Combination of Luke 24 and John 20 is my guess.
It appears as if the section of Interrupted you reference is actually on page 49 and reads as follows:
What do the disciples do in response [to being told about Jesus' resurrection]? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be “an idle tale” (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?
I think certainly you're correct that the citation should be Matt 28:9, not 20:9. This makes sense not only because 20:9 makes no sense at all, but also because the citations earlier in that paragraph run from the beginning of Matt chapter 28 beginning with verse 1 and go on through verse 2, 5, and 8. So it just makes sense that this reference would fit the pattern and refer to 28:9.
About your question, I don't see a problem with the reference to 28:9 as a reference here. Beginning with 28:1, the section reads as follows (NIV; 28:9 is emboldened):
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
This reads to me as "The women ran to tell the disciples. Suddenly Jesus met THEM (the disciples), they clasped his feet and worshiped him..." I can understand how you read "them" as referring to the women, but it seems to make much more sense that what is being referred to is the disciples. After all, why would we expect him to have just left the women only to appear to them in the next sentence saying "Greetings" at which point they clasp his feet and worship him?
Hope that helps!
Yeah, what Nelson said. I totally misread the question to be that Ehrman was saying Jesus met the ladies in the account.
Oh. You know what. Hmm... You're right. Now that I read it again...
Now I'm trying to figure it out too. LOL.
@Nelson - Your version doesn't make a lot of sense either - would you really expect to have an angel telling the women, "Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’" And then have Jesus, moments later, meeting the disciples and telling them the exact same thing? "Then Jesus said to them, 'Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.'”
Who are the "brothers" to whom he refers, if not the disciples?
Someone didn't read the rest of the thread before posting... LOL
Did I read the entire page before responding to a comment, no, I didn't.
The "Batman Theater Slaughter" discussion is 20 pages long - should I do that there, as well?
Don't act like there's not a difference between reading 20 pages of posts and reading the post replying to mine by Yossarian and my reply to him. 2 posts. Not 20 pages. LOL.
I read a comment and I respond to it - I feel no obligation to read the rest of the thread first, whether one page or twenty. If there IS a similar comment further on, even identical twins exhibit differences, and my perspective will more than likely differ from that of another commenter. I make no apologies for that.
I can understand the nausea of going through threads when a lot of people tend to say the same thing.
I see it as counter-productive to having yourself heard in general on threads to add to a discussion without reading it though... That makes a lot of your points in other threads, and even in the future in this one end up being the ones that get ignored. And you may have to just keep repeating yourself if you stay in a thread too.
I think your point about each point having a slightly different vantage point on the situation is valuable. The slight variation may make the difference between an idea making sense and not being sound. If a reply is made to the post that is already there though that notes the differences, it makes it so that everything gets heard.
Why not just cross reference the account with Mark, Luke, and John?