The following excerpts are taken from:
Edward P. Martin, Why the Resurrection Debate is
Stuck—And What We’re Missing (2026), Kindle ed.
Unlike some (mainly Evangelical) apologists, he does
believe there are real contradictions between the gospels and their accounts of
the resurrection.
This chapter argues that the
differences are not flaws but features—evidence of the evangelists’ faithful
theological work within distinct communities. Far from undermining resurrection
faith, these variations reveal how theological truth is proclaimed through
diverse, contextually shaped narratives. (p. 123 of 173)
Who Went to the Tomb?
·
Mark: Three women—Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of
James, Salone.
·
Matthew: Two women—Mary Magdalene and “the other
Mary.”
·
Luke: Multiple women, including Joanna and
unnamed others.
·
John: Mary Magdalene alone (though she later
says “we”).
All agree Mary Magdalene was
present—the first witness, a socially marginal figure elevated by divine
choice. The varying lists reflect each evangelist’s theological emphasis: Mark
highlights Galilean discipleship; Matthew prepares for Jesus’s immediate appearance
to the women; Luke underscores the breadth of Jesus’s followers; John focuses
on Mary’s personal encounter. These are not competing eyewitness reports but
purposeful narrative selections. (pp. 123-24)
What Did They Find at the
Tomb?
·
Mark: One young man in white, inside.
·
Matthew: One angel, outside, with earthquake and
rolled stone.
·
Luke: Two men in dazzling clothes.
·
John: Two angels inside, at head and foot of
burial place.
The number and nature of the
figures differ, but the core message is identical: “He is not here—he has
been raised.” The variations serve theological symbolism: Mark’s spare
mystique; Matthew’s apocalyptic power; Luke’s paired witnesses (consistent with
Jewish legal norms); John’s evocation of the cherubim over the Ark (Exod
25:18-22), transforming the tomb into a sanctuary of divine presence. (pp.
124-25)
What Was the Message?
All announce the resurrection but
with distinct emphases
·
Mark & Matthew: Direct the women to Galilee
for a future meeting.
·
Luke: Recalls Jesus’s earlier prediction of
suffering and resurrection.
·
John: Begins with a simple, poignant question:
“Woman, why are you weeping?”
These are not transcripts of
angelic speech but theological reframings. Mark and Matthew link resurrection
to Galilee—the place of discipleship’s origin. Luke stresses fulfillment of
Scripture. John sets up a deeper revelation through person recognition. (pp.
125-26)
Did Jesus Appear to the Women?
·
Mark (original ending): No appearance; the women
flee in fear.
·
Matthew: Jesus meets and commissions the women.
·
Luke: No appearance; they report to disbelieving
disciples.
·
John: Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone.
These differences are
irreconcilable as historical reports—but need not be. Mark uses silence and
fear to underscore the mystery of faith. Matthew shows immediate divine
vindication. Luke prioritizes male disciples for his Jerusalem-centered
narrative. John dramatizes personal recognition through naming. All affirm
women as the first recipients of the resurrection announcement; the form of
Jesus’s appearance serves each evangelist’s theological arc. (pp. 126-27)
Where Did Appearances Occur?
·
Mark & Matthew: Galilee.
·
Luke: Jerusalem only, with explicit instruction
to stay.
·
John: Both Jerusalem and Galilee.
These are not geographical errors
but theological signposts. For Mark and Matthew, Galilee represents renewal and
mission (echoing the Sermon on the Mount). Luke anchors salvation history in
Jerusalem—the pivot from Gospel to Acts. John includes both to affirm Thomas’s
confession (“My Lord and My God”) and Peter’s restoration. (pp. 126-27)
When Did the Ascension Occur?
·
Luke 24: Same day as resurrection.
·
Acts 1: Forty days later.
Even a singular author (Luke)
offers two timelines—because chronology serves theology. In the Gospel,
resurrection and ascension form a unified divine act. In Acts, the forty days
prepare the church for Pentecost. The shift shows that theological purpose, not
chronological precision, guides the narrative. (p. 127)
Why Harmonization Fails
Harmonization assumes:
1.
The evangelists sought coordinated testimony—yet
they wrote independently.
2.
Comprehensive factual accuracy was their
goal—yet ancient biography prioritized thematic and theological arrangement.
3.
A single timeline is possible—yet each Gospel’s
geography and chronology serve its theological vision.
4.
Differences are problems—yet they reveal
authentic, uncoordinated witness.
Attempts to force
coherence—multiplying unmentioned appearances, stacking events, or splitting
indistinguishable encounters—reveal not success but methodological error. The
Gospels were never meant to be merged into one seamless account. (pp. 127-18)
Skepticism misunderstands the
genre; apologetics misapplies modern historiography. The gospels are witnesses,
not reporters. Their authority lies in faithfully communicating what their
communities believed about God’s decisive act in Jesus. (p. 131)
Conclusion
The resurrection narratives’
differences are not weaknesses but windows into how early Christians proclaimed
the good news. They are not four versions of one story, but four faithful
testimonies to one reality: God has raised Jesus from the dead. This truth
transcends narrative variation. The Gospels invite us not to harmonize, but to
trust—to see in their diversity the living voice of a church proclaiming, in
many tongues, the one Lord who conquered death. (p. 132)
