Q1. Differences between Resurrection Accounts

[tgandy]

There are some differences in the reporting of the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus.   In the Synoptic Gospels, Mary Magdalene and other women go to the tomb and in John's account, Mary Magdalene goes alone.  In Matthew Jesus appears to the women before they tell the disciples and in John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first after she tells the disciples.  In Matthew and Mark one angel appears and in Luke and John there are two.  In Matthew, the women do not tell anyone what they had seen. In some accounts the purpose of the visit ranged from to look at the tomb to bring spices to anoint the body.  and John gave no reason for Mary's visit.  The description of the grave clothes is different in Matthew and Mark than it is in Luke and John.  The location of the resurrection is different in Luke as he records in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  No two people can view an incident and come away with the same description.  We all perceive differently.  Our emotions come into play and sometimes clouds what we see.  The differences in the description of the resurrection do not take away from what happened at all.  In fact, I believe it enhances it.  Several people witnessed something that just doesn't occur every day.  They were in shock, and there was a lot of emotions running rampant within them.  I believe the "subtle" differences add to our resurrection story. 

[JoanG]

In Matthew 28, the scene is set up after an earthquake. The quards that were posted by the religious leaders were frozen in fear. There was an angel that spoke to the women. This account was not interested in the wrappings on the body. This one is very straight forward. This was written by a Jew for the Jews about a Jew.

 

Mark 16 gives a bit more detail. But it looks at the resurrection from the view point of Peter who gave the testamony from his point of view and his actions and reactions at the time. He was not really concerned with the exact details of the women at that time.

 

Luke 24 was written by a Gentile with added details from the other gospels to allow other Gentiles to understand Jewish laws and traditions better.

 

John 20 these are the words of a man that was present during the events. These are his words and thoughts and reflections on what is written.

 

As stated in the lesson, each person will see an event and they will view it differently. Their minds will work in different ways. Some people feel what they see. Others will be very visual and take in more details. Still others might just gloss over the events and be more concerned with the how and why.

 

Each person will describe what is important to them at that moment.And no two people will ever see the same thing the same way. It is the same concept as the glass being half full or half empty.

[webster52]

What differences do you find between the various resurrection accounts? Matthew is the only writer who records the first appearance to the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance of Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Only John records the appearance of our Lord in the upper room, when Thomas was absent and the appearance on the sea of Galilee.

 

How do you account for differences in eyewitness testimony? If the differences concerned the main points of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity. None of the details flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture.

 

How might these differences add to the credibility of the witnesses? The venerable scholar, Wilbur Smith said, “In these fundamental truths, there are absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were mostly vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels.”

[rakovsky]

Q1. What differences do you find between the various resurrection accounts? How do you account for differences in eyewitness testimony? How might these differences add to the credibility of the witnesses?

Dr. Ralph Discusses the Issue of the Differences in more detail here:

http://www.jesuswalk.com/resurrection/2_resurrection-gospels.htm

Here is what I find to be the most striking details:

• In Mark 16:8, after hearing the young man's/angel's instructions to tell the apostles about Jesus going to Galilee, "they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." And here Mark's original version of his gospel ends. This leads the reader to the impression that they kept quiet at least for a long period of time. The verses from 9 onwards, added to a later version of Mark, mention two travelers knowing about the women's vision of angels, but not about them knowing of Jesus' appearance there or about disciples at the tomb. However, in the three other gospels, the women immediately went to tell the apostles about the angel, and the disciples came back and looked at the tomb. Also in the other three gospels, the women saw Jesus. So why does Mark tend to rule out the disciples' visit to the tomb?   
• Apologetic Counterargument: The women's silence after meeting the angel in Mark 16:8 could have just been temporary, meaning that they did not tell anyone there around the tomb.

   

• In Matthew and Mark, Jesus or the angel at the tomb has the myrrhbearers tell the apostles to meet Him in Galilee, where Matthew says they do meet the resurrected Jesus. Luke changes the reference to Galilee to one where Jesus simply told them in Galilee about the resurrection. It looks like Luke is intentionally editing out the Galilean meeting. Instead, Luke has Jesus show up on Day 1 of the Resurrection to the apostles in Jerusalem, at which point he tells them to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost. This would bar them from meeting Jesus on the mountain in Galilee as Matthew described and from meeting Jesus at the sea like John 21 described.
• Apologetic Counterargument: Luke 24 might not have been clear in its chronology: It says Jesus appeared on Day 1 and spoke to them. But the part about staying in Jerusalem could have referred to instructions He gave at a later appearance to the apostles, since the speech in verses 46-49 begins with the words "And he said", implying that this all might not have been one long monologue on the same day. Alternately, Jesus could have been giving general instructions to stay in Jerusalem that did not bar brief side trips to Galilee.

   

• Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:5 that after Jesus' resurrection, He showed Himself to "the twelve". Luke says that on Day 1 of the resurrection, Jesus appeared to "the eleven". Did Paul not know about Judas' betrayal? Based on John 20, Thomas wouldn't have been there either, so Jesus would have only showed Himself to 10 people that time. If Luke and Paul were just talking in generalities about "the twelve" or "the eleven" collectively with an estimation, perhaps there were even fewer disciples present at that first appearance?
• Counterargument: Matthias had become one of the twelve by the time Paul was writing, even if he wasn't selected as one at the moment of the appearance. So perhaps Matthias was at that initial group appearance and Paul listed him among "the twelve".

   

• In Luke 24, Jesus appears on Day 1, has some monologues, takes the disciples as far as to Bethany (which looks on the map like it is probably beyond the Mount of Olives), and ascends. In Acts 1, Jesus appears to the apostles over the course of 40 days, at the end of which he ascends from the Mount of Olives.
• Counterargument: As stated before: Luke 24 might not have been clear in its chronology: It says Jesus appeared on Day 1 and spoke to them. But the part about ascending could have referred to a later appearance to the apostles, even though the chronology is not distinguished. Maybe Bethany counts as on the Mount of Olives, or else it isn't clear that Jesus led them onto that spot, as opposed to just going on the road.

   

• Why did Jesus order Mary Magdalene not to grasp on Him in John, yet He let the disciples touch Him in Luke and John and the two Marys held His feet in Matthew? Was Jesus really an ephemeral apparition that could not really be grasped?
• Counterargument: First, the two Marys did hold onto his feet, but them He told Mary not to grasp Him. With the would "grasp", He meant that she shouldn't hold onto Him, but that instead she should go tell the disciples, or else that He didn't want to be held back by Mary because He had to go on with his goals.

 

Even though I can think of apologetics' counterarguments, these still seem to me to be major problems. It does sound to me like Mark ended his gospel leaving the impression that the women didn't notify the apostles, and that it was only later that the apostles happened to meet Jesus in Galilee (if at all), without Peter and John rushing to the tomb like the other gospels say. I am aware that this is not a full-proof argument, it just seems to be a real problem for me, as do the other ones I listed.

[Annelle]

All the differences mentioned I have noticed before but did not think about their significance.

I have been in the Police force for 13 years and know that eye witness statements always differ from each other. It all depends on where you were positioned during the incident, your state of mind and what your senses told you.  

I do believe though that it is not necessary to sweat the small stuff. At the end of the day all three gospels tells us that Jesus was resurrected, He returned to the Father and He will come again.

The Holy Spirit supervised the compilation of the bible and therefore all is good with it. Praise the Lord.

[Old Jerry]

The way that I account for the differences in eyewitness testimony is that everybody doesn’t see the same thing even though they all witness the same event. I find that is true when I talk to my kids about the childhood. They remember things different then I do but we were all there for the experience. So these differences do add to the credibility of the witness because we can see that it wasn’t a rehearsed story.

[elaineer]

I think the differences between the gospels were the amount of women that were at the tomb. John only mentioned Mary Magdalene.

There will always be different views at an incident. We all see and interpret incidents differently. At a car accident many witnesses will have very different interpretations.

 

[haar]

Q1. What differences do you find between the various resurrection accounts? How do you account for differences in eyewitness testimony? How might these differences add to the credibility of the witnesses?

A. Some of the differences are about the number of women that went to the grave, the purpose of the visit and the type of cloth that Jesus was wrapped with. 

These differences do not change the fact that Jesus's resurrection is real.

[haar]

Q1. What differences do you find between the various resurrection accounts? How do you account for differences in eyewitness testimony? How might these differences add to the credibility of the witnesses?

A. There are minor differences in the accounts of the resurrection given in the four gospels. Some of these differences are as regards the women, the purpose of their visit to the grave, the grave clothes, the number of angels. These differences are however not significant and do not change the credibility of the resurrection story given that when a number of people witness an an event and report it, there will be minor differences in their reports.

[Bianca]

Any differences that I have seen such as the appearance to the women can be accounted to the accounts still being legitimate. Sometimes when something sounds so perfect it can make a witness to something sound fake. It can actually make people question how legitimate it is. The differences can actually and does make it sound more creditable. Humans can perceive things in different ways but it doesn't mean a person was telling a lie.

[carol tuggle]

Well the differences appear to be on who goes to the tomb , how many angels tell Jesus has resurrected, when he appears to disciples and women ,.  and how and when  they tell disciples.  Eye witness accounts are more credible by their differences.  If identical it implies they are rehearsed and scripted.  We all see things a little differently 

[Niyonka16]

Q1. What differences do you find between the various resurrection accounts?

ANSWER: The difference between the  4 gospels are: Each gospel presents Christ, and the life and freedom He brings, to a specific audience: Matthew announces Jesus as the promised Messiah, Mark proclaims the power of Christ in an action-packed account, Luke shares longer stories and parables, and John breaks the mold to create a piece of poetry on the nature of Jesus.

Each author felt a responsibility to  provide readers with another vantage point from which to ponder the impact and importance  of God with us. And each authentic account adds to the good news echoing around us, and is amplified by many voices.  No matter how many objections unbelievers raise, Christians can be confident there are no contradictions in the Word of God.

How do you account for differences in eyewitness testimony?

ANSWER: The root cause for the differences is likely due to the fact that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They were Greek authors writing about stories they heard passed onto them in the longest game of “telephone” ever played. And whoever told these stories about Jesus did so after the resurrection sightings—whether spiritual visions or physical encounters—and were not written down until at least four decades had passed since Jesus was crucified. That is a lot of time between actual events taking place and the recording of them! Moreover the resurrection details differ because the storytellers intended to tell their own versions of what happened.

How might these differences add to the credibility of the witnesses?

Answer: Differences can add to credibility. Because the credibility of eyewitness accounts lies mainly on whether we can establish that those accounts were, in fact, written by eyewitnesses.

[crissy464]

In these Scriptures we see simple difference, like one angel or two. When the women go to check the tomb they bring anointed oil. Jesus is wrapped in a large linen shroud another time  Jesus is wrapped instrips of linen. In Matthew and Mark the resurrection appearances are in Galilee, in Luke the records are in the vicinity of Jersalem. Its just like people to tell a story and leave out or add parts to the story