The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine

[_Maksutov]

CHAPTER II

Turning to the New Testament

The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of
the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.

As it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with child
before she was married, and that the son she might bring forth
should be executed, even unjustly, I see no reason for not believing
that such a woman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and Jesus
existed; their mere existence is a matter of indifference about
which there is no ground either to believe or to disbelieve, and which
comes under the common head of, It may be so; and what then? The
probability, however, is that there were such persons, or at least
such as resembled them in part of the circumstances, because almost
all romantic stories have been suggested by some actual
circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, not a word of
which is true, were suggested by the case of Alexander Selkirk.

It is not the existence, or non-existence, of the persons that I
trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in
the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised
thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is
blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman
engaged to be married, and while under this engagement she is, to
speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious
pretence (Luke, chap. i., ver. 35), that "the Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee."
Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterward marries her, cohabits with
her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the
story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is
not a priest but must be ashamed to own it.*

*Mary, the supposed virgin-mother of Jesus, had several other
children, sons and daughters. See Matthew, chap. xiii, verses 55, 56.
Obscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always a
token of fable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious
belief in God that we do not connect it with stories that run, as this
does, into ludicrous interpretations. This story is upon the face of
it, the same kind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and
Europa, or any of the amorous adventures of Jupiter; and shows, as
is already stated in the former part of the Age of Reason, that the
Christian faith is built upon the heathen mythology.

[_Maksutov]

As the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as concerns
Jesus Christ, are confined to a very short space of time, less than
two years, and all within the same country, and nearly to the same
spot, the discordance of time, place, and circumstance, which
detects the fallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and proves them
to be impositions, cannot be expected to be found here in the same
abundance. The New Testament compared with the Old, is like a farce
of one act, in which there is not room for very numerous violations of
the unities. There are, however, some glaring contradictions, which,
exclusive of the fallacy of the pretended prophecies, are sufficient
to show the story of Jesus Christ to be false.

I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first,
that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that
story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be
false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story
proves the whole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove true,
but the disagreement proves falsehood positively.

The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books
ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of
Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the
third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus
Christ. Did those two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be
true, because it might, nevertheless, be a fabrication; but as they
contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood
absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood, and if
Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and as there is no
authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority
for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the
very first thing they say and set out to prove, they are not
entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterward. Truth is a
uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to
admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either,
then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed
to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them,
as is the case with the Old Testament.

[_Maksutov]

The book of Matthew gives, chap. i., ver 6, a genealogy by name
from David up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and
makes there to be twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke gives
also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph, the husband of
Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations;
besides which, there are only the two names of David and Joseph that
are alike in the two lists. I here insert both genealogical lists, and
for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in
the same direction, that is from Joseph down to David.

Genealogy according to Matthew. Genealogy according to Luke.

Christ 23 Josaphat Christ 23 Neri
2 Joseph 24 Asa 2 Joseph 24 Melchi
3 Jacob 25 Abia 3 Heli 25 Addi
4 Matthan 26 Roboam 4 Matthat 26 Cosam
5 Eleazar 27 Solomon 5 Levi 27 Elmodam
6 Eliud 28 David* 6 Melchi 28 Er
7 Achim 7 Janna 29 Jose
8 Sadoc 8 Joseph 30 Eliezer
9 Azor 9 Mattathias 31 Jorim
10 Eliakim 10 Amos 32 Matthat
11 Abiud 11 Naum 33 Levi
12 Zorobabel 12 Esli 34 Simeon
13 Salathiel 13 Nagge 35 Juda
14 Jechonias 14 Maath 36 Joseph
15 Josias 15 Mattathias 37 Jonan
16 Amon 16 Semei 38 Eliakim
17 Manasses 17 Joseph 39 Melea
18 Ezekias 18 Juda 40 Menan
19 Achaz 19 Joanna 41 Mattatha
20 Joatham 20 Rhesa 42 Nathan
21 Ozias 21 Zorobabel 43 David
22 Joram 22 Salathiel

*From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of 1080
years; and as the lifetime of Christ is not included, there are but 27
full generations. To find therefore the average age of each person
mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is
only necessary to divide 1080 years by 27, which gives 40 years for
each person. As the lifetime of man was then but the same extent it is
now, it is an absurdity to suppose that 27 following generations
should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so,
when we are told, that Solomon, the next in succession to David, had
a house full of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years
of age. So far from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even
a reasonable lie. This list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the
average age, and this is too much.

Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood
between them as these two accounts show they do) in the very
commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of whom and of
what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for
believing the strange things they tell us afterward? If they cannot be
believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to
believe them when they tell us he was the son of God begotten by a
ghost, and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother? If
they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other?
If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why
are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured
also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious
reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story
naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and
related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more
safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief
of one God, which is Deism, than that we commit ourselves on an
ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent and contradictory tales?

[_Maksutov]

The first question, however, upon the books of the New
Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? Were they
written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? for it is upon
this ground only that the strange things related therein have been
credited. Upon this point there is no direct proof for or against, and
all that this state of a case proves is doubtfulness, and doubtfulness
is the opposite of belief. The state, therefore, that the books are
in, proves against themselves as far as this kind of proof can go.

But exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called
the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were
not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that they are
impositions. The disordered state of the history in those four
books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other,
and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that
they are the production of some unconnected individuals, many years
after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own
legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the
men called the apostles are supposed to have done- in fine, that they
have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have
been, by other persons than those whose names they bear.

The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the
immaculate conception is not so much as mentioned in the books
ascribed to Mark and John; and is differently related in Matthew and
Luke. The former says the angel appeared to Joseph; the latter says it
was to Mary; but either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that
could have been thought of, for it was others that should have
testified for them, and not they for themselves. Were any girl that is
now with child to say, and even to swear it, that she was gotten
with child by a ghost, and that an angel told her so, would she be
believed? Certainly she would not. Why, then, are we to believe the
same thing of another girl, whom we never saw, told by nobody knows
who, nor when, nor where? How strange and inconsistent it is, that the
same circumstance that would weaken the belief even of a probable
story, should be given as a motive for believing this one, that has
upon the face of it every token of absolute impossibility and
imposture!

The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years
old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest
mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the
universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the
thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any. This
writer tells us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter because Joseph
and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him unto Egypt; but he
forgot to make any provision for John, who was then under two years
of age. John, however, who stayed behind, fared as well as Jesus, who
fled; and, therefore, the story circumstantially belies itself.

Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the
same words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell
us was put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark
says: He was crucified at the third hour (nine in the morning), and
John says it was the sixth hour (twelve at noon).*

*According to John, the sentence was not passed till about the
sixth hour (noon), and, consequently, the execution could not be
till the afternoon; but Mark says expressly, that he was crucified
at the third hour (nine in the morning), chap. xv, verse 25. John,
chap. xix, verse 14.

The inscription is thus stated in these books:

MATTHEW. This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.
MARK.... The king of the Jews.
LUKE.... This is the king of the Jews.
JOHN.... Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.

We may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are, that
those writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived,
were not present at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles
who appears to have been near the spot was Peter, and when he was
accused of being one of Jesus' followers, it is said, (Matthew,
chap. xxvi., ver. 74,) "Then he [Peter] began to curse and to swear,
saying, I know not the man!" yet we are now called upon to believe
the same Peter, convicted, by their own account, of perjury. For what
reason, or on what authority, shall we do this?

[_Maksutov]

The accounts that are given of the circumstances that they tell us
attended the crucifixion are differently related in these four books.

The book ascribed to Matthew says, chap. xxvii, v. 45, "Now from
the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth
hour." Ver. 51, 52, 53, "And, behold, the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and
the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the
saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many."
Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of Matthew
gives, but in which he is not supported by the writers of the other
books.

The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the
circumstances of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any
earthquake, nor of the rocks rending, nor of the graves opening, nor
of the dead men walking out. The writer of the book of Luke is
silent also upon the same points. And as to the writer of the book
of John, though he details all the circumstances of the crucifixion
down to the burial of Christ, he says nothing about either the
darkness- the veil of the temple- the earthquake- the rocks- the
graves- nor the dead men.

Now, if it had been true that those things had happened, and if
the writers of those books had lived at the time they did happen,
and had been the persons they are said to be, namely, the four men
called apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it was not possible for
them, as true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not
to have recorded them. The things, supposing them to have been
facts, were of too much notoriety not to have been known, and of too
much importance not to have been told. All these supposed apostles
must have been witnesses of the earthquake, if there had been any;
for it was not possible for them to have been absent from it; the
opening of the graves and the resurrection of the dead men, and
their walking about the city, is of greater importance than the
earthquake. An earthquake is always possible and natural, and proves
nothing but this opening of the graves is supernatural, and directly
in point to their doctrine, their cause, and their apostleship. Had it
been true, it would have filled up whole chapters of those books,
and been the chosen theme and general chorus of all the writers; but
instead of this, little and trivial things, and mere prattling
conversations of, he said this, and he said that, are often
tediously detailed, while this, most important of all, had it been
true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a single dash of the
pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as hinted at by
the rest.

It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to
support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew
should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and
went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it
was that saw them- for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them
himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff,
he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and
where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former
habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their
property, and how they were received; whether they entered
ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of
crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on
earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working;
or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and
buried themselves.

[_Maksutov]

Strange, indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and
nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that
not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints
have anything to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told)
had formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great
deal to say. They could have told us everything and we should have
had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the
first, a little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses and
Aaron and Joshua and Samuel and David, not an unconverted Jew had
remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints
of the time then present, everybody would have known them, and
they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles.
But, instead of this, these saints were made to pop up, like Jonah's
gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.
Thus much for this part of the story.

The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion,
and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were,
disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were there.

The book of Matthew states that when Christ was put in the
sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be
placed over the sepulchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the
disciples; and that, in consequence of this request, the sepulchre was
made sure, sealing the stone that covered the mouth, and setting a
watch. But the other books say nothing about this application, nor
about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch; and according to
their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however, follows up this
part of the story of the guard or the watch with a second part, that I
shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy
of these books.

The book of Matthew continues its account, and says (chap.
xxviii., ver. 1) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn, toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary, to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and
John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna,
and Mary, the mother of James, and other women, that came to the
sepulchre; and John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well
do they agree about their first evidence! they all, however, appear to
have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of a large
acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be
upon the stroll.

The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2), "And behold there
was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat
upon it." But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor
about the angel rolling back the stone and sitting upon it, and
according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says
the angel was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says
there were two, and they were both standing up; and John says they
were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.

Matthew says that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the
outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and
that the women went away quickly. Mark says that the women, upon
seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the
sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the
right side, that told them so. Luke says it was the two angels that
were standing up; and John says it was Jesus Christ himself that
told it to Mary Magdalene, and that she did not go into the sepulchre,
but only stooped down and looked in.

Now, if the writer of those four books had gone into a court of
justice to prove an alibi (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is
here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by
supernatural means), and had they given their evidence in the same
contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in
danger of having their ears cropped for perjury, and would have justly
deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books that
have been imposed upon the world, as being given by divine
inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God.

[_Maksutov]

The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account
relates a story that is not to be found in any of the other books, and
which is the same I have just before alluded to.

"Now," says he (that is, after the conversation the women had with
the angel sitting upon the stone), "behold some of the watch
[meaning the watch that he had said had been placed over the
sepulchre] came into the city, showed unto the chief priests all the
things that were done; and when they were assembled with the elders
and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
saying, Say ye His disciples came by night, and stole him away while
we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade
him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were
taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is
commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book
ascribed to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it had been
manufactured long after the time and things of which it pretends to
treat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening
time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of
anything happening in our own time. To give therefore, intelligible
meaning to the expression, we must suppose a lapse of some
generations at least, for this manner of speaking carries the mind back
to ancient time.

The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows
the writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceedingly weak
and foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of
possibility; for through the guard, if there were any, might be made
to say that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and to
give that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same
sleep must also have prevented their knowing how and by whom it
was done, and yet they are made to say, that it was the disciples who
did it. Were a man to tender his evidence of something that he
should say was done, and of the manner of doing it, and of the
person who did it, while he was asleep, and could know nothing of
the matter, such evidence could not be received; it will do well
enough for Testament evidence, but not for anything where truth is
concerned.

[_LittleNipper]

The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account
relates a story that is not to be found in any of the other books, and
which is the same I have just before alluded to.

"Now," says he (that is, after the conversation the women had with
the angel sitting upon the stone), "behold some of the watch
[meaning the watch that he had said had been placed over the
sepulchre] came into the city, showed unto the chief priests all the
things that were done; and when they were assembled with the elders
and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
saying, Say ye His disciples came by night, and stole him away while
we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade
him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were
taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is
commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book
ascribed to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it had been
manufactured long after the time and things of which it pretends to
treat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening
time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of
anything happening in our own time. To give therefore, intelligible
meaning to the expression, we must suppose a lapse of some
generations at least, for this manner of speaking carries the mind back
to ancient time.

The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows
the writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceedingly weak
and foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of
possibility; for through the guard, if there were any, might be made
to say that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and to
give that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same
sleep must also have prevented their knowing how and by whom it
was done, and yet they are made to say, that it was the disciples who
did it. Were a man to tender his evidence of something that he
should say was done, and of the manner of doing it, and of the
person who did it, while he was asleep, and could know nothing of
the matter, such evidence could not be received; it will do well
enough for Testament evidence, but not for anything where truth is
concerned.

Anyone watching the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton should in fact realize that cover-ups and out right distortion of the truth is as common today, as it was 2000 years ago. Then they didn't even have TV commentators or the Internet. As for "Unto this day" is concerned, this is nothing other than a term applied then as today someone might say "Way back when," "Back in the day," or "for quite some time," etc... Jesus was crucified around 33 AD. The book of Matthew is estimated to have been written between 70 AD and 90 AD. You are speaking several decades later. And some of the people who talked or heard of the crucifixion "cover-up" would still be gossiping about it up to and including the day of Mathew's composition. I mean, "to this day" they are still saying that the Kennedy assignation was a conspiracy. And "unto this day", there are those that insist the moon landing was a staged hoax. And it takes hardly a year for people to start applying ---- "to this very day."

When I was a kid, some people were very sure that FDR knew aforehand that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. That he needed an excuse for American involvement. And "to this very day", might have been applied before even the mid 40's.

[_Maksutov]

I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that
respects the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended
resurrection.

The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was
sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two
Marys, chap. xxviii., ver. 7, "Behold Christ has gone before you
into Galilee, there shall ye see him; lo, I have told you." And the
same writer at the next two verses (8, 9), makes Christ himself to
speak to the same purpose to these women immediately after the
angel had told it to them, and that they ran quickly to tell it to the
disciples; and at the 16th verse it is said, "Then the eleven
disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had
appointed them; and when they saw him, they worshiped him."
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different
to this; for he says, chap. xx., ver. 19, "Then the same day at
evening, being the first day of the week [that is, the same day that
Christ is said to have risen,] when the doors were shut where the
disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood
in the midst of them."

According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee to meet
Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time when,
according to John, they were assembled in another place, and that
not by appointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.

The writer of the book of Luke contradicts that of Matthew more
pointedly than John does; for he says expressly that the meeting was
in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he [Christ] rose, and
that the eleven were there. See Luke, chap. xxiv, ver. 13, 33.

Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed
disciples the right of willful lying, that the writer of those books
could be any of the eleven persons called disciples; for if, according
to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain
by his own appointment on the same day that he is said to have
risen, Luke and John must have been two of that eleven; yet the
writer of Luke says expressly, and John implies as much, that the
meeting was that same day, in a house in Jerusalem; and, on the
other hand, if, according to Luke and John, the eleven were assembled
in a house in Jerusalem, Matthew must have been one of that eleven;
yet Matthew says the meeting was in a mountain in Galilee, and
consequently the evidence given in those books destroys each other.

[_LittleNipper]

Please consider the following:

Do the gospel resurrection accounts contradict each other?
How many women were at Christ's tomb on that first Easter morning – 1, 2, 3, or 5? Were there two angels or only one that announced His resurrection? Did Jesus appear to His followers at Galilee or Jerusalem?

Skeptics of Christ's resurrection oftentimes claim that the various gospel accounts of Jesus rising from the dead in the New Testament contradict each other. Even some theologians question whether the gospel episodes of the resurrection can be reconciled. Do the accounts contradict each other? Or are the resurrection accounts found in the gospels historically accurate?

A Look at Some of the Issues

The gospels most certainly agree on the major facts (e.g. Christ's burial, God raising Jesus from the dead). However, there are various apparent minor discrepancies in details like those listed below:

Number of women at the tomb:
- Matthew – 2
- Mark – 3
- Luke – 5
- John – 1

Time of visit to the tomb:
- Matthew – Dawn
- Mark – Sun had risen
- Luke – Dawn
- John – Still dark

Messengers at the tomb:
- Matthew – One angel
- Mark – Men
- Luke – Men
- John – Two angels

Location of the messengers relative to the tomb:
- Matthew – Outside then inside
- Mark – Inside
- Luke – Inside
- John – Inside

Woman/women's encounter with Jesus:
- Matthew – Held Christ
- Mark – Nothing
- Luke – Nothing
- John – Told not to touch Christ

Whom the woman/women told:
- Matthew – Disciples
- Mark – No one
- Luke – Disciples and others
- John – Only Mary Magdalene told the disciples

Location of the appearance to the disciples:
- Matthew – Galilee
- Mark – Jerusalem
- Luke – Jerusalem
- John – Jerusalem

Another task is to attempt a layout of when Jesus appeared to people and where:

- Appearance to Mary Magdalene on Sunday in Jerusalem (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
- Appearance to other women on Sunday in Jerusalem (Matthew 28:9-10)
- Appearance to Peter on Sunday in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
- Appearance to Emmaus disciples on Sunday in Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12)
- Appearance to 10 disciples (The Eleven minus Thomas) on Sunday in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:26-42; John 20:19-25)
- Appearance to The Eleven eight days after the Resurrection in Jerusalem (John 20:26-31; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
- Appearance to 7 disciples in Galilee (John 21:1-25)
- Appearance to 500 brethren in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6)
- Appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7)
- Appearance to The Eleven in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18)
- Appearance to The Eleven forty days after the Resurrection in Jerusalem (Acts 1:3-12)

Some General Rules of Biblical Interpretation

Before we address the specifics of the resurrection accounts, it is good to first understand a few basics of Biblical interpretation that will aid our understanding of why some things differ in the gospels. First, it's important to remember that a partial report is not a false report. Just because each gospel author doesn't report every detail of a story doesn't mean it's inaccurate. All historians edit their accounts for various purposes and the gospel writers are no different.

Second, a divergent account is not a false account. For example, Matthew speaks of one angel at Christ's tomb whereas John mentions two. A contradiction? Not at all. Simple math says if you have two, you also have one. Matthew did not say there was only one angel; if he had then we would have a true contradiction. Instead, he just records the words of the one who spoke. Though divergent accounts can seem to cast doubt on the accuracy of the reporters, we must try and reserve judgment until all the facts are in.

These two rules should be kept in mind when examining the multiple resurrection accounts.

Reconciling the Resurrection Events

The below represents a humble attempt to succinctly lay out a reconciliation and timeline of the gospel account records of Christ's resurrection and his appearing over the following forty days to various individuals. For a more exhaustive treatment of the details and various explanations, please see John Wenham's work The Easter Enigma.

1. An angel rolls away the stone from the tomb before sunrise (Matthew 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee.
2. Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1).
3. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2).
4. Other women remain at the tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ's resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:4-8).
5. Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10).
6. Christ's First Appearance: Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
7. Christ's Second Appearance: Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matthew 28:8-10).
8. At this time, the guards report the events to the religious leaders and are bribed to lie (Matthew 28:11-15).
9. Christ's Third Appearance: Jesus privately appears to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5).
10. Christ's Fourth Appearance: Jesus appears to Cleopas and companion (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
11. Christ's Fifth Appearance: Jesus appears to 10 apostles, with Thomas missing, in the Upper Room (Luke 24:36-43).
12. Christ's Sixth Appearance: Eight days after His appearance to the 10 apostles, Jesus appears to all 11 apostles, including Thomas (John 20:26-28).
13. Christ's Seventh Appearance: Jesus appears to 7 disciples by the Sea of Galilee and performs the miracle of the fish (John 21:1-14).
14. Christ's Eighth Appearance: Jesus appears to 500 on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6).
15. Christ's Ninth Appearance: Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
16. Christ's Tenth Appearance: In Jerusalem, Jesus appears again to His disciples (Acts 1:3-8).
17. Christ's Eleventh Appearance: Jesus ascends into Heaven while the disciples look on (Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

Conclusions

The different perspectives in the gospel's accounts of Christ's resurrection are indicative of the veracity of the eye witness statements. Those who have seen something unexpected often report the details in somewhat of a frenetic and seemingly disconnected way, as they attempt to communicate the depth of what they have witnessed even while processing the events for themselves. Were the gospel writers or the disciples lying, they would have presented a uniform story. And the same critics who try to point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection.

In the end, the recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels harmonize quite well upon closer examination, and perhaps most importantly, strongly agree on the one key fact that has universal life impact: Christ is risen from the dead!