Critics of the resurrection raise the issue that the accounts of the Gospels differ in the details they provide. For example: 

• Matthew says an angel spoke to the women, but Mark says it was a “young man.” 
• Mark says the women arrived at the tomb at sunrise, but John says, “it was still dark.” 
• Matthew mentions only two women at the tomb, Mark says three with Luke stating there were several! 

The argument is because the details differ, then the claim that Jesus rose physically from the dead is false. Apart from the fact that the above alleged discrepancies can be harmonized, the existence of differences within the resurrection records argues in favour of their authenticity, not against it. 

From the perspective of a historian, the differences are concerned with “secondary details” but there is a core body of truth in all the accounts which includes Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb was visited by some women on the Sunday morning and it was empty. 

One historian gave the example of Hannibal crossing the Alps to invade Rome. There are two ancient documents which describe this, but they have many differing secondary details which cannot be reconciled. Yet no classical historian denies Hannibal crossed the Alps to fight against Rome. 

Historian Michael Grant, who doubts that Jesus rose from the dead, had this to say: 

“The discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty.” 

And as the “young man” said to the women that day, it was because, “He is risen.” 

If you would like to discover more evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus, then please email Woodvale Baptist Church at: mail@wbcinc.org.au and we will send you a free copy of the book “The Case for Easter.” 

Today’s Bible reading: Mark 16:3-4