If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

The Gospel Writers and The Resurrection Narratives.

All the Gospels were written, not only as histories, but as theologies. It is true that the writers were careful to retain accurately the information they had, for the accuracy of the information was important, but they were also concerned to put it in such a way that it put over particular theological facts. They were concerned to present different slants on the life of Jesus.

Mark, for example, is particularly concerned to put over the point that Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 1.1) (see our article on The Messiah in Mark), and links this with Jesus’ use of the term ‘Son of Man’ which he particularly illuminates.

Luke is very much concerned to present the historical truth (as he stresses - see Luke 1.1-4), but he concentrates on the ‘journey to Jerusalem’ (Luke 9.31,51), which is more a theological journey than a literal one. Jesus’ face is now set towards Jerusalem to fulfil His destiny, says Luke in 9.51, but He does not go directly there. It is His purpose that is set, not the route, and Luke 9 onwards contains details of a travel itinerary that is by no means straightforward. Luke does not change the facts. He accurately records where Jesus is at particular points in time but he wants us to be aware that all the time, wherever He goes, Jesus has Jerusalem in mind. This is part of Luke’s overall plan. Fom Galilee to Jerusalem, and then (in Acts) from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world.

Matthew on the other hand is concerned to show how the Jew’s Messiah has become the world’s Messiah and does this firstly by stressing that Jesus has come to Israel (Matthew 10.6; 15.24 ) leading up to the story of the Syro-phoenician woman (Matthew 15.21-28) after which His ministry expands towards the Gentiles with the feeding of the four thousand (in Gentile territory) compared with the feeding of the five thousand (in Jewish territory). The numbers four and five are significant in this regard as five is the covenant number and four is the number signifying the whole world. From now on the ministry of Jesus is seen as extended and Matthew finishes by stressing Jesus’ ministry to the whole world (Matthew 28.19-20). None of this must be overpressed. The Gospels are far too intricate to be straitjacketed into simple patterns, but the patterns nevertheless are there, interwoven with other patterns, because the patterns were there in the life of Jesus. The particular emphasis does not alter the broad picture and the facts are more important to them than the theology, but the theology is ever in mind.

John’s Gospel has the stated aim of presenting Jesus for belief with the aim of the reception of spiritual life (John 20.31) and has within it recollections not recorded by the other writers, arising from John’s special awareness and knowledge.

It should be noted how in all four Gospels the final days of Jesus are given great emphasis bringing out that to all His death is seen as being as important as His life. Underneath the Gospel messages are as one.

How does this affect the resurrection narrative? It would be simplistic just to suggest that the writers merely altered things to suit themselves. The very intricacy of the picture is an argument for the fact that they stuck closely to the truth even when it was inconvenient.

Matthew records some appearances in Jerusalem because they happened, but emphasises the parts where the command to go to Galilee is given, and then concentrates on the appearance in Galilee where the clear command to go to the whole world is given. He would appear to be trying to take the emphasis away from Jerusalem. Jerusalem with its Jewish emphasis is no longer to be seen as central (in the middle of the first century this was a very important change of outlook). He emphasises that Jesus wanted to appear to His disciples in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and deliberately ignores the appearances in Jerusalem which were due to the disciples’ disobedience. He does not want people to look to Jerusalem as the centre of Christianity.

Mark 16 1-8 appears to have a similar emphasis but it is unlikely that v.8 was intended to be the end of the account and we do not know why it ended there, nor what else he would have written, so it would be unwise to speculate.

Mark 16.9-20 on the other hand would appear to be a summary of resurrection appearances, possibly compiled by Mark, but more possibly based on an early church (very early) official record or creed, attached to complete the Gospel. Here the emphasis is on Jerusalem appearances and has clear connections with Luke’s account put into a very abbreviated form but with additional information in vv.15-18 incorporated. This latter is to emphasise that the message is to the whole world and to include what is clearly a unique recollection. Because of its summary form it cannot be said to have any particular emphasis save in its witness to the resurrection and the following triumphs.

Luke has no fears over the centrality of Jerusalem. As a Gentile preaching among Gentiles Jerusalem has never had a religious hold over him. It has a different significance as the place where Jesus was offered up. He thus outlines in full the Jerusalem appearances. Out of disaster will come triumph in the place where the disaster happens.

After the Jerusalem appearance in Luke 24.36-43, Luke 24.44-45 are generalised statements, based on words of Jesus, used to fill in the period leading up to the ascension to Heaven. They clearly cover a period of time without specifics, leaving plenty of room for events such as the Galilean appearances. He is not wanting to write a complete history of the resurrection appearances, and is concerned to concentrate on Jerusalem. The following verses then occurred later when the disciples were ‘gathered together’, some time during the forty days mentioned in Acts 1.3 (written by Luke). Thus the ‘remaining in Jerusalem’ (24.49) does not conflict with their having previously gone to Galilee. At this point the Galilean appearances have already taken place. Luke is making Jerusalem the focal point from which the Gospel will spread to the world (Acts 1.8).

John, who specialises in the personal touch and the spiritual inner meaning, records details which he personally remembers which he considers spiritually significant, including interestingly a Galilee appearance, confirming the recollections in Matthew and Mark. Having stressed the Spirit throughout his Gospel the giving of the Spirit is clearly important to him, and he sees it as fulfilled in the room where the disciples were gathered at the time of Jesus’ first resurrection appearance. There is no contradiction with Acts where the ‘giving’ is an outward manifestation to the whole church. John is mentioning a deeply personal experience which had to him deep spiritual significance.

So, if we are to be fair to the writers, we must keep these things in mind when comparing the resurrection narratives. If we do so the so-called contradictions disappear.

It has been, for example, been suggested that the resurrection narratives are contradictory, in that they present differing accounts of who was at the tomb when. But in considering this question we must be fair to each of the writers and ask ourselves what each of them was trying to do. The fact is that they were not trying to give a step by step account of the resurrection appearances. Rather they were passing on selected material which conveyed the particular emphasis they wanted to convey, without altering the facts or giving peripheral information.

Now consider the situation. Jesus has been crucified. The disciples and the women who have accompanied Him are devastated. They do not know what to do. They cannot sleep. Their beloved Master lies in a tomb of which they know the whereabouts. The disciples are avoiding the tomb at first because they fear arrest, but the situation is different for the women. In fact their first act is to go inconspicuously to the tomb and watch Jesus body being laid there (Luke 23.54-56). They long to honour their dead master. From then on we should expect events to be very complicated. The women are dealing with the body of someone branded as a criminal, they are aware that the temple police are involved and guarding the tomb, and they are aware of how difficult it will be to enter the sealed tomb, sealed with a great rock. It is totally unreasonable, and indeed naive, to suggest that they would simply all traipse off to the tomb.

But the writers of the Gospels do not want to complicate their accounts by describing in great detail every movement of the women and the disciples. Thus they summarise.

They tell us that the women go off to prepare spices ready to take them to the tomb (Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought the spices, Luke adds Joanne and ‘the other women’ as those involved in the whole affair, not as those who bought the spices),and while they are doing this they send Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’ on ahead to see if it will be possible to approach the tomb, and they are specially concerned as to how they will be able to roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. They know guards have been set, so they need to survey the ground. .

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive. To their surprise the guards are not there and the tomb is open. The rock has been removed from the entrance. Quickly they discuss what they should do. Mary Magdalene then races off to tell Peter (whom they all look to as their leader) what has happened, while the other Mary goes back to report to the other women. Mary Magdalene finds Peter and John alone, and informs them of the situation. Note her use of the term 'we'. This in itself indicates that the facts are more complicated than John's overall account suggests. She clearly sees herself as part of a group acting in the situation even though she appears to be acting alone. (Had she been acting alone she would have said 'I').

John is writing from memory of the night as he saw it, and it is Mary's visit to the tomb and report to him that he remembers vividly and that concerns him. The other details are to him unnecessary. (John does, in fact, appear deliberately to write his Gospel with a view to covering unreported material, leaving out what others have dealt with except when it is necessary to his purpose. Thus while it is clear he was aware of the Galilean ministry, he excludes the vast part of it, only including what was specific to his purpose). Peter and John then visit the tomb and find it empty with the grave clothes lying just as they would if the body had still been there. However, the significance of this does not strike them at the time, although they recall it later. They are not expecting the resurrection.

Meanwhile Mary, young and vigorous, races back to the tomb to join the other women whom she knows intend to go to the tomb. But when she reaches the tomb the women have not yet arrived. 'But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb'. John says nothing about how she got there. He has learned her story and it is that he writes. He omits what is not important to his message. Mary now has her experiences described in John. She has a personal meeting with the risen Lord and goes off to tell the disciples.

Meanwhile the other women arrive at the scene, possibly wondering what has happened to Mary. They too have their experiences with the angels, and they too go off to tell the disciples.

Matthew either does not know all these details, or more likely wishes to summarise them briefly, as they are not important to his message (he almost certainly has Mark’s Gospel so he clearly is abbreviating). He is aware that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb, because it is part of the tradition passed on to the churches. (John may have been unaware of the the fact that the other Mary was originally with Mary Magdalene at the tomb or he may have considered it not important for what he wants to say). He must also have been aware that other women went to the tomb. It would be part of the tradition. So 28.1 is simply a summary verse naming two witnesses (possibly known to his first readers) who went to the tomb first, based on what the tradition stated. That is his first statement of fact, and agrees with what is stated elsewhere.

Verse two definitely precedes verse 1 chronologically so that the account is not chronological. Verses 2-4 are a second strand of tradition. They recount what had happened when the rock was removed from the tomb.

Verses 5-10 are a third strand of tradition. They state the adventures of the 'women'. That is also correct. He is aware that the angels spoke to 'the women', because he has been told so. He does not go into detail as to who the women are for this fact was not important to him. In a very abbreviated account like this we must recognise that details may not be dealt with anyway, and indeed Matthew may not have known the exact details. He is recounting what has by this time become oral tradition and he puts the differing spans of tradition together without trying to reconcile them. We know that 'the women' did not include Mary Magdalene, because John tells us so. She did not therefore first meet the Lord when 'the women' went to report to the disciples, but probably prior to them in her meeting outside the tomb. So Matthew recounts correctly the facts as taught in oral tradition. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did go to the tomb. 'The women' did hear what the angels had to say and went and told the disciples. Thus what Matthew says is correct. We ASSUME that the whole is a connected account, and indirectly it is, but it is not one story written as a whole but a connecting of different strands of tradition presenting facts.

Mark also tells us about the situation. He tells us who together bought the spices, but he does not recount the fact that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb first because the women were concerned about how the stone would be rolled away, for it was not important to him. Nevertheless his statement about their concern does explain why Mary went on ahead, even though Mark does not deal with this.

Again the account is truncated so that the details are not supplied. Verse 1 is true. Verses 2- 8 are also true, but we know that Mary Magdalene was now no longer with them. We do not know why Mark's version suddenly ends at verse 8. Clearly for some reason he broke off at this crucial point. This is one of the mysteries that will never be solved. The fact that they 'said nothing to anyone' because they were either terrified or filled with awe refers to their general behaviour. They would not wish to speak of things until they had talked with Peter. Possibly Mark's next verse would have read - ‘but they went immediately to the disciples and reported what had happened’.

Verses 9-20 were a piece of reliable tradition added on to Mark later as a whole (a number of early manuscripts do not have these end verses).. No attempt was made to connect it with verse 8. Thus we can confidently state that there are no contradictions once the ancient method of writing is recognised. Everything stated is true. We may wish they had given more detailed accounts and reconciled it all, but they wrote in their own way.

Luke, who also had Mark’s Gospel, but took particular pains to enquire about the facts wherever he went, lets us know that ‘the women’ followed those who buried Jesus and saw where he was laid. He mentions no names at this point and gives a brief summary of activity. Then he lets us know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and ‘the other women’ conveyed the news of Jesus’ appearances to the apostles. In this he was correct. What he does not point out, and possibly did not know, was that Mary Magdalene did it separately from the others. (It is of course possible that she then met the other women and also went with them back to the apostles, but it is not necessary to assume this).

All the writers are abbreviating a very complicated situation and trying to avoid making the text cumbersome. In such circumstances it is the general facts that are being got over not the individual detail. Thus Matthew and Mark only mention the one angel who was the spokesman, Luke mentions two. When we piece all their accounts together, taking into account that they were not painstakingly trying to reconcile each others accounts, and were not trying to give exact specific details which they considered unimportant, we discover that they do fit neatly together