Who Went to the Tomb and When?

“Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen.” 
— Luke 24:5b–6a

The resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christian faith, yet it has been scrutinized and challenged, particularly regarding the Gospel accounts of who discovered the empty tomb and when. Skeptics like Dr. Bart Ehrman argue that these narratives are filled with irreconcilable contradictions. For instance, Ehrman asserts:

“The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in the four Gospels are at odds with one another on nearly every detail.”¹

But are they truly irreconcilable? Or are these the kinds of variations one expects when multiple eyewitnesses describe the same overwhelming event from different perspectives?

This blog is the first in a five-part series examining the alleged contradictions in the resurrection accounts. We begin with the questions that skeptics love to raise: Who went to the tomb? And when did they go?

How Many Women Went to the Tomb?

Let’s examine the relevant Gospel accounts:

• Matthew 28:1 – Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
• Mark 16:1 – Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
• Luke 24:10 – Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women.
• John 20:1 – Mary Magdalene (mentioned alone).

At first glance, these differences may appear troubling. Ehrman frames the issue plainly:

“Was it Mary Magdalene alone, or were there other women? The answer depends on which Gospel you read.”²

However, this objection relies on a misunderstanding of how ancient biographical narratives were written and how eyewitness testimony functions. The fact that John focuses on Mary Magdalene does not mean she was alone. In fact, John 20:2 reports her saying, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” The use of we shows she was accompanied by others who simply are not mentioned in John’s Gospel.

As Craig Blomberg explains:

“None of the Evangelists claims to be listing all the women who went to the tomb. The lists are clearly selective, and each writer may have had his own reasons for highlighting certain individuals.”³

This also connects to a phenomenon known as “undesigned coincidences,” where incidental details in one Gospel unintentionally affirm another. John’s plural ‘we’ subtly confirms Luke and Mark’s fuller group without directly trying to explain it—just what we’d expect from independent eyewitnesses.⁴

Rather than undermining the reliability of the accounts, these variations strengthen them. If all four Gospels had named the same women in the same order with the same phrasing, critics like Ehrman would accuse them of collusion. The slight differences show independence in the sources and reflect what we should expect from multiple perspectives on the same historical event.

When Did the Women Arrive at the Tomb?

The Gospel writers also describe the timing of the women’s arrival slightly differently:

• Matthew 28:1 – “Toward the dawn of the first day of the week.”
• Mark 16:2 – “Very early… when the sun had risen.”
• Luke 24:1 – “At early dawn.”
• John 20:1 – “While it was still dark.”

Do these differences amount to contradiction?

Not at all. These time markers are consistent with a very early morning visit, likely during the transition from darkness to light. As Michael Licona notes:

“These differences can be attributed to telescoping, a common literary device used in ancient historical writing, where details are either compressed or expanded depending on the author’s narrative focus.”⁵

In other words, John may emphasize the time they left for the tomb (“while it was still dark”), while Mark focuses on the moment they arrived (“when the sun had risen”). These are not mutually exclusive statements but reflect different vantage points on the same event.

Eyewitness Differences, Not Fabrication

Rather than undermining the resurrection accounts, these differences actually support their authenticity. As N.T. Wright emphasizes:

“If these were straightforward legends coming into being a generation or more after the supposed events, they would have harmonized them more carefully.”⁶

Richard Bauckham likewise argues that the Gospels are rooted in named, traceable eyewitness testimony, not distant oral legend: “The Gospels are close to the eyewitnesses and derive from their testimony, either directly or through the communities to which they belonged.”⁷

The fact that the Gospels show minor discrepancies while agreeing on the central claim—that the tomb was empty—speaks to their authenticity. As Gary Habermas has argued, the core facts of the empty tomb and the women’s discovery of it are widely acknowledged by New Testament scholars, even among skeptics.⁸

The discovery of the tomb by women is particularly noteworthy. In the first-The discovery of the tomb by women is particularly noteworthy. In the first-century Jewish world, women were not considered reliable witnesses in court. If the early Christians were inventing the resurrection story, they would not have made women the first witnesses. As William Lane Craig observes:

“This is one of the surest historical facts we have about Jesus’ resurrection. The testimony of the women would have been embarrassing and counterproductive if the story were fabricated.”⁹

If this were a fabricated account, it’s highly unlikely that women—whose testimony was widely considered inadmissible under Jewish law—would have been chosen as the first and primary witnesses. Men were permitted to anoint the bodies of other men. A more “believable” invention, from the standpoint of cultural plausibility and apologetic force, would have portrayed Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus—respected male members of the Sanhedrin who buried Jesus—as the ones who returned to the tomb, discovered it empty, or even claimed to have seen the risen Christ themselves.¹⁰

Instead, we are left with a historically awkward detail—women bearing the first testimony to the empty tomb. It’s not what you’d expect from fiction. It’s what you’d expect from truth.

The Empty Tomb Remains Undisputed

Whatever one makes of the differing details, none of the Gospels disagree on the essential truth: the tomb was found empty, and Jesus was no longer dead. This fact was so central that it was incorporated into the earliest Christian creed, recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, which dates to within just a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Even skeptical scholars such as E.P. Sanders admit:

“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”¹¹

But if the tomb weren’t empty, Christianity would’ve been disproven within days. The body could have been exhumed, the movement crushed. Yet instead, the movement exploded—fueled by the testimony of women and disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus alive again.

Real Testimonies, Real Hope

The Gospel differences regarding the women at the tomb and the timing of their visit are not contradictions. They reflect the normal and expected variation of historical witnesses. Each Gospel writer had access to different sources, different memories, and emphasized different aspects of the same stunning event.

The message they all proclaim is clear: the tomb was empty, and Jesus had risen. The resurrection of Christ is not just a matter of faith—it is rooted in real history, seen through the eyes of real people who were forever changed by what they saw.

If this were merely legend, why does it bear all the marks of history—embarrassing details, multiple angles, and unscripted humanity? Skeptics should ask themselves: Are they rejecting a contradiction, or resisting a resurrection?

---

Footnotes:

¹ Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2009).

² Ibid.

³ Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007).

⁴ Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing, 2017).

⁵ Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010).

⁶ N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

⁷ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

⁸ Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004).

⁹ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

¹⁰ Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969). Jeremias notes that while women could perform burial rites, Jewish custom and law permitted men to handle and anoint male corpses, especially in cases involving family members or figures of social importance. Joseph and Nicodemus, as male leaders, would have been plausible candidates in any invented account.

¹¹ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 1993).