The resurrection accounts:
hopelessly contradictory

by Tomas de los Santos

To the Christian faith, nothing is of more importance than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the belief in Jesus' resurrection, as a factual reality, is the foundation of Christianity. St. Paul minced no words about it when he said "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17 NASV). The belief in the resurrection also provides the basis for one's relationship with God. The resurrection accounts should not, therefore, be taken for granted, but should be examined closely.
At the onset, it should be noted that the only evidence of the resurrection event is what is stated in the Christian documents we refer to as the New Testament. No other independent documents exist that speak of the resurrection. Of the dozen or so historians who lived and worked in first century Palestine, not one says anything about it. The entire claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament texts. As seekers of the truth, let's take a close look at the resurrection narratives to see how consistent or inconsistent they are with each other. Let's examine Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John directly by asking each of them to answer a few questions. To each of them we ask:
Who carried the cross? Matthew (27:32), Mark (15:21), and Luke (23:26) say it was Simon of Cyrene. John, however, maintains that it was only Jesus, himself, who carried the cross (19:17). At what time was Jesus crucified? Matthew and Luke don't say. Mark, however, tells us that Jesus was crucified at 9 a.m. ("and it was the third hour [by Jewish reckoning], and they crucified Him" (15:25). John, on the other hand, says it happened in the afternoon -- after the sixth hour (19:14-15). Did Jesus drink anything while on the cross? Matthew and John say he did (27:34 and 19:30, respectively), but Mark says he did not (15:23). Luke, meanwhile, says nothing about it. When did Mary prepare the spices used to embalm Jesus' corpse? Matthew doesn't tell us. Mark says that Mary prepared the spices after the Sabbath was over (16:1). Luke, on the other hand, tells us that Mary prepared the spices before the Sabbath started (23:56). John, in the meantime, maintains that it was Nicodemus, not Mary, who prepared the spices before the Sabbath (19:39).
Who were the women who came to the tomb? Matthew says it was Mary Magdelene and the other Mary (28:1). Mark says it was Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1). Luke, tells us it was Mary Magdelene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and other women (24:2). John, meanwhile, says that only Mary Magdelene came to the tomb (20:1). How many angels were at the tomb? Matthew and Mark each say there was one, while Luke and John both say there were two. And, what were the angel or angels doing at the tomb and where were they? Matthew says the angel was sitting on the stone that he had rolled away from the tomb (28:2). Mark says that the angel was sitting on the right side, inside the tomb (16:5). Luke says the angels were standing by the women, inside the tomb (24:4). John, incredibly, says that there were no angels when Mary initially arrived at the tomb. Rather, it was on her second journey to the tomb that she encountered two angels sitting inside the tomb, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain (20:1-12).
What's going on here? It appears that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are telling different stories. In a word, they have impeached each other. And what destroys the story of a witness more than inconsistencies? Aside from an exposed falsehood, it's hard to say.
Many Christian apologists, when confronted with these discrepancies (and others in the Bible), argue that the inconsistent resurrection accounts are merely reflective of the different perspectives of the gospel writers -- as though the gospel writers were like four different witnesses to a traffic accident, each testifying to the event from his or her individual point of view. This argument might have merit if the evangelists were actually on the scene and witnessed the event. As it happened, however, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not eyewitnesses to the Gospel events. In fact, they were not even there. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the present titles of the gospels were prefixed to them late in the second century of our era. Simply put, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are "make believe" authors of the gospels. Originally, and for many decades, the "gospels" existed as oral traditions, and were not put to writing until 40 to 70 years after the alleged facts they describe.
No wonder there are so many discrepancies in the Gospel stories. When a number of people, in different places and at different times, write about an event that happened in the significant past -- whether it be ten or 50 years before -- one would expect there to be contradictions for the simple reason that humans are fallible. That's how people are. Some discrepancies or inconsistencies are understandable, and, perhaps, forgivable. Others are not. At any rate, the existence of such errors signals a character trait peculiar to humans. When it comes to the Bible, however, a said to be work of God, should we have to sift through conflicting factual variations?
The Bible, believed to be of divine origin, is supposed to be perfect. Yet it is not. Sadly, the resurrection stories are so inconsistent that they collapse under careful scrutiny. Rather than being perfect documents, the Gospels appear to suffer from all the frailties that we, as humans, are known for. And that's the problem. Certainly, God does not suffer from human fallibility. Of course not! And certainly, He would not present such a confused account of what Christians believe to be the most important event in history. And guess what? He didn't! Indeed, St. Paul assures us that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33 KJV). And that's the point. Far short of being the word of God, the Bible is a man-made document. If the only reason for believing in the resurrection is what the Gospels tell us, coupled with a complete reliance on their "divine" authors, then one had better think twice: the many contradictions contained within them are like fingerprints at a crime scene, and in this case, God didn't do it.