Does the Resurrection account contradict in each book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pathway2

Guest
looking at the Gospel according to John, There is more details and I am trying to figure out what John was talking about compared to the other gospels. In fact do they contracted slightly?
 
Last edited:
Each Gospel writer is preaching to a different audience
Matthew to Jews
Luke to Gentiles
John in hindsight, as he put it together many years later.

They all speak the indisputable truth .
They express it in different ways.
 
The Gospels do conflict in a few aspects regarding the resurrection, most noticably on what the women saw at the tomb.
 
Last edited:
Pathway2 said:
looking at the Gospel according to John, There is more details and I am trying to figure out what John was talking about compared to the other gospels. In fact do they contracted slightly?
Click to expand...
A logical contradiction exists when it is impossible for both assertions or facts to be true about the same thing at the same time.

An apparent contradiction is a superficial one where two assertions or facts appear to be contradictory but aren’t when completely understood.

Take, for example, the claim that the Resurrection accounts contradict each other because in one account witnesses report two men and in another account two angels. The thing to keep in mind is that in Scripture, specifically the Old Testament, angels often appear in human form. So one Gospel might be accurately reporting that the women saw two angels (leaving unspecified that they had the appearance of two men,) while another Gospel might be recording what the women say they saw, (i.e., two men.) Superficially, the two accounts contradict, until it is understood that “some have entertained angels unawares” (cf. Hebrews 13:2) but later became more aware of just who they were entertaining, especially after those men cum angels started glowing in dazzling white.
 
Here is one explanation, as a succession of events. Full article at the link:

http://www.orthodox.net/pascha/3visits.html

The Three Visits of Mary Magdalene to the Tomb of Christ
  1. Some of the women purchased spices and ointment on Friday before the end of the day (Luke), while others, including Mary Magdalene, did so at the end of the Sabbath - after the sixth hour on Saturday (Mark).
  2. Mary Magdalene left the others and went to the tomb at night before the morning of Sunday. There, she does not find the body of Christ (John).
  3. She runs to tell Peter and John (Luke, John), and then stands alone outside the tomb weeping, when an angel appears to her, and then Jesus, whom she does not recognise. She rushes to Him, but is not allowed to touch Him.
  4. Obeying His command, she goes to announce the news to the apostles (John, Mark) and the other disciples (Luke).
  5. Not knowing about all this, the other myrrh-bearers come to the tomb and encounter the angels (Mark,Luke) and return too tearful to speak at first (Mark), but later also proclaim the news to everyone (Luke).
  6. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, already aware of the resurrection, go to look at the tomb and the Lord’s burial bandages, which Peter and John had seen (Luke, John), but which Mary herself had not seen for herself. Coming to the tomb, this time both Mary’s enter it, as the angel advises them to (Matthew).
  7. The angel now instructs them to confirm the news of the resurrection to the disciples and announce the coming of Christ’s ascension.
  8. Now fully comprehending the events, both Mary’s hasten to find the apostles again, but meet the Saviour along the way, and this time, they are allowed to touch Him, embracing His feet (Matthew).
  9. By the end of the day, not only the whole company of the disciples, but even the Pharisees and scribes have heard the news. These latter begin to attempt to cover up the facts.
    It is clear that the two Marys went to the tomb together after Mary Magdalene had already been there alone, and that both already knew of the resurrection.(2)
 
Last edited:
There are several issues with that harmonization. From the start we see the author of the article you quoted didn’t even bother dealing with the issue of the stone.

In Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb. As they were going there they asked who would roll the stone away. They were surprised that it was already moved away when they got there. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb and the stone was not rolled away. There an angel rolled the stone away then sat on top of it.

In sum, there can never be a harmonization because in one Gospel the two Marys go to the tomb wondering about moving the stone then see it already moved when they get there, but then in another they get there and see an angel move the stone for them. Even by adding to scripture by saying there were multiple visits, at no point would either be surprised the stone’s moved in one and see it moved in another.
 
Whether one admit or not ,the simple fact is that there is apparently some inconsistencies in the resurrection account as presented in the four Gospels.Only thing is that we can try to bring the contradictions to the minimum by suitable interpretations.

1 Mathew says that both women went to the tomb,found it empty ,saw the angel and when they ran back to tell the disciples as directed by the angel,Jesus appeared before both of them and asked them to inform the disciples.
2.Mark also says the same thing except that Jesus appeared before Magdalen only.
3. Luke also says the same minus about Jesus appearing but add that when they told the disciples,Peter ran and reached first and saw the empty tomb.
4.John’s description almost tally with the other three .But It is only Magdalen from the beginning itself and not two women.
A harmonious interpretation could be that:
1.Both women were there when going to the tomb and when seeing Jesus.Only the prominent person’s name(Magdalen) was mentioned at some places, thats all.
2.Seeing the Jesus by the women was after the disciples first rushed to the tomb on hearing that the tomb is empty.
Thus I don’t see any problem if going by a reasonable interpretation in an overall context.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
There are several issues with that harmonization. From the start we see the author of the article you quoted didn’t even bother dealing with the issue of the stone.

In Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb. As they were going there they asked who would roll the stone away. They were surprised that it was already moved away when they got there. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb and the stone was not rolled away. There an angel rolled the stone away then sat on top of it.

In sum, there can never be a harmonization because in one Gospel the two Marys go to the tomb wondering about moving the stone then see it already moved when they get there, but then in another they get there and see an angel move the stone for them. Even by adding to scripture by saying there were multiple visits, at no point would either be surprised the stone’s moved in one and see it moved in another.
Click to expand...
The only Gospel that appears to report that the women saw the stone moved by an angel is Matthew’s and it doesn’t actually say what you claim it does.
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. (Matthew 28:1-5)
Click to expand...
Mark reports the stone had been rolled away but only noticed after they discussed it as a problem.
They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. (Mark 16:3-4)
Click to expand...
Luke just reports they found it that way.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. (Luke 24:2)
Click to expand...
Matthew seems to imply that the women witnessed the stone being rolled away, Mark and Luke that the stone had been rolled away before they got there. This is only an apparent contradiction if we look at what Matthew originally wrote and not our impression from the English translation. Does Matthew really mean that the women saw the angel roll away the stone? He uses the Greek particle, γὰρ (gar, “indeed”) and the aorist participle καταβὰς which could be translated into English as past perfect “having descended,” meaning that what Matthew was doing was explaining how the stone had been rolled away, not what the women saw.
 
Last edited:
Oh…oh…now I got the catch.The so called contradictions depend upon which issue of the resurrection story you want to concentrate on.Who all first went to the tomb,whether the stone was already removed,what did they see,h ow many angels were there,when and who exactly saw Jesus etc.All the four writers agree in none of such issues .That is why an interpretation resulting in the least contradiction , but fairly reasonable and harmonious is necessary .For this there is no harm in ingnoring unimportant details such as about the position of the stone,no.of angels etc…
 
Each account is different, and not with a lack of charity by the gospel author.

The accounts of the Resurrection (as well as all events recorded in the Gospels dealing with the life and ministry of our Lord) do not contradict, but rather compliment each other!

Pax et bonum!
 
joseie said:
Oh…oh…now I got the catch.The so called contradictions depend upon which issue of the resurrection story you want to concentrate on.Who all first went to the tomb,whether the stone was already removed,what did they see,h ow many angels were there,when and who exactly saw Jesus etc.All the four writers agree in none of such issues .That is why an interpretation resulting in the least contradiction , but fairly reasonable and harmonious is necessary .For this there is no harm in ingnoring unimportant details such as about the position of the stone,no.of angels etc…
Click to expand...
It isn’t exactly clear what you are getting at here or why this is a response to my post. Absent that clarity, any words I have to offer are likely to be wasted.

I will say one thing, however. To make a claim that two or more statements from witnesses about witnessed events are logically contradictory is a high threshold to meet. There are so many contingencies involved in the accounts, especially since they were written 2000 years ago in languages other than English, that accounting for all the possible ambiguities and potential differences in the way that language terms were/are used and from that make claims of logical contradiction is an argument that is very difficult to sustain. Unless, of course, you want to assume a whole lot about what the authors intended to say. That threshold – the “catch” you allude to – cuts both ways, not just in terms of those who defend the Gospel accounts against claims they are contradictory, but also in terms of those who make the claims that they are contradictory.

Detractors will often refer to their “plain reading” of the text which, of course, means the way they think it ought to be read, which isn’t helpful except to them. Text criticism is becoming more exact and has a great deal to offer in terms of getting at the original words of the authors and the ideas that they intended to convey.

A debate on online forums amongst individuals who are not completely knowledgeable on the subject will not decide matters. However, it does provide opportunities to provoke thought such that those who adamantly claim that the accounts are logically contradictory are not left to presume their’s is the final say on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Your link to St Augustine gives a very good explanation, addressing the issue of the stone as having already been moved prior to:
  • three visits to the tomb by Mary Magdalene (plus other women, named and some not named)
  • women were twice addressed by the angels
  • they were also twice addressed by the Lord Himself
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top