The Resurrection accounts

[logical bob]

Hi folks, first post here.

I've been told several times by Christians that the Gospels are reliable and that they should persuade me that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I have to admit that this puzzles me because there are so many differences between the four versions of the resurrection story. I want to ask you how you think they all fit together. Only one Christian I've discussed this with has tried to explain it, and his views are so liberal that he wouldn't be able to sign up to the statement of faith on this forum.

I hope this isn't considered trolling. My intention is to ask an honest question about something that puzzles me and an apologetics forum seems a good place to do that.

Here are the differences that puzzle me.

How many women went to the tomb? In Matthew, two. In Mark, three. Luke doesn't say, but it's at least five. In John, there's only one.

Who did they meet there? In Matthew and Mark they meet one angel. Luke has two angels while in John they don't meet anyone.

What did they do then?In Matthew, they set off to tell the disciples but in Mark they leave and don't tell anyone. In Luke they tell all the disciples and some other people but in John they tell only two of the disciples.

Did they meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples?In Matthew, yes, but not in Luke or John.

How did the disciples react to the news?In Matthew, Jesus has already sent word that they should go to Galilee, which they do. In Luke they don't believe the women, but Peter goes to the tomb. In John there's no mention of disbelief and Peter and another disciple go to the tomb.

Can anyone make sense of this for me?

 

[Free]

I think what we have is what we would expect from different eyewitness accounts. The important thing is to not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

 

[Ret]

Hi folks, first post here.

I've been told several times by Christians that the Gospels are reliable and that they should persuade me that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I have to admit that this puzzles me because there are so many differences between the four versions of the resurrection story. I want to ask you how you think they all fit together....

Can anyone make sense of this for me?

I live on a major highway in the USA....I have seen major accidents happen right in front of my house. Others also see the same accident...but from a different perspective. However, no two reports tell it 'alike'. WHY...?

'logical bob', certainly you have this already figured out...No ?

AND...welcome to CF.net

 

[logical bob]

Thanks for your replies, and for the welcome.

Yes, I do realise that different people will remember and report the same event in different ways. The thing is, I thought you guys believed the Bible to be infallible - that's certainly what it says in the site's statement of faith. I always took that to mean that it didn't contain any mistakes or false statements. Yet if the four gospels say that one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb then at least three of them do contain mistakes. So I'm still puzzled.

 

[westtexas]

Thanks for your replies, and for the welcome.

Yes, I do realise that different people will remember and report the same event in different ways. The thing is, I thought you guys believed the Bible to be infallible - that's certainly what it says in the site's statement of faith. I always took that to mean that it didn't contain any mistakes or false statements. Yet if the four gospels say that one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb then at least three of them do contain mistakes. So I'm still puzzled.

Let me tell you the way I see it. You have an incident with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women present. All were there, Can we agree on that?

Matthew in his account told of Mary and the other Mary--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, both were there and he told of those two.

Mark in his account told of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, all 3 were there and he told of these three.

Luke in his account told of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the other Mary, and the other women--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, all were there and he told of these women.

John in his account told only of Mary--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, she was also there.

All are true accounts of the same incident told by four different men with four different views of what was important to tell of this incident.
Westtexas

 

[Ret]

Yes, I do realise that different people will remember and report the same event in different ways. The thing is, I thought you guys believed the Bible to be infallible - that's certainly what it says in the site's statement of faith. I always took that to mean that it didn't contain any mistakes or false statements. Yet if the four gospels say that one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb then at least three of them do contain mistakes. So I'm still puzzled.

Yes, I do believe the Bible to be 'INFALLIBLE'...in respect to thought and purpose in salvation...but not infallible in respect to human error and/or human accountability.

 

[glorydaz]

Mary Magdalene is mentioned alone and yet she says, "we".

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

They may have all arrived together but not all are mentioned....or...there could have been multiple groups going at different times recorded as each disciple heard the account. Each gospel was written from individual points of view...they don't have to harmonize on details to all be true.

 

[chestertonrules]

Hi folks, first post here.

I've been told several times by Christians that the Gospels are reliable and that they should persuade me that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I have to admit that this puzzles me because there are so many differences between the four versions of the resurrection story. I want to ask you how you think they all fit together. Only one Christian I've discussed this with has tried to explain it, and his views are so liberal that he wouldn't be able to sign up to the statement of faith on this forum.

I hope this isn't considered trolling. My intention is to ask an honest question about something that puzzles me and an apologetics forum seems a good place to do that.

Here are the differences that puzzle me.

How many women went to the tomb? In Matthew, two. In Mark, three. Luke doesn't say, but it's at least five. In John, there's only one.

Who did they meet there? In Matthew and Mark they meet one angel. Luke has two angels while in John they don't meet anyone.

What did they do then?In Matthew, they set off to tell the disciples but in Mark they leave and don't tell anyone. In Luke they tell all the disciples and some other people but in John they tell only two of the disciples.

Did they meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples?In Matthew, yes, but not in Luke or John.

How did the disciples react to the news?In Matthew, Jesus has already sent word that they should go to Galilee, which they do. In Luke they don't believe the women, but Peter goes to the tomb. In John there's no mention of disbelief and Peter and another disciple go to the tomb.

Can anyone make sense of this for me?

I believe the disparities in the accounts lend credence to the validity of the overall story.

If there was a desire to build a false history, the stories would have been brought into compliance.

The fact that the early Church accepted the disparities tells us that they were not willing to change anything.

It's easy to understand the confusion and lack of certainty about these inconsequential details.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

The Gospel accounts were community writings where the writers on one hand tried their very best to stick to the literary points of the Jesus tradition in light of evolving theology, but on the other hand they were written from specific points of views. The differences between Mark, Matthew, and John come to mind as illustrations. Given that, the four Gospels when written there was never an anticipation they were going to be compiled as an anthology to be compared and contrasted amongst each other.

I wouldn't make too much of it that they don't match to a "T".

The Bible is not infallible, for even if the Bible was God inspired, once the infallible has the fallible pen the Bible then game over.

 

[Godfrey]

Whoa, I know that name!

Logical Bob from the Dawkins forums?

 

[logical bob]

Thanks again for the varied responses. I must say I'm more persuaded by those like chestertonrules and Tabasco Breath who view the accounts as fallible human writings. I suppose it's just about conceivable that, as westtexas says, every detail that's mentioned anywhere is true and each account mentions a different selection, but it doesn't ring true for me. I honestly think some of the details are beyond reconciliation (the descriptions of the angels, Mary Magedelene's actions on leaving the tomb).

Do you think the anonymity of the Gospels has any bearing on what they're trying to say? I would have thought that if you wanted to persuade people, you'd identify yourself but all four accounts are pointedly unclaimed.

Whoa, I know that name!

Logical Bob from the Dawkins forums?

The very same, but I'm afraid you have the advantage of me!

I have to say though, respect to this site for letting me post. I googled about a bit and didn't find anywhere else that would let a non-Christian post in the bible and theology sections. The Christian members add a lot to the interest over at RDF. Surely an exchange of ideas benefits everyone.

 

[Godfrey]

Whoa, I know that name!

Logical Bob from the Dawkins forums?

The very same, but I'm afraid you have the advantage of me!

I post there very occasionally as Klonkku. We swapped views on a thread a few months back, it was mainly about the kingdom of God.

Nice to see you again, I've not been here long myself.

 

[logical bob]

Yes, I remember the discussion. I think you had the same avatar over there. Good to see you too.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi logical Bob

The four accounts simply over lay one another. Each gospel gives more or less information than the other. Like a puzzle, you put all the information into one basket. Then you have the puzzle solved.

From this, your other questions should be answered. But if not, then specify once again a specific question that you would like answered.

Love IN Christ - Mysteryman - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

I would not look at the Bible in such a way, that the Bible is going to persuade you. And I don't think others will try and persuade you. But the accounts or say the records are there.

One has to walk by faith and not by sight. I would think then, that the Bible , which has the Word of God within it. Is something we could consider being sight. We were not actually there when these events took place 2000 years ago. But I believe they happened.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Physicist]

Hi folks, first post here.

I've been told several times by Christians that the Gospels are reliable and that they should persuade me that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I have to admit that this puzzles me because there are so many differences between the four versions of the resurrection story. I want to ask you how you think they all fit together....

Can anyone make sense of this for me?

I live on a major highway in the USA....I have seen major accidents happen right in front of my house. Others also see the same accident...but from a different perspective. However, no two reports tell it 'alike'. WHY...?

'logical bob', certainly you have this already figured out...No ?
AND...welcome to CF.net

I doubt any Judge thinks that accident reports are infallible. In fact, legal experts know that eyewitness reports are often wrong. Hearsay of such eyewitness accounts, as contained in the gospels, is not even considered acceptable for submission in the courtroom.

 

[Ret]

I doubt any Judge thinks that accident reports are infallible. In fact, legal experts know that eyewitness reports are often wrong. Hearsay of such eyewitness accounts, as contained in the gospels, is not even considered acceptable for submission in the courtroom.

To a point I agree...which is why I said later in the thread...

• Yes, I do believe the Bible to be 'INFALLIBLE'...in respect to thought and purpose in salvation
  ...but not infallible in respect to human error and/or human accountability.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for your replies, and for the welcome.

Yes, I do realise that different people will remember and report the same event in different ways. The thing is, I thought you guys believed the Bible to be infallible - that's certainly what it says in the site's statement of faith. I always took that to mean that it didn't contain any mistakes or false statements. Yet if the four gospels say that one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb then at least three of them do contain mistakes. So I'm still puzzled.

Let me tell you the way I see it. You have an incident with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women present. All were there, Can we agree on that?

Matthew in his account told of Mary and the other Mary--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, both were there and he told of those two.

Mark in his account told of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, all 3 were there and he told of these three.

Luke in his account told of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the other Mary, and the other women--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, all were there and he told of these women.

John in his account told only of Mary--did he make a mistake or a false statement? No, she was also there.

All are true accounts of the same incident told by four different men with four different views of what was important to tell of this incident.
Westtexas

In addition, each author was writing to a different audience and thus, was written to accommodate that audience with relevance. Point in case, Matthew was written to the Jews, so it covers much of what a Jewish person would find as relevant and important while John Mark writes to a Gentile audience and leaves much of the "Jewish" stuff out. Again, each gospel is written with a specific agenda in mind, and each agenda was in line with it's cultural relevance.

I would infer, Logical Bob, that you would find Luke's account more to your taste.

 

[stovebolts]

I doubt any Judge thinks that accident reports are infallible. In fact, legal experts know that eyewitness reports are often wrong. Hearsay of such eyewitness accounts, as contained in the gospels, is not even considered acceptable for submission in the courtroom.

What you may find interesting, is that in John's account, it was Mary who first saw the resurrected Jesus. Mary?... a woman?... and she meets a Gardner.

Also, within the Roman culture, it wasn't the resurrection that was the big whoop. A Roman would look at the resurrection and basically say, "So what, all leaders claim a resurrection..." That being the case, can you tell me what was the big whoop as far as the Romans were concerned when they read the Gospel?

 

[logical bob]

In addition, each author was writing to a different audience and thus, was written to accommodate that audience with relevance. Point in case, Matthew was written to the Jews, so it covers much of what a Jewish person would find as relevant and important while John Mark writes to a Gentile audience and leaves much of the "Jewish" stuff out. Again, each gospel is written with a specific agenda in mind, and each agenda was in line with it's cultural relevance.

That's true. In John's Gospel there is a definite anti-Peter theme throughout and that surfaces here. Peter is not the disciple Jesus loved, and this preferred disciple outruns him and is the first to believe.

Luke meanwhile is very pro-Peter and makes him the only disciple to believe the women straight away.

Mark's strange ending (I think we have to regard Mark as ending at 16:8) is very much in keeping with the theme of secrecy that runs right through the book.

But that's sort of my point. If each author describes the events with this kind of agenda, doesn't that make them less helpful as witnesses of what actually happened? A good witness, after all, is impartial.

I would infer, Logical Bob, that you would find Luke's account more to your taste.

Why do you say that? It's not really a question of taste (though Luke is a beautiful book in many ways). I'm asking how helpful the accounts are to a sceptical reader who wants to know what happened.