Why do different Gospel accounts have conflicting reports on who was at Jesus’ tomb?

Different Gospel Accounts of the Tomb Visitors

In the four Gospels, each writer narrates who arrived at Jesus’ tomb early on the first day of the week. At first glance, the accounts may seem to conflict. However, each writer highlights particular individuals and details that serve his theological emphasis, while remaining compatible with the others. This entry explores each Gospel report, examines their apparent inconsistencies, and demonstrates how they can be harmonized.

Matthew’s Focus on Mary Magdalene and “the Other Mary”

Matthew’s account notes that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb” (Matthew 28:1). He then mentions an angel announcing Jesus’ resurrection. Matthew’s Gospel focuses primarily on two women, underscoring their role as faithful witnesses. The “other Mary” is often understood to be Mary the mother of James and Joseph (see Matthew 27:56).

Matthew emphasizes the powerful supernatural elements—a violent earthquake and the angel rolling away the stone—while spotlighting the women’s astonishment, underscoring the dramatic moment of the resurrection. Matthew’s straightforward mention of these two women neither excludes the possibility of more women being present nor denies additional details included in the other Gospels.

Mark’s Mention of Three Women

Mark’s Gospel identifies “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome” (Mark 16:1–2) as those who came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. Mark focuses on the question of who would roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). Here, one “young man” clothed in a white robe informs them of the resurrection (Mark 16:5–6). This “young man” is interpreted by many as an angelic messenger, consistent with the other Gospels but highlighting a single speaker rather than describing the presence of multiple angels.

Mark’s choice to name Salome reveals another participant, possibly the mother of the sons of Zebedee (cf. Matthew 27:56), though there is debate about whether she is the same Salome. This discrepancy is not a contradiction but an example of Mark adding another eyewitness to his narrative detail.

Luke’s Account of Several Women

Luke records “the women who had come with Him from Galilee” (Luke 23:55) going to the tomb. Then he explicitly names “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them” (Luke 24:10). Luke also states that when they arrived, they found “two men in radiant apparel” (Luke 24:4) who informed them that Jesus was risen. Luke appears to offer a broader list of those who went to the tomb, which includes women beyond Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, such as Joanna (often identified as the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward; see Luke 8:3).

Rather than contradicting the narrower accounts of Matthew and Mark, Luke expands the circle of women, confirming that there were multiple witnesses. All are consistent with a scenario in which these women traveled together but each Gospel focuses on particular individuals or angels.

John’s Focus on Mary Magdalene

John singles out Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). She sees that the stone had been rolled away and runs to tell Peter and John. Later, John records that Mary Magdalene weeps outside the tomb and encounters two angels inside (John 20:11–12), then speaks to Jesus Himself, whom she at first mistakes for the gardener (John 20:14–15).

John’s Gospel zeroes in on Mary Magdalene’s personal experience, highlighting her close relationship with Jesus and her important role as the first witness to the risen Christ. The presence of two angels in John aligns with Luke’s mention of two figures, affirming consistency in the angelic visitation.

Reasons for the Perceived Discrepancies

1. Selective Emphasis and Thematic Purpose

Ancient biographical and historical writing often emphasized key figures relevant to the author’s theme. The Gospels reflect this approach by selecting certain details to highlight. Each author’s distinct style and intended audience shaped which names and events were spotlighted, not as contradictions but as complementary snapshots.

2. Multiple Women Traveling at Different Times

The group of women may not have all arrived as a single, synchronized unit. Some could have reached and left the tomb before others arrived, explaining why Mary Magdalene is sometimes singled out. Slightly staggered arrivals or separate vantage points can account for variations in detail.

3. Summarizing or Focusing on the Main Speaker

Where some Gospels mention one angel, others describe two angels. The consistent theme is that angels were present to announce the resurrection. If multiple angels are present, focusing on the one who speaks or the one who draws the most attention is still truthful. One person’s description of a two-person meeting can correctly center on the primary spokesperson without denying the existence of a silent second individual.

4. First-Century Literary Conventions

First-century Jewish and Greco-Roman texts often adopted literary devices that differ from modern expectations of precise sequential reporting. It was common for authors to summarize, highlight, or compress events for emphasis. This practice did not undercut their dedication to truth but reflected how historical narratives were shaped in that cultural context.

Harmonization of the Accounts

1. Core Agreement

All Gospels agree Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a tomb, and that on the first day of the week, women found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. They also unanimously convey that divine messengers declared Jesus resurrected.

2. Consistency in the Identity of Mary Magdalene

In every account, Mary Magdalene is present, underscoring her fidelity and confirming her place among the foremost eyewitnesses. The presence of additional women named in some Gospels shows a larger group, rather than any contradiction about who was there.

3. Complementary Details

Matthew and Mark describe at least one angel, Luke and John include two angels, and each scenario can fit a backdrop where two were present, with special focus on one. The difference in naming Salome or Joanna, or simply “the other Mary,” highlights the varied perspective rather than drawing a sharp conflict.

Support from Historical and Archaeological Perspectives

Outside sources, such as first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his works on Jewish customs and events, provide cultural context that aligns with the Gospel narratives regarding burial customs and tomb visitation. Archaeological studies around first-century Jerusalem tombs, including those near the traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, demonstrate the typical structure of rock-cut tombs with rolling stones.

Early Church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, reference the resurrection as a well-established event. These writings, spanning the first and second centuries, attest to early beliefs about the empty tomb and multiple eyewitnesses. The presence of consistent testimony from various communities underlines the reliability of the biblical reports.

Literary and Manuscript Evidence

From a manuscript standpoint, the earliest surviving texts (such as portions of the Gospels preserved in papyri like P66, P75, and others dated to the second and third centuries) present the same essential story of the empty tomb and the angelic appearances. Variations in wording do not alter the fundamental events described. This consistency even across widely separated geographic regions points to a unified early tradition rather than an evolving legend.

Theological and Devotional Implications

While the Gospels maintain unique emphases, their convergence on the empty tomb and angelic proclamation underscores the pivotal truth of the resurrection. These differences remind readers that each account offers a distinct vantage, much like multiple witnesses to the same event. The shared core message is that Jesus truly rose from the dead.

For faith and devotion, the variations invite deeper reflection on the reliability of eyewitness testimony woven from several perspectives. The Gospels’ harmonious diversity enhances rather than diminishes the trustworthiness of the event, underscoring that “He is not here; He has risen, just as He said” (Matthew 28:6).

Conclusion of the Matter

The seeming discrepancies in the Gospel accounts concerning who was at Jesus’ tomb do not undermine their historical veracity. They reflect different emphases, complementary viewpoints, and varied details from multiple eyewitnesses. Each Gospel’s distinct portrait enriches the overall testimony that the tomb was found empty, an angelic announcement was made, and Jesus was bodily raised on the first day of the week. This central truth unifies every account: the resurrection of the Messiah is both historically reliable and the cornerstone of salvation.