CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS
The gospels say that a miracle healing man called Jesus Christ lived. They say
he died by crucifixion and three days later he rose again. The tomb he was
placed in was found wide open with the stone that had been across the entrance
moved back and the tomb was mysteriously empty. His body was gone. Certain
witnesses claimed that Jesus appeared to them as a resurrected being.
All we have really got to go on to verify or otherwise the Christian claim that
Jesus Christ rose from the dead are the four gospels. Each of them ends in a
suspiciously brief account of the empty tomb of Jesus and his resurrection
appearances. Paul in his epistles says that Jesus appeared but we can't just
take his word for it for he gives no details. A person who saw a ghost is not to
be listened to until he or she gives details. Otherwise we can say that they
could have been mistaken. Perhaps they were out walking at night and saw marsh
gas in human type shape?
We find some blatant contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus
though not as many as we would like. But they are only brief accounts anyway and
they do tend to deal with different parts of the story so the extent to which
they fit can be naturally explained. Christian fundamentalists have done a lot
of work trying to show that the gospels fit together and there is no contraction
in them. They claim that this alleged agreement of one gospel with another is
proof of divine inspiration. But as we have said, there is no reason to go that
far. Moreover if the gospels seem to fit that does not mean they actually do fit
for it is possible they were never meant to. If the gospel writers had been
honest they would have taken a huge risk and wrote pages and pages about the
resurrection - it would be the most important event in history if it happened. A
claim is more likely to be true the more there is said about it for then it is
easier for it to slip up if it is not true. But the gospellers were crafty and
kept it short despite the importance they pretended to place on the
resurrection.
Critics disagree on whether these conflicts refute the
resurrection or support it. To refute, they would have to be very serious and
render the evidence useless. To support they would have to be minor and just
different recollections of the same event – they would normally be proof that
there is no collusion among the witnesses. While nobody expects accounts of
miracles to be exactly the same it is obvious that if there are any
contradictions in them then the miracle never happened. Why? Because it is wiser
to believe that a mistake was made than to believe that a man rose from the
dead. And we can believe that this was a mistake when we have evidence that
other mistakes were made. Jesus for example in Luke 13:33 says he is going to
Jerusalem to die for no prophet can die outside of it. Yet he was put to death
outside the walls. To agree with Christians that he only meant the general
vicinity of Jerusalem and not the city is just to make a tricky fortune-teller
of him not a prophet.
Christians say that if the gospels were easy to reconcile
it would show collusion among those telling the resurrection story of Jesus. But
if the gospels were indeed easy to reconcile the Christians would be saying that
it was a miracle of God that they looked like they were colluding to keep their
stories straight. In fact, they would say he gave them a remarkable wisdom and
memory. Jesus promised that his disciples would have a miraculous eloquence - a
gift from God that would shut their enemies who contradicted their claims up. We
certainly do not see any evidence of that in the resurrection tales! The
Christians just rationalise and make excuses all the time. If the gospels seem
too good to be true they have an answer. If they are not they still have an
answer! We would be misled all the time if we thought like that!
We must remember that since the early Church was focused
on the death and resurrection of Jesus as salvific events that the passion and
the resurrection accounts is where we should expect the gospels to agree the
best. So if they contradict themselves in these more than anywhere else it is a
bad sign. And that is exactly what they do. The absurdities and conflicts are
unbelievable.
Mark says it was dawn when the women arrived at the tomb
while John says it was still night. The Christian solution is that Mark is
speaking of their arrival at the tomb and John of their departure from their
homes. This solution is disproved by reading John. He does not say that they set
out when it was still dark meaning that it could have been dawn when they
arrived at the tomb. John says that it was dark when the women came to the tomb
while the other three gospellers said the sun had come up (Did Jesus Really Rise
from the Dead?). Christians say that John just means it was dark when the women
set out for the tomb which is just a perverse rationalisation. It denies the
most likely meaning of John and contradicts what he wrote so it is not
acceptable.
In John, Peter and the beloved disciple inspect the empty
tomb. Luke mentions only Peter. Christians say that is okay because Luke does
not say that Peter was literally on his own, but why mention Peter alone when
there was enough time and space to mention any companions? If Luke knew only of
Peter then he was lying when he said he was an expert on what had happened in
his prologue. It would be very strange if he did not know all that happened that
most important morning for the Church needed to preserve all the evidence it
could hold. So we know Luke is saying that there was nobody else there but
Peter. Luke said that the apostles “did not believe the women. But Peter got up
and ran to the tomb”. The but is very important. It shows that Peter went alone.
He did not take the beloved disciple (assumed to be the apostle John) with him
though John gospel says he did.
Mary and the others went with joy to tell the others that
Jesus had risen (Matthew) after they departed from the tomb and seen Jesus on
their first visit. In John, Mary comes to the tomb when it is dark and sees the
stone removed. She goes away to the disciples and returns to the tomb. John says
that Mary was still falling apart with grief and was fuming because she thought
the body was stolen on her second visit to the tomb. She told Peter Jesus was
stolen contradicting Luke who said she told Peter Jesus had risen. Christians
try to make out that she was hysterical and did not know what she was doing.
They will say anything to cover up a contradiction for there is no evidence she
was off her head then. As an alternative they say that Matthew only says that
the women, including Magdalene, went to the tomb first thing and saw Jesus and
could have seen Jesus later on another visit. So they suppose that Matthew was
just giving all the main points he wanted to outline which was why you could get
the impression they saw Jesus on the first visit. You could reconcile any
contradiction with that logic and Matthew never indicated that he was doing
anything other than saying that the women saw Jesus on the first visit.
Mark and Luke have the women entering the tomb before the
angel told them Jesus was risen while Matthew says it was after. The Christian
solution is that they were told twice! So if John marries Ann on 25
September 2016 and another record says it was 14 August 2016 then they married
twice!
We know that minor discrepancies between two witness accounts do not always make them both liars. But it does not make them truthful either. But if there is a major contradiction then one or both of them is a liar.
The gospels conflict on whether Jesus’ first appearance
to the apostles happened in Jerusalem or Galilee. Matthew has the angel telling
the women to hurry to Jesus’ disciples and tell them to go to Galilee where they
will see him and on their way to the disciples Jesus appears with the message
that the disciples are to go to Galilee to see him. This indicates urgency. The
angel even said that Jesus would be in Galilee before the disciples got there
indicating that he would be waiting for them. Matthew says the first appearance
was in Galilee (28:16,17) while Luke and John agree for once and plot the first
vision in Jerusalem (Luke 24, John 20) with Luke’s Jesus telling them not to
leave Jerusalem. John 20:19 is clear that it happened on the day of the
resurrection. This appearance is important both because it was the first and
because of what Jesus said during it. Christians give solutions for the conflict
but you still don’t know if the solutions are right – there could still have
been a contradiction. Even if you cannot be sure if it is a contradiction or not
it still means you cannot put your faith in the gospel story. When the gospels
do not authorise attempts to harmonise them it follows that the harmonisation is
artificial.
Haley says the solution to the contradiction is that
Matthew just never bothered mentioning the first appearance in Jerusalem
(Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, page 367). But if you read Matthew without
listening to Haley’s prejudices you will see that he is lying. The gospel itself
says that the women were told on resurrection morn to get the apostles to
Galilee for them to meet Jesus. Jesus himself told them that and he added that
the purpose was that they might see him. Evidently, then the first appearance
was to be in Galilee. When they were told that day to go to Galilee to meet
Jesus that would be enough by itself to show that Jesus planned to appear there
for the first time.
Many ancient manuscripts omit the references in Luke 23
and 24 to a stone rolled to the front of the tomb and to Jesus showing his hands
and his feet and the words, “He is not here but has been raised”. This is so
strange considering that Christians wanted to make the story more convincing and
these references are necessary to do that. It is a clear witness that these
things have been added on and were recognised as interferences which was why
many copyists had no time for them.
By far the most serious problem is that Matthew has one resurrection appearance and John has two. The appendix to John, and the Book of Acts state that there were a lot more. Matthew knew that his gospel might be the only one that could survive or be a success. So when he has one appearance, then one it is: especially when he wrote so much short yet boring drivel about Jesus when he could have used the space to write more about Jesus’ appearances. What supports this even better is the fact that Christians would have been eager to know exactly all that Jesus got up to after his resurrection and the fact that there was nothing done to fulfil this need shows that the gospellers were out of touch with the people and were not evangelists and pastors themselves. In a court of law, if a foursome were trying to convince the judge that a man rose from the dead, to simplify things one major vision would be singled out and each witness would be questioned in depth on that. This is not what we have in the gospels. The details are sparing which makes some of the "solutions" for the contradictions easier to appear valid – it makes it easier to speculate the solutions into existence when there is nothing but a skeleton service there.
The resurrection stories in the gospels would need to be actually written by eyewitnesses in order for the argument that the differences and contradictions show they were sincere to have any chance. They are not. Nor do they claim to be anything more than hearsay.
Mark remember left us no account of the risen Jesus and what he said. Someone wrote a fake ending that may have been more influenced by other gospels such as Matthew and Luke than we think. The first gospel, the most important one, not having the risen Jesus story is a major plot hole and worse than any contradiction.
The bottom line is: if we are not talking about eyewitness accounts then minor errors could be a sign that the stories are contrived or they could be a sign that they are not. You need external evidence. Christians need external evidence for the resurrection and there is none. And what if the stories are not eyewitness accounts? Then they are automatically weaker to start with. The errors could be a giveaway or they might not be. Nobody knows but the authors and it is not our place to say if they are or not.
The similarity between the four gospels supposedly overrides the errors and thus makes fabrication unlikely. But the gospels are not as similar as supposed when it comes to the resurrection. Each gospel obviously hoped to become the only standard account so they are just four different records artificially treated as dovetailing one another while they repel each other.
If there was a weird darkness when Jesus was on the cross which the gospels say there was, in those superstitious times, people would have raced to their homes. And yet we are asked to believe the Jews mocked Jesus on the cross and he had friends nearby. How reliable is the later data relating to the resurrection?
In Luke, Jesus tells the man crucified with him, “Today you will be in Paradise with me.” This doctrine diminishes the crucifixion in the same way as having dentistry without anaesthetic is terrible at the time but is not really terrible if you will go to paradise for it in a few hours. In John’s gospel, Jesus tells Magdalene that he must not be touched for he has not went up yet. So we have a contradiction. One answer is that John and Magdalene interpreted the episode as involving Jesus when in fact it was somebody else or an impostor. Another answer is that Jesus just lied to the bandit. Another answer that Jesus expected to go there but somehow did not die. We could have a miracle suspended animation that looked like death.
If you get errors in the text you may wonder how accurate the gospel writers interpretation of the data was! Errors lead to misinterpretations.
And while the Church might belittle contradictions there are fatal ones in the text. Small contradictions at a critical moment are very serious indeed. For example, if somebody saw Jack the Ripper and was found to have got it wrong about where the street lamp was it overthrows their credibility when it comes to identification. A few feet of a difference would mean that they may not be as certain as they think. Jesus rising from the dead and saying the Jewish Bible predicted this and failing to give any texts to verify that looks minor but it is fatal as there are no such texts. He obviously must have known it....