It is often claimed in theologically conservative circles that the gospels come from ‘eyewitness’ testimony: Matthew and John were purportedly written by direct witnesses of Jesus’ career, while Mark was based by a student of Peter based on his recollection about Jesus, and Luke was based on a variety of witness interviews with other followers of Jesus.
Yet, a significant problem for the historical reliability of the gospels in regards to the resurrection of Jesus on ‘Easter Sunday’ is that they contradict one another on several details. Many of these are not minor details, as would be expected from alternate accounts of the same events by different witnesses—though there certainly are minor contradictions—but major details as well. The severity of these contradictions cannot be understated once they grow large enough and accumulate.
When ancient sources contradict one another in their accounting of events—say, some event as told by Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius—the job for today’s historian is to establish a method for how to read these texts and so discern the reason such contradictions exist, such as by detecting the biases and agenda of the ancient author. Working from the information available, historians explore the probability as to which, if any, of those sources is historically accurate.
Placing the gospels under this sort of historical review sheds light on their questionable reliability—at least three of the canonical gospels, if not all four. The key point that must be remembered when digging into these gospel disagreements is that Mark is the earliest of the gospels and the other three are dependent on it. They each rely on Mark to some degree or another, which means any differences are almost certainly intentional.
There are also a variety of critical claims made about the resurrection of Jesus which have little or no basis in historical fact. The notion behind these criticisms is that the ‘Easter’ story was invented by early Christians directly copying ‘pagan’ predecessors. Some of these claims are so egregiously incorrect that, in my opinion, they should be considered deliberate misinformation by people arguing in bad faith.
Contradictions in the Gospels
The Number of Women
While it is possible the gospels refer to the same group of women, but display various preferences for which women should be mentioned, John in particular is difficult to reconcile with the other three gospels, since his narrative treats Mary as literally the only woman present.
Mark
Matthew
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome.
Mary Magdalene and another Mary.
Luke
John
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, other women.
Mary Magdalene.
The Time of The Women’s Arrival
From an ‘eyewitness’ approach, this is not a significant detail. The difference in recollection could be a matter of minutes. It is a very minor contradiction.
Mark
Matthew
After sunrise.
At sunrise.
Luke
John
At sunrise.
Before sunrise.
The Reason the Women Visit the Tomb
Matthew’s version is not obviously out of step with Mark and Luke, but John is for the specific reason that, in his gospel, Jesus’ body is anointed before his burial. There is no need for Mary to go to the tomb; she simply does because John’s source (Mark) said she did.
Mark
Matthew
To anoint Jesus’ body with spices.
To see the tomb.
Luke
John
To anoint Jesus’ body with spices.
—
What the Women Find at the Tomb
Matthew’s version is wildly contrary to the other three, and similarly fits his other blatant embellishments to the crucifixion narrative (e.g. the resurrection of various holy people at the time of Jesus’ death).
Mark
Matthew
The stone covering the tomb entrance has already been removed.
An angel descends from the sky during an earthquake, removes the stone covering the tomb entrance, and sits on the stone outside the tomb.
Luke
John
The stone covering the tomb entrance has already been removed.
The stone covering the tomb entrance has already been removed.
When the Women Enter the Tomb
All four of the gospels disagree on who is where and when.
Mark
Matthew
They enter the tomb and find a young man sitting inside.
They do not enter the tomb. The angel speaks to them from atop the stone outside.
Luke
John
They enter the tomb and find no one there. Two men suddenly appear next to them.
She does not enter the tomb and finds no one there.
What the Women Are Told
Mark and Matthew are substantially the same, and John is again the outlier, but Luke’s differences from the first two gospels are often glossed over, either by readers not paying close attention to the details, or by readers downplaying the incongruities. In Mark, Jesus gives his disciples the plan that, after he is resurrected, they should go to Galilee to find him, and the ‘young man’ at the tomb repeats this instruction. Matthew preserves the plan without any substantial difference, but Luke has completely removed it. Instead, the angel says Jesus happened to be in Galilee at the time when he first told the disciples he would be raised from the dead. The difference is subtle, but deliberate. John’s version will keep the disciples in Jerusalem, but no instructions are given because no one is at the tomb. It is at this point where the contradictions between the four gospels begin to compound so much that the different versions are no longer possible to reconcile.
Mark
Matthew
Jesus was crucified, but has been resurrected. The women must tell the disciples that Jesus is waiting for them in Galilee.
Jesus was crucified, but has been resurrected. The women must tell the disciples that Jesus is waiting for them in Galilee.
Luke
John
Jesus is no longer dead, but has been resurrected, as Jesus had previously mentioned while in Galilee.
—
How the Women React
The complete breaking point between Mark and the other gospels is that the first gospel originally concluded with the women failing to pass on the word at all. The book ends with their total silence, overwhelmed by fear. This did not sit well with later readers, and many decided to rectify the situation by filling in this rather large gap. Matthew followed Mark’s breadcrumbs by having Jesus actually appear to the disciples in Galilee, and so changes Mark’s ending so that the women are not terrified into silence. Luke does the same as Matthew, but erases any mention of the women being afraid. However, Luke-Acts follows an eschatological paradigm where the conversion of the world needed to begin in Jerusalem and spread from there, so Luke changes the story accordingly so that the disciples remain in Jerusalem. John seems to follow Luke on this detail. There is no reconciling the contradictions between Mark and the other three on whether the women told anyone, nor between Mark and Matthew against Luke and John on where Jesus first appeared to the disciples after his resurrection.
Mark
Matthew
The women are afraid, so much that they fail to tell anyone what they saw or heard.
The women are afraid, but their joy triumphs and they run to tell the disciples what they saw and heard. On the way, Jesus himself briefly greets them, repeating the instruction that he will be waiting for the disciples in Galilee.
Luke
John
The women remember what Jesus previously said in Galilee, and tell the disciples what they saw and heard.
She tells Peter and one other disciple that Jesus’ body is missing from the tomb.
How the Disciples React to the Women
Matthew intends to provide an ending based on what Mark was apparently setting up. However, without a source to work from, Matthew’s conclusion is rushed and lacking in detail. Luke, following a different plan entirely, builds a much more elaborate conclusion, beginning with the unique feature of Peter finding the tomb empty. John, perhaps using Luke, includes a similar story.
Mark
Matthew
—
The Eleven go to Galilee.
Luke
John
The Eleven do not believe the women. Peter runs to the tomb and looks inside, surprised at the absence of Jesus’ body.
Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb. The other disciple arrives first, looking inside. Peter arrives second, and enters the tomb, followed by the other disciple. They recognize the absence of Jesus’ body and return to Jerusalem.
A Side Story
Matthew invents the detail that the temple priests stationed guards at the tomb. He circles back to the guards, using them to explain what seems to be a contemporary accusation by non-Christian rivals, that Jesus’ body was stolen from his tomb, not raised from the dead. This accusation, Matthew shows, was an intentional cover-up by the priests and guards. Luke mentions that Jesus appeared to Peter before any other disciple, but no such event happens in his gospel. Meanwhile, John essentially splits the detail of the women into two parts: Mary first told Peter about the empty tomb, but this fizzles out, and she then tells the other disciples. Where Matthew had the women run into Jesus before going to the disciples, John has Mary run into Jesus after going to Peter.
Mark
Matthew
—
Guards, stationed at the tomb by the priests, witnessed everything. In terror, they ran to tell the priests, who instruct them to lie that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples.
Luke
John
Cleopas and another disciple travel from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They are joined by a traveler and inform him about Jesus. When they arrive at Emmaus that evening, they share a meal with him and suddenly recognize he is Jesus. Cleopas and the other disciple rush back to Jerusalem, where they find the disciples excitedly discussing that Jesus has already appeared alive to Peter.
After Peter and the other disciple leave the tomb, Mary suddenly finds two angels sitting inside. She turns around and finds a gardener. When she explains her confusion, she realizes the gardener is Jesus. She returns to Jerusalem and tells the rest of the disciples what happened.
The First Resurrection Appearance
The earliest gospel, Mark, lacks any resurrection appearances, but Matthew follows Mark’s setup for having Jesus appear alive again in Galilee. Luke and John instead have the disciples remain in Jerusalem, where they see Jesus alive again in the evening of the very same day he was resurrected. Each of these is supposed to be the first time they see Jesus alive after his crucifixion, yet these events take place in two locations at least sixty-five miles apart from one another (and probably farther, depending on which mountain in Galilee is intended), and thus are separated in time by at least a few days (either the same day in Jerusalem, or later in the week because of the travel time required to get to Galilee).
This gives us the second irreconcile contradiction in the resurrection narratives of the four gospels: either Matthew is wrong that Jesus first appeared alive to the disciples some days later when they went to Galilee, or Luke and John are wrong that Jesus first appeared to them that same day while they remained in Jerusalem. The claim that all of these stories originated in ‘eyewitness’ testimony is effectively impossible.
Mark
Matthew
—
After traveling to Galilee, the disciples find Jesus waiting for them on a mountain.
Luke
John
Jesus suddenly appears among the disciples in Jerusalem that very evening. They think he is a spirit, but he proves his physicality by showing them his crucifixion injuries.
Jesus suddenly appears among the disciples in Jerusalem that very evening. He shows them his crucifixion injuries.
How the Disciples React to Jesus
Oddly, the latter three gospels agree that at least some disciples doubted that Jesus had been raised from the dead. No reason is given in Matthew. Luke indicates the disciples were unsure whether Jesus was an apparition, but their doubt is quelled. John is close to Luke on some details, suggesting perhaps he used Luke as a source in addition to Mark (and possibly Matthew): Luke and John both have Peter run to the tomb, have two angels at the tomb, have Jesus converse with someone without being recognized, have the disciples remain in Jerusalem, and have Jesus point to his injuries to remove doubt from his disciples.
Mark
Matthew
—
Some see Jesus with their own eyes, but doubt the situation.
Luke
John
Some see Jesus with their own eyes, but still doubt his physicality until he eats food with them.
Thomas is absent when the disciples see Jesus. He doubts the situation when he learns about it, but he believes when he see Jesus with his own eyes.
Jesus’ Final Instructions
The differences here are underwhelming in comparison to several of the previous, but still merit attention.
Mark
Matthew
—
Jesus has received all authority over heaven and earth. The disciples must go out from Galilee and convert the gentiles, baptizing and teaching them.
Luke
John
Jesus teaches the disciples how to interpret the Hebrew scriptures to find him there. The disciples must convert the world, beginning with Jerusalem. They must not leave Jerusalem until God empowers them with the holy spirit. (The sequel volume Acts says the disciples remained in Jerusalem for forty days before they received the holy spirit. Luke concludes with Jesus ascending to heaven the night of the same day he was raised from the dead. In Acts, Jesus ascends to heaven after the forty days.)
Jesus gives the holy spirit to the disciples prior to Thomas’ return. Jesus criticizes Thomas for only believing after seeing with his own eyes.
1 Corinthians 15
Jesus first appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred disciples, then to Jesus’ brother James, then to all the apostles, then to Paul. The claim that Jesus appeared first to Peter alone is mentioned in Luke, but not narrated. The claim that Jesus appeared to the Twelve seems to contradict the notion that one of them betrayed Jesus and was subsequently excluded from their number, making them the Eleven, as they are called in Matthew and Luke. None of the New Testament gospels have Jesus appear to a crowd of five hundred disciples, nor to James. Paul’s inclusion of himself in the sequence without any distinction is suggestive that he understood all of these resurrection appearances as belonging to the same category as his, a visionary experience rather than a material one.
Misinformation about Easter
Easter Is a Christianized Pagan Holiday
Comparable to Christmas, it is claimed Christians simply rebranded an existing pagan holiday in the Spring to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
In most languages, the Christian holiday is called some cognate of Pascha or Pesach. The former term, Pascha (
While the origins of Passover are uncertain—the exodus story to which the Bible assigns its roots is not historical—some manner of the holiday nevertheless existed within Judean culture for about five centuries by the time of Jesus, and so can hardly be considered a ‘pagan’ holiday.
The Name ‘Easter’ Comes from a Pagan Deity
Related to the claim above, it is said that the alleged pagan holiday which Christians rebranded was named ‘Easter’ for a pagan goddess.
The first reference to any such deity named ‘Eostre’ comes from a Christian monk born in the seventh century CE, Bede of Northumbria (a region in modern England and Scotland). Bede took interest in the proper dating of the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection, and mentioned that the month of the holiday was called Eostre-month.
De Temporum Ratione XV
The Reckoning of Time 15
Antiqui autem Anglorum populi ... iuxta cursum lunae suos menses computavere ... Primusque eorum mensis, quidem Latini Januarium vocant, dicitur Giuli. Deinde Februarius: Sol-monath. Martius: Rhed-monath. Aprilis: Eostur-monath. Maius: Thrimylchi. Junius: Lida. Julius: similiter Lida. Augustus: Uueod-monath. September: Haleg-monath. Oktober: Uuinter-fylleth. November: Blod-monath. December: Giuli, eodem Januarius nomine, vocatur. ... Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretetur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur
However, the ancient English people ... calculated their months according to the passage of the moon ... The first of those months, which Latins call January, they say is Yule. Then February: Mud-month. March: Rhed-month. April: Eostre-month. May: Three-milkings. June: Mild. July: similarly, Mild. August: Weed-month. September: Holy-month. October: Winter-full. November: Blood-month. December: Yule, called by the same name as January. ... Eostre-month, which is now understood as the Passover month, was once named for their goddess who was called Eostre
The accuracy of Bede’s claim is unclear. Prior to his writing, an English god named Eostre is unattested. While this information should not be summarily dismissed because of this obscurity, Bede should neither be treated as an infallible resource. Regardless, the claim is also irrelevant. Christians had been celebrating the resurrection of Jesus in April for centuries before the holiday acquired the name ‘Easter’. The Christian holiday received that name in the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic languages simply because, when Christianity began to spread in those regions, that was approximate month in their calendars when the holiday was celebrated. The mere fact the holiday is called ‘Easter’ in some Western languages has nothing to do with the historical origins of the holiday.
Easter Eggs and the Easter Bunny Come from Pagan Traditions
The origins of these practices are disputed, but they are not attested until centuries after the Christian holiday originated. They are simply not relevant to the discussion.
Jesus’ Resurrection Copied Mithras
One god of Vedic Hinduism was named Mitra. In the late second millennium BCE, elements from the Indo-Iranian religions were reworked to become the religion we call Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism, and, sometime later, Mitra entered Zoroastrianism as Mithra. Eventually, worship of a figure named Mithra migrated farther west, reaching the Mediterranean world by the first century CE. At the time, a mystery cult focused on Mithras developed, claiming he was born from a virgin, that he had twelve disciples, and that he died and was raised from the dead. Hence, it is claimed, the mystery cult’s theology had already settled by the time Christianity came into being. The latter community simply copied the beliefs of the former, transferring beliefs about Mithras to Jesus.
The most significant problem with this claim is that the Mithras mystery cult wrote down very little. They withheld as much information from the public as possible, leaving behind only artistic iconography for scholars to interpret. What these archaeological discoveries reveal does not corroborate the above claim that the story of Jesus copied details from the Mithras cult. One scene portrayed in statues and engravings has Mithras born from a rock or boulder. In others, he eats a meal with the sun-god. Some statues depict a naked, winged, lion-headed man wrapped up in a snake. Other figures can sometimes be seen on the man, such as a scorpion, a goat, a ram, or a second, smaller man holding an object. The primary man sometimes holds objects in his hands.
The chief scene found in the cult’s iconography is of Mithras slaying a bull, thought to be shown taking place in a cave. Several depictions of this scene have been found, but they consistently show Mithras wearing a Phrygian cap, kneeling on the bull’s back as he holds up its head with his left hand, stabbing its neck with a knife in his right hand. Sometimes a dog, a snake, and a scorpion are found along the bottom of the scene, harming the bull or lunging for its stab-wound. In front of the bull (i.e. to the viewer’s right) is a man, who resembles a smaller Mithras, while an identical man stands behind the bull (to the viewer’s left). One of these men holds a torch or shepherd’s staff up, while the other holds one down. Around the scene are depictions of the sun-god, the moon-god, and five other deities. Sometimes, Mithras turns to look behind him, where the sun-god watches from above. Also sometimes, the scene includes wheat emerging from the bull, and a cup.
The bull-slaying scene sometimes has a zodiac wheel surrounding it, which supports interpreting the Mithraic symbolism through an astrological lens. The lion-headed man is currently thought to derive from the Greek deity Aion, a winged figure presiding over the passage of time and seasons. The four figures emblazoned on Aion’s body may correspond to constellations in the zodiac (e.g. Scorpius, Capricorn, Aries). The seven gods surrounding Mithras represent the seven classical planets (Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Saturn), while the various other elements match several constellations. The twins may represent the rising and setting sun, or the seasons of spring and autumn.
Without the context of Mithraism’s wider theology, the scene’s meaning is still debated. One suggestion is that Mithras essentially breaks the sequence of deterministic fate, representing by him slaying one of the constellations (Taurus) which governs earthly life. The Mithras of this mystery cult is only nominally related to the Mithra of Zoroastriansim or the Mitra of Indo-Iranian religion. His association with the sun is a minimal overlap with the older religions. What can be gleaned from Mithraic artwork reveals virtually nothing comparable to Christian theology. The only true comparison to be made between the two religious groups with any historical certainty is that they were both ‘underground’ movements within the Roman Empire beginning in the first century CE, and subsequently clashed with one another as Christianity grew in socio-political dominance.