Introduction
The resurrection of Jesus is considered the central event of Christianity. However, the four Gospel accounts contain numerous discrepancies about what happened, who was present, and what was seen. This page examines these inconsistencies from a textual critical perspective, highlighting the ways the narratives differ and contradict each other.
These differences are significant because they relate to the most important event in the Christian faith. If the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or based on reliable eyewitness testimony, we would expect consistent reporting of such a pivotal event. Instead, we find fundamental contradictions that suggest the narratives evolved over time.
Who Visited the Tomb?
The Gospels disagree about who went to Jesus's tomb on Sunday morning:
| Gospel | Who Visited the Tomb? | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Mark | Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome | Mark 16:1 |
| Matthew | Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" | Matthew 28:1 |
| Luke | Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "the other women" | Luke 24:10 |
| John | Mary Magdalene alone | John 20:1 |
Analysis
These differences go beyond mere omission. John specifically focuses on Mary Magdalene arriving alone (using singular verbs and pronouns), while the other accounts clearly describe multiple women. Luke adds women not mentioned elsewhere. Such discrepancies suggest these accounts were not based on consistent eyewitness testimony but reflect different traditions that developed in separate early Christian communities.
The Stone: When and How Was It Moved?
Mark, Luke, and John: Stone Already Rolled Away
Matthew: Stone Rolled Away While Women Present
Analysis
In Matthew, the women witness a dramatic supernatural event: an earthquake occurs and an angel descends from heaven to roll away the stone while they watch. In the other three accounts, the women find the stone already moved when they arrive. These are contradictory sequences, not complementary details. Matthew's dramatic account (written later than Mark) appears to be an embellishment of the simpler narrative.
Who Did They See at the Tomb?
| Gospel | Who Was at the Tomb? | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Mark | A young man in a white robe sitting inside the tomb | Mark 16:5 |
| Matthew | An angel sitting on the stone outside the tomb | Matthew 28:2-3 |
| Luke | Two men in dazzling clothes standing inside | Luke 24:4 |
| John | No one at first; later two angels in white sitting inside | John 20:1-12 |
Analysis
The accounts differ on several key points: how many figures were present (one vs. two), where they were located (inside vs. outside the tomb, sitting vs. standing), and their identity (a man vs. angels). These discrepancies go beyond complementary perspectives - they represent fundamentally different descriptions of the same event.
The progression from Mark (the earliest Gospel) through to John (the latest) shows a pattern of increasing supernatural elements, with Mark's "young man" evolving into explicitly supernatural beings in later accounts.
The Women's Response
Mark: Fled in Fear, Told No One
Matthew: Ran with Joy to Tell Disciples
Luke: Returned to Tell Disciples
John: Mary Ran to Get Peter and John
Analysis
Mark's ending (which is the original ending, as verses 9-20 were added much later) directly contradicts the other Gospels. In Mark, the women fled in terror and told no one. In Matthew, they ran with joy to tell the disciples. In Luke, they returned to tell the disciples. In John, Mary immediately ran to tell Peter and John.
These contradictions are significant because Mark's original ending creates a major problem: if the women never told anyone what they saw, how would anyone know about it? Later Gospel writers appear to have altered the narrative to resolve this plot hole, creating an evolving tradition rather than consistent historical reporting.
First Appearance of Jesus
The Gospels present contradictory accounts of where and to whom Jesus first appeared:
| Gospel | First Appearance | Location | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew | To the women near the tomb, then to the disciples in Galilee | Jerusalem, then Galilee | Matt 28:9-10, 16-17 |
| Luke | To Cleopas and companion on road to Emmaus, then to disciples in Jerusalem | Emmaus road, then Jerusalem | Luke 24:13-36 |
| John | To Mary Magdalene at the tomb, then to disciples in Jerusalem | Jerusalem | John 20:14-19 |
| Paul (1 Cor) | To Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve | Not specified | 1 Cor 15:5 |
Analysis
The contradictions regarding Jesus's first appearance are particularly significant. Matthew places the disciples' encounter with Jesus in Galilee (approximately 70 miles north of Jerusalem), while Luke explicitly places all post-resurrection appearances in and around Jerusalem, stating that the disciples remained in Jerusalem continuously (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4).
These are mutually exclusive geographic claims that cannot both be historically accurate. Furthermore, there is disagreement about who saw Jesus first - was it the women (Matthew), Mary Magdalene alone (John), Cleopas and companion (Luke), or Peter (Paul)?
Ascension Timeline
Luke: Same Day as Resurrection
Acts: 40 Days After Resurrection
Analysis:
Luke and Acts present contradictory timelines for Jesus's ascension, despite being written by the same author. In Luke's Gospel, the ascension occurs on the same day as the resurrection, with events flowing continuously from early morning to evening. However, in Acts, the same author states that Jesus remained on earth for 40 days before ascending.
This discrepancy suggests literary development rather than historical reporting, as the same author provides two mutually exclusive chronologies for this pivotal event.
Conclusion
The resurrection accounts contain numerous contradictions regarding crucial details: who discovered the empty tomb, what they saw there, who they told, where and to whom Jesus first appeared, and when he ascended to heaven. These discrepancies are not minor variations in perspective but fundamental contradictions in the sequence and nature of events.
While harmonization attempts exist, they often require extensive speculation and complex scenarios not found in the texts themselves. The simpler explanation is that these accounts represent evolving oral traditions that were written down decades after the events they describe, resulting in conflicting narratives rather than consistent historical documentation.