Empty Tomb Puzzle

[FallentoReason]

Correct. Each of the gospel accounts describes what each believed was essential to convey the same message. Each based their message on the same set of circumstances filtered through the lens of each writers understanding. I can accept the ideas that 1) the gospels were not actually written by apostles after which they are named and 2) they were written many years after the fact.

I have my doubts if they were all present during these events. I know I mentioned this, but the most obvious outlier is Matthew. Two earthquakes that only he seems to remember? Not to mention the undead swarming the city during the crucifixion? The only explanation would be your two points. 1 & 2 combined gives us the possibility to believe these accounts were written by the next generation altogether, making the Gospels merely hearsay. If this is so, why did the next generation record the events and not the disciples themselves? Because a story worthy of telling had evolved later on? I know I have extrapolated quite a bit, but the fact that most likely it wasn't the disciples that recorded the events raises a lot of questions.

I don’t image each woman speaking in turn before a quiet audience of disciples. Most likely, the events of the resurrection day were frantic and confused. Mary Magdalene could have excitedly spoken directly only to Peter and John. The other women simultaneously told their frantic accounts to anyone that would listen. I sure there were lots of questions, back and forth, etc. The disciples may have compared notes. They might not have. Either way they didn’t feel compelled to write it all down for posterity at that exact moment. As the original disciples approached the end of their days, some of the followers decided it was a good idea to write down the disciple’s stories. At that point the selective memory of the disciples took over and each skipped various details. But no one included something wildly different from any of the others. Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I find such a scenario plausible.

Clearly this could be the flipside of what I described as being the situation. I just think the probability seems rather low given 1 & 2.

In most biblical accounts angels appear as humans.You consider Matthew’s writing style unreliable because he writes about a miraculous event and feels comfortable calling an angel that appeared as a youth, an angel. Mark writes a more restrained account and describes only the way the angel appeared. I don’t see that as a clear and obvious contradiction, but then again I am inclined in that direction.

Mark seems to not care about earthquakes though. It's strange that his perception limited him from experiencing the supernatural.

I acknowledge that scholars can and do vigorously debate all this. If you require every particular to match exactly, then you will find the gospel accounts inadequate. As for myself, I am satisfied that the accounts are sufficiently consistent.

Even when I was a Christian I readily accepted that slight differences were acceptable. If anything it makes it more plausible that the Gospels are genuine accounts of 4 people. But again given 1 & 2 how likely is it that we're hearing from witnesses?

While I am by no means an expert on biblical archeology it is my understanding that the Gospel of John gives more references than the Synoptic gospels to geographical locations, such as the pool of Bethesda and Jacob’s well in Samaria. These features were once believed to be fabrications but have been recently located.

I remember reading that he correctly describes some 300+ places. This doesn't make it any more real than a fiction writer using real places and even events in their stories. It can't be taken as evidence for or against.