Scholars on Greek grammar, do you agree that slightly different times are given for when the women arrive at Jesus' tomb in all four gospels?

Dan Barker says so, do you think he's right? He also argues in this link that the verb tense in Matthew contradicts the other gospels by making it look like the stone and not yet been rolled away when the women arrived: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/easte...

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 months ago

    I am no Greek scholar.

    In one place it says the women came early the first day.

    I have been told the word - early could also mean before.

    Since the first day or any day started after sunset instead of midnight early the first day could mean just after sunset of the 7th day. Saturday.It would make sense since Jesus probably was crucified on Wednesday instead of Friday.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Donald
    Lv 6
    5 months ago

    different people penned this.

    the times varied on who and when things happened.

    pay closer attention.

    I am not led to post more.

    this is asked to try and slip up GOD,

    not learn truth for help.

    so you get what you asked for.

    the words are stedfast.

    who came first and later?

    a person who wants the truth will read it and see it.

    the english in the KJV is not confusing.

    what version are you using?

    when was the stone removed?

    how can this confuse anyone?

    Source(s): which gospel named Mary? who else is named? hints: there is no contradiction. none at all.
    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    I didn't read all of this, but I will chip in a couple of comments.

    1. The Gospels were written by four different individuals. Regardless, if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, there should be no discrepancies, but they exist.

    2. I didn't consult the Greek (yes, I've studied it). If in fact the tense in Matthew is the aorist, then it merely applies to an event in the path. He points out some scholars insist it should be understood in the past perfect. No, it should not. The past perfect implies a COMPLETED TASK IN THE PAST.

    Think of it this way: "I went to the store" vs "I have gone to the store." The first merely states I went to the store, and while it may be taken as having made it to the store, it doesn't actually say this. In other words, "I went to the store, but was met a friend and talked." So we don't know for certain that the store was actually visited without further information.

    On the other side, "I have gone to the store" implies that, yes, I actually made it to the store.

    Keeping this in mind, nothing in the aorist says that the stone was already rolled back, and most likely was not.

    • ...Show all comments
    • bluebellbkk
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      But Mr Bluelight, 'I have gone to the store' doesn't necessarily mean that you made it to the store. You might leave a note saying 'I've gone to the store' lying on the kitchen table for your wife to see, but there is no way she can tell from the wording whether you actually went there.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 months ago

    No. Scofield offers a good harmonious treatment of the Gospel accounts.

    The order of our Lord's appearances would seem to be: On the day of his resurrection:

    (1) To Mary Magdalene John 10:14-18 .

    (2) To the women returning from the tomb with angelic message Matthew 28:8-10 .

    (3) To Peter, probably in the afternoon Luke 24:34 ; 1 Corinthians 15:5 .

    (4) To the Emmaus disciples toward evening Luke 24:13-31 .

    (5) To the apostles, except Thomas Luke 24:36-43 ; John 20:19-24 . Eight days afterward:

    (1) to the apostles, Thomas being present John 20:24-29 . In Galilee: (1a) To the seven by the Lake of Tiberias John 21:1-23 .

    (2) On a mountain, to the apostles and five hundred brethren 1 Corinthians 15:6 . At Jerusalem and Bethany again:

    (1) To James 1 Corinthians 15:7 .

    (2) To the eleven Matthew 28:16-20 ; Mark 16:14-20 ; Luke 24:33-53 ; Acts 1:3-12 .

    To Paul:

    (1) Near Damascus Acts 9:3-6 ; 1 Corinthians 15:8

    (2) In the temple Acts 22:17-21 ; 23:11 .

    To Stephen outside Jerusalem Acts 7:55 .

    To John on Patmos Revelation 1:10-19 .

    • Michael5 months agoReport

      ! Corinthains 15 clearly says it was Peter, not Mary, first.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 5 months ago

    when you have to resort to Grammar Nuances to explain The Bible you've already deviated from God's will for your life.

    Where The Bible has little to say - you would be wise to say little.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Ala
    Lv 5
    5 months ago

    Chi girl can probably answer your question. She really knows her Greek!

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    The time sequence is interesting, and at the same time specific.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.