conspectus 14:1 (September 2012) p. 124

Introduction

The view that the resurrection narratives are filled with blatant and irresolvable contradictions is widespread among New Testament scholars. One hears statements such as those of Bart D. Ehrman: ‘[T]here are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with each other’ (2006). David Catchpole (2000:40) claims Matthew has ‘drastically changed’ Mark’s empty tomb story. Likewise, C. F. Evans (1970: 28) is emphatic that ‘it is not simply difficult to harmonize these traditions, but quite impossible.’ Further, it is common to appeal to the presence of contradictions as a basis for arguing that the resurrection narratives are generally unreliable as historical accounts. According to Robert Price (2005:427), the presence of ‘gross contradictions’ is one of ‘many reasons’ we have to ‘dismiss the gospel Easter narratives as unhistorical.’ And Reginald H. Fuller (1980:2) declared: ‘the stories themselves appear incredible on the grounds of their palpable inconsistencies.’

The first thing to note in response to this is that most of the alleged discrepancies are confined to inessential matters, and thus, do not cast doubt on the general reliability of the narratives. For example, there are seeming disagreements over how many women went to the tomb, and whether it was dark or light when they had arrived. Even if the gospel writers do contradict each other on these minor points, this hardly leads to the conclusion that the essence of the story (the discovery of Jesus’ empty t...

visitor : : uid: ()