Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
01 Gospels

The Resurrection Accounts

Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21

The Difficulty

The four Gospels present significantly different details about Easter morning: Who went to the tomb? (Mary Magdalene alone in John; multiple women in the Synoptics.) How many angels? (One in Matthew and Mark; two in Luke and John.) Where did the appearances happen? (Galilee in Matthew and Mark’s angel instruction; Jerusalem in Luke, who omits Galilee appearances entirely; both in John.) Did the disciples stay in Jerusalem or go to Galilee? The sequence of events resists easy harmonization.

Responses

Classical Harmonization

Tradition: Conservative / Evangelical Summary: All four accounts are fully historical and complementary, not contradictory.

Augustine’s De Consensu Evangelistarum (c. 400) set the template: apparent contradictions arise because each evangelist selects different details from a larger, consistent sequence of events. Mary Magdalene went with other women but arrived first and ran back; Peter and John then came; the women encountered angels at different moments. The “one angel” accounts mention the spokesman; the “two angel” accounts give the full picture. Galilee and Jerusalem appearances happened sequentially. Modern proponents include Craig Blomberg and D.A. Carson.

Strengths

  • Takes the texts seriously as historical reports
  • Accounts for ancient biographical convention of selective reporting

Weaknesses

  • Requires constructing a complex composite narrative not found in any single Gospel
  • Some harmonizations feel strained (e.g., Luke’s emphatic focus on Jerusalem is hard to read as merely “selective”)

Further Reading

  • Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum (NPNF I/6) — the foundational harmonization text
  • Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP, 2007), ch. 6
  • D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, on Matt 28
  • John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Wipf & Stock, 2005)

Redaction-Critical

Tradition: Mainline / Academic Summary: Each evangelist shaped the tradition theologically; differences reflect editorial purposes, not errors.

This mainstream academic approach (associated with scholars like Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, and many Methodists) argues that each Gospel writer received resurrection traditions and shaped them for theological purposes. Luke keeps everything in Jerusalem because Jerusalem is theologically central to Luke-Acts. John highlights Mary Magdalene’s encounter because of his discipleship theology. Mark’s abrupt ending (16:8) serves his motif of fear and misunderstanding. The core event — the tomb was empty, Jesus appeared alive — is multiply attested, but the narrative packaging reflects each author’s theology.

Strengths

  • Respects both the historical core and the literary artistry of each Gospel
  • Explains why the differences exist rather than merely resolving them

Weaknesses

  • Can seem to reduce the Gospels to theological constructions
  • The line between “theological shaping” and “historical inaccuracy” is debated

Further Reading

  • Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (Paulist, 1973)
  • N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003) — magisterial; the definitive case for historicity within a redaction-critical framework
  • Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (Fortress, 1980)

Literary-Canonical

Tradition: Post-Liberal / Canonical Summary: The fourfold witness itself is theologically meaningful; the differences are a feature, not a bug.

Drawing on Brevard Childs, Hans Frei, and Richard Bauckham, this approach argues that the early church preserved four Gospels precisely because the polyphonic witness to resurrection was more powerful than any single, smoothed-out account. The variations function like multiple eyewitness testimonies in a courtroom — too-perfect agreement would actually be suspicious. The canonical shape invites the reader into the mystery of the event rather than offering a police report.

Strengths

  • Theologically rich
  • Explains why the church canonized four Gospels rather than one harmony (as Tatian attempted)
  • Pastorally powerful

Weaknesses

  • Can sidestep historical questions
  • Doesn’t satisfy those who want to know “what actually happened on Sunday morning”

Further Reading

  • Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon (Fortress, 1985)
  • Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (Yale, 1974)
  • Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006)
  • Francis Watson, The Fourfold Gospel (Baker Academic, 2016)

Oral Tradition / Memory Studies

Tradition: Academic / Interdisciplinary Summary: Variations reflect how communities remembered and transmitted the story orally before written texts.

Scholars like James D.G. Dunn, Richard Bauckham, and the Social Memory school argue that oral tradition preserves a stable core with variable periphery. The central elements — empty tomb, angelic announcement, appearances — are remarkably stable across all four Gospels. The variable details (number of women, exact sequence) are exactly what memory research predicts for independently transmitted accounts of a real event.

Strengths

  • Grounded in contemporary memory research
  • Avoids both naive harmonization and excessive skepticism
  • Historically responsible

Weaknesses

  • Technical and academic
  • Requires some sophistication to communicate in a sermon setting

Further Reading

  • James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003), esp. ch. 8
  • Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006)
  • Robert McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels (SBL, 2011)
  • Anthony Le Donne, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Eerdmans, 2011)