Are there contradictions in the 4 gospels concerning the resurrection of Christ?

[shepherdsword]

@Mancunian suggested we open a new thread on the topic. He also brought out a very important point. The truth of christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. Here is an AI harmonization of the accounts that eliminates contradiction:


If we take the four Gospel accounts as they stand and arrange their details into a single chronological sequence, a plausible harmonization is possible. The key is that none of the writers claims to give every detail of everything that happened.

The resurrection morning​

1. Before sunrise, the women prepare and go to the tomb.
The women who had followed Jesus had prepared spices. Luke specifically identifies Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (Luke 23:55–24:1). Matthew and Mark also mention women coming to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
John concentrates on Mary Magdalene and says:

“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre”
— John 20:1

This doesn't require Mary to have been the only woman present. John is simply focusing on her.

---

2. There is an earthquake, and the stone is rolled away.
Matthew records:

“there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone”
— Matthew 28:2

The women arrive after this has happened. Mark, Luke, and John emphasize the already-removed stone rather than describing the actual rolling away.

---

3. Mary Magdalene sees that the stone has been removed and runs to tell Peter and John.
John says:

“she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple”
— John 20:2

Mary's initial conclusion is:

“They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.”

Notice “we know not”—plural. That fits naturally with other women being with her, even though John concentrates on Mary.

---

4. Peter and John run to the tomb.
John 20:3–9 records Peter and the other disciple running to the tomb.
John gets there first, looks inside, and sees the linen clothes. Peter then enters and sees them also.
They leave without yet understanding the resurrection fully:

“For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.”
— John 20:9

---

5. Meanwhile, the other women arrive at the tomb.
This is where Matthew, Mark, and Luke provide information John doesn't emphasize.
The women find the stone rolled away (Mark 16:2–4; Luke 24:1–2).
They enter the tomb.
Matthew mentions one angel sitting upon the stone (Matthew 28:2–7).
Mark mentions one young man inside the tomb (Mark 16:5–7).
Luke describes two men in shining garments (Luke 24:4–8).
These aren't necessarily contradictory.
If two heavenly messengers were present, Matthew and Mark can focus on one of them. Luke explicitly mentions both.
This is actually one of the easiest apparent discrepancies to reconcile:
Two were present → one speaks → Matthew and Mark identify the principal speaker; Luke mentions both.

---

6. The angels announce that Jesus has risen.
The message is essentially the same in all three Synoptics:

Jesus is not there.

He has risen.
They remind the women that Jesus had predicted this.
Matthew 28:5–7
Mark 16:6–7
Luke 24:5–8

---

7. The women leave the tomb frightened but eventually report what happened.
Mark says:

“they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”
— Mark 16:8

That statement can naturally refer to their initial reaction on the way, not necessarily their permanent refusal to tell anyone.
Luke immediately says:

“And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.”
— Luke 24:9

So Mark 16:8 and Luke 24:9 can fit if Mark is describing their immediate reaction.

---

8. Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene​

This is explicitly stated in Mark's longer ending:

“he appeared first to Mary Magdalene”
— Mark 16:9

John gives the detailed account.
After Peter and John leave, Mary is still outside the tomb weeping (John 20:11).
She looks inside and sees two angels.
Then Jesus appears to her.
At first she doesn't recognize Him, but when Jesus says:

“Mary”

she recognizes Him.
John 20:11–17.
Jesus tells her:

“Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father...”
— John 20:17

Mary then goes and announces to the disciples:

“I have seen the Lord”
— John 20:18

---

9. Jesus also appears to the other women​

Matthew records another resurrection appearance that John doesn't describe:

“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail.”
— Matthew 28:9

They take hold of His feet and worship Him.
Jesus tells them:

“Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”
— Matthew 28:10

So there appear to have been multiple women receiving resurrection appearances, with Mary Magdalene receiving the first one.

---

10. The disciples initially don't believe the women's report​

Luke says:

“their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.”
— Luke 24:11

This explains why the disciples aren't immediately celebrating the resurrection despite the women's testimony.

---

11. Jesus subsequently appears to Peter​

Luke says:

“The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.”
— Luke 24:34

Paul independently confirms this tradition:

“he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve”
— 1 Corinthians 15:5

So Peter had a resurrection appearance that the Gospel writers don't all narrate in detail.

---

12. Jesus appears to the disciples​

Luke 24:36–43 describes Jesus appearing to the gathered disciples.
John 20:19–23 gives a detailed account of an appearance to the disciples that evening.
Thomas was absent on that occasion (John 20:24).
Eight days later, Jesus appears again, this time with Thomas present (John 20:26–29).

---

13. Later appearances occur in Galilee​

Matthew 28:16–20 records the disciples going to Galilee, where Jesus gives the Great Commission.
This fits Jesus' earlier instruction:

“after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”
— Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28

John 21 then records another appearance beside the Sea of Galilee, including the miraculous catch of fish and Jesus' conversation with Peter.

---

A consolidated sequence​

Putting the information together:
Before dawn

1. Women prepare spices.
2. Mary Magdalene and the other women go toward the tomb.
3. An earthquake occurs.
4. The angel rolls the stone away.
5. The women discover the tomb is open.

Early morning
6. Mary Magdalene goes to tell Peter and John that the body is gone.
7. Peter and John run to the tomb.
8. They see the linen clothes.
9. They leave.
10. Mary remains at the tomb.
11. Mary sees two angels.
12. Jesus appears to Mary.
13. Mary tells the disciples, “I have seen the Lord.”
Meanwhile / shortly afterward
14. The other women encounter the angelic messengers.
15. They receive the announcement that Jesus has risen.
16. Jesus meets the women.
17. They report these things to the disciples.
18. The disciples initially don't believe them.
Later that day
19. Jesus appears to Peter.
20. Jesus appears to the disciples.
21. Jesus subsequently appears to additional disciples.
Following days
22. Jesus appears repeatedly to His disciples.
23. He appears in Galilee.
24. He gives the Great Commission.
25. He later appears to the disciples again.
26. He ascends into heaven.

One particularly important point​

The supposed contradiction concerning one angel versus two angels is not actually a logical contradiction.
If a room contains two men, someone can truthfully say:

“I saw two men.”

Another person can truthfully say:

“I saw a man.”

The second statement doesn't mean there was only one man.
Likewise, Matthew saying that an angel spoke doesn't require Matthew to be asserting that only one angel existed at the scene. Luke explicitly supplies the additional detail of two.
The same principle applies repeatedly in the resurrection narratives: absence of a detail is not necessarily denial of that detail.

 

[Mancunian]

All that being said, I would have thought that the single most important event in the history of the world would have been better documented.
Why weren't accounts written within weeks or months? Three decades passed after the crucifixion before Matthew, and I believe John was pushing nine decades later.
If these accounts were to be used as evidence in a court of law, I'm pretty sure that the case for the resurrection would collapse.

It's a supernatural event to start with, so the evidence for it must be watertight, this would obviously have to include noncontradictory evidence.
If the resurrection actually happened, the gospels make a poor job of confirming it.

 

[Mancunian]

Arguments for Skepticism
• Composition Gap: Writing decades after the events allows room for legend, oral transformation, and community shaping to enter the narratives.
• Internal Discrepancies: Critics note clear theological differences and chronological contradictions between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.
• Lack of External Corroboration: Many specific miraculous events and details lack independent verification from non-Christian contemporary historians.
• Anonymous Authorship: The original texts were circulated anonymously, with traditional names attached later by the early church.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Anonymous Authorship: The original texts were circulated anonymously, with traditional names attached later by the early church.

This a lie. A title is given in every Greek Cursive manuscript of the gospels. The manuscripts which are all capitals seem to be forgeries. [And they have a differing title too.]

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I would have thought that the single most important event in the history of the world would have been better documented.

You critique God's word as though it was from man.

Why weren't accounts written within weeks or months?

It was the will of God.

Writing decades after the events allows room for legend, oral transformation, and community shaping to enter the narratives.

No. The word of God comes from God through each writer exactly how He designed it to be presented. God brings every event into perfect clarity and remembrance to the writer. It was supernaturally imposed and directed. These men were led by the Holy Spirit. They did not nor could they go off the path of truth. It wasn't open for their personal interpretation. "All scripture is God breathed".

Anonymous Authorship:

I guess you don't know or understand the Author.

 

[shepherdsword]

All that being said, I would have thought that the single most important event in the history of the world would have been better documented.
Why weren't accounts written within weeks or months? Three decades passed after the crucifixion before Matthew, and I believe John was pushing nine decades later.

Jesus promised to bring all things to their memory. So a gap with only an oral tradition isn't the same as the telephone game. The oral tradition was perfect until it as written

Jn 14:26-27
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

If these accounts were to be used as evidence in a court of law, I'm pretty sure that the case for the resurrection would collapse.

This is where you are wrong. Their were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection and everyone of them refused to recant even on pain of death.

1 Co 15:3-8
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

It's a supernatural event to start with, so the evidence for it must be watertight, this would obviously have to include noncontradictory evidence.
If the resurrection actually happened, the gospels make a poor job of confirming it.

This is just opinion. I think the gospels all confirm the resurrection.

 

[Mancunian]

You critique God's word as though it was from man.

It was the will of God.

No. The word of God comes from God through each writer exactly how He designed it to be presented. God brings every event into perfect clarity and remembrance to the writer. It was supernaturally imposed and directed. These men were led by the Holy Spirit. They did not nor could they go off the path of truth. It wasn't open for their personal interpretation. "All scripture is God breathed".

I guess you don't know or understand the Author.

So are you saying that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally?
If so, you must agree that abortion is moral under certain circumstances.

 

[ScottA]

All that being said, I would have thought that the single most important event in the history of the world would have been better documented.
Why weren't accounts written within weeks or months? Three decades passed after the crucifixion before Matthew, and I believe John was pushing nine decades later.
If these accounts were to be used as evidence in a court of law, I'm pretty sure that the case for the resurrection would collapse.

It's a supernatural event to start with, so the evidence for it must be watertight, this would obviously have to include noncontradictory evidence.
If the resurrection actually happened, the gospels make a poor job of confirming it.

Maybe you could state what you believe to be contradictions one at a time, offering to your own claims the clarity that you are saying is not in the scriptures. I look forward to you doing so, but I will jump in here while I am at it:

What you are perhaps not accounting for, is that a perfect God wouldn't make such mistakes. Meaning two possibilities: 1) You are correct, and it is evidence against all that is commonly held to be true by Jews and Christians, and 2) the discrepancies were/are intentional.

Number two is correct. If you will notice, discrepancies are nearly as common throughout all of scripture, as are the a nearly unbelievable amount of miracles and continuity over time from many sources that would otherwise seem unrelated, if not simply by time and location. All by design, on purpose, with a very important purpose. That purpose is explained within the scriptures in different ways. A good one is:

“Go, and tell this people: Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” Isaiah 6-10​

The reason however, is not to cruelly withhold, but to allow the time for millions and millions to be born that they/we all have an opportunity to recover from our otherwise fatal destiny. Which makes this worldly life and history like all of us running through a limited processing facility...where living during this time in history is like being near the end of the line.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

So are you saying that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally?
If so, you must agree that abortion is moral under certain circumstances.

The Bible does not specify anything about abortion. God gives life and He alone takes it. It is usually a selfish act to abort a child. The cost, the error of the one night stand, your freedom, responsibility that you just dont want. "I'm just not ready yet" ... "the father is a loser ... "my career ... all that education"... I want to secure a house in a nicer neighborhood first", etc. etc. In the case of saving the mom or the child, of course one would choose the mom. That is a tough one. In the case of a rape, it is a terrible violation against the woman, however, the fetus is innocent and if God chooses to create one, then it is His call. It is still the child of the woman. She can still love it ... or give it up to adoption. But she would later regret that.

 

[Matthias]

“I’m not interested in the Bible and what it has to say.” - @Mancunian

Post in thread 'Conversation with An Atheist'
Conversation with An Atheist

I believe him. Why don’t the rest of you?

 

[Lambano]

Are there contradictions in the 4 gospels concerning the resurrection of Christ?​

I don't have a problem with that; some people do. Me, I can believe what the Bible says without it having to be perfectly inerrant. Dealing with some level of uncertainty is an unavoidable part of life.

Any time you have multiple witnesses to an event, you're going to have some variation in the details of their testimonies. That's normal, and frankly, I think it lends authenticity to the accounts.

 

[dak]

Adoptionism, (at least my form of it), resolves most all of the supposed contradictions, even the following:

Mark 15:21-25 ASV
21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross.
22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
23 And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24 And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take.
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

John 19:14-17 ASV
14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!
15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar.
16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.
17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha:

There was darkness over all the land from the sixth hour to the ninth hour because of the one and only one-of-a-kind beloved Son, the true Light which enlightens every man coming into the world, (the Logos), not because of the Meshiah or Anointed One, (a man), whom the Father had placed His Son upon at his immersion by Yohanne the immerser.

Mark is correct, John is correct: but they are not speaking of the same, ehem,... person.

 

[shepherdsword]

Could there be some actual merit in this?

China recorded the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Grailhunter]

There will always be the human element and perspective in the scriptures. If God did not want that He could have wrote them Himself.

 

[shepherdsword]

Arguments for Skepticism
• Composition Gap: Writing decades after the events allows room for legend, oral transformation, and community shaping to enter the narratives.

Jesus promised to bring all the things he said to memory, This eliminates the oral transformation or "the telephone game effect" The oral tradition was perfect until all was written.

Jn 14:26-27
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

• Internal Discrepancies: Critics note clear theological differences and chronological contradictions between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.

Read the opening post that addresses this misconception

• Lack of External Corroboration: Many specific miraculous events and details lack independent verification from non-Christian contemporary historians.

What Extra-Biblical Sources Confirm

• • Tacitus: The 2nd-century Roman historian recorded that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and noted that the movement suppressed for a moment broke out again (referencing the rise of Christianity). [1, 2]
  • Flavius Josephus: The 1st-century Jewish historian wrote in the Antiquities of the Jews that Jesus was a wise man, did surprising deeds, was condemned to the cross by Pilate, and that "he appeared to them alive again on the third day" (though scholars debate the exact phrasing of this passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum).
  • Jewish Authorities / Babylonian Talmud: Early opponent testimony did not deny that the tomb was empty or that Jesus's body was missing; instead, they attempted to account for it by claiming the disciples stole the body, providing indirect extra-biblical acknowledgment of the empty tomb.

Early Internal/Scholarly Evidences Cited by Historians
While not "secular" external proof, historians evaluate several very early shared data points:

• • The 1 Corinthians 15 Creed: Dated by critical scholars to within 3 to 5 years (or up to a decade) of the crucifixion, recording an early confession of Jesus's death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to Peter, the 12 Apostles, and over 500 witnesses. [1, 2]
  • Transformed Lives: The sudden, radical shift of skeptical or fearful figures—such as James the Just (Jesus's half-brother) and Paul of Tarsus—who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus and were martyred for their conviction. [1, 2, 3]
  • The Birth of the Church: The rapid establishment and survival of the Christian movement in Jerusalem, the exact city where Jesus was publicly executed and buried, where opponents could have easily produced a body to crush the movement

• Anonymous Authorship: The original texts were circulated anonymously, with traditional names attached later by the early church.

There is no evidence that the original 4 gospels were circulated anonymously. This distinction belongs to the gnostic texts.
see Simon Gathercole's peer-reviewed article, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels
, published in the Journal of Theological Studies in 2018. Gathercole challenges the inference that the Gospels must have circulated anonymously simply because their authors do not name themselves within the texts.

 

[shepherdsword]

“I’m not interested in the Bible and what it has to say.” - @Mancunian

Post in thread 'Conversation with An Atheist'
Conversation with An Atheist

I believe him. Why don’t the rest of you?

The goodness of God leads us to repentance. I was a hard case, myself. I argued with people that shared the gospel and mocked them. It didn't keep God from convicting my heart and drawing me to himself. Be patient, Be friendly, you never know what may happen.

 

[Mancunian]

“I’m not interested in the Bible and what it has to say.” - @Mancunian

Post in thread 'Conversation with An Atheist'
Conversation with An Atheist

I believe him. Why don’t the rest of you?

You yet again have quoted my post out of context.
I'm know what you are doing.

Instead of doing that, just answer my question.... It's not a difficult question to answer. Stop deflecting and just answer the question.

 

[Matthias]

You yet again have quoted my post out of context.
I'm know what you are doing.

Instead of doing that, just answer my question.... It's not a difficult question to answer. Stop deflecting and just answer the question.

I come from a background in academia. I provided a link so that your words would be seen in context.

I’ve answered your accusations and your questions.

What is your question for me in this thread? Is it something that we haven’t already discussed in other threads?

 

[Mancunian]

I come from a background in academia. I provided a link so that your words would be seen in context.

I’ve answered your accusations and your question.

Your idea of a perfect life for yourself is incomplete. Why is that?

Answer the very simple question that I've asked....
What do you think that you will be doing for eternity?
If you can't answer that then what's the point in YOU trying to lead people down a path that you have no clue about.

 

[Matthias]

Answer the very simple question that I've asked....
What do you think that you will be doing for eternity?

I’ve told you repeatedly -> reigning with the Messiah; a permanent position in his government.

If you can't answer that then what's the point in YOU trying to lead people down a path that you have no clue about.