---

The subtitle of Turkel's article, which is the focus of this reply, is "Do the Gospels Contradict Over Who Went to Jesus' Tomb?" My answer is that they do and they don't. I will show in replying to Turkel's attempt to reconcile the resurrection narratives on this issue that whether the narratives contradict one another on the question of who went to the tomb depends upon what aspects of the visits are being considered. If Turkel is concerned with only whether there is contradiction in the identities of those named in the different narratives, my answer to his question is that there are no ontradictions. The fact that Matthew named Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as the visitors to the tomb, whereas Mark named these wo and a third woman, i. e., Salome, and so on would not in my opinion be a mistake, because the omission of names in a narrative would not constitute error. It is common for inerrantists to reconcile this problem with some explanation like this: if a newspaper reported that Mary Smith and Mary Jones went to a movie last night, this would not be an incorrect statement even though they may have been accompanied by Sally Jackson. Such an omission might be considered careless reporting, but technically it would not be an error, because the reporter's statement would be true. Mary Smith and Mary Jones did go to a movie.

If, however, the question entails whether the narratives are consistent in what they say about the women who went to the tomb, my answer is that the narratives are contradictory. The gospel of John, for example, says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, found it empty, and then ran to tell John that "they have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him" (20:2). I will show that this depiction of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning is irreconcilably inconsistent with the way that Matthew's narrative depicted her. She was presented in the two narratives so inconsistently that for all intents and purposes the Mary Magdalene of John's gospel was not the Mary Magdalene of Matthew's gospel.

Turkel's article begins:

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.

Till:
I assume that Turkel will understand from my remarks above that I don't consider these verses contradictory if the only issue in question is the identities of those who went to the tomb, although I do wonder why Turkel omitted quoting Luke's account, which named three women, one of whom was different from Mark's three, and added that "other women" were with them (Luke 24:10). This raises the question of whether the Holy Spirit was careless in guiding these "inspired" ones in what to write about an extraordinary event that begged for evidence to confirm it. After all, these narratives were going to become the primary documents in establishing that a man died, was stone-cold dead for two days, and then returned to life. I would think that "the more the merrier" would apply here and that the omniscient, omnipotent one should have realized that if at least five women, as required by Luke's narrative, went to the tomb, the credibility of their claim that a dead man had returned to life--if it is at all possible for such a claim to have credibility--would have been better served if all of the narratives had named all of these "witnesses." On the matter of identities, however, I will maintain my agreement with Turkel that there is no contradiction on this point.

Turkels article continues:
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.)

Till:
Well, Luke didn't even say that "women" went to the tomb. He simply said that "they came to the tomb" (24:1), and the antecedent of they must be determined by reading back into chapter 23 where reference was made in verse 55 to the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee. However, Luke did identify three of these women by their names in 24:10.

Turkel's article continues:
John first -- critics think John says Mary went alone, but read John 10:2 [sic]-

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!"

So John's account could include other people as well.

Till:
I agree with Turkel on this point too, although I find it somewhat amusing that Robert "We" Turkel would argue that use of the first-person plural pronoun in the narrative would mean that other people could have been with Mary, because he repeatedly refers to himself as "we" in his articles. Here are some sentences that I have cut and pasted from his attempt to answer my Humpty-Dumpty rebuttal of his article on the Olivet discourse.

We gave specific answers and McTill ignored them.

McTill needs to check this site before running his gator, because we address that very point elsewhere.

(W)e answered this elsewhere as well, though maybe too late for McTill to notice even if he was awake at the time. We quoted an anti-preterist site as saying....

And we noted that DeMar has answered the careless use of this verse.

We have an example of this which we recently used as part of a tongue-in-cheek Skeptical quiz....

I could cite a hundred times this many examples from Turkel's articles, but these are sufficient to make the point. In each case, the "we" referred to him. It is a pretentious writing habit of his that anyone who has read any of his articles will immediately recognize. Therefore, if we in his own writing often times does not indicate plurality, then how does Turkel know that Mary Magdalene meant that other people were with her when she said, "We don't know where they have put him"?

On the II_Errancy list, John Kesler showed in a reply to Turkel on this point that we was sometimes used in the Bible in the same way that Turkel uses it in his own writing.

John 1:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ²This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Turkel may argue that Nicodemus was simply saying that he and others he knew understood that Jesus was a teacher come from God, and so we in the statement did not refer to Nicodemus alone. If he argues this, I would again agree with him, but that would not in any way prove that Nicodemus had others with him at the time. The text says, "This man came to Jesus by night," so there is no reason at all to suppose that others were with him.

In his reply to Nicodemus, Jesus used we to refer only to himself.

John 3:11 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? ¹¹Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness."

Was Jesus including his disciples with his usage of wehere? That hardly seems likely, because the selection of the disciples had just begun in chapter 1 (35ff), so not much "testifying" could have occurred by this time. Hence, we have here a probable case of where we was used in the same way that Turkel so often uses it. His argument, then, that Mary Magdalene's use of we in John 20:2 meant that she was saying that others had been with her at the tomb is inconclusive.

This, however, is a minor point compared to the problem that I am going to show Turkel.

Turkel's article continues:
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 --

Till:
Ah, yes, this is the old claim that the writers were "inspired," but they were left free to pick and choose details to tell the story the way they thought it should be told. No one has ever given a satisfactory explanation of how this kind of inspiration could have guaranteed that the writers would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I don't expect to see Turkel give us an explanation that no one else has ever been able to present.

Turkel's article continues:
or else, as part of a natural variation on oral tradition, her name was dropped.

Till:
Which means what? Why would "oral tradition" have required that the name be dropped? Does Turkel even know the difference in an oral account and a written account? If Mark was writing this account, why would "oral tradition" have had anything to do with what an accurately written account should have included? Those who have done much reading in Turkel's website know that he seems to think that vague appeals to "oral tradition," like this one, are satisfactory explanations of whatever problem he may be trying to explain. If an inconsistency in a written text exists, an inconsistency exists, and no number of appeals to "oral tradition" can remove the inconsistency.

Turkel's article continues:
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)?

Till:
What the hell difference would any of this make? As I said above, the gospel writers were trying to sell a very, very, very, very unlikely yarn about a man who died and returned to life. Proving such an event would require some extraordinarily good evidence--which would have to go far beyond mere personal testimony--but since there was going to be no evidence except the personal testimony of those who said that they had seen the man alive after he had died, common sense should have told Matthew and Mark to include in their accounts the names of every last person who was present on the scene.

They didn't do this, however. We are supposed to believe that they knew by inspiration--if nothing else--that Salome, Joanna, and "other women" were on the cene, but some of the writers chose not to mention them. For some reason, they didn't consider them important. These are the kind of dummies that the omniscient one selected to write this all-important story?

Turkel's article continues:
As long as Matthew doesn't say that Salome never was 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.)

Till:
Yes, as long as Matthew didn't say that Salome was never there, no error exists, but that is not to say that a lot of stupidity didn't exist on the part of the writer and the omniscient one who inspired him to leave out the names of some who were on the scene. This would be as idiotic as a man accused of murder knowing that he was miles away from the scene of the crime at the time in the presence of several people, but he gave the police only one or two names of those who were with him.

So where are we now? We are in agreement that even though serious questions about the competence of the gospel writers and the omniscient deity who presumably inspired them are raised by the omission of "witnesses" in some of the narratives, technically there is no error, but this problem is very minor compared to other discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. Diehard inerrantists--which seem to include Turkel--claim that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, but to find "harmony" in the various NT passages that refer to the resurrection, they must resort to outrageous speculation and how-it-could-have-been scenarios. The most troublesome inconsistency in the resurrection accounts is what I call the Mary Magdalene problem. It has sent many would-be apologists scurrying for cover with announcements that they have so many obligations and responsibilities that they must regrettably leave the forum. When confronted with the Mary Magdalene problem, some don't even bother to offer excuses; they just leave whatever forum they are in. Turkel has his own choir loft, of course, and I predict that he will keep this issue there, where he can selectively quote his opposition, but he will not link his readers to an article like this so that they can evaluate in full context his opposition's argument.

The Mary Magdalene problem is simple. Mary M was presented in the synoptic gospels as having seen an angel or angels at the tomb, and heard him or them announce the resurrection of Jesus, after which she actually encountered Jesus and worshiped him as she was running from the tomb to tell the disciples what had happened. In John's gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to Peter and the disciple "whom Jesus loved" and told them that the body had been stolen. So the problem is why Mary would have told the disciples that the body had been stolen if she had seen and heard everything that the synoptic gospels claim that she saw and heard.

To save time, I am going to post a rebuttal of the most commonly used "explanation" of this problem so that we can get to the heart of it much quicker. (Readers who have been with me on alt.bible.errancy and the II Errancy list will recognize that this is an adapted version of a posting that I have sent to Errancy many times, but no one has yet given a sensible explanation of the problem.) Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account.  Let's look at it first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. ²And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. ³ His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. ⁴ And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. ⁵ But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. ⁶ He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. ⁷ And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." ⁸ So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. ⁹ And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. ¹⁰ Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

I have emphasized in bold print certain words to call attention to them. They will establish that Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene didn't just hear the angel announce that Jesus had been raised from the dead but that she also saw him and touched him after she had run from the tomb. To establish this, let's notice that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only two women mentioned in Matthew's version. The fact that Mark and Luke may have mentioned other women has nothing to do with the obvious fact that Matthew mentioned only two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Therefore, "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene; otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent and would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account. I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the NT in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Besides this, there are linguistic factors that inerrantists must consider. All rules of literary interpretation that I ever heard of (and I studied a lot of literature on the subject when I was teaching college English) would require readers to understand that "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 of Matthew's text were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. No other assumptions can be made, since Matthew did not himself specify that any other women were with the two Marys. In other words, whether Mark and Luke mentioned up to five other women or 500 other women is immaterial to what Matthew's narrative said. If he mentioned only two women, then "the women" in his narrative grammatically had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Hence, any plural pronouns like they and them that obviously referred back to the women had to be references to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. By necessity, then, the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand what whatever they did in this narrative or whatever happened to or was said to them were things done by or to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement will, therefore, require readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them (emphasized in bold print) is "THE WOMEN." Since "THE WOMEN" by grammatical necessity had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the antecedents of they and them are indirectly (by necessity) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

It is a rule of literary interpretation that the substitution of antecedents for the pronouns in a text will not alter the meaning of the text but will, if anything, help clarify its meaning.  With that in mind, I will now take Matthew's text quoted above and present it with the antecedents substituted for the pronouns they and them when they made obvious references to "the women." Readers should keep in mind that where Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (in bold print) appear, the pronouns they or them appeared in the actual text.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. ² And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. ³ His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. ⁴ And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. ⁵ But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. ⁶ He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. ⁷ And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." ⁸ So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. ⁹ And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, "Rejoice!" So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. ¹⁰ Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

It is clearly evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this and that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb.  So my question to Turkel and his inerrantist cohorts who think that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives is a simple one: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Some inerrantists use the two-visits theory to explain the inconsistencies in Mathew's and John's narratives. They argue that John's narrative told of a first visit that Mary M made to the tomb while it was yet dark, at which time she encountered an empty tomb and ran to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, whereas the synoptic narratives told of a second visit that Mary M made to the tomb "when the sun was risen." I do hope that Turkel will try to present this as a solution to the Mary Magdalene problem.

As Dirty Harry would say, make my day, Turkel, and present this as your solution.