0
Were there mistakes in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
There are dramatic differences between the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, whether by mistake or other wise.
- The earliest known manuscripts of Mark do not even have a resurrection narrative, beyond the young man telling the women that Jesus had risen. The "long ending" (Mark 16:9-20) resurrection appearances were added much later to bring this gospel more or less into line with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
- Matthew's Gospel reports an earthquake that rolled away the stone. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The women saw Jesus later while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. Finally, the eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus.
- In Luke's Gospel, the stone had already been moved when a group of women arrived, but there is no mention of an earthquake. This time, two men appeared to the women in shining garments, apparently angels. Later, Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (presumably) Peter, but they did not recognise him, even after conversing with him, inviting him home, and eating dinner with him. They only assumed that he was Jesus based on his words and behaviour, but then he vanished out of their sight. At his next appearance, Jesus went to some lengths to assure them that he really was Jesus, showing the disciples his wounds, and finally being drawn up into heaven. All this happened in and near Jerusalem, not in Galilee.
- In John's Gospel, only Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre and saw the stone moved. Then came 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' and Peter, who went in and saw only the linen clothes and the napkin. Next 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' went in, saw and believed. Only after they left did Mary see two angels in the sepulchre. Mary afterwards saw Jesus standing and knew not that it was Jesus, supposing that he was the gardener. The next two appearances are quite similar to a single appearance in Luke's Gospel. Finally, Jesus appeared to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberius.
The differences, although fundamental, do not have to be fatal to the Christian story. We now know that the gospel authors were not really eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke relied entirely on Mark's Gospel for their information about the life and mission of Jesus. They also relied on the hypothetical 'Q' document for a large number of sayings attributed to Jesus, but which are not in Mark. And the resurrection is not even hinted at in Q. If the authors of Matthew and Luke knew nothing about the life and mission of Jesus, other than what they learnt from Mark, then they also knew nothing about the resurrection of Jesus. What they wrote was an elaboration of the story, to satisfy their readers. Ian Wilson (Jesus: The Evidence)says of Matthew's account, "It is probably safest to regard these [events] as pious embroideries by an author demonstrably over-fond of the miraculous." Then the author of John relied on Luke, at the same time changing much of the chronology of events and expanding some passages. So, Luke's single visit of the risen Jesus to the disciples in the upper room was expanded to two separate visits, allowing Thomas to miss out on receiving the Holy Ghost from Jesus (John's author was not aware of Acts) and to demonstrate once again his doubts.
Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth) says that Mark took the basic ideas for the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ might look if played out as a historical event in Jerusalem.
Some scholars say that the author of Mark's Gospel already knew Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians and possibly his Epistle to the Galatians, which could have provided him with some key names and events around which to develop a story. John Shelby Spong (Why Christianity Must Change or Die) says that Paul seemed to believe that the appearance to him of the risen Jesus (which clearly was not physical) was exactly the same as the appearances to the other apostles - in other words there was not yet a tradition of a physical resurrection. In the view of Bishop Spong, Jesus was not physically resurrected, but rather "exalted" by God. Perhaps Mark (in its original form) avoided any claim of a physical resurrection because this would have been too big a step from Paul's gospel.
Thus, it seems that Paul knew nothing about a physical resurrection of Jesus; Mark followed him by merely having that young man say, "He is risen"; Matthew and Lukecreated elaborations to satisfy their readers; John expanded on Luke for theological reasons. These are dramatic differences, but not mistakes. Each of the evangelists knew what to write to move Christianity forward.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who was the only individual represented in all four gospel accounts?
Jesus
What were the four accounts of the gospel written in?
Matthew,Mark,Luke and John
How many gospel accounts are there?
There are atotal of four gospels. They are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
What are some key issues relating to the resurrection of Jesus?
Some key issues relating to the resurrection of Jesus are:Did the resurrection really happen?Was it a physical resurrection or a purely spiritual one?Why do the gospel accounts differ so much regarding the resurrection?The weight of evidence says that the resurrection was not a physical resurrection but was at first believed to have been a spiritual resurrection. Later, the gospel authors created elaborate stories to 'prove' that Jesus had been resurrected physically. This contention is supported by some important theologians.Paul wrote his epistles before any of the gospels was written. 1 Corinthians 15:15-44 show that Paul believed the resurrection was of his spiritual body, which is not the physical body, and that all people are raised from the dead in the same meaning. At 1Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul also seems to have believed that when the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, then to more than 500 (most of whom were still alive) then to James and all the apostles, that the appearances were all of the same nature as the appearance to himself, with no suggestion that any of those appearances somehow more real than the spiritual appearance he experienced. Paul seems to say that the risen Jesus did not show himself physically, but only through visions or dreams.John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) rejects the physical resurrection. In his view, Jesus was not physically resurrected, but rather "exalted" by God.Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards to provide the necessary resurrection appearances. The authors of the other gospels relied on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, but since Mark as yet had no resurrection details, each author had to create his own ending, and each ending is entirely different to the other. Since all accounts of the empty tomb are dependent on Mark, the story hangs by a slender thread indeed.Archbishop Peter Carnley (The Structure of Resurrection Belief ) writes: The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb...There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source.
What was Lazarus of Bethany famous for?
Lazarus of Bethany (also known as "Lazarus of the Four Days") is a well known for his resurrection after four days. This miracle has been described in the Bible in chapter 11 of the Gospel of John.
Which four books of the Bible give an account of Jesus' life death and resurrection?
The four Gospel accounts that record the life of Jesus are: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John
Do all gospels give us an account of the resurrection of Jesus?
Yes, all four gospels give accounts of the resurrection. Matthew chapter 28, Mark chapter 16, Luke chapter 24 and John chapter 20.
Why were the four accounts of the life of Jesus called Gospels?
AnswerIn his epistles, Paul had often referred to the gospel, or "good news", that he preached. Later, when the book now known as Mark was written, the term gospel was adopted for the new genre that it became: thus Mark's Gospel. There are dozens of books in the 'gospel' genre, but only four were selected for inclusion in the New Testament.
What part of the bible does the gospel reading come from?
The gospel accounts are found in the first four books of the New Testament (sometimes called the Christian Greek Scriptures) These are the Bible books of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.
Why do you think there are four gospel?
because there were four people
How does the Resurrection show the difference between right and wrong?
There is nothing in any of the four Resurrection accounts that provides any guidance as to the difference between right and wrong. However, Christians who believe that the Resurrection really happened and therefore that Jesus is the Son of God, can use this miracle as a guide to them back through the gospels to the moral concepts therein.
Is Johns book a Gospel?
The first four Books in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Gospels and each tell the story of Jesus' ministry on earth in four slightly different slants, which is understandable as they were written by four different men, but all were lead by the Holy Spirit so that we get a more complete story of Jesus. John did write I, II, and III John and the Book of Revelation, but these four books are not the "gospel", only the first four books in the N.T. are the Gospel accounts.
