What Did They See at the Tomb?
“And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.”
— Mark 16:5
In Part 1, we examined who went to the tomb and when they arrived—showing that the variations between the Gospels are not contradictions, but the marks of genuine eyewitness testimony. Now in Part 2, we confront another common objection: What exactly did the women see when they arrived?
Skeptics argue that the Gospel accounts conflict in their descriptions of angels, men, or messengers—inside or outside the tomb, one or two, glowing or not. To some, these are irreconcilable errors.
But a closer look shows something far different. These aren’t errors. They’re the kinds of natural differences you’d expect when multiple people witness something miraculous—and try to make sense of it.
What Did the Gospels Say?
Here’s what each Gospel reports:
- Matthew 28:2–5 – One angel of the Lord descends, rolls back the stone, and sits on it. He speaks to the women outside the tomb.
- Mark 16:5 – A young man in a white robe is seen sitting inside the tomb.
- Luke 24:4 – Two men in dazzling apparel suddenly appear beside them inside the tomb.
- John 20:11–12 – Mary Magdalene sees two angels in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been, inside the tomb.
At first glance, this seems contradictory. But that conclusion assumes each writer intended to list all the details, in sequence, without omission—which is never claimed.
Ancient writers, especially biographers like the Gospel authors, often employed compression, selective emphasis, and literary focus based on what served their audience and message. As Michael Licona explains:
“Ancient biographers and historians felt free to rearrange material and adapt details for literary or theological emphasis. This was not considered deceptive—it was standard practice.”¹
Proposed Sequence: A Harmony of Perspectives
When we read the accounts together, a natural sequence emerges:
- An angel descends and rolls back the stone (unseen by the women). – Matthew 28:2 (possibly a flashback).
- The women approach while it’s still dark. – John 20:1.
- They arrive as the sun is rising. – Mark 16:2.
- An angel is seen outside the tomb. – Matthew.
- They enter the tomb and see one or two angels inside. – Mark, Luke, John.
This isn’t a contradiction—it’s what we’d expect from multiple firsthand experiences of a complex event. Some details stood out more to some than to others.
Were They Angels or Men?
Some critics say the Gospels can’t decide if these figures are heavenly or human:
- Mark and Luke describe them as “men.”
- Matthew and John say “angels.”
But this is a false dilemma. In Jewish thinking, angels often appeared as men. As N.T. Wright explains:
“The presence of angels does not require glowing wings or harps. In Jewish thought, angels could appear as men, speak as men, and yet be divine messengers from God.”²
What Mark and Luke describe is how they appeared—dazzling, but manlike. Matthew and John highlight who they were—divine messengers. The difference is emphasis, not contradiction.
Were There One or Two? Inside or Outside?
Again, the best explanation is not either/or, but both/and:
- One angel rolled back the stone and sat on it (outside).
- Two angels were later seen inside the tomb.
There’s no reason to think one writer denying the presence of others. They simply focus on the figure who spoke or on a particular moment.
As Lydia McGrew observes:
“This kind of natural variation—one person remembering the moment outside, another remembering the moment inside—is exactly what you find in authentic testimony. It’s the artificial smoothness that suggests invention, not variation.”³
Rebutting the “Legendary Accretion” Claim
Bart Ehrman and others argue that these differences suggest a growing legend:
- Mark = one angel
- Luke = two angels
- John = two, with more detail
This theory assumes a linear development from simpler to more elaborate stories. But this is based on literary assumptions—not evidence of borrowing or embellishment.
In fact, Mark may have chosen to emphasize one angel who spoke. As Craig Keener points out:
“Simplification is common in ancient narratives. Reporting one figure’s words or actions did not deny the presence of others.”⁴
If two or more were there, then there was one. There is no evidence that Luke or John “added” angels. More likely, the differences reflect what particular witnesses remembered—or what the Gospel authors wanted to emphasize.
Journalistic and Legal Analogies
In a courtroom, witnesses often recall different details of the same event. One may say “the officer gave me a warning,” even if two were present. Another might remember both. As long as the core facts are consistent, the testimony is considered reliable—even strengthened by its varied perspectives.
The same holds true here. The core message of the angels is the same in all four Gospels:
- “Do not be afraid.”
- “Jesus is not here; he has risen.”
- “Go and tell the disciples.”
That consistency, coupled with honest variation, is a mark of real recollection—not legend.
Even Skeptical Scholars Recognize the Testimony
While not all scholars affirm the supernatural elements, many acknowledge that the women’s experience at the tomb formed a vital part of the earliest Christian proclamation.
Dale Allison, a moderate theological scholar, writes:
“Something undeniably happened. Even if one brackets the miraculous, the early reports of the women at the tomb deserve historical consideration.”⁵
And if we take the Gospels on their own terms, the message of the empty tomb and the angelic announcement is unified, compelling, and profoundly historical.
Different Angles, One Truth
Yes, the Gospels differ in some details. But so do eyewitnesses.
- One recalls seeing a man.
- One remembers two figures.
- One focuses on what happened outside.
- Another remembers what they saw inside.
But all of them agree: the tomb was empty. The body was gone. And messengers—whether dazzling or robed, singular or plural—proclaimed the same thing: He is not here. He is risen.
If these were literary fictions or polished legends, they would read like it. Instead, they carry the jagged edges of memory, the human emotion of encounter, and the unmistakable tension of truth breaking into history.
If this were merely myth, why does it feel like testimony? And if Jesus did not rise, why were thousands willing to risk everything for a message that began—not with kings or councils—but with frightened women, an open tomb, and the staggering announcement of angels?
Footnotes:
¹ Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 588.
² N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 633.
³ Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing, 2017), 32.
⁴ Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 332.
⁵ Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 324.
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment