Combination of Luke 24 and John 20 is my guess.
Yeah, what Nelson said. I totally misread the question to be that Ehrman was saying Jesus met the ladies in the account.
@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?
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?
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?
Doug - try reading the four accounts in parallel - they differ so much that you find yourself wondering if they're even talking about the same events, so cross-referencing is impossible. John, for example, son of Zebedee the fisherman, totally discounts the entire "Come with me and I will make you fishers of men" story, and relates how he and his brother James met Yeshua (Jesus) near the Jordan river while they were following John the Baptist.
All four Gospels were written anonymously, and only much later, did church authorities decide they must have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which represent strange choices, as Matthew (the Greek name for Levi, the tax collector) and John - had the Gospels actually been written by them - would have been there at the time, but Mark and Luke would not have been.
"Mark" was the first to have written a gospel, then "Matthew" copied most of his directly from "Mark," in some instances, verbatim. "Luke" wrote his using "Mark's" and the works of an unknown author who has come to be known as "Q," to create his own. The Gospel of James appears to stand alone.
Reconciling anything by cross-referencing the four gospels would be an exercise in futility.
That was my point, kinda floggin a dead horse.
Trust me Doug, that's not as much fun as it's cracked up to be --
Darn I was hoping it was like the scene from Officespace with the printer.