(avg. read time: 5–9 mins.)
In contrast with other parts of this series to this point, the harmonization we are addressing today comes from a general apologetics resource. In fact, this has proven to be one of the most popular sources since its publication decades ago by the late OT scholar Gleason Archer:
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
Since this is a survey of the entire Bible, Archer does not defend the process of harmonization in the immediate vicinity of his exposition on the resurrection accounts. Instead, that is part of the introductory matter, where he says:
In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization. That is to say, all the testimonies of the various witnesses are to be taken as trustworthy reports of what was said and done in their presence, even though they may have viewed the transaction from a slightly different perspective. When we sort them out, line them up, and put them together, we gain a fuller understanding of the event than we would obtain from any one testimony taken individually. But as with any properly conducted inquiry in a court of law, the judge and jury are expected to receive each witness’s testimony as true when viewed from his own perspective — unless, of course, he is exposed as an untrustworthy liar. Only injustice would be served by any other assumption — as, for example, that each witness is assumed to be untruthful unless his testimony is corroborated from outside sources. (This, of course, is the assumption made by opponents of the inerrancy of Scripture, and it leads them to totally false results.) (16)
He thus presents a synthesized account of events much later that can be summarized as follows (348–56):
1) Three women (referenced as the two Marys and Salome in Mark 16:1) left early in the morning from Jerusalem to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1; John 20:1). By the time they arrived, dawn was glimmering in the east (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
2) Seemingly while they were on their way, the earthquake happened along with the accompanying events, but the quake was not strong enough for them to have felt it (Matt 28:2–4).
3) The women find the tomb opened and sidestep the unconscious soldiers on their way inside (Mark 16:3–4).
4) The lead angel of the two present in the tomb speaks to the women after they discover that the body of Jesus is gone (Matt 28:5–7; Mark 16:5–7; Luke 24:2–7).
5) The three women then leave the tomb to report the news to the rest of the disciples, not stopping to speak with anyone else on the way (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8).
6) Mary Magdalene sought out Peter and John first to tell them that Jesus’s body was taken (John 20:2).
7) Peter and John run to the tomb, with John arriving first but Peter entering first, finding his burial clothes in their place without the body (John 20:3–10).
8) Mary Magdalene, perhaps after Peter and John left, arrives back at the tomb and looks in, wherein she speaks again to the two angels (John 20:11–13).
9) Jesus appears to Mary (John 20:14–17).
10) Jesus appears to the other women (Matt 28:9–10). Archer thinks that they intended to visit the empty tomb again (350).
11) Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5).
12) Jesus appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–33, 35).
13) Jesus appears to the other disciples, where he gives them the same teaching about the fulfillment of Scripture as he told the disciples on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23).
14) Jesus appears to the disciples again, this time including Thomas (John 20:24–29).
15) Jesus appears to the disciples while they are fishing in Galilee (John 21).
16) Jesus appears to an assembly of believers on a mountain in Galilee (possibly Tabor), which is possibly the one where he appeared to over 500 at once (Matt 28:16–20; 1 Cor 15:6).
17) Besides his other appearances over the course of forty days (Acts 1:3), Jesus made a final appearance before his ascension on the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:4–9).
In terms of the level of detail of his work, it is more comparable to O’Connell than to Schnabel, and it is certainly not comparable to Wenham. Unfortunately, in his attempt to present a synthesized account, some details have been left out altogether, which I think is due simply to being overlooked. He makes a few correlations with 1 Cor 15, but he never accounts for the appearance to James or the appearance to “all the disciples” (1 Cor 15:7). Not much work would have needed to be done to include accounts for these, but as it stands, they are glaring oversights in his synthesized account. Also missing is the ending of Mark, and I do not know what Archer’s position on the ending was, as he simply gives no account for it, rather than saying it was inauthentic. There is more that is unaccounted for compared with other harmonizations, even the significantly shorter one from Harris.
But what about the details he does address? As with other harmonies, most of the details are fine, but there are some issues to note. A major point that differentiates Archer from others we have read thus far is apparent from 5) and 6). The most straightforward reading of the texts, particularly of Matthew, as I have noted throughout this series, is that Mary Magdalene was among those who heard the angelic message. That does not necessarily mean that it is the best account of events, but it does mean that anyone who would suggest otherwise needs to make a clear argument as to why this default way should not be the way to read the text. How, then, does this account that one can derive from the Synoptics square with John, where she comes to Peter and John showing no clear awareness of the angelic message? Archer explains as follows:
She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was not there; and she did not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out. (348–49)
I can see why this kind of reasoning might convince people that an account in which Mary Magdalene left before the angelic message is more likely. The psychological characterization does not really seem plausible in this context. Sure, the disciples have had difficulties in understanding and even hardness of heart, and questions remain for them after this event. But it seems like this account would require something of a hard reset for the mental state of Mary Magdalene in such a short span of time. She would not only not be taking in the full import of what the angel meant; she would be in complete ignorance or denial of it, as if what the angel said had fallen on deaf ears, given how the angelic message in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is framed by multiple references to his resurrection and his predictions of the same. Given how the disciples had reacted to those predictions in the first place, I suppose one cannot entirely rule out the impossibility that something similar could be at work in the mind of Mary Magdalene at this point, but I can see why it would be considered psychologically implausible in light of this being the time of fulfillment, and why this would still be considered in conflict with the overall characterizations of the women and what they said (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:6–8; Luke 24:8–11, 22–23). More detail would be needed to account for these things.
There are also other various problems of lack of detail and imprecision. For one matter, he never mentions Joanna and the other women of Luke 24. He only mentions the three women in Mark’s account. Similarly, in regard to 15), he refers to Jesus appearing to “five of them [the disciples]” at the Sea of Galilee, but he apparently forgot that the text refers to “two of his other disciples” in John 21:2, so that the total was seven. I have also noted in previous posts that 13) need not include all of Luke 24:36–49, as some of that text can simply be summarizing what Jesus taught between his resurrection and ascension (given Acts 1:3).
Another problem of imprecision will require some more extensive quotation. As part of his exposition on 7), concerning John 20:8–9 he says, “Then John was utterly convinced: Jesus had not been removed by other hands; He had raised Himself from the dead. That could only mean He was alive again. John and Peter decided to hurry back and report to the others this astounding evidence that Jesus had indeed conquered death and was alive once more” (349). This is then followed up with, “For some reason, Peter and John did not tell Mary Magdalene about what they had deduced before they left. Perhaps they did not even realize that she had followed along behind them at her slower pace. In fact, she may not have gotten back to the tomb until they had already left” (349). The text says nothing about what Peter deduced. It only tells us such a thing about the Beloved Disciple. The last sentence of his first statement is also unclear, as he could mean that they were only going to report the empty tomb, or he could mean that they were going to report the evidence along with the inference that he had conquered death and was alive once more. In any case, he is attributing too much to Peter at this point in the story from the perspective of any of the Gospels.
Furthermore, he provides no argument for the identification of 16) with the appearance to the 500+ (355). While it certainly is a possibility, and others have connected the events, he still errs in providing no argument to that effect and in making the common assumption, without further justification, that the 500+ were all disciples at the time of the appearance. Conversely, he suggests that 17) cannot be that appearance to the 500+ because he does not think it likely that over 380 of these people would have disregarded Jesus’s directive to stay in the city until the Holy Spirit came upon them (356; on the number, see Acts 1:15).
Overall, I think there is a lot to clean up about Archer’s presentation. Some arguments need to be strengthened. Some need to be made in the first place. And, of course, more detail needs to be incorporated. While Archer’s encyclopedia does have some helpful elements, it is mixed with parts like this one that glide too quickly and blithely over some matters.