Subject: post resurrection accounts |
Bible Note: Greetings Bub! Thanks for the response! It helps to have some definite issue in mind when discussing a topic like this one. :-) It has been my experience that most people who have problems with the Gospel accounts, especially of the post-resurrection narratives, do so because they approach the four Gospels with the expectation that the four will basically each include every possible detail. However, when a historian is composing history, he must be selective in which details he chooses to present and which details he chooses to ignore. That is to say that each Gospel will differ in what they choose to include or not. This is only a problem if the details contradict one another. For instance, if John says that Jesus appeared to so and so, while Mark says that He did not. However, silence concerning a particular detail is not a problem. With that in mind, let's look at some of your points. 1) Cast of Characters: I would need more detail on this point. This is a pretty broad topic. However, I would note that this point is only a problem if one Gospel specifically includes a person, while another specifically excludes a person. It is not a problem if one Gospel simply does not mention a person one way or the other. A history is not required to mention every possible detail. It is only required to record the details factually. 2) The Dialogue of Mt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7: This is an excellent example of the point I raise above. Allow me to touch upon your points concerning this question in reverse order. a) The fact that Luke and John do not mention going to Galilee is not a problem as long as they do not explicitly deny that it took place. Silence is not a contradiction. b) Mt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7 are not parallel accounts. In Mt. 28:10, Jesus is speaking. In Mr. 16:7, an angel is speaking. The dialogue is similar, but different. The true parallel to Mk. 16:7 is not Mt. 28:10, but Mt. 28:5-8. Here, just as in Mk. 16:7, an angel gives them the message in virtually identical language. 3 and 4) Appearances and Ascension: These are both similar to issue 2). What you have mentioned are not contradictions but simply varying levels of detail. Why must each Gospel mention each detail? The value of each Gospel as an historical witness is predicated upon their independence, not their interdependence. I hope this helps some! I would strongly recommend getting in touch with the United Bible Society and purchasing a Synopsis of the Gospels. It only cost about 10 dollars in hard back. It lays the entire four Gospels out side by side for comparison. Well, I’ve got to run some errands my friend! Chat with you later! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |