Contradiction claim
Who came to Jesus’ tomb, and what did they encounter?
The four accounts name different women, different times of arrival, and different figures encountered at the tomb. Matthew names two women; Mark names three; Luke refers to the women who had come from Galilee and later names three plus others; John names Mary Magdalene alone and reports the stone already taken away.
2 source records · no review date recorded
How to read this record
Passages side by side
TextThe primary text, as seeded. Nothing here is summarised or paraphrased.
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Why they appear to conflict
AnalysisEach side states a proposition attributable to its passages. A claim is not assumed to have exactly two sides.
Matthew
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.
Matthew 28:1
Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome came very early at the rising of the sun.
Mark 16:1 · Mark 16:2
Luke
Women came very early with prepared spices; Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and others are named as those who reported.
Luke 24:1 · Luke 24:10
John
Mary Magdalene came early while it was yet dark and saw the stone taken away.
John 20:1
Formal analysis
AnalysisA contradiction requires a proposition and its incompatible counterpart under materially equivalent conditions. Every dimension below must hold for the formal test to succeed.
No formal analysis has been recorded for this claim yet. Until one exists, the classification cannot be stronger than a descriptive category.
Analytical questions
AnalysisWhat a researcher must answer to classify this record. Open questions are recorded, not resolved by preference.
- Does naming fewer women exclude the presence of others, or is each list selective?
- Are "while it was yet dark" and "at the rising of the sun" compatible descriptions of one arrival, or of different arrivals?
- Do the accounts describe one visit or several?
- Which differences are about who was present and which about who is named?
Hebrew / Greek relevance
LanguageNo original-language dependency has been recorded for this claim.
Textual variants
ManuscriptA variant is a transmission phenomenon, never in itself a logical contradiction.
The longer ending of Mark
Manuscripts of Mark differ on how the Gospel ends. Some conclude at 16:8, with the women fleeing from the tomb and saying nothing to anyone. Others continue with verses 9-20, reporting appearances of the risen Jesus, a commission, and signs. Other endings of differing length are also attested in the tradition.
Witness evidence: research pending.
Manuscript evidence
ManuscriptCodex Sinaiticus
א · Fourth century · Divided between the British Library, Leipzig University Library, the National Library of Russia, and Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai
Codex Vaticanus
B · Fourth century · Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Narrator and speaker analysis
AnalysisWhat the narration establishes, distinguished from what would additionally establish that the reported event occurred.
No narrator or speaker analysis has been recorded for these passages yet.
Proposed harmonisations
InterpretationEach proposal records the premises it must supply that the text does not state. Premises are never injected silently.
Each account names selectively
None of the accounts claims to give a complete list, so partial lists are compatible.
Premises this proposal must supply
- contextualNaming some women does not imply the absence of others.
Editorial Harmonisation Cost Heuristic
1 / 5 — Strongly implied
No account uses exclusive language, and Luke explicitly mentions "other women". Strongly implied by the texts themselves. The lighting and timing differences are a separate question and are not resolved by this premise.
Reviewed by CodexTrace Editorial Board on 2026-09-07. This is an editorial heuristic, not an objective measurement.
Critical responses
InterpretationArguments that the proposed reconciliations do not succeed, treated structurally the same way as the harmonisations.
No critical response has been recorded for this claim yet.
Analytical classification
Analysis- Classification
- Narrative divergence
- What it means
- Accounts of the same episode differ in detail, participants, or emphasis.
- Requires formal analysis
- No
- Review status
- reviewed
- Source collections
- codextrace_research
Sources
SourceEvery externally-sourced claim on this page resolves to one of these records.
- [1]
CodexTrace. "CodexTrace editorial research". licence: CC-BY-4.0
Critical / scholarlyotherCC-BY-4.0 - [2]
King James Version (Authorised Version)
"King James Version (Authorised Version)". licence: public-domain-us
Primarytranslationpublic-domain-usLink unverified
Related records
TextCommunity
CommunityCommunity discussion requires a configured Supabase project on this deployment. Research pages are unaffected.