Contradictions

When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre?

The tension

John 20:1 has Mary Magdalene arrive at the tomb 'early, when it was yet dark' — before sunrise. Matthew 28:1 has the women come 'as it began to dawn.' Mark 16:2 specifies they came 'at the rising of the sun' — explicitly after sunrise. Three sequential moments on the morning timeline, and the gospels can't agree on which one applies.

Proposed answers

People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.

While it was still dark.

Cited passages

At sunrise.

Cited passages

Examining the tension

What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.

How critical scholarship weighs this: Leans toward reconciliation

This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.

Of the resurrection-narrative discrepancies, the timing of the women's arrival is the most readily harmonized, and a fair reading should say so plainly. The four Greek markers describe points along a single short interval. John 20:1 has *prōi skotias eti ousēs*, 'early, while it was still dark.' Matthew 28:1 has *tēi epiphōskousēi eis mian sabbatōn*, 'as it began to dawn toward the first day,' the participle *epiphōskō* meaning to grow light. Mark 16:2 has *lian prōi … anateilantos tou hēliou*, 'very early … the sun having risen.' Luke 24:1 simply has *orthrou batheōs*, 'at deep dawn.' The total span between full darkness and the sun clearing the horizon in late-March Jerusalem is roughly half an hour to forty-five minutes. A party of women setting out in the dark (John's vantage, focused on Mary's departure) and reaching the tomb as light broke (Matthew, Luke) or just after sunrise (Mark) can be described in all these ways without anyone misreporting. This is the steel-manned harmonization run by John Wenham in *Easter Enigma* and Craig Blomberg in *The Historical Reliability of the Gospels*, and on this entry, taken in isolation, it largely holds.

The interesting question is why each evangelist chose his precise wording, because the choices are not random — they are shaped by each gospel's theology and by the redactional relationships among the texts. Mark's *anateilantos tou hēliou*, 'when the sun had risen,' is the single most precise solar marker in any resurrection account. There is a long-noted internal awkwardness in Mark 16:2 itself: the women come *lian prōi*, 'very early,' yet *anateilantos tou hēliou*, 'after sunrise' — a near-redundancy that some manuscripts and ancient readers tried to smooth, and that Joel Marcus in his Anchor Yale Mark discusses as possibly preserving two layers of tradition. Mark's emphasis on full daylight removes any suggestion of dim-light error: the empty tomb is discovered in plain sight. Matthew, who follows Mark as his primary source on the Two-Document Hypothesis, softens this to *epiphōskousēi*, less interested in the hour than in the angelic earthquake and descending theophany that he alone adds (Matt 28:2-4). John's *skotias eti ousēs*, 'while it was still dark,' is the most theologically loaded of the four. John has reduced the witnesses to Mary Magdalene alone, and her solo predawn approach fits the Fourth Gospel's pervasive light/darkness symbolism (John 1:5; 3:19; 9:4; 13:30, where Judas goes out and 'it was night'). Raymond Brown's Anchor Bible commentary treats the Johannine 'still dark' as a deliberate symbolic detail: Mary comes in darkness and the resurrection dawns. The descriptions are thus not four reporters' clock-readings but four authorial framings of one event.

The critical point, made by Dale Allison in *Resurrecting Jesus* and by Gerd Lüdemann, is that the four accounts draw on partially independent traditions each evangelist has shaped, not on coordinated eyewitness depositions. That said, harmonization on the bare question of timing does not require implausible assumptions. The honest verdict separates this entry from the harder ones around it: the divergence in hour is real but minor, and a group arriving over a few predawn minutes covers it. The contradiction sharpens only when the timing is bundled with the genuinely irreconcilable data — how many women came, whom they saw, and what they did next — which are treated in the neighboring entries.

Where the critical reading lands: overstated in isolation; the timing is harmonizable, and the real tensions lie elsewhere in the resurrection cycle.

Sources for this reading

  • Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 27A; Yale University Press, 2009) pp. 1081-1093 on Mark 16:1-2 and the lian prōi / anateilantos tou hēliou awkwardness Mark 16:1-2
  • Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI) (Anchor Bible 29A; Doubleday, 1970) pp. 980-1004 on the Johannine 'still dark' as light/darkness symbolism at John 20:1 John 20:1
  • W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 3 (ICC; T&T Clark, 1997) pp. 663-672 on Matt 28:1 Matthew 28:1
  • Dale C. Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (T&T Clark, 2005) pp. 198-375 on the empty tomb traditions
  • John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?, 2nd ed. (Baker, 1992) pp. 78-92
  • Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2007) pp. 195-202
  • Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Fortress, 1994) pp. 109-134