For a Shroud of Turin position paper I am working on, I wanted to summarize what I call The Inconsistencies. I decided to start out by asking ChatGPT, “What are the inconsistencies in the four gospels regarding the burial and/or resurrection of Jesus?”
Yep, that’s exactly what I typed into the query box. The following appeared on my laptop screen in less time than it took to pour a cup of coffee. This is a fantastic and scary tool. Here it is, word for word, between the separator lines:
There are several inconsistencies among the four Gospels regarding the burial and resurrection of Jesus. Here are a few examples:
- The individuals present at the tomb:
- In Matthew (28:1), Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
- In Mark (16:1-2), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome go to the tomb.
- In Luke (24:10), Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women visit the tomb.
- In John (20:1), only Mary Magdalene is mentioned as going to the tomb.
- The timing of the visit to the tomb:
- In Matthew (28:1), it is “after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
- In Mark (16:2), it is “very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise.”
- In Luke (24:1), it is “very early in the morning on the first day of the week.”
- In John (20:1), it is “early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark.”
- The individuals or beings encountered at the tomb:
- In Matthew (28:2-7), an angel of the Lord descends, rolls away the stone, and sits on it, telling the women about the resurrection.
- In Mark (16:5), a young man dressed in white robes is found inside the tomb, who informs the women of Jesus’ resurrection.
- In Luke (24:4), two men in dazzling clothes suddenly appear and explain the resurrection.
- In John (20:11-13), two angels in white are seen inside the tomb after Mary Magdalene returns with Peter and John.
- The instructions given to the women at the tomb:
- In Matthew (28:7), the angel instructs the women to tell the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.
- In Mark (16:7), the young man also tells the women to inform the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.
- In Luke (24:6-8), the two men remind the women of Jesus’ words that he would rise again but do not mention Galilee.
- In John (20:17), Jesus himself appears to Mary Magdalene and instructs her to tell the disciples about his imminent ascension.
These contradictions may be attributed to the different perspectives and purposes of each Gospel’s author, but they remain points of discussion for scholars and believers alike.
Hi Dan! Good to hear from you again.
In November and December 2020, there were informal gatherings at the address of the Prime Minister of the UK, popularly supposed to have been in breach of the regulation in force at the time, regarding the permitted places, number of people and purpose of the gathering. The subsequent scandal led to the resignation of the Prime Minister and several senior members of the government.
There are numerous accounts of these gatherings, including by eye-witnesses, all of which contain numerous inconsistencies regarding the “Individuals Present,” “The timing of the visit,” “The Individuals Encountered,” and the “Instructions.”
Frankly, if we can’t be sure what happened at a well-witnessed and heavily published event less than five years ago, the fact there are discrepancies in some accounts of an event which occurred over fifty years before the first recorded account, and probably after the death of everybody present, is not really surprising.
Alleged inconsistencies among the four Gospels regarding the burial and resurrection of Jesus?
The problem has been solved long ago!
Here is my harmonization of all the relevant narratives: https://www.apologetyka.info/inne-tematy/harmonie-biblijne/relacje-o-zmartwychwstaniu-uzgodnienie,1172.htm
In polish but you can Google Translate.
The alleged inconsistencies are very minor and can be easily reconciled given a simple trick and some psychological observations.
And BTW I harmonized all Four Gospel stories about Jesus:
https://www.apologetyka.info/inne-tematy/harmonie-biblijne,35/
Just a bit of imagination, common sense and understanding why did the Evangelists each of them wrote in the way he did.
Hugh: event which occurred over fifty years before the first recorded account
Ten years. The Gospel of Matthew circa 40 AD, Mark circa 45 AD, Luke circa 56 AD, John circa 100 AD. And yes, the Evangelists are Matthew the Apostle, the Scribe who by the twist of fate became Tax Collector, (John) Mark cousin of Barnabas, Luke the Physician and John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, the Priest, Fisherman, Presbyter and Beloved Disciple.
Here are their bios:
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-5-mateusz-ewangelista-biografia,1424.htm
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-6-marek-ewangelista-biografia,1425.htm
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-7-ukasz-ewangelista-biografia,1426.htm
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-8-jan-ewangelista-biografia,1427.htm
Alleged inconsistencies among the four Gospels regarding the burial and resurrection of Jesus?
The problem has been solved long ago!
Here is my harmonization of all the relevant narratives: https://www.apologetyka.info/inne-tematy/harmonie-biblijne/relacje-o-zmartwychwstaniu-uzgodnienie,1172.htm
In polish but you can Google Translate.
The alleged inconsistencies are very minor and can be easily reconciled given a simple trick and some psychological observations.
And BTW I harmonized all Four Gospel stories about Jesus:
https://www.apologetyka.info/inne-tematy/harmonie-biblijne,35/
Just a bit of imagination, common sense and understanding why did the Evangelists each of them wrote in the way he did.
Hugh: event which occurred over fifty years before the first recorded account
Ten years. The Gospel of Matthew circa 40 AD, Mark circa 45 AD, Luke circa 56 AD, John circa 100 AD. And yes, the Evangelists are Matthew the Apostle, the Scribe who by the twist of fate became Tax Collector, (John) Mark cousin of Barnabas, Luke the Physician and John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, the Priest, Fisherman, Presbyter and Beloved Disciple.
I could give their bios I wrote some times ago (with all the relevant primary sources), but the blog is unlikely to accept 4 more links.
I’m aware that with a bit of tweaking the four gospel narratives may be reconciled, but that doesn’t stop them being different. Much depends on the purpose of each evangelist in recounting his story, and his intended audience.
It’s good for the holders of minority views to be confident, but such enquiry as I have made suggests that your information about the dates and authors of the gospels is very much a minority view. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily false, but I would like some evidence for it before I accepted it with the same confidence as yourself.
Hi Dan!
Do you consider the inconsistencies described by ICHAT to be serious issues?
No, not in isolation. For me, it is enough to believe that Jesus was buried, and the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts, in my way of thinking, actually lend more support to the story rather than detract from it. Add to this the uncertain dates of the Gospels’ origens (Raymond E. Brown suggested Mark was written in the late 60s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s. John A.T. Robinson proposed early dates; Mark in the 40s or 50s, Matthew in the 50s or 60s, Luke in the late 50s or early 60s, and John in the 60s or 70s. Bart D. Ehrman argues Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke in the 80s or 90s, and John around 95 AD), and you get a picture of significant confusion. On top of that, some very reasonable scholars believe that the open tomb scenarios may have been a later addition and that doesn’t particularly bother me. I wish I could know more but I can’t. My faith is more focused on the Resurrection than on the burial.
I too am more focused on the Resurrection. These issues of who, when, and how the empty tomb scene actually unfolded are minor ones within the greater context of the Resurrection.
It’s good for the holders of minority views to be confident, but such enquiry as I have made suggests that your information about the dates and authors of the gospels is very much a minority view. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily false, but I would like some evidence for it before I accepted it with the same confidence as yourself
Yes, Hugh, so I would provide some resources.
First, as I did mention, I once wrote a long 11-part article series about the authorship of the Gospels (as a response to the article of a certain young man, who claimed the Gospel authorship was invention of Irenaeus in the 2nd century). The series included 4 articles trying to reconstruct biographies of all 4 Evangelists, based on the all relevant early Christian sources, both New Testament and extrabiblical, which was explicitly given. Also, the information on the internal evidence form each gospel was provided. And then I tried to combine all the relevant info into the most coherent scenario.
The results were, that the most likely scenario was, as I mentioned, that Synoptics are actually very early. Luke was probably written circa 56 AD (Acts date to 62 AD) as it is most likely mentioned by Paul in 2 Cor 8:18-19. As Luke was almost certainly dependent on Mark, the latter must be earlier and written during Peter’s lifetime. When you browse ancient sources about the life of Mark (and Peter) it seems that the most likely date Gospel of Mark was written was 45 AD, when Peter and Mark were returning from Italy after the death of Herod Agrippa I. As Mark is most likely an abbreviation of the longer Matthew (explanation later on), Matthew must be earlier, circa 40 AD.
What’s more, it all seems that Gospel of Matthew is actually the earliest and most original Gospel, written as a new Torah of the new Moses -Christ. And it was written both in Hebrew and Greek by the Matthew, in the name of the whole primitive Christian community. The Hebrew version survived (though in likely contaminated form) in the 14th century polemical work of rabbi Shem Tov. Matthew was a trained scribe, he knew the rabbinical exegesis, but as I said, most likely the life forced him to become a tax collector and an outcast from the Jewish society. It happens. And then he met Jesus and become the Apostle, the secretary of Jesus and the Twelve. As a new sacred Torah, the Gospel of Matthew must have been compiled very early on, most likely circa 40 AD.
John can be securely dated to circa 100 AD. He did not write his Gospel in person, but instead dictated it to Papias, as old Latin prologues inform us.
Here you have my biographies of all the 4 Evangelists:
Matthew: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-5-mateusz-ewangelista-biografia,1424.htm
Mark: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-6-marek-ewangelista-biografia,1425.htm
Luke: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-7-ukasz-ewangelista-biografia,1426.htm
John: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-8-jan-ewangelista-biografia,1427.htm
More resources in the next post.
The early dating of Gospels was common among Catholic biblical scholars before Second Vatican Council. Only afterwards most of them sold themselves to liberal rationalist protestant scholarship, who following the idiocy of Sola Scriptura rule, cast away the whole Church extra-biblical tradition. The commonly published dates as 70 AD for Mark, 80-90 for Matthew and Luke and 100 AD for John, are mostly based on the assumption that Jeus prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was written after the events. Which is nonsense and complete misunderstanding of Jesus attitude towards the Temple. He considered Himself as the true Temple, and there is no room for two Jewish Temples. Thus the Temple of Jerusalem was certainly doomed in Jesus eyes and HAD to be destroyed, which eventually happened. But long after the Synoptic Gospels were written. Jesus himself, during Sanhedrin trial, was accused of plotting to destroy the Temple. The accusation concerned also the disciples like Saint Stephen.
But the view of early dating of the New Testament is supported not only by traditional Catholics and protestant fundamentalists. I recommend reading the John A.T. Robinson 1976 book ‘Redating the New Testament’. Though I do not necessarily agree with all of the Robinson’s view (Robinson dated all the New Testament pre 70 AD, while I think hat John’s works date to the 90s AD), they are a fresh look on the allegedly definitely agreed answers to chronology of the composition of biblical works.
And besides, to debunk more prevalent myths on the New Testament, I recommend reading the works of Father Andrzej Kowalczyk (died in 2020). Kowalczyk was biblical scholar, and he strongly disagreed with modern prevalent ‘consensus’ on the formation of the Synoptic Gospels. He held a view that traditional Christian version of the composition of the Gospels is much more reliable than the ideas of modern biblical critics. He rejected existence of Q and source theory. He opted for the priority of Matthew with a very complex structure imitating Hexateuch (that is the Torah and Joshua). Mark was an abbreviation of much more sophisticated Matthew, adapted to the Roman audience and focused on preaching the Gospel. Luke was another approach for gentile audience, and he knew both Matthew and Mark. The Evangelists were not passive compilers, but they clearly knew, what was the message they were trying to deliver, and they used their material in appropriate way, making conscious changes if needed.
The books of Kowalczyk (also the English versions) are freely available here:
https://digital.fides.org.pl//dlibra/metadatasearch?action=AdvancedSearchAction&type=-3&val1=Creator:”Kowalczyk%2C+Andrzej+%5C(1940%5C-+%5C)”
(this is a website of some Church library). I highly recommend downloading and reading them -they are quick to read but contain a lot of interesting information (though Kowalczyk does not provide specific dates for Gospels composition).
The early dating of Gospels was common among Catholic biblical scholars before Second Vatican Council. Only afterwards most of them sold themselves to liberal rationalist protestant scholarship, who following the idiocy of Sola Scriptura rule, cast away the whole Church extra-biblical tradition. The commonly published dates as 70 AD for Mark, 80-90 for Matthew and Luke and 100 AD for John, are mostly based on the assumption that Jeus prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was written after the events. Which is nonsense and complete misunderstanding of Jesus attitude towards the Temple. He considered Himself as the true Temple, and there is no room for two Jewish Temples. Thus the Temple of Jerusalem was certainly doomed in Jesus eyes and HAD to be destroyed, which eventually happened. But long after the Synoptic Gospels were written. Jesus himself, during Sanhedrin trial, was accused of plotting to destroy the Temple. The accusation concerned also the disciples like Saint Stephen.
But the view of early dating of the New Testament is supported not only by traditional Catholics and protestant fundamentalists. I recommend reading the John A.T. Robinson 1976 book ‘Redating the New Testament’. Though I do not necessarily agree with all of the Robinson’s view (Robinson dated all the New Testament pre 70 AD, while I think hat John’s works date to the 90s AD), they are a fresh look on the allegedly definitely agreed answers to chronology of the composition of biblical works.
And besides, to debunk more prevalent myths on the New Testament, I recommend reading the works of Father Andrzej Kowalczyk (died in 2020). Kowalczyk was biblical scholar, and he strongly disagreed with modern prevalent ‘consensus’ on the formation of the Synoptic Gospels. He held a view that traditional Christian version of the composition of the Gospels is much more reliable than the ideas of modern biblical critics. He rejected existence of Q and source theory. He opted for the priority of Matthew with a very complex structure imitating Hexateuch (that is the Torah and Joshua). Mark was an abbreviation of much more sophisticated Matthew, adapted to the Roman audience and focused on preaching the Gospel. Luke was another approach for gentile audience, and he knew both Matthew and Mark. The Evangelists were not passive compilers, but they clearly knew, what was the message they were trying to deliver, and they used their material in appropriate way, making conscious changes if needed.
The books of Kowalczyk (also the English versions) are freely available here:
https://tinyurl.com/64xw27a3
(this is a website of some Church library). I highly recommend downloading and reading them -they are quick to read but contain a lot of interesting information (though Kowalczyk does not provide specific dates for Gospels composition).
Dear Dan,
Sorry what follows is in French language:
J’ai participé à un cours en ligne du “Collège des Bernardins”, institution française de théologie de haut niveau sur “les récits de la Résurrection”
Les récits de la Résurrection, contrairement à ceux de la Passion sont effectivement très différents en fonction des évangiles.
Cela n’enlève rien à la crédibilité du fait de la Résurrection.
Au contraire.
A votre disposition
Amicalement
Thibault.
Translation by ChatGPT:
I participated in an online course from the “Collège des Bernardins,” a high-level French institution of theology, on “the accounts of the Resurrection.”
The accounts of the Resurrection, unlike those of the Passion, are indeed very different depending on the Gospels. This does not detract from the credibility of the fact of the Resurrection. On the contrary. At your disposal.
Best regards,
Thibault.
Thanks very much, OK, for all your papers. It’ll be a while before I’ve covered them all, and, as I said, they are still very much the minority opinion, but you explain your point of view very clearly.
I think the main purpose of all the Resurrection stories is to emphasise that the tomb in which Jesus had been laid was really empty, and secondarily, that it was not because his body had been taken away by somebody, both of which are crucial to his later appearing in person. Who actually went to the tomb, and in what order, and what exactly the evidence was that body had not been taken, are not so critical, and contribute more to each author’s subsequent understanding of the Resurrection rather than its actual occurrence.
Of course, that means that some people can take the different stories as evidence that the whole thing was made up to justify later experiences, and others can say, as I did in the first comment, that differences in detail are the rule in eye-witness accounts rather than the exception. Determining between the two is a nuanced decision, and not achieved by simple assertion.
And Thibault, how good to hear from you again!
How many versions of Pauls’ vision of Jesus in book of Acts alone
Hi O. K.!
Are any English translations of your bios on the evangelists available?
I’d like to read them.
Thanks
Pam
Hello Pam!
Unfortunately not at the time. You can Google Translate the page, but of course it is not perfect.
Anyway references to biblical and other ancient primary sources should be quite clear, so you can check them on your own.
There is EXCELLENT collection of the primary sources, testimonies on ancient Christianity on the site run by Ben C. Smith http://textexcavation.com/texts.html ,
both original texts and english translations. Unfortunately the site broke down recently (it happened before), but until it is restored you can use archived version on Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220809113938/http://www.textexcavation.com/excavations.html
Most (though not all) of my references on the bios of the Four Evangelists are derived from there. I just collected the references, put polish translations (where it was available)
and based on these, I attempted to make the best-matching syntheis of all the ancient sources + modern characteristics of the author from the internal evidence of the Gospels.
Generally the characteristics of the authors of each of the Four Gospels from modern analysis of the texts match very well what we know from ancient testimonies. The authorship of the Gosepls is tesitfied since the 2nd century (which is quite early given the standards of antiquity), and since at least 200 CE has been universally accepted.
There are virtually no opposing voices (contrary to some other writings or issues like the number of the women at the cross). Which means it is nearly 100 % certain that the authors were real Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The modern criticism of Gospel authorship has actually very weak arguments which can be quite easily refuted. They are based not on evidence but on ideological bias and double standards. The authorship of the Gospels is as certain as any other writing from the Antiquity.