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.
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
The question of "who was at the tomb" is one of several that fall under the complex of "harmonization" -- an issue we address here generally. But as for specifics, let's look at this one. (Luke, by the way, just says "women" went to the tomb, and so there is no issue with him.)
John first -- critics think John says Mary went alone, but read John 10:2 -
So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
John's account could include other people as well. As for Mark and
Matthew, it is not unreasonable to presume that Mark has the full
account of who went to the tomb, and Matthew just dropped Salome out of
the picture as being unnecessary to the story he was telling -- or
else, as part of a natural variation on oral tradition, her name was
dropped. None of this can be answered without knowing Salome's personal
level of involvement in the story -- did she join the other women on
the way? At what point? Did she play a memorable role (i.e., paying for
many of the spices)? As long as Matthew doesn't say that Salome never
there, strictly speaking, no error exists -- and I challenge critics to
show why this is not so in terms of the issues surrounding the Lincoln
biographies outlined in the link above. (This is a good match for the
"how many turkeys were outside the cabin" issue.)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for criticism, comment, research, and educational purposes. The Skeptical Review is neither endorsed nor sponsored by the author(s) of the foregoing article. The Skeptical Review is owned by Skepticism Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.