DIFFICULTIES IN THE EASTER STORY

 

This essay is intended to show that in spite of a number of troublesome conflicts in the biblical  accounts of the resurrection of Christ the message comes through loud and clear that the tomb was empty -- that Jesus of Nazareth indeed became the risen Christ. At the same time I want to make a case for being honest with the Bible. The predisposition of some well-meaning Christians to "defend the Bible" against any inconsistency or contradiction is not only indefensible in the light of the nature of Scripture, but it is a disservice both to the Bible and to the church.

 

  Moreover, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy -- not one rooted in apostolic tradition but of only recent origin -- has the capacity to do irreparable harm. If one is persuaded that the Bible has to be free of all error in order to be the word of God, his faith may well be in jeopardy when he finds such conflicts that are evident in such contexts as the resurrection narratives. 

 

  Before citing some of the difficulties, it might be helpful to make a distinction between statements that are only contrary (different) but not  contradictory. An illustration would be the account in Mark 10:37 of James and John asking Jesus if they might sit beside him in his kingdom, and the parallel account in Matthew 20:21 where it is the brothers' mother who makes the request. The accounts are contrary, but not  contradictory, for it is possible -- even if improbable -- that both the mother and her sons made the request. A more likely explanation is that Matthew sought to lessen Mark's indictment of the two apostles by attributing it to their mother.  Matthew did this in reference to Jesus' disdained occupation. Mark says candidly that Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3), while Matthew softens it to "a carpenter's son" (Mt. 13:55). Again, contrary but not contradictory, for Jesus could be and was both a carprenter and a carpenter's son.

 

  To be a contradiction both statements cannot be true. Had Matthew said Jesus was not a carpenter he would have contradicted Mark. But even in contrary or different statements one has a problem if he holds to a word for word, verbal inspiration of the Bible. If the Spirit was telling Matthew and Mark what to write -- so that it would be inerrant -- why would he have one to write "Jesus was a carpenter" and the other "Jesus was a carpenter's son," or why would the Spirit have Mark blame a prideful request on two of the apostles, and then have Matthew to blame it on their mother?

 

  There are instances of this type in the Easter story -- troublesome and conflicting, even if not contradictory. In Mark 16:5 the women upon entering the tomb saw "a young man clothed in a long white robe." He does not call him an angel -- and it was as common in that day as today for folk to be dressed in white. In Luke 24:4 they saw "two men stood by in dazzling apparel." In John 20:12 it was "two angels in white sitting where the body of Jesus had been." Matthew refers only to "an angel" outside the tomb, the one who rolled the stone away.

 

  What did the women see? Mark says it was a young man, Luke that it was two men, John said it was two angels. These are not necessarily contradictory, for if there were two angels as Luke and John say, then there was one angel as Mark says. But one has a problem here if this is an example of verbal inspiration of Scripture.  And the ordinary reader cannot help but wonder -- since the Bible has it both ways -- whether there was one angel or two.

 

  Then there is the problem of what women went to the tomb, and how many. Mark 16:1 names three: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Matthew 28:1 names two: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (probably the mother of James, as in Mark). Luke 24:10 lists Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (Is she the same as Salome or some other woman?) -- and Luke adds "and other women." John 20:1 names only Mary Magdalene. The number moves from but one in John to at least five in Luke. These differences reflect no serious conflict -- no more than what might be expected from writers recalling what happened some thirty or forty years earlier -- unless one assumes there is an exact, word by word guidance from the Spirit. If this is verbal inspiration, it is understandable if a sincere and honest reader would wonder why the Spirit would list the women in such a variety of ways and with such imprecision.

 

  Even the stone that sealed the tomb, which is described as being a  problem to the women who expected entrance to the tomb, is treated with curious diversity. In Mark 16:3-4 the women express concern about how the stone -- described as huge -- will be rolled back, but upon arrival find that it is already rolled away. Mark says nothing about how this happened. Luke 24:2 follows Mark, saying only that the women found the stone rolled away. No explanation. John 20:1 -- like Mark and Luke -- simply says the women found the stone rolled away. But Matthew 28:2 gives dramatic details about the stone. There was a violent earthquake, and an angel of the Lord, whose face was like lightning, descended from heaven and rolled back the stone -- and then sat on it! Moreover, the guards were so frightened that they were "as dead men."

 

  Even a casual reader would wonder why Mark, Luke, and John did not include some of the exciting detail found in Matthew -- especially if they were under the mandate of the Spirit to get it right!  And we are to remember that the first readers did not have all four gospels to read as we have. At first there was only Mark -- so most scholars adjudge -- and it was a decade or two before Matthew wrote. They had to wait to learn from Matthew how the stone was rolled away -- that an angel rolled it away and then sat on it.  I love that!  Good stuff! Again, if this is about verbal inspiration, why didn't the Spirit have Mark tell the earliest Christians about how the stone was rolled back -- the earthquake, the angel, the "dead" Roman soldiers?

 

  As I have indicated, these examples are contraries -- and perhaps troublesome -- but not contradictions. Remember, to be a contradiction both statements cannot be true. If one is true, the other has to be false. I'll let you decide if the following statements in the Easter story are contradictions.

 

  As to the time the women went to the tomb, Mark 16:2 says it was "very early in the morning when the sun had risen,"  Matthew 28:1 says it was "toward dawn," Luke says "at the first sign of dawn," and John says "it was still dark."

 

  One might say that Matthew, Luke, and John agree in pinpointing the time -- almost daybreak or dawn, but still dark. But aren't they contradicted by Mark? It can't be "still dark" and "the sun had risen" at the same time. No one would say "toward dawn" if the sun was already out.

 

  The defenders of textual inerrancy are aware of this obvious contradiction. Since the Bible cannot have the slightest error, they come up with an amazing conjecture -- Mary Magdalene came to the tomb alone while it was still dark, then later returned with other women after the sun had risen!  Such antics are unnecessary if we allow that the Bible was written by men who, while led by the Holy Spirit, were allowed to draw upon their own memories and experiences, gather their own data, and to write in their own style.

 

  They were "moved by the Spirit" in that their final product conveyed the message God wanted told. This allows for jars, conflicts, differences, and even contradictions -- but they are not material errors. They do not affect or compromise the message, and do not matter. As in the case of the timing, there is only a matter of minutes difference in their testimony -- between "still dark" and "the sun was up." They are telling us, in slightly different ways, that the resurrection was very early in the morning.

 

  If anything, these irregularities authenticate the message, for they make it clear that the writers were not in collusion. No one out to dupe us with a false story would include such an obvious error as the above.

 

  I will name one more difficulty in the Easter story that I find bewilderingly inexplicable. Mark 16:1-7 tells us that the women entered the tomb and saw a young man dressed in white. They were alarmed, but the young man told them not to be alarmed, for "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him" The young man goes on to tell them to "go and tell his disciples -- and Peter -- that he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he said to you."

 

  This is clear, crisp narrative. The women are not only witness to the empty tomb, but they hear the first proclamation of the good news -- Jesus is risen from the dead! They are told to go and break the news to the disciples, especially Peter, and to tell them that Jesus will meet them in Galilee, some distance away.

 

  Now read verse 8: "And they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

 

  Mark's gospel surprisingly ends at this  point in the story. It is the consensus of modern scholarship that the ancient manuscripts do not justify the several additions that have been made to Mark's gospel, one of which your Bible may have. But virtually every Bible with footnotes recognizes the virtual certainly that Mark ends at verse 8.

 

  The phrase "they said nothing to anyone" is painfully baffling, and of course contradicts what we have in the other gospels -- such as Luke 24:9: "And they returned from the tomb and told the Eleven and to all the others." But Luke adds that the apostles referred to what the women reported as "pure nonsense." Nonsense or no, the Bible makes it clear -- apart from Mark 16:8 -- that the women even "ran" -- as in John 20:2 -- to tell numerous ones the good news.

 

  Even though the women were dispatched by the angel in the empty tomb to go and tell his disciples, Mark tells us, as he concludes the Easter story, that they didn't do it. They were so overwhelmed by awe -- by the reality of a risen Lord that no one at that time did or could believe -- that they fled from the tomb, and were so shocked by it all that they said nothing to anyone.

 

  That's it. One can talk all he pleases about Mark being interrupted and intending to write more later -- or of this or that addition that might be appended. It is evident that Mark intended to do precisely what he did. His is the gospel of surprise. He recorded no appearances of the risen Lord. He had told his story, lean and to the point. He lays before the reader the empty tomb, and the angels's proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth -- the crucified one -- is the risen Christ. The women are witnesses. Enough said. Case closed.

 

  When Mark says the women left the tomb and said nothing to anyone does he contradict the other gospels? Of course. It is a glorious, baffling contradiction -- to which I have no explanation. But that doesn't bother me in the least, for in spite of problems -- even baffling ones -- the Easter message comes through sharp and clear, and from all four gospels -- the tomb was empty, the crucified one is the risen Lord. That is infallible and inerrant!