Did Mary know what happened to Jesus' body or not?

[skepticbud]

The bible gives a contradictory answer:

Matthew says she found the tomb empty, listened to the explanation of the angel, then departed the tomb in excitment to tell the disciples....

"1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. " (Matthew 28:1-8, NASB)

However, the fourth gospel doesn't agree with Matthew on what Mary did after she departed Jesus' tomb...

"1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
============

Question: How can Mary complain to Peter that she doesn't know what happened to Jesus' body, revealing her assumption that his body was taken away by another person and laid somewhere (indicating she thought he was still dead), when the angel at the tomb not only told her the answer to exactly this problem, but told it in such a way that she left his tomb very happy and with joy to tell the disciples?!

skepticbud

[disciple]

it very probable that mary went to the tomb early before anyone else, saw it was empty, and ran back to the disciples and asked peter the question (the account of matthew doesn't mention peter). when he and john went running to find out, they arrived to find out that it was indeed empty and that Jesus was gone. mary also went with them as is evident from vv. 11ff. then it says in john 20:10 "So the disciples went away again to their own homes." so it is evident that after seeing that Jesus was gone they all left except for mary. it says in john 20:11 "But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb." it was at this time that "she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying." this may have been the same time that she saw the angel on the rock in matthew 28 or it may have been a different time. she seemed to go to the tomb several times as if in disbelief of her first, second, and possibly third visit. so to say that they contradict is too simplistic. the writers are probably not referring to the same event in john 20 and matthew 28.

[disciple]

reading the gospels is like doing a court investigation. you're taking four different accounts from different perspectives and different people and trying to find out all that really happened. you don't pit two accounts against eachother and say they contradict because they are not exactly the same in all details you put them together to find out what actually happened. lawyers and judges throughout history have affirmed that the evidence of the gospels would be admissable in a court of law (see josh mcdowell's "evidence that demands a verdict").

[Fledge]

Not to mention that if all the gospel accounts were identical in every aspect...that would be suspicious. The fact that they slightly differ in viewpoint, wording, and the specific details lends credibility to them, and gives us a more thorough picture of what happened (as disciple mentioned).

[skepticbud]

Originally posted by disciple
it very probable that mary went to the tomb early before anyone else, saw it was empty, and ran back to the disciples and asked peter the question (the account of matthew doesn't mention peter).

First, the rules of linguistic evidence regarding Matthew 28 require that Mary was at the scene the whole time and did not leave it until the angel was done talking...so let's review that part of Matthew again...

=======
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
=======

Please notice the specific argument I make. Matthew cares to mention only two women. Therefore, when the following narrative says "they" or "the women", both are plurals and thus MUST INCLUDE MARY AT THE VERY LEAST.

so to say that they contradict is too simplistic. the writers are probably not referring to the same event in john 20 and matthew 28.

Sorry, the plurals "they" and "the women" are used to describe the people that Matthew named for the reader, and since it is only two women that he names, and Mary is one of them, Matthew intends his readers to think about those two women that he gave the names for, when his goes on later and says "they" and "the women".

Sorry, but Matthew 28 says Mary knew perfectly well what happened to Jesus body, and your suggestion that they are not refering to the same tomb visit by Mary is refuted by popular evangelical inerrantist Gleason Archer...

"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. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out..." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 348-349).

I suspect the single solitary reason you suggest Mary was either too astonished or that John 20 and Matthew 28 are about unrelated tomb visits is precisely because they DO contradict. Using your kind of logic, there are no errors in the Book of Mormon or the Koran, because I can think of "how it could have been" scenarios all day long as possible reconcilliations of alleged contradictions. But alas, as we all know, the suggestion of possibilities is irrelevant, since historigraphy can only deal with probabilities.

If you would like to present your case for the PLAUSIBILITY, not the possibility, that John 20 and Matthew 28 are different tomb visits, or that Mary was just too astonished to believe the angel, you are invited to try. But if the suggestion of mere possibilities is an end to the contradiction, then there are no contradictions in the entire world, because it's always at least POSSIBLE that the one alleging the contradiction has misunderstood something somewhere.

skepticbud

[skepticbud]

Originally posted by disciple
reading the gospels is like doing a court investigation. you're taking four different accounts from different perspectives and different people and trying to find out all that really happened. you don't pit two accounts against eachother and say they contradict because they are not exactly the same in all details

It's as obvious as the sun on a cloudless day at noon that you cannot say two accounts of one event contradict each other because they don't give the exact same details. And I did no such thing anyway: John says Mary noticed the empty tomb, then ran and complained to peter that somebody took Jesus' body and laid it in an unknown place, indicating she still thought he was dead. But Matthew says Mary and the other woman he named with her were both there the whole time, hearing the angel proclaim what happened to jesus body! Gleason Archer, the king of "how it could have been" scenarios, admits this one's a real problem because he suggests that Mary was too astonished after seeing the angel to actually believe!

The gospels were written for different early Christian communities, and the only people that don't want to admit that oral tradition changes the facts by the time they get written down by different people, are inerrantists who are committed to upholding their faith-based belief that the bible contains no errors.

I said it to the other guy and I'll say it to you: Your logic would prove that there are no errors in the book of mormon, because I can think of 'how it could have been" scenarios all day long that will account for any "alledged" contradiction you may know about.
skepticbud

you put them together to find out what actually happened. lawyers and judges throughout history have affirmed that the evidence of the gospels would be admissable in a court of law (see josh mcdowell's "evidence that demands a verdict").

Evidence that demands a verdict has been refuted on every single point on every page of that book! Read all about it:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml

skepticbud

[skepticbud]

Originally posted by Fledge
Not to mention that if all the gospel accounts were identical in every aspect...that would be suspicious.

Notice the options:

1--The gospels tell the same story in identical words.
2--The gospels tell the same story with different words.
3--The gospels tell the same story with contradictory words.

You are creating a false dilema with this tired old apologetic trick that says "if they are different, skeptics cry contradiction; if they are identical, skeptics cry collusion"

We don't cry "contradiction" just because there are "differences". If they really were eyewitness accounts, then we would natually assume that they would tell the same story, using different words, but not contradict.

The fact that they slightly differ in viewpoint, wording, and the specific details lends credibility to them, and gives us a more thorough picture of what happened (as disciple mentioned).

I disagree with you that John's and Matthew's description of Mary's actions right after she left the tomb is "slightly different" in "viewpoint" or "specific details".

It is true that differences lend credence to the story and rule out collusion. However, contradictions require that somebody must be telling something false SOMEWHERE. I have examined the reconcilliation scenarios offered so far, and all they prove is that whoever authored them does not realize how far departed they are from the rules of historigraphy which historians use to govern their research into all other ancient history.

First learn that reconstructing ancient history from ancient documents does not involve the suggestion of possibilities, but arguments for probability.

Sure, it's entirely POSSIBLE that John and Matthew aren't even describing the same tomb visit of Mary. However, the PROBABILITY of this suggestion being true is extremely low. Every Christian I ever knew, every bible teacher I ever had, as a Christian, never suggested in their lives that John story of Mary visting the tomb and Matthew's story of Mary visiting the tomb, were probably different story events altogether. Christians who are not presently on the defensive for inerrancy have always understood that John and Matthew were describing the same tomb visit by Mary.

This is made more believable by the fact that apologists have gone to great lengths to prove that the weaker "contradictions" in the resurrection accounts that some skeptics have pointed out, can actually be reconcilled successfully. If we are to believe their reconstruction of events, then they are also committing themselves to saying that All four gospel authors are telling the same story!

For example some skeptics say "In john, mary comes to the tomb while it was still dark (John 20:1), but in Matthew 28:1, she comes to the tomb "as it began to dawn".

Apologists love this because it's easy to "reconcile" or "harmonize", and they say "but there is no contradiction between it being dark and it starting to dawn. "

This is true. But this harmonization attempt now committs the apologist to the premise that John and Matthew are telling of the exact same tomb visit. This belief is exactly WHY apologists came up with such a harmonization.

skepticbud

[disciple]

it is evident that there were several mini visits:

John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 So Peter and the other disciple [b]went forth, and they were going to the tomb.[b]

it is evident here that they were not there yet. she goes to the tomb, sees no body, runs back to the disciples (who were obviously somewhere else because the ran and came to them and then they went forth to go to the tomb. when they run there and find no body there the "disciples went away again to their own homes (v 10)" mary (and possibly others) stayed. we have here at least two visits: the one early and the one later along with peter and john. there is no contradiction. if you read the paragraph above the quotation from gleason archer you would see that he indeed saw two visits and this cannot be denied from the account of John. but he takes a different interpretation or perspective on what she meant or why she asked them "we don't know where they have laid Him." i simply leave the possibility that the angel's reply need not be before she asked peter and john the question. gleason's explanation is fine because the response given from the angel was, "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said" (mt 28:6). the angel just says He has risen and showed her that the body was gone. she knew only this. so her asking peter and john "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" doesn't contradict this. she knew that He was gone and may have been in disbelief about the fact that He had risen and wanted someone to verify. think about thomas' reaction. he needed tangible proof. it wasn't enough for him to be told he had to see with his own eyes and touch with his own hands.

[disciple]

skepticbud, it is easy for you to say "Evidence that demands a verdict has been refuted on every single point on every page of that book!" because in your mind and according to your presupposition it has been refuted. you and they may feel that it has been refuted b/c it supports your presupposition that the bible is not inspired and inerrant. i read several pages of it so far and in my opinion the refutation is just as biased and based on presupposition as is mcdowell's. stating it an established fact that it has been refuted is a little misleading and actually based on your opinion. also note that an attempt to refute is not the same as saying that someone was actually refuted.

[skepticbud]

Originally posted by disciple
skepticbud, it is easy for you to say "Evidence that demands a verdict has been refuted on every single point on every page of that book!" because in your mind and according to your presupposition it has been refuted.

That's just as profitable as saying, "you only believe the bible to be the word of god because in your mind and according to your presupposition it is the word of god."

you and they may feel that it has been refuted b/c it supports your presupposition that the bible is not inspired and inerrant. i read several pages of it so far and in my opinion the refutation is just as biased and based on presupposition as is mcdowell's.

Well, they don't allow debates here for no reason. I'll gladly debate you on any point Josh McDowell makes. Stop talking about it being mere opinion and let's get started.

stating it an established fact that it has been refuted is a little misleading and actually based on your opinion.

stating that the bible is the word of god is a little misleading and actually based on your opinion.

also note that an attempt to refute is not the same as saying that someone was actually refuted.

I am of the opinion that this rebuttal to Josh McDowell's book was a successful. If you disagree with me, you can obey the bible and edify the hearers (readers) with profitable conversation, such as bringing up points which you felt were weak, etc, instead of wasting time and stalling with this grand "it's only your opinion and I disagree with you on it.." stuff

skepticbud

[Quill]

After reading through this thread, I studied the four gospel accounts, and would like to submit a condensed version of the resurrection morning. I am sure such a synopsis has been done by others much better and more accurately than that which I will present here, but here goes, nevertheless:

When the Sabbath was over, a group of women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and several others. (Luke 24:10 notes a group, naming only a few.)

They wonder who will roll away the stone, and see that it has been rolled away. Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and John.

Meanwhile, back at the tomb the remaining women see the angels who tell them of the risen Christ. They are astonished and frightened, and begin running back to Jerusalem. Very likely, they meet Peter and John coming to the tomb, but because of their fear, they don’t say anything to them. Peter and John see the tomb, but don’t understand yet what has happened.

While Peter and John are at the tomb, Jesus stops the women in their flight, and tells them to go and tell the rest of the disciples. Now they are full of joy and ready to tell everyone.

Peter and John return to their homes, confused. Mary Magdalene, who probably returned sadly at a walk to the tomb, has missed the angelic encounter at the tomb and Jesus’ appearance to the other women. Peter and John have already come and gone. She is at the tomb weeping. She looks inside the tomb and sees the angels who ask her why she is weeping, then she turns around and sees Jesus, and he urges her as well to go back to the disciples and tell of his resurrection.

In presenting the above, I must add one more option to skepticbud's. Skepticbud stated:

Notice the options:

1--The gospels tell the same story in identical words.
2--The gospels tell the same story with different words.
3--The gospels tell the same story with contradictory words.

I would add:

4--The gospels tell different parts of the same story.

[skepticbud]

Originally posted by Quill
They wonder who will roll away the stone, and see that it has been rolled away. Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and John.

Read Matthew 28 again, this time as if you are a first century Christian living in the community Matthew wrote for (and so you wouldn't have the other three gospels), and then you tell me whether there is any linguistic "room" for Mary to run away from the group before the angel tells them about Jesus. I provide the full relevant text from the New American Standard Version below for your convenience.

1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
(end quote)

Please notice the word "they" in verse 8; the rules of linguistic evidence require that it refers to the people that were mentioned or named previously. Just previous they were called "the women" (verse 5), and before that they were called "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary..."

While it is certainly possible that other women besides those two were with them, the point I stress here is that there is no possible way to show that Mary somehow "left the scene without the author saying so".

This is not a case of her doing something that Matthew chose not to write about.

This is rather a case in which your supposition that she DID leave is not only improbably but perfectly impossible, given that Mary Magdalene is absolutely necessary to be present at all times throughout as the angel uses the second person plural "you" and given that the author says "the women". Since Matthew cares to mention only two women, BOTH of them MUST have been present at the tomb and hearing the angel in verse 8.

4--The gospels tell different parts of the same story.

[/B][/QUOTE]

There is no doubt on anybody's part that the gospels tell different parts of the same story. Sure they do, but they also contradict one another and in this case cannot be harmonized without hypothesizing about Mary M. leaving the scene of the tomb too early to hear the angel's message, an hypothesis that absolutely contradicts the third person plural "they" in Matthew 28:8.

Again, there COULD have been other women there as well, but because Matthew only cares to mention Mary M and the other Mary, BOTH specifically identified women MUST be present up to verse 8. This therefore rules out any possibility of Mary leaving early after seeing the empty tomb.

skepticbud

[disciple]

Originally posted by skepticbud
That's just as profitable as saying, "you only believe the bible to be the word of god because in your mind and according to your presupposition it is the word of god."

you're right. and it is a faith issue. i cannot prove or convince you that it is. i simply believe that it is. it is my presupposition. it is my worldview. and that's the point. arguing back and forth would be completely unprofitable because we have completely different presuppositions and worldviews. i will not change mine. you will not change yours (apparently as it seems to me).

stating that the bible is the word of god is a little misleading and actually based on your opinion.

yes i believe this. this is my presupposition. but whether or not i believe it or not or you believe it or not is moot. i can't prove it to you and make you believe that. i choose to believe it is and you do not. you proceed to try to debunk it all and find contradictions to prove your claims so more power to you. but it all comes down to faith and presupposition. you don't believe, i do. what good will it do to fight and argue this. you made the post, i provided a response and now you want to argue and debate whether it's true and whether it's God's word, etc. not a good use of my time in my opinion because i can see that all you're interested in is debunking it and "proving" your point.