The Empty Tomb Stories DO Harmonize

Answers In-Depth to Questions about Christianity

The Easter Stories ARE Consistent

QUESTION: Matthew reports that Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord on her return from
her FIRST visit to the empty tomb, in the company of another Mary. John reports that Jesus
met her only after her SECOND visit. On her return from her first visit, she was completely
unaware of the truth of the resurrection. It looks like these two accounts clearly contradict
one another. Can the doctrine of biblical inerrancy survive this sort of challenge? Answered
by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

[What follows is Father Harrison's original response to my question. Father Harrison later had
an edited version of this essay published in the Spring 2006 issue of Latin Mass Magazine. I
am grateful for his kind permission to reproduce the answer as I first received it. --Rev. Paul
L. Rothermel]

THE MORNING OF JESUS’ RESURRECTION IN THE LIGHT OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY
Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

The four separate Gospel accounts of the greatest morning in human history – the “first day of the week” after Jesus’
crucifixion – present some complexities and apparent discrepancies which at first sight might seem difficult, if not impossible, to
reconcile with the Catholic dogma of the Bible’s divine authorship and inerrancy. Vatican Council II reaffirms this age-old point
of Catholic faith, teaching that since “all that the sacred authors . . . affirm must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit,” it
follows that their books “teach firmly, faithfully and without error” the truth which God wanted set down in writing for the sake
of our salvation (Dei Verbum, #11). It has been suggested, for instance, that either Matthew or John must be in error regarding
the first appearance of the angel(s) at the tomb, and of the risen Lord Himself, to Saint Mary Magdalene.

I hope to show in this brief study that, in fact, one can compile a coherent account of the first events following Our Lord’s
Resurrection, compatible with all four Gospel accounts and with our Catholic faith in the integral truth of Sacred Scripture. First,
however, we will need to recall certain important hermeneutical norms which derive from the fact that the literary genres of the
Gospels, while fully historical in the sense that all that their authors affirm as having happened really did happen, should not be
judged and interpreted by the canons of modern academic historiography in matters such as completeness, precision of detail
and chronological sequence.

First, the inerrancy of Scriptural history does not require a complete account of the relevant events from any single author. If
one or other biblical account omits certain incidents, even without any indication to the reader as to how much time, if any,
passed between a given event and the next one mentioned, that should not be considered an error. This is closely linked to
another hermeneutical norm. The integral divine authorship of Scripture requires us to believe that everything the human author
affirms (or strictly implies) by his words is true. It does not, however, require us to hold that everything the human author
thought about the events he relates was necessarily true. Thus, if a certain event is related in such a way that makes it seem
probable that the human biblical author was unaware of certain factual points which we learn about from other sources (biblical
or extra-biblical), so that there was apparently an impression in his mind that no such fact occurred, we should by no means
concede that such a mistaken, but unstated, mental presumption or impression would constitute an error in Scripture itself.

Let us take a simple example. Luke (24: 4) and John (20: 12) tell us that two angels appeared in the empty tomb of the Lord,
while Matthew (28: 2-5) and Mark (16: 5) mention only one angel. Neither of the latter two evangelists says there was only one
angel, so there is clearly no contradiction here. However, some older biblical commentators, in harmonizing these accounts and
pointing out that that there were in fact two angels at the tomb, felt it necessary at the same time to postulate (or imagine)
possible reasons why Matthew and Mark, while knowing there were in fact two angels, decided to mention only one. Now this,
it seems to me, is a case of ‘setting the bar too high’. To repeat, we are not required as Christians and Catholics to believe that
everything the human authors of Scripture may have thought about the events they were relating was true (free from error);
only what they actually wrote down, understood, of course, according to what they themselves meant to affirm in each instance
of that writing. So if the omission of the second angel by Matthew and Mark naturally suggests that they probably hadn’t heard
about him in the version they received of the events of Easter Sunday morning, and so presumed (though without affirming or
strictly implying that presumption in writing) that there was only one angel, this should not cause orthodox Christians to lose any
sleep. I think Catholic apologists can readily admit that such a mistaken presumption may well have been in the mind of
Matthew and Mark – although we do know this for certain – since such a mistake would not in any case militate against the
inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

What follows is a suggested reconstruction of the events of that glorious morning, based on the joint witness of the four
Gospels, each of whose human authors presents a partial account of what happened. Even if one or more of them did not have
the complete story exactly right in his mind, each Evangelist was nonetheless preserved by the charism of divine inspiration
from writing down anything that was actually false. I shall focus here principally on the various appearances to the women, and
will not enter exhaustively into all the other details. It should also be added that no claim is being made here that what follows is
the only possible reconstruction of the events that fits the Gospel data. Others may (and some have in fact) suggested a version
which differs in some detail or other from mine, while still remaining compatible with the integral truth of the biblical texts.

1. There are four women who go to the tomb around sunrise on that Sunday morning. Possibly there are even more (although a
large number would seem improbable), since Luke (24: 10) says that certain women other than the three he mentions by name
also subsequently take part “with them” in reporting the morning’s wondrous events to the apostles. The four who are identified
in one or more Gospels are Mary Magdalene, ‘the other Mary’ (Mt. 28: 1) who is in fact the mother of James (Mk. 16: 1),
Salome (Mk. 16: 1) and Joanna (Lk. 24: 10). It is worth pointing out here that while Matthew mentions just the first two women
named above, he may or may not have thought they were the only two. Perhaps he was certain about those two on the basis of
his own memory of that day, while remaining unsure as to whether any other women went to the tomb with them.

Moreover, it is perfectly plausible to hypothesize that these four (or more) Galilean women do not all arrive at the tomb at
exactly the same moment. If they have not all been staying in the same house while in Jerusalem, they may well have simply
agreed the previous night to meet around dawn at the tomb in order to complete the customary burial procedures. If the two
Marys had gone together and arrived without any other women present at that moment, that may have been the part of the total
testimony that reached Matthew and remained in his memory. (Even though John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, he
knows there was at least one other woman with her when she discovered the empty tomb, because he tells us that in her initial
report to him and Peter she says, “we do not know” where Jesus’ body is now located.) This hypothesis of two, or even more,
successive arrivals of the women could also explain why, according to John’s account, it was “still dark” when Mary Magdalene
came to the tomb (20: 1), while Mark (16: 2), speaking of the moment when Salome (at least) had also arrived, states that the
sun had already risen (or was rising, according to some variants). In any case, it is important that Matthew certainly does not
affirm that the two women he names were the only two to visit the tomb. Neither does any other Evangelist, with respect to the
woman/women he mentions. (No single Evangelist mentions all four women.)

2. After at least three of the women reach the empty tomb and find the stone rolled away, all of them except Mary Magdalene
soon experience the apparition of the two angels (perhaps in two separate moments), who announce to them the ‘Good News’
of the Lord’s resurrection. For her part, Mary has not waited long enough at the tomb to see the angels and hear their message.
She has been so disturbed by the sight of the stone being rolled away, that, presuming a tomb robbery to have taken place, she
separates herself instantly from “the other Mary” (and her other companions, if any) and hastens off to inform Peter and John
(Jn. 20: 1-2).

3. Meanwhile, the other women, having heard in amazement and confusion the angelic message, quickly leave the tomb with a
mixture of fear and joy (Mt. 28: 9), but do not, at that moment, go to tell the male disciples (Mk. 16: 8), as the angel has
instructed them to do. This is because they are at first just too stunned and overwhelmed, both by the unexpected and shocking
emptiness of the tomb, and by the supernatural vision of the angels with their stupendous message. Probably they anticipate –
correctly, as it turns out – that Peter and the apostles, being Jewish males burdened with typical prejudices against the credibility
of ‘mere’ women, will in any case react with incredulity to their astonishing report. So in all probability these other three (or
more) women return to one of the houses of their Jerusalem friends or relatives from whence they had set out a little while
earlier. There they will regain their composure and think about what to do next.

4. Now (keeping in mind what we said about possible errors in the minds, not in the written words, of the human biblical
authors), it seems entirely probable that Matthew did not know of this initial response of silence and inaction which Mark tells us
about, and that he thought or presumed that the women went immediately to tell Peter and the Twelve what had happened at
the tomb. This is the impression one would naturally receive from Mt. 28: 8, which says, literally, “And going out quickly from
the sepulchre with fear and great joy, they ran to tell his disciples”. But note well that this passage does not state, or strictly
imply, that the women’s running to the disciples took place immediately after their hasty exit from the tomb area. That seeming
immediacy is, quite literally, just an impression we receive from the way Matthew words his account. But even if in fact that
idea (which we know from Mark’s clear affirmation to be mistaken) was indeed in Matthew’s mind, the integral truth of what
he actually wrote under divine inspiration remains intact provided only that: (a) the women did in fact leave the tomb hastily,
with the emotions Matthew mentions; and (b) after that (but not necessarily immediately) they did indeed run to tell the
disciples of their experiences at the tomb. Matthew has ‘contracted’ or ‘telescoped’ a sequence of events into a briefer account,
but without stating anything false.

5. Probably at the same time that the three other women who had come to the tomb with Mary Magdalene are gathered not far
away, discussing what to do next (see #3 above), the latter returns to the tomb accompanied by Peter and John. The incidents
recorded in Jn. 20: 3-17 now take place: Peter and John inspect the tomb, and the latter “believes” (v. 8); they then return
home; Mary, left alone weeping at the tomb, sees for the first time the angels who have already been seen by the other women;
and finally she meets the risen Jesus Himself. This is in fact the first appearance of the Risen Lord to anyone, as is corroborated
by Mark (16: 9).

6. At this point we need to consider another apparent contradiction. John’s account (20: 12-13) makes it almost certain[1] that
Mary Magdalene’s first encounter with the angels occurs at this moment, when she is alone; for it is clear that she still, as yet,
has no suspicion of the Lord’s resurrection – a fact which, as we know from the other Gospels, has already been announced by
the angels to the other women. But it might seem from Matthew (28: 1, 5-6) and Mark (16: 1, 5-6) that Mary Magdalene was in
fact with those other women when they saw the angel(s) and, that she heard together with her companions the stupendous news
that the Lord had risen. But once again, we have here instances of impressions left by the biblical texts, which might indeed
reflect what was in their human authors’ minds, but which are by no means affirmed or strictly implied by what they wrote. Let
us keep in mind two points here: (a) We have noted in #1 above that Matthew nowhere affirms that Mary Magdalene and ‘the
other Mary’ were the only women who went to the sepulchre early that morning; and (b) after mentioning those two in v. 1,
and in referring to the angel’s appearance and words a few verses later, Matthew simply says that this angelic message was
addressed to “the women” (vs. 5). Now, we would certainly have a problem on our hands if he had said “the aforesaid
women”, or “the women already named”, or “those two women”. For these expressions, or other possible ones to the same
effect, would affirm or rigorously imply that Mary Magdalene was indeed one of those women who saw and heard the angel in
that first moment. But in view of (a) and (b), it cannot be said that Matthew’s Gospel text – whatever may or may not have
been in his own mind – teaches that Mary Magdalene was among “the women” who saw the angel(s) immediately on their first
arrival at the empty tomb. The inerrancy of Matthew’s affirmations about “the women” remains intact provided that the other
women who had by that time arrived at the tomb (i.e., at least “the other Mary”, Joanna and Salome) did in fact see and hear
the angelic manifestation (v. 5), make a hasty exit from the tomb (v.8), and then (a little later on in the morning), run to tell the
Apostles what had happened (v. 9).

Similar observations can be applied to Mk. 16. After having mentioned three women by name, including Mary Magdalene, in v.
1, Mark goes on to use the word “they” in several subsequent verses, including the statement that “they” saw a “young man”
(angel) in the tomb who announced to them the resurrection (vv. 5-7). Mark may well have assumed that Mary Magdalene was
still there with the other women at that point, but what he says in writing, using just a third-person plural verb which comes out
as a simple, unemphatic “they” in English, does not strictly affirm or imply this. Mark does not say that “all three of those
women” heard and saw the angel – or words to that effect. Nor does he mention Mary Magdalene by name again at this point,
or use any other form of expression that would make it undeniable that he specifically meant to include her among those who
saw the angel and received his message. Here we need to remember another accepted point in the orthodox Catholic theology of
biblical inspiration and inerrancy, namely, that truth, in Scripture as in ordinary human discourse, does not always have to
equate with precision or exactitude. In other words, just as in ordinary life we often take approximate expressions to count as
true, rather than erroneous, in circumstances when precision in points of detail is not essential, so too this principle can apply to
the Bible, which is, after all, a ‘word’ which is truly human as well as divine. In the case before us, Mark’s statements in 16: 1-
8, wherein, after naming three women, he goes on to say that “they” did certain things, can fairly be considered approximately
and sufficiently true provided that the majority of those women (two out of three, or three out of four if we take Luke’s
testimony into account) really did what the Evangelist ascribes to them as a group.

7. John (20: 18) and Mark (16: 10) both tell us that after she sees the Risen Lord, Mary Magdalene goes to tell the disciples this
stupendous news. However, they give us absolutely no further details: for instance, whether she does so immediately or after a
certain interval, or whether she goes alone or in the company of the other women. Neither does Luke shed any further light on
those specific questions when he simply records in 24: 10 that Mary Magdalene is one of those women who inform the Apostles
about the events at the empty tomb. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of defending the integral truth of the Gospel texts, none
of these different alternatives presents any great problem. It is entirely possible that Mary wanted to share this glorious news of
having seen and talked to the Risen Lord first of all with those who would be most likely to believe her – her female
companions! There is no reason to suppose it would have been difficult for her to locate them at that moment: the logical place
to go would be their Jerusalem lodgings, from whence the women had set out earlier that morning (see #3 above). If she had
burst in on them there with her astonishing report, that would explain very well why the whole group, newly fired-up by Mary
Magdalene’s joyous news, would have set out running (as Matthew tells us in 28: 8) to tell the apostles about the sum total of
all their experiences so far that morning. In that scenario, Mary would have been one of those women who then encountered the
Risen Lord on their way to inform the disciples (28: 9-10) – as Matthew seems to have presumed she was. If, however, she
went independently to Peter and the Eleven before rejoining the other women, so that their encounter with the Risen Jesus did
not include her, then the hermeneutical observations we have already made in the first paragraph of #6 above would apply
equally here, in order to defend the inerrancy of Matthew’s text.

8. Only one apologetic problem seems to remain in reconstructing the sequence of events on that Easter Sunday morning in a
way that does justice to the inerrancy of all four Gospel accounts. From what we have said so far, it is clear (cf. Jn 20) that by
the time Mary Magdalene and the other women have reached Peter and the apostles with the news of the angelic appearances
and the apparitions of the Risen Lord, Peter has already been to the tomb and seen for himself its emptiness (except for the
linen cloths). However, Luke mentions Peter’s visit to the tomb in 24: 12, after he has related the arrival of the women with
their amazing – and as yet more or less incredible – report to the apostles (24: 9-11). To solve this difficulty, we simply need to
recall the principles we have already appealed to in explaining other problem passages in these resurrection accounts. It may or
may not be the case that Luke thought or presumed that Peter’s visit took place only after he had heard the reports of
miraculous events from the group of women who came to him and the other apostles. But what the Evangelist says in writing
does not affirm nor strictly imply that sequence of events, even though, undeniably, it leaves the reader with an impression to
that effect. Verse 12 does not include any unambiguous expressions placing Peter’s visit to the tomb within a time-sequence that
would place it clearly either before or after he hears the report of the women. Luke simply says here, after telling us of the
women’s report and the apostles’ incredulity at it, that “Peter, however, arising, ran to the sepulchre, . . . etc.” Note the absence
here of any word indicating the time when Peter did so, relative to he events mentioned in previous verses. So the integral truth
(or inerrancy) of Luke’s text (not necessarily of Luke’s private thoughts or assumptions) remains intact provided that Peter did
indeed arise and run to inspect the sepulchre at some moment during the series of astonishing events that took place on the first
Easter Sunday. And we know from John’s Gospel that Peter’s visit (together with that of the ‘Beloved Disciple), in fact took at
place at an earlier hour, very soon after the group of women first arrived at the tomb around dawn.

This short essay has been an exercise in harmonizing different biblical accounts of the same series of events. Unfortunately,
many exegetes of recent decades scoff at the very attempt to do this. They claim that such “concordism” is no longer necessary
for Catholics, since Vatican Council II – we are confidently assured – recognizes that the Bible is not in any case guaranteed to
be free from error in its historical and other supposedly “non-salvific” affirmations. Among various considerations demonstrating
that this is a distortion of the Council’s teaching are the various references, in its own footnote #5 to DV #11, to Pope Leo XIII’
s foundational encyclical on biblical studies, Providentissimus Deus (1893). In one of these passages of the encyclical
(referenced in this footnote as ‘EB 127’), this very procedure of careful study with a view to harmonizing apparent
contradictions in Scripture is expressly recommended to biblical scholars. For Leo XIII praises here the scholarship of those
great Fathers and Doctors who “labored with no less ingenuity than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passages
which might seem to involve some contradiction or discrepancy.” Thus does Vatican Council II, rightly understood, exhort us to
follow in their footsteps.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] A well-known Protestant defender of biblical inerrancy, Dr. Gleason L. Archer, hypothesizes that Mary Magdalene
was still with the other women at the time of the initial appearance of the angels and their announcement of the
Resurrection. But why, then, does she not display even the slightest inkling of what the angel(s) told her when she
later returns to the tomb after informing Peter and John of its emptiness? Archer’s attempted explanation is as
follows: “She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord
had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was
not there; and she did not know what had become of it” (Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties [Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1982], pp. 348-349). I find this very implausible, but each reader can judge for himself. One
suspects that Archer has resorted to this explanation only because, in not accepting the kinds of Catholic
hermeneutical norms we are employing in this essay, and thus “setting the bar too high” in his expectations
regarding inerrancy, he thinks that Matthew’s Gospel will be in error unless Mary Magdalene was one of “the
women” he mentions in 28: 5. THE END.

WARNING! This is an advanced website. To maximize benefit, you should
first acquire a basic and intermediate understanding of Christianity. There are
many intermediate websites. For an entry-level experience, feel free to
browse my other website: What You Should Know about ULTIMATE REALITY

"A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
--Alexander Pope