Inconsistencies in the Resurrection accounts

[UnityofTrinity]

Hello all, I’m currently being troubled by the Resurrection accounts presented in the 4 Synoptic Gospels. Normally, most of the accounts I see are only different in the wordings, yet the setting is the same, for an example, the although Christ’s words are presented differently in regard of the rich young man, the setting is basically the same.

Yet, in all 4 synoptic accounts, the Resurrection remains different not just in wordings, but the setting as well, so different that as if they’re contradicting each other.

Matthew 8:1-7
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, 2 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, approached, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was white as snow. The guards were shaken with fear of him and became like dead men.Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead, and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.

Mark 16: 1-6
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb.They were saying to one another, "Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?"When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large.On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed.He said to them, "Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:1-6
But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.They found the stone rolled away from the tomb;but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them.They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, "Why do you seek the living one among the dead?He is not here, but he has been raised. 2 Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee,

John 20:1-3
On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him."So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403bt.asp

 

[Agape_Thom]

Not to nit-pick, but there are only three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
From Dictionary.com:

taking a common view: used chiefly in reference to the first three Gospels (synoptic Gospels), Matthew, Mark, and Luke, from their similarity in content, order, and statement.

 

[Barbkw]

When I see an activity occur, I preceive it through my mental framework, I determine what is important and what is not.

My personality infuses the retelling of what I saw.

When I relate a past occurance to another person, I first take into account the person I’m speaking to and then I remember parts and pieces of the occurance what were most important to me.

Or, that I think will be most important for the person or people I’m speaking to.

For instance;

Luke was a pagan convert to Christianity, he was a disciple of St. Paul and his Gospel addresses that particular Church and that audience. He additionally wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

John was an Apostle, a practicing Jew, however his Church and his diocese was around the area of Ephesus - a very pagan community (the Temple of Artemis was there). It’s believed that he lived to 90 years of age. He was the only Apostle there at the Cross and he was given the care of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Gospels were written to be read to the early churches - as an integral part of the Mass. The Gospels contain the Liturgy of the Word of God. The Liturgy of the Eucharist contains the Body of Christ.

 

[Pawel_J]

Hello all, I’m currently being troubled by the Resurrection accounts presented in the 4 Synoptic Gospels. Normally, most of the accounts I see are only different in the wordings, yet the setting is the same, for an example, the although Christ’s words are presented differently in regard of the rich young man, the setting is basically the same.

Yet, in all 4 synoptic accounts, the Resurrection remains different not just in wordings, but the setting as well, so different that as if they’re contradicting each other.

The differences and their reasons are quite obvious. Gospels were written by different authors, who were living in different parts of the ancient world among different cultures and at different times, several generations after the real events. They were written on accounts of oral tradition, which was sometimes more and sometimes less precise. The reason is obvious.

 

[patrick457]

Hello all, I’m currently being troubled by the Resurrection accounts presented in the 4 Synoptic Gospels. Normally, most of the accounts I see are only different in the wordings, yet the setting is the same, for an example, the although Christ’s words are presented differently in regard of the rich young man, the setting is basically the same.

Yet, in all 4 synoptic accounts, the Resurrection remains different not just in wordings, but the setting as well, so different that as if they’re contradicting each other.

Just to nitpick: those are the ‘Empty Tomb’ accounts. We have no account of the actual Resurrection itself.

But to delve in, let’s first check where some or all of the Gospels do agree with each other:

1.) It was after the Sabbath, during the “first of the sabbaths” (i.e. the first day of the week).
2.) Women went to the tomb early in the morning. All four agree in that Mary Magdalene went there.
3.) The body of Jesus was not in the tomb.

As for the specific differences (with a little help from this page):

1.) Who went? All four Gospels agree about Mary Magdalene, but there is a bit of a variance as to who went with her:

Matthew: “the other Mary”
Mark: “Mary of James and Salome”
Luke: “Joanna and Mary of James and the others with them”

Notably, all three Synoptics agree in naming another Mary, which Mark and Luke specify as “Mary of James.” Mark meanwhile mentions Salome - the same three women that “watched from a distance” during Jesus’ death (Mark 15:40) thus visit His tomb in the Gospel - while Luke mentions Joanna (perhaps the same Joanna mentioned in 8:3 as the wife of Herod’s steward Chouzas?) and “others (feminine) with them.” We could perhaps identify Salome as being part of these “other women” that came. As for John, he does mention that “Mary Magdalene” went to the tomb, but does not expressly mention that she was the only one who went. So there’s really no difficulty here.

2.) What time did they go? The times are given by all four as, “as it begins to dawn,” “very early [in the morning],” “at daybreak,” and “early, while it is still dark.” All of these are subjective readings that are fully capable of describing the pre-dawn twilight just before the sun peeks over the horizon. In an era before precise time-keeping devices this was hardly an issue: all four Gospels after all generally agree that it was early morning.

3.) Why did they go? John does not specify; Luke and Mark agree that it was for burial issues, leaving only Matthew’s “to see the tomb.” Why is he being ambiguous? To polemically stand against that “Jesus was stolen” rumor. To note that they came to do burial work is to allow an inroad for the charge of a stolen body.

In contrast Matthew tells just enough to not give that charge meat - while still not contradicting the other Gospels. He could hardly do otherwise. In the high context of the ancient world, it would have been recognized that they could be going to the tomb for no other purpose than to perform burial services, it being primarily women’s work. “Seeing” or “looking at” tombs for observation purposes was a pointless exercise. On the other hand, this may not be so much a statement of purpose as a statement of result: They saw the tomb because they came to it.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

But aren’t the Gospel themselves must be historically accurate?

 

[danserr]

But aren’t the Gospel themselves must be historically accurate?

Well, what do you mean by historically accurate? do you mean perfect and without flaw? But no historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demand perfect sources before we believe what is in them, then the study of history and any historical knowledge would be impossible. A few minor discrepancies do not mean they are not historically accurate.

One thought though. The differences you cite could actually be seen as positive, because it shows that the writers were not copying from each other, and that each account is independent. This is actually considered very favorably by historians when an event is attested by independent accounts.

Even more, actually, you do not need to consider the gospels to be historically accurate to be able to infer that the Resurrection really happened. Even bad sources (and I do not think the gospels are bad sources) may contain nuggets of information that tells us something. For instance from this passage alone, we can infer that the tomb was found empty, they all agree on that, and the empty tomb is a key fact in establishing the resurrection. Second, the passage you cite indicates the presence of women as the first to find the empty tomb. The presence of women is huge since in the ancient world women were 2nd class citizens and their testimony not reliable. This means:
1). The gospel writers would never have invented the women, they must have really been there, and so this supports the reliability of the account.
2). The accounts were early. For instance, Paul, writing Corinthians around 50 AD never mentions the women. This means the story must have preceded 50 AD because had it been written later, no one would have added the women. This also supports the reliability of the account.

 

[patrick457]

But aren’t the Gospel themselves must be historically accurate?

To supplement what danserr has already given:

You must remember that the ancients did not write the way we do now. The Lebanese writer and preacher Abraham Mitrie Rihbany (1869–1944) in page 79 of his famous work The Syrian Christ (1916) writes of Easterners who offer what we call “misstatements” which “are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il – it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o’clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as may be conveniently remembered. A case may be overstated or understated, not necessarily for the purpose of deceiving, but to impress the hearer with the significance or the insignificance of it.”

The same could be said of the Gospels - because they were written in this cultural context which emphasizes more the bigger picture than the details, we can say that the Resurrection accounts, as well as the other accounts, are cases of ma besay-il. It does not matter how many women went, how many angels were exactly there, or what exact time they went: the more important fact is that they went, they did not find Jesus’ corpse, and that they saw someone in the tomb. The four Gospels agree on all the basics, at least; the varying details was deemed to be accessory to the main picture and is thus not a cause of concern to their original audience. Their idea of ‘accuracy’ is different from ours.

In one sense, I could say that the Bible is not “our” book, in that it was not written in our time and culture. You can’t just pick it up and expect to read a 21st century-style form of literature. In order to understand it, you need to understand the mindset and the cultural context - so vastly different from ours - otherwise you would be led to all wacky sorts of interpretations. I mean, you wouldn’t really understand, say, the Canterbury Tales without having even a faint grasp of the context of 14th century Europe, right?

Also the fact that the stories would have been passed down orally before they were even penned down on papyrus. Variations in oral tradition in no way contradicts the idea of inerrancy. The idea of inspiration as wooden and mechanical in all cases is something that the Scriptures never demand.