Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source

Those who reject the Bible as a divinely inspired and authoritative source are often quick to dismiss the value of the gospel accounts entirely. They are frequently thought of as little more than legendary embellishments, or propaganda material designed to promote the Christian faith rather than genuinely preserve history.

But for the sake of argument, let us set aside any questions of divine inspiration, and treat the gospels simply as ancient historical documents. Even if we examine the gospels on this basis alone, there are compelling reasons to take their accounts of the resurrection as a trustworthy historical witness.

Multiple Independent Witnesses

In history, as in a court of law, the strength of a case increases with the number of independent witnesses. If we assume the witnesses in question are not wholly dependent on one another’s stories, then the more witnesses we have who agree about the facts regarding an event, the more confident we can be that we are dealing with real events rather than a made-up story or an embellished legend.

Even if Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 were the only evidence we possessed of the resurrection, it would already demand serious consideration (see Part 3). But when it comes to the resurrection, we have much more.

In addition to Paul’s early account, we also have the resurrection narratives found in the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not only were these accounts also written relatively early (no more than 40 or 50 years after the resurrection), but they were also independently written accounts.

To be sure, many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have argued that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark as a source. Others have suggested that all three drew from one or more similar sources as a way to explain the similarities between these three books. This may or may not be the case. But what is important to realize is that even if the authors of these books were aware of the other gospel accounts, all three of them reported about the resurrection in their own unique way, including their own special details that were not mentioned in the other gospels.

If these authors were simply rehashing a singular resurrection story from an earlier source, we would expect their accounts to match closely in the precise details they preserve, and yet they don’t – not at all.

For example, Matthew reports that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visited the tomb. Mark adds Salome to the group. Luke includes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Joanna, and “other women.”

Matthew mentions only one angel who speaks to the women outside the tomb. Mark describes what he refers to as a young man dressed in white. Luke reports that two angels were present.

Matthew alone includes unique elements such as the earthquake and the guards at the tomb. Luke alone records the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

Here’s why this is so important: Even if these authors were aware of one another’s works, their accounts remain strikingly independent of one another. This fact alone makes their accounts all the more compelling, especially when it comes to the central claims that they all share in common. Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was buried, the tomb was found empty, and Jesus appeared alive to various disciples at various times and places.

Do the Gospel Accounts Contradict Each Other?

Ironically, the very differences that support the independent nature of the gospel accounts are often used to dismiss them completely. Some argue that these variations are actually contradictions, and since these gospel accounts contradict one another, their story must be made up.

For example, some have observed that Matthew says the women arrived at the tomb “toward the dawn” and found the tomb sealed until an earthquake occurred (Matthew 28:1-2). Mark says that the women arrived “when the sun had risen” and what they found was that the stone had already been rolled away (Mark 16:2-4). Others point to the differences in the number of angels present, or the number of women mentioned as supposed contradictions in these accounts.

First, whenever skeptics make these claims, my initial thought is simply that they have not done thorough research. The fact of the matter is, these alleged contradictions have been addressed repeatedly throughout history. It takes little more than a Google search to find just how easily these supposed contradictions can be resolved. For instance, Matthew never explicitly states that the tomb was still sealed when the women arrived. And to try to make a sharp distinction between “toward the dawn” and early sunrise, and then to portray these differences between these descriptions as a major contradiction is simply unwarranted.

In similar fashion, while the number of angels mentioned differs from gospel to gospel, no author ever speaks exclusively, or denies the existence of other angels. Nor does any author claim to provide an exhaustive list of either the angels or women who were present. The accounts do differ in numerous places, but they do not contradict.

These are exactly the kind of differences we would expect to encounter if there were multiple witnesses to the resurrection, and each of the witnesses saw the same event from different perspectives. Whenever I hear skeptics call the gospel accounts into question because of their differences, it makes me wonder: what would these same skeptics be saying if the gospel accounts did in fact match up precisely with one another in every single detail mentioned. Would these same skeptics not be the first to argue that their uniformity suggests evidence of collusion, and that the gospel accounts should be dismissed for that very reason?

The most important thing to realize about the gospels is what they reveal about themselves. They are, to a significant degree, independent accounts. And that independence makes what they agree on all the more credible.

Each account affirms the tomb was empty. Each affirms that Jesus appeared alive after his burial. And all of this aligns perfectly with Paul’s account of the resurrection he had written a few years prior.

It’s not just one resurrection account that must be explained away. It’s five. And as argued previously, it is difficult to believe that even one of those accounts would have been accepted and preserved by people who knew the resurrection was false. It is even more difficult to believe that five distinct versions would have been.

Incidental Details

Another feature of the gospel accounts that strongly supports their authenticity has to do with the style in which they were written, namely, the presence of numerous incidental details that in themselves do nothing to advance the theological points they were trying to emphasize.

For example, John tells us that he arrived at the tomb before Peter because he outran him. He says he stooped down to look inside. He noticed the linen garment lying there. He then adds the face cloth was not lying with the other clothes in the tomb, but was folded up in a place by itself. Finally, he tells us that Peter arrived after him and that Peter went all the way into the tomb (John 20:4-8).

These are the kinds of incidental details you would expect to find in the account of someone who is pulling from their own personal memory of the events.

Conclusion

When the historical case for the resurrection is examined, the five independently written accounts of the resurrection work together to form a formidable piece of evidence. We are not dealing with a single late legend, or a carefully planned and harmonized narrative. We are dealing with multiple, largely independent accounts that agree on the central claims, while differing on the secondary details, yet without any contradictions.

The differences between these accounts do not weaken their credibility. They strengthen it. When taken together with Paul’s early account in 1 Corinthians 15, the gospels form one of the most strongly attested events in all of ancient history.