INTRODUCTION
In
“Jesus, Interrupted,” Bart Ehrman makes the claim, “Nowhere are the differences
among the Gospels more clear than in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.”[1]
The implication, of course, is that the differences among the Gospel narratives
demonstrate them to be an unreliable source of history and, thereby, sheds
doubt on the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. There
are five chapters in the canonical Gospels, which recount the events that
occurred following the burial of Jesus. The disciple of Jesus, Matthew, reports
the events in the twenty verses that make up Matthew chapter 28. Mark, who was
a close associate of the Apostle Peter, gives an account of the resurrection in
eight verses of Mark chapter 16.[2]
Luke, who was a close associate of the Apostle Paul, gives his account in
fifty-three verses of Luke 24. Finally, the close disciple of Jesus, John,
records the events following the burial of Jesus in fifty-six verses of John
chapters 20-21. Overall, there are 137 verses recorded in the four canonical
Gospels, which narrate the central event of Christianity that Jesus of Nazareth
rose from the dead on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion and burial.
After discussing the alleged discrepancies of the resurrection narratives in
the four accounts forwarded by Bart Ehrman, I will attempt to give plausible
explanations for these differences, followed by a proposed harmony of the
events as they are recorded in the final chapters of the Gospels.
THE PROPOSED PROBLEM
Bart
Ehrman states, “All four Gospels agree that on the third day after Jesus’
crucifixion and burial, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty. But
on virtually every detail they disagree.”[3]
Ehrman goes on to state:
“Who actually
went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew
28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or
women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem—possibly Mary
Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1; see
23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4)
or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)?
Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark
16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they
told? To tell the disciples to ‘go to Galilee,’ where Jesus will meet them
(Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them ‘while he was in Galilee,’
that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the
disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone
(Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, who do they tell? The eleven disciples
(Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter
and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do in response?
Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them
(Matthew 28:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be ‘an idle
tale’ (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John
20:3)?”
One point in
particular seems to be irreconcilable. In Mark’s account the women are
instructed to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, but out of fear
they don’t say a word to anyone about it. In Matthew’s version the disciples
are told to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, and they immediately do so. He appears
to them there and gives them their final instruction. But in Luke the disciples
are not told to go to Galilee. They are told that Jesus had foretold his
resurrection while he was in Galilee
(during his public ministry). And they never leave Jerusalem—in the southern
part of Israel, a different region from Galilee, in the north. On the day of
the resurrection Jesus appears to two disciples on the ‘road to Emmaus”
(24:13-35); later that day these disciples tell the other what they have seen,
and Jesus appears to all of them (24:36-49); and then Jesus takes them to
Bethany on the outskirts of Jerusalem and gives them their instructions and
ascends to heaven. In Luke’s next volume, Acts, we’re told that the disciples
are in fact explicitly told by Jesus after his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), but
to stay there until they receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, fifty
days after Passover. After giving his instructions, Jesus then ascends to
heaven. The disciples do stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit comes (Acts
2). And so the discrepancy: If Matthew is right, that the disciples immediately
go to Galilee and see Jesus ascend from there, how can Luke be right that the
disciples stay in Jerusalem the whole time, see Jesus ascend from there, and
stay on until the day of Pentecost?”[4]
I have shared this long passage from Ehrman, because it
exhaustively displays the alleged problem of discrepancies among the
resurrection narratives of the four Gospel accounts. In my next section, I will
attempt to offer some plausible solutions to the differences Bart Ehrman
describes.
SOME PROPROSED
SOLUTIONS
The
first problem Ehrman mentions is the issue of who visited the tomb on the
morning of the resurrection. Matthew’s account states that Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary visited the grave (28:1).
Mark records Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb, along with “Mary the
mother of James and Salome” (16:1). Luke mentions both Mary’s and adds Joanna and
“the other women with them” (24:10). Finally, John’s Gospel documents only Mary
Magdalene as visiting the tomb. Bart Ehrman rightly recognizes these accounts
as varying in the details, but none of these accounts display a contradiction regarding who visited the
tomb. In fact, Ehrman is being irresponsible (at best) or dishonest (at worst)
to even ask the question in the form, “Who actually went to the tomb? Was it
Mary alone (John 20:1)?[5]
John does not state that Mary visited the tomb “alone” – he merely only
mentions her in the tomb visit! The fact that each Gospel writer did not feel
the need to document the complete list of women who visited the tomb on Sunday
morning should not cast aspersions on their credibility as honest historians.
This is not even recognized as necessary according to our modern standards of
documenting events.
To illustrate, I have compared
three news articles recounting the events of the attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941. USA Today mentions the attack by the Japanese, from the
first-hand perspectives of Russell Meyne and Jim Morgan. Meyne recounts a plane
crashing into a building, which killed four people, and he also describes
witnessing battleships tipping over and dumping oil on the water. The Fort
Worth Star Telegram article only agrees with USA Today on the major details:
The date of the attack, the perpetrators of the attack, and the location of the
event. The article does not mention Meyne or Morgan or a plane crashing into a
building killing four people. It does mention separate details, however, such
as the sinking of the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma. Interestingly, an
msnbc.com article only mentions the sinking of the USS Arizona, but does not
state that the USS Oklahoma sank, nor does it mention any of the details
offered by the USA Today article. In fact, the msnbc article has different details, including the
perspective of one Navy veteran named Louis Conter. It would be quite easy to
get a dozen more articles from different newspapers, all of which would recount
the most important details of December 7, 1941 in uniformity, but (without
question) would differ in the details. Differences among the accounts are not a
difficulty for the historical record – only contradictions would be
problematic.
When this proper reasoning is
applied to the question of who visited the tomb, it can very easily be
explained. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, Joanna, and
other women visited the tomb on the morning of the first day of the week. Luke,
who prefers to provide more details, mentions all of these women (although not
all of them by name), Matthew and Luke both decide to only mention the two
Mary’s, and John prefers to only mention Mary Magdalene, although he does not
state that Mary “alone” visited the tomb. John’s reasoning is probably because
he is going to recount the appearance of Jesus to her beginning in verse 11,
and he is the only Gospel writer to do so in detail. It should be noted that,
even though John only mentions Mary Magdalene, he does record her stating in
20:2, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid Him” (NASB, italics mine).[6]
So even John is implicitly conveying that it was not only Mary Magdalene who
had visited the tomb. It is not difficult to conclude that there are no
contradictions in any of these accounts, but merely differences among the details. As human beings, we share stories
all of the time in this way, often recounting various details of an event based
on whom we are speaking to, the length of time in which we wish to spend
sharing a story, or even based simply on the kind of mood we are in. This is
easily accomplished without stating an actual contradiction or abusing the
truth.
Ehrman goes on to question, “Had
the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it
rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)?”[7]
This is another inaccurate representation of the accounts. Matthew states in
28:2,4-5, “And behold a severe earthquake had
occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and
rolled away the stone and sat upon it…The guards shook for fear of him and
became like dead men. The angel said to the women…” (italics mine). Is Matthew conveying that the women walked up to the
tomb, saw the stone and the guards, and then
the earth shook, the stone rolled away, and an angel descended from heaven? The
account could be read in that way, but I think a more accurate interpretation
(based on the clue given in verse 2) is that these events had occurred by the time the women arrived. This is also consistent
with Mark’s account.
The next difference mentioned by
Ehrman regards whom or what did the women see there? Matthew records an angel
spoke to the women (28:5), Mark records that it was a young man in a white robe
(16:5), Luke states that it was two men (24:4), and John does not mention an
angel or men being at the tomb. As in the case of the number of women of
visiting the tomb, we are once again not dealing with a contradiction regarding the number of angels but merely the
differing details conveyed by the Gospel writers. After all, Matthew does not record that “only one” angel spoke
to the women. Matthew and Mark might have only mentioned one angel because only
one of them spoke to the women in their account. Furthermore, Mark’s account
does not state that a young man “who was not an angel” spoke to the women. The
“young men” in Luke’s account are clearly angels, so it should not be
problematic that Mark and Luke would call them “young men” since that was how
they appeared to the women. It is highly doubtful that Mark and Luke were
trying to convey that two human men,
wearing dazzling white robes (according to their descriptions), showed up at
the tomb with a special knowledge of Jesus’ location.
What were the women told by these
messengers? Matthew records the angel saying, “Do not be afraid; for I know
that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He
has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly
and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going
ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold I have told you”
(28:5-7). In Mark’s account, we find the women being told, “Do not be amazed; you
are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is
not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His
disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see
Him, just as He told you.’” (16:6-7). Finally, in Luke’s account, the women are
told, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He
has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying
that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be
crucified, and the third day rise again” (24:5-7). Matthew and Mark both appear
to record the same message, and the angel in Luke is likely giving an additional message by the same angel or
an additional message by the second angel. Regarding the issues of the number
of angels, their exact location at the site, and the messages they conveyed to
the women, R.A. Torrey states, “The very simple solution of it all is that
there was an angel outside the tomb when the women approached, and they saw
another one sitting inside. The one outside entered and the one sitting arose
and, standing by the women, together, or after one another, they uttered the
words recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.”[8]
A more difficult question is what
did the women do next? Ehrman asks, “Do the women tell the disciples what they
saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they
tell someone, who do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven
disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed
disciple (John 20:2)?”[9]
Truthfully, Matthew’s Gospel does not
record that the women told the disciples what they saw and heard, as Ehrman
conveys, but it only states their intention
to do so. Matthew states, “And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great
joy and ran to report it to His disciples” (28:8). Mark’s Gospel concludes,
“They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had
gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (16:8). It
should be noted that Mark’s description that the women were “trembling and
astonished” accurately coincides with Matthew’s portrait of their “fear and
great joy.” Norman Geisler points out, “Since Mark reveals that they did not
speak because ‘they were afraid,’ it may be that at first they held their peace (as Mark indicated), and then later spoke up (as Matthew may imply).
It is also possible that the women left the tomb in two groups at slightly
different times, Mark referring to one and Matthew to the other.”[10]
Regarding who the women tell, once
again, there is no contradiction between the Gospel accounts: The women told
Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple, as reported by John (20:2), the women
told the eleven disciples as reported by Matthew 28:8 (at the very least,
Matthew implies this fact), and the women told the eleven disciples and others
as recorded in Luke 24:9. Once again, Luke gives the most details. These are
all very plausible explanations and place the burden of proof on Ehrman or any
critic who would want to label very reconcilable accounts as incongruent.
What do the disciples do in
response after hearing that the tomb was found empty? Ehrman questions, “Do
they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them
(Matthew 28:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be ‘an idle
tale’ (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John
20:3)?”[11]
Matthew’s account (as well as Mark’s) should be left out of this discussion,
because clearly the Gospel writers chose not to relate the response of Jesus’
disciples. As stated in the introduction, it should be remembered that
Matthew’s account of the resurrection is only twenty verses in length and
Mark’s account is a mere eight verses. This contrasts greatly with Luke’s more
detailed fifty-three verses and John’s fifty-six. Ehrman is right to point out
that John’s Gospel records that the disciples visit the tomb to see for
themselves (20:3), but he fails to mention that Luke’s Gospel also records this fact immediately after
mentioning that they did not believe the women. Luke’s Gospel states that after
hearing the testimony of the women, “these words appeared to them as nonsense,
and they would not believe him” (24:11). Apparently, Ehrman forgets to mention
the very next verse, which states,
“But Peter got up and ran to the tomb…” (vs. 12). This is one of the many
reasons why I find Bart Ehrman to be disingenuous in some of his criticisms. I
have no doubt that he is aware of at least some of the holes in his thinking.
Regarding Ehrman’s criticisms stated in the second paragraph of his extended
quote (pages 3-4), I will respond in my next section.
A HARMONIZED ACCOUNT
To
create a harmonized account of the resurrection narratives, I will begin by
recounting the testimonies of the Gospel writers separately, as well as Luke’s
further information in the opening chapter of the book of Acts:
àMatthew:
On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and another Mary visit Jesus’
tomb; women encounter angel who invites them into the tomb; angel announces
Jesus’ resurrection and tells the women to give message to the disciples; women
leave tomb and encounter Jesus on their way; Jesus informs the women to take
word of His resurrection to the disciples and also instruction for the
disciples to go to Galilee; some interaction occurs between the tomb guards and
the chief priests; an unspecified time later the eleven disciples proceed to
Galilee to a mountain where they encountered Jesus; Jesus commissions them;
(Note: Matthew’s gospel does not record Jesus’ ascension).
àMark:
On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and another Mary visit Jesus’
tomb; women find the stone rolled away; they enter tomb and find a young man
(presumably an angel) who announces Jesus’ resurrection and instructs the women
to share this news with the disciples; women leave tomb trembling and
astonished and do not say anything to anyone, because they were afraid. (Note:
Mark’s gospel does not record Jesus’ ascension).
àLuke:
On the first day of the week, women visit the tomb; the women enter the tomb
and find the body of Jesus missing; angel announces Jesus’ resurrection; women
leave and report the news of Jesus’ resurrection to the disciples; disciples do
not believe women; Peter runs to the tomb and finds it empty; Peter goes home
marveling at what he found; on the same day, two disciples are confronted by
Jesus on the road to Emmaus; the disciples (not knowing it was Jesus) recount
the events of the women finding the tomb empty and “some” of the disciples
confirming this fact; Jesus teaches these disciples, eats with them that
evening and reveals Himself to them; Jesus vanishes from their sight; these
disciples returned to the Jerusalem, met the other disciples, and recounted
their experience with the risen Jesus; Jesus appears to all of them and eats
with them; Jesus commissions the disciples and instructs them to stay in
Jerusalem; an unspecified time later Jesus leads the disciples out as far as
Bethany where He ascends into heaven; the disciples return to Jerusalem with
great joy.
àJohn:
On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene visit Jesus’ tomb; Mary finds the
tomb empty and runs to tell Peter and another disciple (likely John) that
Jesus’ body has been moved; Peter and the other disciple go to the tomb and
find Jesus missing; Both disciples leave and go home; Mary stood outside the
tomb weeping and two angels appear to her (although she does not notice that
they are angels); Jesus then appears to Mary; Mary then goes and announces to
the disciples that she has seen Jesus alive; Jesus appears to the disciples
when they are all together; eight days later, Jesus appears to the disciples
again; an unspecified time later, Jesus appears to His disciples at the Sea of
Tiberias; (Note: John’s gospel does not record Jesus’ ascension).
àActs:
Luke mentions that Jesus appears to the disciples over a period of forty days;
Jesus instructs the disciples not to leave Jerusalem; Jesus commissions the
disciples and ascends to heaven; two men (presumably angels) appear to the
disciples and announce that Jesus will return; the disciples return to
Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet.
Creating a harmony of the resurrection narratives is not a
completely “clean” or easy job, but the mere fact that there can be a plausible harmony of the
accounts suggests that harsh criticisms and claims of irreconcilable
differences among the four Gospels is unfounded. I propose the following
harmony:
àA
proposed harmony of the resurrection narratives: On the first morning of
the week, Mary Magdalene and other women visit the tomb, and find it empty.
Disheartened because she believes Jesus’ body has been moved, Mary Magdalene
separates from the rest of the women and quickly runs to inform the disciples
that Jesus’ body has been moved. After Mary Magdalene leaves, the remaining
women encounter two angels who announce that Jesus had risen from the dead. The
angels also instruct the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.
The women leave the tomb terrified, intending not to tell anything to anyone
(at least, at first this was their intention). After leaving the tomb, Jesus
appears to these women and, once again, instructs them to inform His disciples
to meet Him in Galilee. These women then head to the disciples. Either before
or after the women’s encounter with Jesus (but after the women had left the
tomb), Peter and the other disciple (likely John) run and confirm that the tomb
is empty. The disciples then return home. Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb
after the disciples and stays behind even after the disciples leave. She begins
to weep and then looks inside the tomb, where she sees the two angels, but she
does not notice they are angels because she probably does not look directly at
them (because she is weeping), and then Jesus appears to her and He makes
Himself known to her. (Once again, this appearance could have occurred before
or after Jesus’ appearance to the other women.) After Jesus appears to Mary
Magdalene and the other women, all of the women return to the disciples and
inform them that they had seen the risen Jesus. The disciples do not believe
the women. [After stating the disciples’ disbelief, Luke then mentions, “Peter
got up and ran to the tomb…” Chronologically, I do believe this event to have
happened prior to this point (as
recorded in detail in John’s Gospel), but that Luke places it here for the
purpose of wanting to simply share this fact.] After the women inform the disciples of what they saw, Jesus
appears that afternoon to two of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, but the
two disciples do not recognize Him. Jesus teaches them and then eats with them
once they reach the village. While eating, Jesus makes Himself known to the two
disciples. After Jesus leaves their sight, the two disciples return to
Jerusalem at once and share with the remaining disciples (and the others there)
about their encounter with the risen Jesus. While sharing, Jesus appears to all
of them that evening, and even eats among them. So on the first day after Jesus
had resurrected, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, the other women, and all of the
disciples. During the next forty days, Jesus would appear to the disciples at
least two more times (including in Galilee). According to Paul in 1 Corinthians
15, Jesus would also appear to more than five hundred at one time and to James,
the brother of Jesus. Jesus commissions His disciples in several instances,
instructs them to stay in Jerusalem for a time, and then He ascends to heaven
from Bethany, which is on the eastern slope of the Mt. of Olives, which is just
east of Jerusalem. After Jesus ascends and disappears among the clouds, two
angels appear to the disciples and inform them that Jesus will return in the
same way He departed. Afterward, the disciples return to Jerusalem until
Pentecost a week and a half later, when they receive the Holy Spirit.
CONCLUSION
As
stated, creating a proposed harmony of the resurrection narratives is not a
“neat” job, but the plausible explanations for these divergent details places
the burden of proof on those who would discount the historical testimonies of
these four Gospel authors. Newspaper articles and history books will often
agree in the major details and diverge in the minor ones. The reason for this
fact is often due to the enormous amount of details that one could include. This is exactly what we
find among the four Gospels. The simple fact is that the events of that day and
the forty days that follow are compressed into as few as eight verses (under
190 words), in Mark’s case, to as high as a mere fifty-six verses in John’s
account. This fact alone is a
reasonable explanation for the differences among the details! Even so, as I
have illustrated in every example given by Bart Ehrman, these differences do not equate to contradictions. The very
reasonable and numerous potential ways to harmonize the resurrection narratives
only serves to strengthen the historical claim that Jesus of Nazareth was
crucified, buried, and rose from the dead.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted. New York:
HarperCollins, 2009.
Geisler, Normal L. and Thomas Howe. The Big Book of Bible
Difficulties. Grand Rapids:
BakerBooks, 1992.
New American Standard Bible. Anaheim: Foundation
Publications, 1995.
[1]Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (New York:
HarperCollins, 2009), 47.
[2]Although there are twenty
verses in Mark 16 recorded in the Bible, the last twelve verses (9-20) are
widely
regarded
by scholars to be an addition in later manuscripts. Due to this, I will only be
interacting with Mark 16:1-8.
[3]Ehrman, 48.
[4]Ehrman, 48-49.
[5]Ibid.,
48, italics mine.
[6]All Bible verses recorded
independent of another source will be from the Updated New American
Standard
Bible (NASB).
[7]Ehrman, 48.
[8]R.A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Springdale:
Whitaker House, 1996), 127.
[9]Ehrman, 48-49.
[10]Norman L. Geisler and Thomas
Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (Grand
Rapids: BakerBooks, 1992), 377.
[11]Ehrman, 49.
No comments:
Post a Comment