For many years, philosophers have been critical with Christianity terming it absurd, superstitious, and even irrational. One of the areas that have come under severe criticism is on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although many philosophers and scholars have developed theories that aim at debunking the resurrection of Christ, the Gospel books remain a significant monument in providing the historical account of this major event in Christianity. Research has shown that the New Testament account of the resurrection came as a result of the work of the living witnesses. Therefore, the four authors of the Gospel were either direct witness or related the accounts of the eyewitnesses who observed the actual events. In supporting the reports of the New Testament, F.F. Bruce, a professor in biblical criticism notes that “had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.” 1 The primary question that lingers in the minds of people is whether the New Testament account of the resurrection is credible or reliable. The four Gospel books provide primary historical information regarding the resurrection, which has been backed by additional evidence from manuscripts and research by archeologists.
The Reliability of the Gospel
The four Gospels including Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are common in that all of them have an account on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would also be important to note that the four Gospels have several contradictions which skeptics have taken utilized to debunk the legitimacy of the Bible in describing the account of the resurrection. Some of the areas that have elicited a myriad of questions include the number of women who went to the tomb and the angels that visited the grave. Other issues have also been raised regarding whether Jesus appeared to all the women or Mary Magdalene alone. However, these discrepancies should not jeopardize the truth surrounding the resurrection of Christ as documented in the original records. Christians do not need to worry because all these accounts can be reconciled to form coherent information regarding the events after the death of Christ.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Time of Resurrection
The Gospels have shown slight inconsistencies when describing the actual time that the women went to the tomb. In Mathew, it is documented that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the tomb as it began to dawn" (Mathew 28:1). In the Gospel according to Mark, Salome is added to the group and the time mentioned as "very early in the morning" (Mark 16:1-2). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and other women as the women that went to the grave "very early in the morning" (Luke 24:1). Lastly, the book of John documents that "Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark" (John 20:1). From the documentation of the four Gospels, it is apparent that the authors agree that the women went to the tomb at the same time, referring to dawn or early morning. In resolving the number of women who went to the tomb, the interpretation is that at least five women were present in the scene. The only concern is that John only names Mary Magdalene, but he remains aware that she couldn't have gone alone to the tomb.
The Nature of the Tomb and the Number of Angels
John 20:1, Luke 24:2 and Mark 16:4 all agree that by the time the women arrived, the stone had already been rolled from the tomb. However, in the book of Mathew 28:2, it is written that “and behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.” In saying so, Mathew had already given the account of the women approaching the tomb. As such, Mathew only expounds on some of the events that might have been missed by the other three authors of the Gospel. Another area that has led to sharp criticism is on the angelic appearance. Mathew and Mark describe the presence of one angel while Luke and John provide the account of two. However, it is easy to conclude that there were two angels because neither Mark nor Mathew asserts that there was exclusively one angel.
Other Appearances
All the four Gospels agree that Jesus made several sporadic appearances after his resurrection, something that boosts its credibility and reliability. In the book of Luke, Clopas and his counterpart met the Lord on his way to Emmaus from Jerusalem. He remained unrecognizable to them until he embarked on breaking the bread (Luke 24:30-31). According to the Gospel of John, the two immediately went back to Jerusalem to share the good news with the rest of the disciples except Thomas who was not with them (John 20:19-24). Jesus later appeared to the rest of the group, and in the wake of their freight, he showed them his scars. They went ahead to share a meal consisting of honeycomb and broiled fish (Luke 24:40-43). Mathew documents that the disciples saw Jesus on a hill in Galilee (Mathew 28:16-17).
Such events show that although the four Gospels have slight discrepancies, they are not incoherent. It all depends on their accounts according to what they witnessed. The most important thing is that the four books can be harmonized to provide a legitimate account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke noted that after Jesus suffered and died, he revealed himself alive "by many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3). Critics and skeptics have continued to rely on these slight errors to justify their claims that the Bible cannot be counted on to give an explanation on the life after the death of Christ. The lack of open-mindedness and belief is a contradiction of the Christian belief in the essence of miracles. Therefore, nonbelievers will continue to raise objections, but what remains apparent is that the word of God provides a detailed account of the resurrection that should be universally embraced.
In addition to the evidence provided in the Gospel, it is also important to note that the Christian beliefs played a significant role in emphasizing the credibility of the resurrection of Christ. Paul in his teachings asserted that "if Christ has not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain, and we have found the false witness of God" (1 Corinthians 15:14). One of the most common objections to the Gospel accounts is the fact that they have certain discrepancies. However, on a keen analysis, the differences highlighted can be used to confirm the truthfulness of the reports rather than debunking them. It would automatically raise suspicion if the Gospel books provided a similar story with the events flowing in the same manner. It is also important to note that not all the four texts give an account of everything that transpired. As such, this explains the existence of the discrepancies. 2 The authors of the four Gospels are like news reporters who witnessed an event and reported it in their unique way. It is in this regard that Mathew is the only author who documents the first appearance of women while it is only in Luke that the story of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus is discussed. It is only John that writes about the appearance of Jesus when Thomas was not around. Therefore, these writers had unique ways of relating to the portrait of Jesus.
The differences in the four Gospel have nothing to do with the primary focus of the story. No single reason should justify the doubt that has been fronted by critics and skeptics of the Bible. The most salient points have been agreed upon by all the authors thereby leaving the insignificant differences as aspects that only add to the validity of the accounts. It is vital to recognize that no single book grossly contradicts the other but rather correlate plausibly to provide the bigger picture. The variations are only related aspects that in no significant way interfere with have implications on the plot of the story. One of the biblical scholars known as Wilbur Smith was categorical in explaining the cause of the variations seen in the Gospel books. He asserted that "in these fundamental truths, there are no contradictions.” 3 He continues to state that the so-called differences are as a result of what turned out to impress the respective authors the most.
The Christian belief and church is also evidence that the resurrection of Christ occurred. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:16-7, states that "if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sin." All the Gospel books agree that the disciples believed in the resurrection of Christ except for Thomas who had to see and touch the scars to believe. In emphasizing the resurrection played a significant role in the development of Christianity and not the vice versa, a scholar, William Lane Craig delves into the matter. He asserts that "since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation of Christianity, it cannot be explained as the latter product of Christianity." 4 MacArthur, another biblical scholar, acknowledges the importance of resurrection in Christian belief by noting that “just as the heart pumps life-giving blood to every part of the body, so the truth of the resurrection gives life to every other area of the gospel truth.” 5 Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Christ. It, therefore, means that without a credible explanation of the events leading up to the resurrection, Christianity would have been more or less wishful thinking. It would have been equated to religious speculation or one of the many human philosophies.
The Gospel and the New Testament, in general, confirm that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the son of God that would suffer, die, and resurrect after the third day in fulfillment of the scriptures. In Romans 1:4, the scriptures refer to Jesus as He "who was declared the son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead." One of the factors that build on the credibility of the Gospels in documenting the resurrection is their ability to predict. In Mathew 12:39, the scriptures assert that "so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The book of John also documents how Jesus predicted his ability to rise from the dead when he said that "I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it again" (John 10:17). Hence, the Gospel provides a candid account of how Jesus predicted his death. Other than through prediction, the Gospels provide an explanation of the resurrection by way of fulfillment and through the coming of the Holy Spirit. The angelic witnesses as shown in the Gospels also build on the concept that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the son of God. All the four books document that Jesus was “sitting on the stone rolled back from the empty tomb.” 6
Furthermore, the Gospels make it clear that the resurrection of Christ was physical and involved the human body. As such, this helps in removing any symbolic connotations that could result in doubts as to the veracity of his coming from the dead. The importance of the emphasis on the physical resurrection also builds a sense of the availability of human witnesses. In Luke 24:38-39, Jesus says “see my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” After his victory, Jesus appears to several individuals in a further depiction of his physical resurrections. Examples include Clopas and his counterpart on their way to Emmaus and his disciples. He also avails himself to Thomas to prove the scars that he had attained during the crucifixion. The human witnesses are also mentioned in 1 Corinthian 15:6 which says “after that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” Paul also adds to the list of the people who witnessed the physical resurrection of Christ when he says in 1 Corinthians 15:8 when he asserts that "and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also." Other physical appearances before his ascension include the seven besides the seashores as shown in John 21 and Mount Olives when he was giving the final instructions. Therefore, with all these first-hand eyewitnesses, it would be out of order to question the validity of the Gospel in describing the resurrection of Christ.
Historically, the empty tomb has been described as one of the evidence to show the resurrection of Christ. It is something that was not only acknowledged by the faithful followers of Christ as shown in the Gospel but also the hostile ones. The Jews came with many conspiracy theories to explain the emptiness of the tomb. Although this was a fault-finding mission, on the positive note, it provided evidence that indeed, Jesus was no longer dead and buried in the tomb. Some of the explanations that the Jews came with included the fact that the disciples stole the body and hid it elsewhere. Another report also stated that the disciples might have confused the tomb. In the traditional Jewish society, coming back to life was not a norm. Furthermore, they did not believe in Jesus as the promised, and as such, they had to develop any explanation to debunk his presumed resurrection. Therefore, the Gospel's interpretation of the empty tomb and the subsequent Jewish conspiracy theories further add validity to the Gospel accounts.
In conclusion, the Gospel books including Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are regarded as the primary documents containing credible information on the life, death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although the four books have slight discrepancies, they all agree on the general story of his resurrection and how he met people before finally ascending to heaven. The subsequent New Testament books further delve into how Christianity hinged on the resurrection of Christ and more also illuminates the various people that might have witnessed the resurrection. Although the critics and skeptics continue to capitalize on the differences seen in the Gospels, the four books, together with the rest of the New Testament and research by scholars provide a coherent and consistent life of Jesus after his victory over death.
Bibliography
Cowan, Steven B., and Terry L. Wilder, Eds. In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, B&H Publishing Group, 2013.
Craig, William Lane. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Impact 360 Institute, 2014.
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 31-32.
Michael J. Wilkins, and J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995),
O'Collins, Gerald. Believing in the Resurrection: the meaning and promise of the risen Jesus , Paulist Press, 2012.
