by Stuart H. Gray
Introduction
I read through the Bible’s six accounts of Jesus’ resurrection recently with some friends. It took us about 20 minutes. What we found was fascinating. Clear similarities exist between the accounts. But there are also some major differences.
What are we to make of that? Here are some common reactions:
1 – There are differences between the accounts because Jesus’ resurrection probably did not happen. There is no way to tell if it did. The accounts are simply contradictory. People who claim Jesus’ resurrection really happened just dogmatically state that it did. They are closing their eyes to the unreliability of the reports. Dan McClellan makes an argument for this.[1]
2 – There are differences because each writer probably adds fictional details to a historical core of data. This is a story that grew in the telling over the years. The church was in the process of creating new Christian doctrine. The writers wanted to persuade people that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Maybe they tried to elevate him to the level of a Greek hero. Keith Long introduces some of these ideas.[2]
3 – Only apparent contradictions appear between the Bible’s resurrection accounts. The individual writers carefully consulted with genuine eyewitnesses. Together the four gospels, Acts chapter 1, and 1 Corinthians chapter 15, accurately report the actual historical core of events. However, each writer focuses on different aspects of the event. This is because each author has a different goal and is writing to a different audience.
In this short blog series, I’m going to do three things. First, I’m going to explore the main reasons why some people think the resurrection accounts contradict. Then I’m going to respond to these reasons. I’m going to make an argument for approach number 3 above. I’ll argue it is not a stretch to say this. All the resurrection accounts together report a historical core of events that happened. Finally, I will give you some reasons why approaches 1 and 2 above are unhelpful and most probably are wrong.
Dealing Properly With Ancient Documents
We will approach the ancient New Testament sources like any other document. We respect them and treat them as reliable unless they give us reasons to think otherwise. This is a rational approach to take.
If we were to approach these documents with a preconceived commitment to the idea that they are written to deceive us, without any evidence for that, then we are showing bias against them. This bias will inevitably make a clear-headed assessment of the historical data hard…maybe impossible.
That sort of bias might be fine for some people. But I don’t think it is a particularly generous or even rational approach to dealing with ancient written sources like these. My aim is to look at the data, and make a judgment based upon what we actually find there. I do not subscribe to preconceived skepticism, or a commitment to avoid obvious contradictions.
Why Is It Important to Respond to Contradiction Claims
Why would I spend time writing this blog series? Simply because the truth of Christianity and its claims about the identity of Jesus, depend on whether Jesus’ resurrection happened. If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity is false. If the accounts of the resurrection are contradictory, then this is a red flag suggesting the resurrection did not occur.
If, however, it is reasonable to presume the accounts of the resurrection are non-contradictory, then this removes a roadblock for us when considering the truth of Christianity. If the gospels are a reasonable account of the resurrection, then maybe they also present a reasonable case for Jesus as the Son of God.
The New Testament teaches our experience post-death will be determined by whether we accept and believe that Jesus is the Lord:
“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9, NIV)
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.” (John 5:28-29, NIV)
If the documents are contradictory, then the urgency of this message goes away. But this statement become more pressing on us if we can show reasons why the New Testament contains an honest reporting of events.
The Six New Testament Resurrection Accounts
Here they are. The references cited here describe the burial of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the accounts of his post-resurrection appearances.
Why not open a Bible app and read all of these passages yourself? I can wait for you. It’ll not take you very long.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8. This is most probably the earliest account of Jesus’ resurrection. It records a very ancient creed that many scholars date to within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The Apostle Paul recounts events that were relayed to him by the other surviving Apostles.
Mark 15:42 -16. Believed to be the earliest gospel and informed by the Apostle Peter’s experiences. If this gospel ends at chapter 16 verse 8, then it ends with a dramatic announcement. Surprise – Jesus is raised! However, if it ends at verse 20, it reveals Jesus followers to be slow to believe. Also, it records the resurrected Jesus giving them a worldwide commission.
Matthew 27:57 – 28. Matthew aims to counter false stories about the disappearance of Jesus’ body from his tomb. He wants to focus on the Galilean women and their experiences at the empty tomb. He also recounts a mountaintop experience in Galilee. Jesus commissioned what seems to be a large group of his followers.
Luke 23:50 – 24. The first of a scholarly writer’s account of before and after the resurrection. Luke says he works to present historical facts. He stresses the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and focuses on the resurrection appearances in and around the Jerusalem area.
Acts 1:1-11. This is the second of Luke’s accounts. Again, he focuses on the Jerusalem area. He recounts a commissioning of the resurrected Jesus to his immediate disciples on the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem.
John 19:38 – 21. John wants to give you some details of what Jesus did and said, but he doesn’t give it all. He wants the reader to have enough information to believe Jesus is the Son of God. To receive eternal life by putting one’s faith in him. His focus is on resurrection events in both Jerusalem and Galilee. He also aims to counter the claims that he personally would not die.
Where did the Events Around the Resurrection Occur?
These accounts focus on two main geographic areas. First, in and around the city of Jerusalem. Second, the town of Galilee.
We can easily miss the significance of these locations. Around fifty miles separated them. It would have taken people around three days to make a one-way journey by foot.
Jesus’ ministry began in and around Galilee. His group probably worked there and traveled to Jerusalem a few times together. Jesus was finally crucified in Jerusalem, and the accounts state he rose from the dead there. He also appeared initially to people in and around Jerusalem. But the resurrected Christ also reportedly appeared to his friends in Galilee as well.
Harmonization as Historical Method
Harmonization is a good historical methodology, and we will use it to make our case for approach 3. It involves taking apparently divergent accounts as being like jigsaw pieces. We will try to see whether the different pieces fit together properly. Do they fit cleanly into a coherent account? We won’t try to force pieces together that do not fit. Rather, we will look to see whether or not they are interlocking in a clean and easy way.
Harmonization is a way to assess reports from multiple sources. It helps us decide whether or not the accounts are likely to be accurate and reliable or not. If divergent accounts easily fit together – without needing to be forced – then this suggests the different accounts complement each other rather than contradict each other. Christian scholar Jonathan McLatchie opines that, “different sources that intersect in their reportage of a particular event should be allowed to illuminate and clarify one another…sources that have been otherwise demonstrated to be highly reliable should be given the benefit of the doubt when there is an apparent discrepancy.”[3]
For example, there’s an account of the lynching of the MacDonald Boys in 1881.[4] But the accounts of their death seem to contradict. One account has them strung up on a pine tree. Another has them hanging from a railway crossing. These sound like contradictory accounts. Maybe one or both is actually wrong? Yet additional data has come to light that allows us to harmonize these two accounts to show they complement, rather than contradict. Old photos have been discovered showing the bodies clearly hanging in BOTH locations. Both accounts are true.
This example highlights three important points:
1 – It is often possible to harmonize apparently divergent accounts.
2 – Just because two accounts make different claims does not mean they must necessarily be contradictory. We need to check to see whether additional data is available before we are allowed to properly claim a contradiction has occurred.
3 – There is always a central claim that the accounts share and support. The MacDonald brothers were hanged. It was the location of their bodies that was in dispute until additional data was consulted.
In summary then, harmonization is a tool in a historian’s toolbox. It must be used properly. We are not using the tool to force divergent accounts together like non-interlocking jigsaw pieces. Rather, we are using it to assess when the accounts might fit together properly and easily.
The Main Claims of Contradiction
Here are the ten areas of possible contradiction among the six resurrection accounts. We will explore and assess these claims in turn:
1 – Did the women disciples prepare the spices to anoint Jesus’ body before or after the Jewish sabbath? There seems to be disagreement here.
2 – Had the sun risen or was it still dark during the visit to the tomb on Sunday morning?
3 – How many women were at the tomb on Sunday morning?
4 – Was the stone already rolled away when the women arrived or not?
5 – How many angels were at Jesus’ tomb and were they sitting down or standing up?
6 – Were angels encountered inside or outside the tomb? The accounts seem to disagree.
7 – Do the accounts disagree about who was the first person to enter Jesus’ tomb?
8 – Who is the first person to meet the risen Christ?
9 – In one account Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him, yet in another the women clasp his feet. Is there a contradiction here?
10 – Do Matthew and Luke Disagree About the Location of the Great Commission?
Join me next time, where we will explore contradiction number 1.
[1] Dan McClellan, “Are there contradictions in the Bible?”, posted 8th March 2025, accessed 12th April, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNUC1e8t3D4
[2] Keith Long, “How Does the Resurrection Story Change In the Gospels?”, March 16th, 2022, accessed April 13th, 2025, https://www.bartehrman.com/how-does-the-resurrection-story-change-in-the-gospels/
[3] Jonathan McLatchie, “Do the Resurrection Narratives Contradict? A Reply to Dan McClennan”, March 10th, 2025, accessed April 13th, 2025, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/do-the-resurrection-narratives-contradict-a-reply-to-dan-mcclellan/
[4] Referred to in the podcast: Sean McDowell, Does the Bible Contradict? A Response to Dan McClennan, 18th March, 2025, accessed 13th April, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs8bHqOTO_Q