When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.
—Gospel of Mark
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
—Gospel of Matthew
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.
—Gospel of Luke
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.
–Gospel of John
Gary: Skeptics have looked at these passages and said, “Aha! A contradiction! One passage says that the sun was already up when the women arrived at the tomb and one passage says it was still dark.” Conservative Christians have countered, “Big deal. The women probably arrived sometime in the time period between when it was just becoming light but the sun had not yet risen on the horizon.”
I have to agree with conservative Christians. If this is the correct interpretation of these passages, I don’t think this should be labeled a contradiction. The English word “dawn” can have a variety of interpretations.
But wait! Is this the correct interpretation of these passages? Mainstream, Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown says, no.
Raymond Brown:
Even though the Jewish calendric day began in the evening, popular parlance could be affected by a way of thinking in which a day is seen to start with sunrise—something that is still true today when the calendric day begins at midnight. This has left its mark in the use of “dawning” for the evening-beginning of a Sunday in Matt. 28:1 and Gospel of Peter 9:35: Neither writer is thinking of Sunday around 5 A.M.; both are thinking of Saturday just after sunset. Notice that Matthew has omitted Mark’s (16:2) “very early” and “when the sun had risen”; and in Gospel of Peter 11:45, after the events happen, it is still night. –The Death of the Messiah, p. 1353
Gary: Wow! If this is true, then there isn’t a difference of five or ten minutes between the four Gospel accounts, there is a whopping TWELVE hours! In Mark, the women show up at approximately 5 AM on Sunday morning, but in Matthew, the women show up Saturday evening at approximately 5 PM, just after sunset!!! Our Saturday evening (after sunset) is the “dawn” of the Jewish Sunday!
Dear conservative Christians: How could eyewitnesses have written such very discrepant accounts of when the women arrived at the tomb? Do you really expect us to believe that eyewitnesses could not remember whether this earth-shattering event occurred at sunrise or sunset???
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
In Matthew, there is very clear reference to the “lighting up” into “day one”…
(epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton – lighting up into day one of – after – the sabbaths).
I got no idea what Brown is talking about.
Mark says “lian proi tes mian sabbaton” – “very early daybreak/morning in the day one of – or after – the sabbaths” “very early daybreak/morning after the sabbaths”.
“proi” was also used to refer to the 4th watch of the night, from about 3:00am to 6:00am, which is daybreak. Mark goes on to say that they “come to the tomb ‘anateilantos tou heliou’ – at the rising of the sun.
Luke says “…mia ton sabbaton orthrou batheos” – “day one of-from-after the sabbaths ‘of early of deep’ – deeply early”
John says “te de mia ton sabbaton maria he magdalene erchetai proi”… There’s that word “proi” again – daybreak.
Again, I got no idea what Brown is talking about…
LikeLike
Then why did Matthew, who copies almost verbatim the Markan story in the Passion Narrative, delete Mark’s “very early” and “when the sun has risen”? And why did early second century Christians still believe that the events at Jesus’ empty tomb all happened at night (Gospel of Peter, written 100-150 CE)?
LikeLike
Gill’s Bible Commentary:
Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
In the end of the sabbath,…. This clause is by some joined to the last verse of the preceding chapter, but stands better here, as appears from Mark 16:1, and intends not what the Jews call the sabbath eve, for that began the sabbath; but what they call , “the goings out of the sabbath”; and as Mark says, Mark 16:1, “when the sabbath was past”: that is, when the sun was set, and any stars appeared. The Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel render it, “the evening of the sabbath”; and the Persic version, “the night of the sabbath”; but must mean, not the evening and night, which preceded the sabbath, and was a part of it, but what followed it, and belonged to the first day.
As it began to dawn; not the day, but the night; a way of speaking used by the Jews, who call the night, “light”: thus they say (y), , “on the light, or night of the fourteenth” (of the month Nisan) “they search for leavened bread”, &c. And so the word is used, in Luke 23:54, of the eve of the sabbath, or the beginning of it, as here of the going out of it;
Source: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/28.htm
LikeLike
Also the Greek word ὄρθρος (órthros) meant “the time immediately before or around sunrise.” The “dawn”, or the “diluculo” (Eng. before the daylight) from vulgata, is just a bad translation because people confuse these with the sunset and night. And, by the way, we also need to notice that the sun doesn’t stay still, but it rises all morning. Usually the sunrise is a short moment and quickly passes.
LikeLike
Why did Matthews writing differ from Marks? Is that what you’re asking?
I dunno. You tell me. Maybe Matthew like the sound of “epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton” better. But, as far as I know, Matthew was not operating under any rules not to differ from Mark. Any way you cut the cake, though, Matthew says the women arrived “at first light”.
As far as the Gospel of Peter goes – a document from the 2nd century – and a document that was never accepted by the church as “gospel” – all I can say is “who cares”? I mean, it’s the GoP that has a talking cross walk out of the tomb following Jesus. You might as well ask me why Homer writes about the Cyclops. It has about the same relevance.
LikeLike
The problem is that you are interpreting “at first light” as a 21st westerner to be the sun and not the twinkling of the stars, as would a first century Jew.
Meyers NT Commentary:
Keim supposes the evening to be intended, since, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the day began with the rising of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the meaning of our passage would be as follows: “In the evening after six o’clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinkle”[39] But to say nothing of the startling discrepancy that would thus arise between Matthew and the other evangelists, we would be under the necessity, according to Luke 23:54 (see on the passage), of understanding the words immediately following as simply equivalent to: τῇ μίᾳ σαββάτων ἐπιφωσκούσῃ; comp. ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΝ ἘΠΙΦΏΣΚΕΙ, Ev. Nicod. 12, p. 600, Thilo’s edition. Nor, if we adopt Keim’s interpretation, is it at all clear what substantive should be understood along with τῇ ἐπιφωσκ. Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies ἑσπέρᾳ, and, like Keim, supposes the reference to be to the evening lighting of the lamps, though he is inclined to think that Matthew intended summarily to include in his statement what the women did on Saturday evening and early on Sunday, a view which finds no support whatever in the text;
Source: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/28-1.htm
Gary: Notice that Mr. Meyers seems to reject Keim’s interpretation of the text, not because Keim’s understanding of Jewish time concepts and terms is incorrect, but because this interpretation conflicts with the Gospel of Mark and Luke! In other words, Meyers has presupposed that the Gospels must be harmonious instead of looking at the evidence that Matthew and Mark are describing two very different parts of the 24 hour day!
LikeLike
good. You’ve discovered that scholars can differ on interpretations not only of language but also of events.
As long as we’re cutting-and-pasting, here’s another one for you from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
1. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn—after the Sabbath, as it grew toward daylight.
toward the first day of the week—Luke (Lu 24:1) has it, “very early in the morning”—properly, “at the first appearance of daybreak”; and corresponding with this, John (Joh 20:1) says, “when it was yet dark.” See on [1384]Mr 16:2. Not an hour, it would seem, was lost by those dear lovers of the Lord Jesus.
came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary—”the mother of James and Joses” (see on [1385]Mt 27:56; [1386]Mt 27:61).
to see the sepulchre—with a view to the anointing of the body, for which they had made all their preparations. (See on [1387]Mr 16:1, 2).
Okee Dokee…
Now, here’s what Matt says:
“opse de sabbon te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton elthen maria….”
“evening yet of sabbaths into lighting up of day one of-from-after sabbaths came maria”
I guess you can make of that whatever you want. If it’s unclear, then all you can do is look at the *other* stories and find out what *they* have to say about it.
But, as far as I know, “lighting up” doesn’t happen at sundown, unless maybe somebody is thinking “lighting up of candles” or something. And, I would warrant that you can ask any OTHER Hebrew-speaking person if “morning” or “daybreak” means “sundown” on a given day. Just check around. Find somebody else to ask. Granted, one might say “the *dawn of a new day*”, referring to “sundown”, but, that’s not what’s being said by Matthew. If I say “I saw Hosea working in the fields on the day of the Sabbath”, I’m not talking about seeing him working in the dark. I’m talking about seeing him working in the *daytime portion* of the Sabbath.
One HAS to ask “how much sense does it make for women to go trapsing around in the dark in a cemetary”?
But, hey, you can make of it what you will. I don’t care, really. But, that’s because I don’t rely all that much on Matthew to be terribly clear about anything…
LikeLike
according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the day began with the rising of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the meaning of our passage would be as follows: “In the evening after six o’clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinkle”[39]
That may not make sense to you as a westerner, nor make sense to a modern day Jew, but that is how first century Jews (in Palestine, at least) saw things.
Why would the women go “in the dark” to the tomb?
Who said they went in the dark? There is approximately 20-30 minutes of twilight (light) after sunset.
Here’s a question for you: Why did the women go to the tomb (in Matthew) if they knew it was sealed and guarded by soldiers?
LikeLike
I think I probably already knew that quite well, actually.
But, that is not what is in question here. What is in question is whether Matthew, using the term “lighting up”, was referring to the *daylight* hours of Day One, or whether he was referring to “lighting up candles”, thus referring to the *beginning* of Day One (which of course, would begin at a sundown).
If one chooses the LATTER understanding, then, it means that the women went trapsing out into the dark, carrying spices, walking through a cemetary, to a presumably closed tomb.
None of the other gospel writers thought that made a great deal of sense… And, neither do I. Therefore, I have to conclude that when Matthew is talking about the “lighting up” of “Day One”, he is referring to the advent of the sunlight hours of that day: hence, Sunday morning.
LikeLike
You are trying to harmonize the four accounts.
If you look at Matthew, John (and GPet), the evidence favors the women coming at the “dawn” of the Jewish first day of the week (Sunday), which would be Saturday evening from our perspective, after sunset. Further evidence that there was a tradition of coming to the tomb on Saturday evening is that the author of John says it was dark (night) when the women arrived at the tomb. (So much for your theory that women would not be “traipsing around” in the dark.)
And by the way, in Matthew, there is no mention of the women bringing spices. But why were the women going to the tomb when they knew it was sealed and guarded? Answer: It is a plot set up for finding the tomb empty!
LikeLike
nahhh, I’m not trying to harmonize anything.
I’m just figuring that if Matthew was actually attempting to write something *believable*, then he wouldn’t expect a reader to think the women were out in the middle of the night going to a tomb, nor would he expect the reader to believe that the guards just managed to all fall asleep right after sundown.
But, that’s just me. I read it – in Greek – and I see one ambiguous sentence that can potentially be understood in one way, or, in another. So, I just read it in the fashion that makes sense.
As far as your reference to the dark, in John, he also clearly uses the word “proi” – daybreak. And, the last I looked, it is indeed dark until daybreak.
LikeLike
Barnes Bible Commentary:
In the end of the sabbath – The word “end” here means the same as “after” the Sabbath – that is, after the Sabbath was fully completed or finished, and may be expressed in this manner: “In the night following the Sabbath, for the Sabbath closed at sunset, as it began to dawn,” etc.
As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week – The word “dawn” is not of necessity in the original. The word there properly means as the first day “approached,” or drew on, without specifying the precise time.\
Source: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/28-1.htm
LikeLike
and so?
LikeLike
I guess as long as we’re cutting-and-pasting stuff:
“Nolland believes that the Greek is ambiguous, but can be read to refer to Sunday morning. “Late on Sabbath” can be read as “after Sabbath” and the “beginning of the next day” as the “dawning of the next day”, and thus sunrise on Sunday. Nolland also notes that other Jewish texts from the period are also imprecise and refer to the dawn as the beginning of a new day.[7] Davies and Allison also consider the Saturday evening timing as less likely, as an evening visit would have been implausible, as two women would not have travelled to the edge of town as darkness was falling in that era.[8]” [ wiki ]
We can both find “pro” and “con” arguments written over CENTURIES on this passage. Why? BECAUSE IT’S AMBIGUOUS! If it wasn’t ambiguous, there wouldn’t be such non-conclusive bantering going on for the last 2000 years.
If you’re asking “when did the women arrive at the tomb?” (according only to Matthew), then, you’re just not necessarily going to be able to tell, with the way Matthew wrote this. That’s all there is too it. He chose odd phrasing to express whatever it was he wanted to express, and it is very clearly – not clear.
LikeLike
Look I believe the women left to go the tomb while it was. Dark and by the time they got there to the tomb it was already sunset
LikeLike
Dear sir did you rest of Barnes and Gill in Barnes it says they time came therefore was at the break of day when the sun was about to rise and in hills Mary mage line eager to be there at the tomb sets out first while it was still dark and came back and told Peter and returned again by such time the other woman came to the tomb which was. Sunrising you need to rest
LikeLike
Hi, Carol.
Why was Mary going to the tomb of Jesus that morning?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because she was eager to get there
LikeLike
But why? Why did she go to the tomb on Sunday morning? What does the Bible say?
LikeLike
Because she and , Mary wanted to go look at the tomb and to annoint his body with his spices
LikeLike
How did Mary plan to get into the tomb to anoint the body when the tomb’s stone door had been sealed shut and Roman guards were standing guard at the entrance?
LikeLike
Because she and the other Mary wanted to look at the tomb and to annoint his body with spices
LikeLike
they were hoping to get help that’s not the point when they got there the stone was rolled away
LikeLike
also they knew the stone was in place they didn’t think of until they were half way there in one of the gospels it says they were wondering who was going to move it it’s a moot point by the time they got there the stone was .rolled away
LikeLike
Wait a minute. Why would Mary risk the wrath of the Roman soldiers guarding the sealed tomb, to anoint a body which she personally had witnessed with her own two eyes be anointed two days earlier by Joseph of Arimathea; anointed with ONE HUNDRED pounds of expensive spices and oils and then wrapped in a linen??? What kind of idiot thinks this body needs more spices and oil?
Either this woman was a complete moron or some or all of the Gospel accounts of this alleged event are not historically reliable.
Which is it, Carol?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Woo Woo productions in association with the Fantasy Society of Jerusalem and sponsored by the Arimathea Foundation proudly present the Concert in the Garden, featuring the Spice Girls. ( well, two of them)
Included in their repertoire will be a stirring rendition of the old Mott the Hoople song, Roll away the stone.
Show starts just after sunrise.
Heads up. If you haven’t pre booked getting a good view will probably be a miracle. Bring your own food and drink.
LikeLike
its a moot point by the time they got there the body was gone and so we’re the soldiers
LikeLike
It demonstrates one of two things. Mary was a complete and utter moron, or, the accounts are not historically reliable. Which is it, Carol? If the accounts are not historically reliable then we cannot be certain of the historicity of an empty tomb in a garden.
LikeLike
then where did the body go and please don’t say they went to the wrong tomb they knew where it was and if the body was still there the Jewish authorites would have produced it
LikeLike
How do you know they knew the location of the body?
LikeLike
read Matthew 27:61 in Matthew 27 60 it days and it laid the body in his new tomb which he Hewn out of rock and rolled a large stone against st the door of the tomb in verse 61 says Mary Magdalene was there and the other Mary sitting opposite the tomb and in Luke ,23: 55 says they were at the tomb and 15 47 M ary and the other Mary observed where he laid they knew where the tomb was
LikeLike
So what, Carol. Just because a story says such and such that doesn’t make the story true. Otherwise, we would be forced to believe as fact every supernatural tale ever told in human history!
I will ask you again: Was Mary a complete and utter moron or do the contradictory accounts of why she was at the tomb indicate that these accounts are not historically reliable? It is one or the other. Why don’t you just admit it: Mary was likely not a moron. The problem is with the stories.
Jesus’ grave may well have been found empty but which, if any, of the four tales found in the Christian Scriptures about this empty grave are historically accurate? They can’t all be historically accurate. Mark’s author tells us that Mary went to the tomb with the purpose of anointing Jesus body. Matthew’s author says nothing about anointing the body. Mary is just going to “look” at the grave. And John’s author has Joseph of Arimathea apply 100 pounds of spices to Jesus’ body while Mary watches. Yet we are to believe that two days later she is coming back to anoint this body again??? It makes no sense. What makes more sense is that some or all of the authors are inventing their material or simply repeating hearsay, rumors, and gossip. Bottomline: No person in her right mind would wake before sunrise to go to a sealed, guarded tomb to anoint a body that is already soaked with 100 lbs of spices. Come on, Carol. Use some logic and common sense.
LikeLike
how were the women supposed to know the men annointed how do explain the empty tomb where did the body go
LikeLike
According to the author of John, Mary watched Joseph of Arimathea douse Jesus’ body with 100 pounds of spices. Do you have any perfume bottles in your house, Carol? How much do they weigh? I will bet not one of them weighs even one pound. Can you imagine putting 100 lbs of your perfume on a body? My god, it would stink and choke every person within two blocks! Yet you want us to believe that Mary was so stupid that after watching the body be pickled in 100 pounds of spices, she felt the need to go back two days later and add a little bit more. Good grief, Carol,use some common sense.
What is the most common cause for tombs found empty in human history? Answer: Someone or something moved the body. Anyone could have moved the body, Carol. The body could be anywhere.
LikeLike
how do you know she watched Joseph put the spices on the 🔙 body who had motive to take the body the Jewish authority why would they the owner of the tomb he had no motive and the disciples had no motive what to claim Jesus rose from the dead they didn’t beleve Jesus would rise from the feaf
LikeLike
Gospel of John: Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.”
Gospel of Matthew: As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
LikeLike
Carol: Who had motive to take the body? The Jewish authority? Why would they? The owner of the tomb? He had no motive. And the disciples had no motive to claim Jesus rose from the dead. They didn’t believe Jesus would rise from the dead.
Here is a list of possible persons who might have moved the body and the possible reasons why they moved it:
The rock tomb was temporary. The Sanhedrin only used it because the clock was ticking to get the body into the ground before sunset. After the Sabbath (after sundown Saturday), servants of the Sanhedrin came, took the body, and buried it in an unmarked dirt grave in a “cemetery” for criminals and paupers.
Pilate changed his mind about giving a man executed for treason against Caesar a proper burial in a rich man’s rock tomb. While all the Jews were locked up in their homes during Passover Friday night/Saturday, a few soldiers slipped into the tomb, grabbed the body, and dumped it in a ditch outside of town.
Grave robbers stole the body thinking it was a rich person; believing they could blackmail a rich family to pay a lot of money to recover the corpse of their deceased loved one.
A weird cult of necromancers stole the body.
A pack of coyotes found a small gap between the round stone “door” and the tomb opening , snuck into the tomb and devoured the body, not leaving a single bone.
Some of Jesus’ family were embarrassed about his failed messiahship and public execution. They paid some Gentiles to move Jesus body during the Passover to a secret family plot in Bethany…where Jesus’ remains are still decaying to this day.
Mary Magdalene was really, really devoted to the body of Jesus. So devoted that she had her servants break into the tomb late Friday night and move the body to a secret mausoleum she had constructed on her country estate (she was a very, very rich woman!).
And I could go on and on…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting scenarios. And all potentially possible (except maybe the coyotes). Yet believers are adamant about their particular version since it is the core of their faith. And heavens forbid! We must not stir the pot!
LikeLike
Andbefore the Sabbath the men did what they could to wrap the body and spread spices after the Sabbath was over the women intended to perform meticulous work on the body they saw where the tomb was and where the body was it was not fully prepared for burial in according with the expected practice they had to be home. In time for the Sabbath and were determined to make preparations with the next day
LikeLike
Wherethe markets were closed on the Sabbath they didn’t open at sundown so they waited till daybreak in the morning they went to the markets where they would buy the spices the preparation of the spices involved the cleaning of the produce the chopping cutting trimming and then cooling then boiling which is all day process 16 Nissan passes again they waited during the Sabbath. Little did they know Nicodemus came to the tomb after the he Sabbath with 75 pounds of spices
LikeLike
Are you listening, Carol????
Mary was sitting opposite the tomb (in John) watching two members of the Sanhedrin properly anoint the body of Jesus
Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
The customs were completed by Joe and Nic. There was nothing more for the women to do.
LikeLike
where he and the other men did their preparation the women were determined to come the next day on 18 Nissan and do what they beleve is necessary
LikeLike
The Gospel of John very clearly says that Mary was sitting opposite the tomb and watched Joseph and Nicodemus anoint the body, wrap it with cloth, put it in the tomb, and role a stone in front of the door. It also states that both Joseph and Nicodemus were followers of Jesus. Do you really think that two rich members of the Sanhedrin, who were also followers of Jesus, would allow Jesus’ body to be defiled by not properly preparing it for burial??? I don’t think so.
Think logically, Carol.
LikeLike
Are you deaf?
The Jewish burial customs were completed (by Joe and Nic) prior to his body being placed in the tomb. STOP trying to force your preconceived beliefs into these stories.
LikeLike
i beleve Joseph and Nicodemus hurried up the burial preparation and didn’t have time so the women finished it
LikeLike
Really? How did they plan to get past the guards and open the sealed tomb? They must have been real morons…
LikeLike
look I agree it doesn’t make sense for the women to go to the tomb with spices knowing the men had already done it while it doesn’t make sense to us it made sense to them because even through Jesus was dead they wanted to do . one last thing to honor Jesus to them it
LikeLike
You are guessing. The stories do not “jive”. To someone using good critical thinking skills the most probable explanation for this incongruency is that some or all the stories are not historically accurate.
LikeLike
we’re . You there is a lot of people that believe that women even through they knew what the men did they still wanted .to honor Jesus talk about me guessing .so are you .we don’t know the Reasoing why they went to the tomb when the men did the work but you are gusseting what they. Motives were and to insult them by calling them morons is a insult to women
LikeLike
Made sense to them to
LikeLike
You have no good evidence that a woman named Mary found an empty stone tomb with the stone lying on the ground with angels present and a great earthquake. All you have are a collection of ancient tales which cannot be harmonized without extreme mental gymnastics. You believe this tall tale is fact simply because your “heart” (emotions) so desperately wants this story to be true. You are not using good critical thinking skills, Carol.
LikeLike
Made sense to the women even through it doesn’t make sense to us they wanted to do something to honor Jesus even if
LikeLike
You are divining the mental thoughts of people who have been dead for 2,000 years. That is not rational.
LikeLike
if the men had already done it your attitude toward women is a insult the women were not morons they were not stupid and I not stupid
LikeLike
The amalgamated story is what is stupid. Each story read separately is logical (except for the supernatural aspects). There are no guards, no sealed tomb, and no anointment of the body with spices in the first Gospel, Mark. Mary’s actions are rational. But if you try to merge all four gospel accounts Mary looks and acts like an idiot. That is what I am trying to help you see. The gospel authors were writing religious texts, not history books. We should enjoy their storytelling without insisting that everything they say is historical fact.
LikeLike
were you there when these events happened no .you weren’t so do you have any evidence these.events didn’t happen
LikeLike
And vice-versa.
LikeLike
If the Jewish authority wanted to stop them from preaching the story all they had to do is deny the fact that Roman guards not all of them went to them and told them what happened and also deny the fact they come up with the story of the disciples stealing the body of Jesus instead what they do they arrested the disciples beat them up and told them to stop preaching this is guess the reason I think Matthew mentions the guards is at one point me .he was a tax collector and possibly had a connection with. The roman guards and you did call a . Mary a moron
LikeLike
You are assuming, here, Carol.
You assume that Jesus was buried somewhere known to the Jews. It is possible that the Romans dumped Jesus’ body in an unmarked common grave with all the other criminals they had executed that week.
Even if the Jewish authorities did know where Jesus was buried, maybe they didn’t care. The trouble-maker was dead. Who cares if a group of circa 120 nut jobs are running around claiming his ghost had appeared to them.
You assume that the “guards at the tomb” story (told only in the Gospel of Matthew) is historical fact. Even many Christian New Testament scholars believe it is fictional.
Yes, if the amalgamated story of the four Gospels is correct, Mary was a complete moron. But since I don’t believe any of these stories are historically reliable and trustworthy, I have no idea whether Mary was an idiot/moron or even whether or not she existed.
LikeLike
Do you have evidence that the prophet Mohammad did not fly on a winged horse over the city of Jerusalem in the sixth/seventh century? Millions of people believe he did. How would you prove them wrong?
LikeLike
you just admitted to calling Mary a idiot
LikeLike
the Quran was written 600 years after the bible where is your evidence the Romans dumped the body explain the grave clothes left behind wouldn’t they or grave robbers just take the grave clothes
LikeLike
You are not using critical thinking skills. Carol. Let’s approach this from another angle, using analogies.
What do you believe is the most probable explanation for the disappearance of Amelia Erhardt?
LikeLike
she crashed I am thinking I don’t believe in the Quran once again why didn’t the Romans or grave robbers take the grave clothes with them it’s logical to think that
LikeLike
When you demonstrate to me that you can think critically (use logic) then I will be happy to answer your question.
So, continuing our Amelia Earhart analogy…
What evidence do you have that Earhart crashed?
LikeLike
Just in case you decide not to answer, I will answer the question.
Q: What is the evidence that Amelia Earhart’s disappearance is due to a plane crash?
A: None. No wreckage has ever been positively identified as that of Earhart’s plane.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t speculate and say that the most probable cause of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance is that her plane crashed, right? Wouldn’t you agree? Well, Carol, ditto with the empty tomb of Jesus! Non-Christians have zero evidence that someone moved the body, but since most empty tombs in human history have been due to someone (or some thing) moving the body, we can safely speculate that this is the most probable explanation for the disappearance of Jesus (his body).
LikeLike
once again if someone stole the body why leave the clothes behind don’t you think they would have taken the grave clothes with them can you imagine them taking the clothes off and and carry out a naked jesus
LikeLike
You are assuming. Once again…
How do you know that grave clothes were found in Jesus’ empty tomb?
LikeLike
You are assuming that the stories of grave clothes left in the tomb are historically accurate.
LikeLike
Good critical thinking skills require us to look at the credibility of every ancient story before accepting it as historical fact. One of the most important characteristics we should examine is: do we have multiple independent sources corroborating the story?
The story of grave clothes left in the empty tomb of Jesus fails on this account. The four Gospels are not undisputed independent sources. Many conservative Christians may believe they are but the fact is that even many New Testament scholars question their independence. Most NT scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from the Gospel of Mark, and a substantial percentage of NT scholars believe that the author of John had access to the Synoptic Gospels.
So the Gospels are NOT undisputed independent sources. It is very interesting to note that the first gospel written (according to the majority of scholars} the Gospel of Mark, says nothing about grave clothes left in the tomb. And neither does the Gospel of Matthew! It is only the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John that mention grave clothes.
It is therefore entirely possible that the author of Luke invented the story of grave clothes left in the tomb and the author of John simply embellished his story, taking Luke’s “strips of linen” and turning them into “folded wrappings”.
These stories cannot be accepted as historical fact. The sources are not undisputed independent sources.
LikeLiked by 1 person