The existence of discrepancies (e.g. as to the number and names of the women concerned and their reaction to the angel's (or angels') words) between the several accounts of the first Easter morning is well known; and, while the various differences taken one by one can be more or less satisfactorily reconciled (and there is no need to be either unduly cavalier with such explanations or unduly pedantic in discovering discrepancies!), the difficulties are nevertheless too numerous for this patient ironing away of them one by one to be altogether satisfying. But it should be remembered that differences between eye-witness accounts of the same events are by no means an unusual phenomenon. In the gospels themselves there are often discrepancies elsewhere. It would in fact be suspicious, if just here everything agreed exactly. The discrepancies are at least evidence that we have not to do here with a piece of carefully concerted deceit. Moreover, allowance should be made for the uniqueness of the event the immediate sequel of which is being recorded. It is not surprising that here the human testimony should show signs of disturbance and strain. Here, if anywhere, we should expect it to be a broken and trembling testimony.