The 4 accounts of the Resurrection

[Spectrox War]

On another thread, Eric Hilbert and myself were debating about the 4 different accounts of the Resurrection. Eric wasn't happy with the fact that I wouldn't painstakingly go through each one and explain the contradictions (and yet he had an opportunity to show me precisely what to believe in detail but curiously did not), so I was wondering whether any Xians out there would be able to either (a) point me to an apologetics source that puts all the accounts together as one or (b) get all the information together on this thread and produce a complete narrative. When I read the separate accounts there was conflicting information about witnesses present, why there is only 1 angel present in Matthew and Mark, but 2 angels present in Luke & John. Why the stone has already rolled away in all but Matthew's account, but there is an earthquake in that one and the stone then rolls away. It genuinely doesn't make any coherent sense to me. What am I supposed to believe in detail and in what order did events occur? At the moment, the Resurrection story looks like a complete mess. And yet it's the cornerstone of Xian belief. Come on Eric, show me the error of my ways.

 

[AlexBP]

Speaking only for myself, I find the apparent contradictions to be of small importance once analyzed logically. For instance, if I were to tell you "Bob went to Pittsburg last week", I wouldn't be saying anything one way or another about whether Bob went alone or with others. Similarly, if one gospel lists one witness to the empty tomb, it says nothing about whether she was with anyone else. Regarding the witnesses, we have the following:

• In Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James, and Salome
• In Matthew: The two Mary's
• In Luke: "the women", unnamed
• In John: Mary Magdalene

So there's nothing inherently contradictory in any of the lists, but it does raise the obvious question of why they were listed differently. The most likely explanation is this. Mark's gospels contains a lot of names of specific characters, even those with minor roles. The likely reason is that these people were still alive when Mark wrote his gospel (estimated to be around 65 A.D.), so he was telling his readers to go and talk to these people if they wanted to hear more about Jesus. By the time Matthew wrote his gospel (estimated to be around 80 A.D.) Salome had died, so he only listed the two Mary's. When John wrote his gospel (90 A.D.) only Mary Magdalene was still alive. Luke, meanwhile, wrote for a gentile audience far away from Palestine, so there was no point in him naming witnesses; his audience would never have a chance to talk to them.

 

[The Nihilist]

Speaking only for myself, I find the apparent contradictions to be of small importance once analyzed logically. For instance, if I were to tell you "Bob went to Pittsburg last week", I wouldn't be saying anything one way or another about whether Bob went alone or with others. Similarly, if one gospel lists one witness to the empty tomb, it says nothing about whether she was with anyone else. Regarding the witnesses, we have the following:

• In Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James, and Salome
• In Matthew: The two Mary's
• In Luke: "the women", unnamed
• In John: Mary Magdalene

So there's nothing inherently contradictory in any of the lists, but it does raise the obvious question of why they were listed differently. The most likely explanation is this. Mark's gospels contains a lot of names of specific characters, even those with minor roles. The likely reason is that these people were still alive when Mark wrote his gospel (estimated to be around 65 A.D.), so he was telling his readers to go and talk to these people if they wanted to hear more about Jesus. By the time Matthew wrote his gospel (estimated to be around 80 A.D.) Salome had died, so he only listed the two Mary's. When John wrote his gospel (90 A.D.) only Mary Magdalene was still alive. Luke, meanwhile, wrote for a gentile audience far away from Palestine, so there was no point in him naming witnesses; his audience would never have a chance to talk to them.

You don't think the bible is literal and inerrant?

 

[Jpark]

why there is only 1 angel present in Matthew and Mark, but 2 angels present in Luke & John.

Could be prominence. There is a similar scenario in Matt. 8:28-34, Mark 5, and Luke 8:27-39. 2 demon possessed men yet there is only 1 demon possessed man mentioned in Mark and Luke. So that 1 angel present in Matthew and Mark could have been more prominent. After all, his appearance is described as lightning in Matthew.

Furthermore, it is possible the angels symbolize something. Compare John 20:12 to the Transfiguration; Moses represents the Law, Elijah represents the Prophets. This could also be a reference to the Ark of the Covenant.

On the other hand, it's possible that I'm going on the wrong approach and it's possible that there were more than 2 angels. Notice that the two angels in John enter the account after the disciples are at the tomb. Or perhaps they are the same angels that were at the tomb?

Perhaps Luke 24 is what completes the accounts as it says two angels and they happen to say almost the same thing as the angel in Matthew and the angel in Mark. Or there could have been more than 2 angels at the tomb site before the women left it?

At the moment, the Resurrection story looks like a complete mess.

I agree.

Unless of course, one of the two interpretations I listed above are correct. Or if there's another interpretation.

 

[AlexBP]

You don't think the bible is literal and inerrant?

No

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

No

So how do you know which parts to take as literal and which as myth/symbolic? If you don't believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God why are you a Christian?

I don't agree with Fundies but I can see where they're coming from in taking the entire Bible as literal. What I don't understand are the liberal/intellectual Christians (Anglicans and similar types) who seemingly pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. For example, Jesus and Paul both accepted Adam and Eve as literal, historical people. Paul's entire theology is built upon the fall of Adam and Eve and God's subsequent plan of redemption. I know of Christians who consider Genesis 1-11 as myth and yet give credence to the writings of Paul. I find this truly mind boggling.

In regard to the OP, I read about the discrepancies in the resurrection stories in Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted", which made me examine my former faith more deeply. I asked questions about the contradictions on some forums but the answers were all the same - all the accounts were true; they were just told from different perspectives. I found that answer to be lacking. There are even blatant additions to the gospels (for example, most of Mark 16 was added later and it will tell you so in the margins of many Bible translations).

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm a techie and have lived in England a very long time so obviously Dr. Who is sacred to me.

We have some inconsistencies to deal with too, most have been explained but a few nagging ones remain.

The Heart of the TARDIS is an immensely powerful incredibly knowledgeable living entity. It has a telepathic link with the Doctor so when he operates the controls it is just to help him express himself, the TARDIS gets his intentions directly from his mind, and you really can't control someone like the TARDIS even if you could work out exactly where to land to the nearest inch on a moving planet.

And because the TARDIS reads minds it allows communication between beings with incompatible languages.

But in the first episodes of Dr. Who the TARDIS was just a box for going places, with very conveniently a damaged navigation circuit board, so despite wanting to go to nice places the Dr. and his companion were forever ending up in a pickle.

Can someone explain how these differences can be resolved?

I know both scripts were inspired but how much does the individual personality of the author affect the final work?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I was once a biblical inerrantist. This happened to be a project of mine. I managed to weasel together all four accounts up to one certain point and then I just accepted that it could not be done. The accounts were not meant to be accurate in every exact detail, but were purposed to effectively convey the same message:

That Christ was in the tomb, and then he was not, because he had been resurrected.

For example, Jesus and Paul both accepted Adam and Eve as literal, historical people. Paul's entire theology is built upon the fall of Adam and Eve and God's subsequent plan of redemption. I know of Christians who consider Genesis 1-11 as myth and yet give credence to the writings of Paul. I find this truly mind boggling.

We have no explicit statement from Jesus or Paul that the Genesis account was to be taken literal. For all we know, 'Adam and Eve' is a symbol of the first ensouled human couple -- a pair of ancestors far older than 6,000 years.

 

[jayem]

Different authors, different accounts. The point is the conveyance of the resurrection which are analogous in all accounts.

Possibly. But if the take-home message is the resurrection, why muddle it with so many varying details? If all scripture is divinely inspired, why would God allow inconsistency and ambiguity in his holy word?

Anyone ever noticed that many--though certainly not all--conspiracy mongers claim to be Bible-believing Christians? They'll seize upon minor discrepant details in the reporting of the 9/11 events to call the whole "official" story into question. Yet they'll write off discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. Confirmation bias at work, I guess.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Possibly. But if the take-home message is the resurrection, why muddle it with so many varying details? If all scripture is divinely inspired, why would God allow inconsistency and ambiguity in his holy word?

Why wouldn't God allow it? If four people each tell their account of what happened, all having the same theme and the same main plot but varying in small details, the variance does not in itself render the theme/plot invalid or untrue.

While God inspired the Scriptures, humans penned them, so personal perspective and cultural influence are at least somewhat present.

 

[jayem]

Something being divinely inspired doesn't mean that it is ultimate. I can be divinely inspired but it doesn't mean that I become 100% right. It means that I aspire to the truth. It doesn't mean that I am the truth. The bible was written by human hands, in it it aspires towards the truth.

Whatever comes from human hands, even if it is divinely inspired, is not infallible. The only holy word of God are the words of Jesus which are not inconsistent or unclear. The whole bible is not the word of God. Jesus' words are the Word of God.

I can respect that. You must find yourself at odds with many Christians. Seems to me that most Christian doctrine has been based more on the words of Paul and various church fathers, than of Jesus.

 

[jayem]

Why wouldn't God allow it? If four people each tell their account of what happened, all having the same theme and the same main plot but varying in small details, the variance does not in itself render the theme/plot invalid or untrue.

While God inspired the Scriptures, humans penned them, so personal perspective and cultural influence are at least somewhat present.

It's hard to attribute some of the differing Gospel accounts to personal perspective. In Mark, Luke, and John, the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus to 11 disciples together is in a room in Jerusalem. In Matthew, Jesus's first appearance to the 11 is on a mountain in Galilee. Those locations are, maybe 70 miles apart. To me, personal perspective would be one witness to a hit-and-run saying the victim was struck by a dark blue Escalade, while another witness says he was hit by a black Navigator. But those Bible accounts are like one witness saying the hit-and-run occurred in Chicago, and another saying it happened in Racine. That's a lot more than personal perspective.

 

[TomZzyzx]

On another thread, Eric Hilbert and myself were debating about the 4 different accounts of the Resurrection. Eric wasn't happy with the fact that I wouldn't painstakingly go through each one and explain the contradictions (and yet he had an opportunity to show me precisely what to believe in detail but curiously did not), so I was wondering whether any Xians out there would be able to either (a) point me to an apologetics source that puts all the accounts together as one or (b) get all the information together on this thread and produce a complete narrative. When I read the separate accounts there was conflicting information about witnesses present, why there is only 1 angel present in Matthew and Mark, but 2 angels present in Luke & John. Why the stone has already rolled away in all but Matthew's account, but there is an earthquake in that one and the stone then rolls away. It genuinely doesn't make any coherent sense to me. What am I supposed to believe in detail and in what order did events occur? At the moment, the Resurrection story looks like a complete mess. And yet it's the cornerstone of Xian belief. Come on Eric, show me the error of my ways.

First we have to be honest with the scriptures. Many people trying to find contradictions misrepresent what the bible actually says, as you also did. Matthew and Mark do not say only 1 angel was present. Matthew says "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven...", and Mark says "they saw a young man sitting at the right...". There is no contradiction here. There would be a contradiction if Matthew and Mark said "1 and only 1 angel were present, but they don't. I'm not saying your statement was intentional. I'm only saying we have to be more careful how we represent the bible.

 

[The Nihilist]

First we have to be honest with the scriptures. Many people trying to find contradictions misrepresent what the bible actually says, as you also did. Matthew and Mark do not say only 1 angel was present. Matthew says "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven...", and Mark says "they saw a young man sitting at the right...". There is no contradiction here. There would be a contradiction if Matthew and Mark said "1 and only 1 angel were present, but they don't. I'm not saying your statement was intentional. I'm only saying we have to be more careful how we represent the bible.

Doesn't it hurt your back to bend over that far?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Doesn't it hurt your back to bend over that far?

It never hurts to tell the truth. Did you think there was something wrong with what I said?

 

[The Nihilist]

It never hurts to tell the truth. Did you think there was something wrong with what I said?

Just that it's crap. Are you also going to explain the two lineages of Jesus by saying that he had two mortal parents?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Just that it's crap. Are you also going to explain the two lineages of Jesus by saying that he had two mortal parents?

Let's finish one discussion at a time, then I'll be happy to answer anything else. What part of what I said was not true? Or can you not answer because you don't have an answer.

 

[The Nihilist]

Let's finish one discussion at a time, then I'll be happy to answer anything else. What part of what I said was not true? Or can you not answer because you don't have an answer.

Do I understand you correctly that your position is that the two given accounts do not contradict each other because they don't explicitly deny that the other happened?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Do I understand you correctly that your position is that the two given accounts do not contradict each other because they don't explicitly deny that the other happened?

Yup, it's call the law of non contradiction, that's logic.

 

[The Nihilist]

Yup, it's call the law of non contradiction, that's logic.

Actually, on reviewing some different translations, I'm not convinced they are contradictory accounts. Matthew's seems to have some flair that Mark's doesn't, but that's about it.
Why are you concerned about making them line up? The bible is full of contradictions, none of which are insurmountable problems for christianity.