Subject: post resurrection accounts |
Bible Note: Greetings Bub! Thanks for the response my friend! Allow me to use your A, B, C, and D format in response to your post! 1) A and B: There is no reconcilation necessary since B is simply silent about Galilee. 2) A and C: You are assuming that they went to Galilee on the same day in A. However, the text never says that they went on the same day. In fact, it never specifies any amount of time. Based on the evidence of the other Gospels, I would guess that it was a week or two at least. 3) A and D: I think you mean B and D, or C and D on this point, since A does not mention the meetings in Jerusalem at all. Just as an example, the difference in number may simply be explained in one of two ways. Luke describes the earlier appearance of the two mentioned in John - the one at which Thomas was not present. Luke 24:33 says that the Eleven were present when the two from the road to Emmaus give their report, but it never specifically says that the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared. Thus, Thomas may have simply left at some point. Then, per John, Jesus appears again a week later. Or, Luke may have conflated the details of the two visits without specifically stating that these things occurred over two visits. Luke's account of showing His hands and feet sounds more like the the events at the second appearance in John, in response to Thomas' doubt. I simply don't see anything that is impossible to reconcile except for your assumption that they wen to Galilee on the first day, which the text never says. Consistency? Since the accounts are not contradictory, consistency isn't really an issue. From even a human standpoint, based on the traditional order of writting of the Gospels, one can understand how the varying levels of detail came about. 1) Mark wrote first, and may have left out all of the post resurrection accounts entirely - ending with Mk. 16:8. 2) Matthew writes and decides to end on a more positive note and ends with the Great Commission in Galilee. 3) Luke writes and fills in the detail about what happened between the resurrection and the Ascension of Christ. 4) John follows with even more detail about the appearences of Christ in Jerusalem. Based on Paul's comments, there are probably many more appearences which are not mentioned at all. The long ending of Mk. 16:9-20 is a seperate issue. I have posted several times on it. If you want to see my views on this, simply search the forum. I do not believe that Mk. 16:9-20 was original, but was added later because someone did not feel that it was appropriate to end at Mk. 16:8. Well, I'm getting ready for a cook out, so I've got to go now! Have a great Fourth of July! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |