Do the Resurrection Accounts in the Four Gospels Contradict Each Other?

　　We know that the resurrection of Jesus is key to the Bible story. However, many readers have noticed that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection look different in different gospels. What are the differences, and do they present a problem? Respected theologians give their thoughts on the matter, and what it means for us today.

　　

Table of Contents

What Differences Do We See in the Resurrection Accounts?Why Might the Resurrection Accounts Be Written So Differently?Why Is It Important that the Resurrection Accounts Are Eyewitness Accounts?Do the Differences Mean the Resurrection Accounts Contradict Each Other?

What Differences Do We See in the Resurrection Accounts?

A cursory reading of the resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reveals a few differences in the recorded facts. While these supposed discrepancies sometimes alarm modern readers, they tend not to concern historians because any differences are merely relegated to secondary details.

　　In each Gospel account the core story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus and puts it in a tomb, one or more of Jesus’ female followers visit the tomb early on the Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. They see a vision of either one or two angels who say that Jesus is risen. Despite the differences concerning the women’s number and names, the exact time of the morning and the number of angels, we can have great confidence in the shared core story that would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today . . .

　　The differences between the empty tomb narratives are indicative of multiple, independent affirmations of the story. Sometimes people say, “Matthew and Luke just plagiarized from Mark,” but when one examines the narratives closely, the divergences suggest that even if Matthew and Luke did know Mark’s account, they also had separate, independent sources . . .

　　While that may be enough to satisfy historians, also consider that many of the alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts are rather easily reconciled. For example, the accounts vary in the reported time of the visit to the tomb. One writer describes it as “still dark” (John 20:1), another says it was “very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1), and another says it was “just after sunrise” (Mark 16:2). But if the visit was “at dawn,” (Matthew 28:1), they were likely describing the same thing with different words.

　　As for the number and names of the women, none of the Gospels pretends to give a complete list. They all include Mary Magdalene, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also cite other women, so there was probably a group of these early disciples that included those who were named and probably a couple of others. Perhaps when the women came, Mary Magdalene arrived first and that’s why only John mentions her. That’s hardly a contradiction. In terms of whether there were/was one angel (Matthew) or two (John) at Jesus’ tomb, have you ever noticed that whenever you have two of anything, you also have one? It never fails. Matthew didn’t say there was only one. John was providing more detail by saying there were two.

　　— Adapted from interview with Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Norman Geisler

　　(Taken from “Do the Resurrection Accounts in the Four Gospels Contradict Each Other?” in the NIV Case for Christ Study Bible from Zondervan. Used by permission).

　　

Why Might the Resurrection Accounts Be Written So Differently?

Two events in the life of Jesus, while of utmost importance, come down to us with only the scarcest of details: His birth and His resurrection. Far from suggesting these events are legendary, the writers' reverential silence suits their intent to reveal the complete truth of what happened.

　　In the case of the resurrection, the four accounts—and Paul's letters—unequivocally confirm that Jesus rose physically from the tomb. But, on the other hand, each writer presents limited details from the forty days that Christ appeared to His disciples (Acts 1:3). We can attribute this partly to the limited information each of the writers had about the events and partly to the goal each had in mind with their retelling of the life of Christ.

　　Luke in particular compresses the narrative so much that the events of forty days excitedly spill from one to the next and distinctions of timing are difficult to pick out. While seeming to have gathered information from a number of sources, he focuses mainly on what happened in and around Jerusalem. Matthew gives us more of a Galilean account—as if he prefers to rush back to the place where he first learned to know Jesus.

　　With his characteristic brevity, Mark merely provides a short summary, but a summary in accord with one living in Jerusalem at the time. John relates events from both Jerusalem and Galilee but pays particular attention to the moments that reveal Christ as the Son of God. Finally, Paul, who saw Jesus "last of all" (1 Corinthians 15:8), describes the testimonies of the principal eyewitnesses, since he seems to have taken time to become familiar with the facts.

　　The gospel accounts of the resurrection give only a glimpse of all that happened. Providing a detailed timeline was not the point. Instead, the writers wanted to capture the testimonies of those who saw Jesus alive again so that others might believe.

　　(Adapted from The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim; Book V, Chapter XVI).

　　

Why Is It Important that the Resurrection Accounts Are Eyewitness Accounts?

Gary Habermas highlights a key factor in the four gospels: each of their resurrection accounts uses eyewitness testimony, which is later verified in following New Testament books.

　　(Transcript of the video above, edited for readability)

　　Ancient history rarely is established on the grounds that we prefer in ancient historiography. We would like early and eyewitness accounts. Everybody likes early eyewitness accounts. Not all eyewitness accounts are early. We want an eyewitness account, told as close to the data as possible. I mean, Livy to use one example, Roman historian. He talks about things that happened in the founding of Rome hundreds of years before his earliest sources. Our earliest sources for Alexander are 300 years later, and the best sources for Alexander are plus four and a quarter to plus 450. People say the gospels are hopelessly prejudiced and we can't get anything out of them beginning at plus 40, 40 years after Jesus. It’s just like, you know, let’s just apply some principles here and talk about history.

　　Yes, early eyewitness evidence can be wrong. What would you rather have, late non-eyewitness evidence? You can only take your best evidence, even in court cases today. Now here’s how we get the early and eyewitness evidence for the appearances of Jesus. Paul is a witness that skeptics allow. They will allow about half of Paul’s books as authentic. Interestingly enough, they will allow the main books that Christians want to use. Two of the ones they will always allow: 1 Corinthians and Galatians are two. In those books, Galatians for example, Paul says he became a Christian. Galatians 1:16 as the book starts. He says “I didn’t go up to Jerusalem right away. I went out to be alone with the Lord for three years, and then I went up to Jerusalem.” We can do the math on this, because the skeptics do it too. That appearance to Jerusalem by Paul takes place about three years after the cross. That’s where most New Testament scholars place it.

　　If you place the cross at 30 AD, that trip to Jerusalem is about 33. Paul spends 15 days with two apostles, i.e., eyewitnesses: Peter, James the brother of Jesus. The three of them are together. The key to the book of Galatians is the nature of the gospel. They’re discussing, among other things, the gospel for 15 days. If I were Paul, my first question would be, “Peter, I’ll tell you what you saw. I mean, you know, no offense, but you denied him three times. James, I mean I know you’re a spiritual guy and everything and you’re the pastor of this church in Jerusalem, but no offense, I was a persecutor I understand, but I hear you didn’t even believe when your brother was walking around. What got you guys here?” You can’t imagine them being there for 15 days and not talking about the resurrection. It’s the key to the Christian faith.

　　Now, Bart Ehrman, who is a very well-known skeptic says “Paul got this material just a very few years after the cross.” Think about this. This is Bart Ehrman, best-known skeptic in America, non-Christian. He says, “Paul got to interview Peter and James. I’d like to interview Peter and James.” Then he says, “This is as close to eye witness testimony as we can get. It’s very close to eyewitness testimony.” Three years after the cross from guys who believe they saw the risen Jesus. How do you know? Well, they teach that, and then they were willing to die for it.

　　Recommended

　　9 Ways the Bible Defines True Manliness

　　Now you say, “Well, I’m so tired of that. A lot of people are willing to die today.” Yes, right, but today people are willing to die for those guys’ testimony or Mohammad’s testimony, or somebody else’s Buddha, what they believe would be Buddha’s testimony. It has to only transform your life enough that you’re willing to die for them. I say, “But you don't know if it’s true or false.” The disciples were in a place to know if it was true or false, and they were willing to die for it. The key here is they were willing to die for a message for which they were in a position to know if it were true or false, right or wrong.

　　14 years later, in Galatians 2, Paul goes up there again. In Galatians 2:2 Paul says, “I set before them the gospel I was preaching to see if I was running or had run in vain.” He’s saying, “guys, are we all on the same page?” Just a few verses later are these five words in English. “They added nothing to me." They added nothing to me. Then just a few verses later they laid the right hand of fellowship on Paul and Barnabas, so they all agreed on the nature of the gospel. The resurrection is an indispensable portion of it. Nobody believes that it’s not.

　　Paul goes there, checks it out. To be the best way to get early eyewitnesses are these talks that Paul had right after the cross with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus, of course himself, and in Galatians 2, John is there. How far would you go to hear these four guys speak? These are the four best-known, most influential Christians. They’re all there talking about the nature of the gospel. That’s how we know. 1 Corinthians 15:11 Paul says, “They’re preaching the same message I am. Go ask them if you don’t believe me. They’ll tell you the same thing.” It’s that togetherness from the early eyewitnesses that makes the resurrection faith so credible, you know, the appearances.

　　(First published as “How Do We Know the Resurrection of Christ Is True?” on April 26, 2013)

　　

Do the Differences Mean the Resurrection Accounts Contradict Each Other?

Doug Bookman discusses how the differences can be reconciled with the belief that Scripture is inerrant:

　　(Transcript of the video above, edited for readability)

　　There is a concerted effort to discredit the Bible. For those who long to discredit the Bible, some find some internal inconsistency or external inaccuracy. Frankly, their happy hunting ground is the gospels because, after all, you have four men telling the same story. One of the places they will often go to is the resurrection narratives.

　　I will assert that number one (and this has been studied again and again in every generation by Christians who struggle with this), there are some points at which it’s difficult. But I will— number one (three points in this regard). Number one, I will affirm, I expect, the Bible to be absolutely inerrant and inerrancy is not a fluid term which means one thing in one generation. By that, I mean that it is factually accurate, that it consists with reality. That’s what truth is. It comports with reality, historical reality in all of its parts.

　　So with that caveat, let me say secondly that one of the things you have to bring to this discussion, and it is almost universally ignored in my reading, is the absolute emotional pandemonium that is reigning [in the gospels]. People are not doing rational things. Imagine that you’re one of the apostles, and for years you followed Jesus and done miracles in his name and finally bowed the knee to the rather difficult claim that he is what he claims to be. But then some weeks ago, he began to talk to you about dying, and you don’t want to hear that. That’s driving you crazy. But now you ride into the city of Jerusalem on Sunday and the whole city erupts welcoming him as king. Where’d this come from? This is the best.

　　Then it gets better than that. On Monday, Jesus returns to the city, cleanses the temple, and then controls it for two days. He never behaves more Messianically. I mean, the Old Testament says, Malachi says that “the messenger of covenant I take to be Messiah will come suddenly to his temple.” They knew that Messiah would rule and control the temple. And so here is Jesus and you’re one of the disciples, Hey, this is good. This is good. They welcome him, he’s king. He behaves Messianically. And then you have a quiet Wednesday and Thursday, you just go off to keep Passover and pray. Jesus is in a strange mood at Passover and keeps talking about how he's soon to be gone and he’s going to prepare a place. But oh boy, it’s been a good week so far.

　　But then late Thursday night, you come out to the garden, and here are 600 soldiers in full battle gear. And Jesus is hauled off and arrested. And before you know it, he’s on a cross the next morning and now you've laid his body in a tomb.

　　Now, can you imagine the rollercoaster that’s at stake here? You've been so elated and now you’ve been crushed beyond words. I always think of those two disciples on the road to Emmaus who Jesus encounters, and they don’t know it. They say, “We thought,” they're using the past tense, “we thought he was the Messiah, but it’s over now.” And then word comes that the tomb is empty.

　　I just can’t imagine how people must have been running into each other, and barely able to get a sentence out, and nobody believes it, and then everybody’s out there. So the fact that Mary is here and then she’s there and so on, it's not [a sign of inaccuracy]. There is some pandemonium going on. I don’t know that we should be overly concerned that at certain points we can't understand why a person started out here and wound up over here. That’s all I’m saying, because that’s most of the problems.

　　But having said that, the work has been done again and again, and I won’t try and do it here, but you lay those four records next to one another, take into account the factor of the excitement, and every one of 'em will fit the one with the other. Each one of the four gospels under the spirit of God had a distinct purpose and argument and audience.

　　They’re going to be, in every case, there are going to be points at which they’re distinct. But there is no point at which they are hopelessly irreconcilable, although there are points at which we can reconcile.

　　But then we say, “Well, that was a strange thing for that person to do.” Yeah, but it was a day when everybody was doing a lot of strange things.

　　That portion of scripture, as well as all others, is breathed out by a truth-telling God and therefore is absolutely accurate, and therefore, I think, absolutely harmonized.

　　(First published on Christianity.com as “Do the Four Resurrection Accounts Fit Together?” on September 7, 2010)

　　Further Reading:

　　The Bible Story and Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

　　What Does the Resurrection of Jesus Mean for Us?