# "Contradiction" in resurrection accounts: where did Jesus meet the disciples?



## nwink (May 7, 2015)

One of the frequent examples non-Christians bring up against the integrity of the Bible are the supposed contradictions in the resurrection accounts. Some of these "contradictions" can be easily reconciled, but some are very perplexing and challenging, especially ones related to the timing of various events. Specifically, how would you construct the timeline of events regarding WHERE and WHEN Jesus (first) appeared to his disciples?
-------------
In Matthew 28, the angel told the women to tell the disciples that Jesus was going before them to Galilee, and that they’d see him there (28:5). From what I’ve studied, it would take about 4 days to walk from Jerusalem (in Judea) to the region of Galilee. When the eleven arrived in Galilee, they met Jesus on the mountain to which he’d directed them, and that is when Jesus gave them the Great Commission (vs 16).

In Luke 24, the angels (“two men”) told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead, and then they went to tell this to the eleven and all the rest (24:4-9). That very same day as his resurrection, Jesus met with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus from Jerusalem (vs 13, 21). The same hour Jesus revealed himself to them (it was toward evening, vs 29), these two disciples returned to Jerusalem and told the eleven and the others gathered together (vs 33). As they were talking about these things, Jesus stood among them (vs 36), showed them himself, taught them, instructed them to stay in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high, and then led them out to Bethany and ascended to heaven from there (vs 51), which is about 2 miles away from Jerusalem (John 11:18).

In John 20, on that first day of the week when Jesus rose from the tomb, Jesus appeared to the disciples while they were locked in a place for fear of the Jews (vs 19), except for Thomas (vs 24) who Jesus appeared to eight days later (vs 26).
-------------
Observations: Luke and John have Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem on the same day he rose from the tomb, and in Luke, Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high. Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples after they’ve made a journey from Jerusalem to the region of Galilee.

QUESTIONS OF TIMING: Do you think Jesus: (1) first appeared to the eleven (except Thomas) in Jerusalem on the first day, then secondly (2) appeared to the eleven and gave them the Great Commission a few days later after they’d traveled to Galilee, then finally (3) after they'd maybe returned back to Jerusalem eight days later (John 20:24 - Thomas) and were in the locked room again, Jesus appeared to Thomas and them (John 20:26)?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2015)

Regarding your specific questions, 
1) Jesus appeared to ten of the eleven, all at once, on the evening of the (first) Resurrection day. He also made several other appearances on that same day.

2) The Galilean appearance, Mt.28:16-20, occurred I think most likely on the fourth or fifth (even potentially the sixth) First-day following. It had to be before the 40th day _summa _(Ascension).

3) The second First-day appearance (with Thomas present) took place before the group migration headed up into Galilee from Jerusalem to keep the appointment.


----------



## nwink (May 7, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jesus appeared to ten of the eleven, all at once, on the evening of the (first) Resurrection day. He also made several other appearances on that same day.



Thanks for the comments, Bruce! It helps to hear how others put the pieces of the story together. But regarding this statement above, how do you square this with Luke 24:33-36?

"And they [disciples on road to Emmaus returning to Jerusalem] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!"

Maybe Thomas left this gathering at some point, and Luke just doesn't mention it? Or that "the eleven" can refer to the large body of the apostles, even if one or two is not present?


----------



## nwink (May 7, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The second First-day appearance (with Thomas present) took place before the group migration headed up into Galilee from Jerusalem to keep the appointment.



Ok, so you think they hadn't left for Galilee yet from Jerusalem when Jesus appeared also to Thomas on the 8th day?

Or, no wait, you said the Galilean appearance happened between 4th-6th day after the resurrection?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2015)

nwink said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus appeared to ten of the eleven, all at once, on the evening of the (first) Resurrection day. He also made several other appearances on that same day.
> ...



We should understand the expression "the Eleven" to be a general designation for the Apostolate, that just happens to have a number--now reduced (for obvious reasons) from the previous designation: "the Twelve," which Luke uses 6X, lastly Lk.22:47. The same could be said of a word like "Session" or "Presbytery." When the Presbytery meets, ideally there should be a complete representation. In practice, this only happens rarely; because the more people there are, the harder it is to avoid providential (in some sense) absence.

What would it mean, if Luke had said "the ten"? Would that have been clearer or more opaque to a distant reader? Wouldn't it have required him to enter a full explanation of Thomas' absence, which explanation did not suit his purpose? I suppose so. That conclusion seems more reasonable than that Thomas was there AND gone within a single scene.


----------



## nwink (May 7, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> We should understand the expression "the Eleven" to be a general designation for the Apostolate, that just happens to have a number--now reduced (for obvious reasons) from the previous designation: "the Twelve," which Luke uses 6X, lastly Lk.22:47. The same could be said of a word like "Session" or "Presbytery." When the Presbytery meets, ideally there should be a complete representation. In practice, this only happens rarely; because the more people there are, the harder it is to avoid providential (in some sense) absence.
> 
> What would it mean, if Luke had said "the ten"? Would that have been clearer or more opaque to a distant reader? Wouldn't it have required him to enter a full explanation of Thomas' absence, which explanation did not suit his purpose? I suppose so. That conclusion seems more reasonable than that Thomas was there AND gone within a single scene.



Good explanation - thanks for the clarification. I think it'd also be important to note that different people probably referred to the group of apostles differently. Whereas Luke would refer to them as "the eleven" at this stage as a general designation for the apostolate, Paul would refer to them as "the twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15. And you're right...while John had a purpose in mentioning Thomas wasn't there, Luke didn't see it as relevant to include for his purpose.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2015)

nwink said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The second First-day appearance (with Thomas present) took place before the group migration headed up into Galilee from Jerusalem to keep the appointment.
> ...



Correct in the first interpretation. I tried to be clear that I think the Galilean convocation was several weeks later. Mt.26:32 records Jesus' reference to this gathering prior to his arrest. I also believe it was one in which "500 brethren at once" were gathered, 1Cor.15:6. Logistically, it makes sense that the summons be published, and travel arrangements be made for that large majority of believers to come together. And, it also makes the most sense to me of the comment in Mt.28:17 that "some doubted" (as even the Eleven did immediately, cf. Lk.22:41). That doubt was dissipated once again by the Lord's undeniable presence before them all. These many then became convinced witnesses of the Resurrection.

I am persuaded for more theological reasons that this meeting was a First-day gathering.


----------



## nwink (May 7, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Correct in the first interpretation. I tried to be clear that I think the Galilean convocation was several weeks later. Mt.26:32 records Jesus' reference to this gathering prior to his arrest. I also believe it was one in which "500 brethren at once" were gathered, 1Cor.15:6. Logistically, it makes sense that the summons be published, and travel arrangements be made for that large majority of believers to come together. And, it also makes the most sense of the comment in Mt.28:17 that "some doubted" (as even the Eleven did immediately, cf. Lk.22:41). That doubt is dissipated by the Lord's undeniable presence before them all.
> 
> I am persuaded for more theological reasons that this meeting was a First-day gathering.



Bruce, I understand you now. I misunderstood your terminology in your first post. Your timeline is that Jesus appeared to ten of the eleven on resurrection day in Jerusalem, then to the eleven including Thomas 1 week later in Jerusalem, then to (at least) the eleven in Galilee 4-5 weeks later, on the first day of the week.

So I have a couple other questions for your understanding, since this is a great discussion! (1) Why do you think that the angel's very first message to the disciples about Jesus having risen from the dead (and Jesus' following message to the women) included the direction for the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee several weeks later? Do you think this was part of that first message to the disciples because meeting Jesus in Galilee was going to be a monumental event with the giving of the Great Commission, even including the 500 others coming for this big event per your view? Do you have any guesses why the angel and Jesus instructed the women themselves to relay this message of that meeting to the disciples, rather than Jesus when he'd personally appear to them that evening on resurrection day? I mean, who knows, maybe he reiterated it that evening and Luke just didn't see a need to include that in his account.

Which leads me to my second question: (2) Luke 24 tells of Jesus appearing to the disciples on the evening of resurrection day, where he (at first glance, it seems) showed himself to them, taught them, instructed them to stay in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high, and then led them out to Bethany and ascended to heaven. At first glance, it could appear as if all of this happened at the same time, but would you understand Luke 24:44-53 to be more descriptive of his teaching them all throughout the 40 days until his ascension from Bethany? Meaning, his instruction to remain in Jerusalem must've come right before his ascension rather than earlier on, since he had commanded the disciples to come see him on a mountain in Galilee for the Great Commission.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2015)

nwink said:


> (1) Why do you think that the angel's very first message to the disciples about Jesus having risen from the dead (and Jesus' following message to the women) included the direction for the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee several weeks later? Do you think this was part of that first message to the disciples because meeting Jesus in Galilee was going to be a monumental event with the giving of the Great Commission, even including the 500 others coming for this big event per your view? Do you have any guesses why the angel and Jesus instructed the women themselves to relay this message of that meeting to the disciples, rather than Jesus when he'd personally appear to them that evening on resurrection day? I mean, who knows, maybe he reiterated it that evening and Luke just didn't see a need to include that in his account.



In the first place, "why" is somewhat inappropriate a demand to make of that which is given us, IF such inquiry only serves the skeptical bent; or IF a supposed want of an "obvious" rationale consequently lends fuel to the fires of deconstruction.

"Why" can be a useful investigative question if we first accept the facticity of the data. In that spirit, then, we should listen to the statement and directions by the angel in the context of the passage, paying attention to the original recipients who are then employed as agents of the angel. Do we know (at this point in this narrative; or from any other source) if even one of these women in particular will ever have another supernatural encounter? And yet, they hereby from this single encounter have a commission to spread this word far and wide, in order that a great gathering should take place not many days hence.

Lk.24:9 indicates how obediently, "returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven *and to all the rest*." We know from Act.1:1-3 that Luke (vol.1) condenses a certain amount of material in ch.24. How long they were telling "all the rest" might have taken a good long time.

Matthew doesn't mention intermediate appearances of Jesus at all. Jesus could (and probably did) reiterate his wishes in his personal appearances. So, it makes sense that for the sake of his narrative, the relevant data that God wished relayed to various interested parties be expressed to the women. The Eleven clearly obeyed, even if it was only the women's statement.

One thing we shouldn't do, is judge the probability of what the angel is reported to have said (according to Matthew) against the meeting with the Eleven reported by Luke and John. What could be wrong with multiple sources expressing this direction?




nwink said:


> (2) Luke 24 tells of Jesus appearing to the disciples on the evening of resurrection day, where he (at first glance, it seems) showed himself to them, taught them, instructed them to stay in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high, and then led them out to Bethany and ascended to heaven. At first glance, it could appear as if all of this happened at the same time, but would you understand Luke 24:44-53 to be more descriptive of his teaching them all throughout the 40 days until his ascension from Bethany? Meaning, his instruction to remain in Jerusalem must've come right before his ascension rather than earlier on, since he had commanded the disciples to come see him on a mountain in Galilee for the Great Commission.



I don't think we are expected to make more than a general attempt to gauge the timing of each statement in Luke's reportage in the final vv of his ch.24. These are a faithful representation of the final teachings of Jesus between his first gathering on Resurrection Day with his disciples to meet with them for worship, and the time he was parted from them by bodily ascending into heaven.

Since Luke himself tells us that Ascension was 40 days afterward (and he is the only NT author that does so), only a few vv later immediately in vol.2, aka _*Acts*_, a pedantic and literarily careless reading of him seems to rebound on the critic rather forcefully, who asserts that Luke has a presentation of the Resurrection that fundamentally contradicts any of the others'.


----------



## nwink (May 8, 2015)

Bruce, thank you for your thoughts! I enjoy and learn a lot from hearing how others craft all the accounts into one story/timeline that seems most probable to them.

I agree that we must be careful with how we use the "why" question, especially when it's just plain speculation as was the case in my question #1 above in reference to your specific view on constructing one timeline of events. (In other words, I think it must be clear that the "why" is asking questions of one person's reconstruction, rather than questioning the truthfulness of the accounts.) You brought up a good point that we don't know if any of those women would have another supernatural encounter or not when they were told of Jesus' resurrection and future meeting of disciples at Galilee. No way to know, of course. And regarding my question #2 above, you brought up some good points about the timing of events in Luke being general, and then comparing that to what he says about that same period of 40 days in Acts.

One more question regarding your construction/timeline of events: how do you understand/interpret Matthew 28:5-7, specifically the underlined portion? "But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 8, 2015)

nwink said:


> ...hearing how others *craft* all the accounts into one story/timeline that *seems* most probable *to them*.



*Craft*, verb, _to construct in a manner suggesting great imagination_. Hmmmm... ok. Thanks?

When detectives or attorneys make a case out of combined witness statements, is that case pretty much their imagination? Is a jury's probative judgment equal to "public opinion?" Are there better cases and judgments to be made; and assuming so, can such assessments be competently evaluated by people with basic reading comprehension skills?

On the face of it, this thread began with a claim, ostensibly supplied by non-Christians: the various Resurrection accounts in the Gospels contradict one another. Putative examples of this were offered, as if merely juxtaposing various statements _constituted_ prima facie contradiction. Also offered in the thread was a condensed "readers digest" version of data points extracted out of Luke's account; we usually call that "cherry-picking" the evidence.

Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.​
Without trying to claim too much for it, what "seems" most probable to me (which certainly is not original with me) is objectively fairer with the witness claims than the question-begging and prejudicial approach of the non-Christian opening challenge--one not actually argued for in any meaningful way, but only asserted; and that on demonstrably flimsy grounds.

1) I treated each witness as a competent presenter individually.
2) I judged each witness as self-referentially coherent and internally non-contradictory.
3) I avoided gross reading of assumptions into each author's account.​
Certain expectations are necessary for the beginning of comprehension; but a studious reader holds a limited set of immovable hermeneutical principles. He lets the author guide him into the habits of his presentation, which invariably challenge some of the reader's expectations because of the distance between author and reader.

So, Matthew tells us absolutely nothing--not a hint--about the timing of the Galilean meeting. If we assumed everyone (only eleven?) was together when the word was given, and they all "lit out" at once for the appointment, we could come up with an approximate minimum time. But why should we assume that? Why should we assume a more sedate (but still within a week) journey? Is a gathering as much as 30 days later consistent with this witness? Do we have to assume they all walked together? Did the ladies who told them also go with them? Does the announcement, the relay of the news, and this meeting *preclude* a face-to-face encounter with Jesus on the evening of the Resurrection day (not that we'd know anything about such, if having only this Gospel)?

Is there ANY reason for Matthew's account to be judged by a different account? A contradiction would be Matthew said "A", and John (for example) said "non-A." Is there any such evidence? No, it's just prejudice, not logic or reason, that claims the contradictions. On the other hand, it is *rational judgment* that leads leads me--in the company of world class scholars and jurists--to adopt a timeline that is "most probable," period. If it is worth proposing as TRUE, then it is worth hoping to persuade others. Away with post-modern, relativistic "true for me, but not for thee" nonsense.

And if someone else has a different judgment about the order, let him propose _*that*_: and all truth loving people will be happy to weigh its value and contribution. "Most probable" is an assessment that in principle can be improved upon. Such is not the typical non-Christian critic's intention; but a wholesale rubbishing of the early Christian witness entirely. "It's all unreliable." Really? On what rational basis? And we usually end up with some version of: "Miracles don't happen; men don't rise again." Once upon an a priori.

All the Gospel writers "telescope" various aspects of their presentation, or reorganize events in their presentation for personal (authorial) reasons (intent). It is a characteristic of their style, and fits the material constraints under which most ancient writers worked. When we understand ancient literary conventions when we start reading, we avoid naive assumptions like "Lk.24 definitely relates a single day's events."

Luke's final chapter _could be_ read as if everything happened in a single 24hr period. But even if Luke was unconcerned whether a reader took away that conclusion from reading (part of) what he wrote, he clarifies the objective timeline within a single paragraph of his follow-on treatise. At some point in ch.24, Luke transitions from the Day of Resurrection to the 40th after. And he takes up on that 40th day, with a slight overlap, when he resumes the story in Acts. Luke wants us to know certain things took place; and he isn't equally concerned that we know (at least right away) when or in what order.

Is that just my insubstantial opinion? What I'd "like" to be fact because it suits me? Or is that simply what the cold, hard data reveals, my opinions be damned? Which party has to conform his attitude to the data supplied? Only the Christian; not the non-Christian. The latter thinks what he likes, and makes up dope about texts he thought were fairy tales all along. He wants to convince others these witnesses communicate reliably enough to show contradictions; but not reliably enough to take a single word seriously. Which is it? Does he pick one as reliable, in order to discredit the others? If he professes agnosticism--not able to judge which parts are reliable and which aren't--he disqualifies himself for offering any criticism of those who do so claim, in part or in whole.



nwink said:


> how do you understand/interpret Matthew 28:5-7, specifically the underlined portion? ... and behold, he is going before you to Galilee



That Jesus planned to meet them there. It was confirmation of what he told them prior to his arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Mt.26:32, "But after I am raised up, *I will go before you to Galilee*."


----------



## nwink (May 8, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> That Jesus planned to meet them there. It was confirmation of what he told them prior to his arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Mt.26:32, "But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."



Thank you for the explanation, Bruce, and good point! That helps.

Bruce, are there any good books/resources you'd recommend specifically on the timeline of the resurrection accounts?


----------



## nwink (May 8, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Craft, verb, to construct in a manner suggesting great imagination. Hmmmm... ok. Thanks?



I apologize for the connotations you assumed I meant in the word "craft." I meant more like putting the puzzle pieces together. Sorry, that's not what I meant at all.


----------

