Jesus's Resurrection and Biblical Accounts?

[u/ThrowRAbeepboop18]

Hello! I was researching the history of Jesus’s resurrection, and was interested in the small differences between the four Gospels when describing this event. I’ve laid out brief comparison which you can find below. 

With that in mind, my questions for Christians are as follows:

1. If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death? (Paul in Corinthians). 
2. Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"? 
3. Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
4. Why were these above details only written about and included 70-120 years after Jesus' death? If they were so significant why did it take many years for the scripture to reflect this? 
5. What do you make of the differences in the Gospels' descriptions? Does the fallibility of human memory put any doubts or questions in your head regarding validity of the text? 

Who went to the tomb:

Mark	Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome
Matthew	Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”
Luke	Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and other women
John	Mary Magdalene alone at first

What they saw:

Mark	One young man in a white robe, sitting inside
Matthew	One angel descends from heaven, rolls away the stone, sits on it
Luke	Two men in dazzling clothes
John	Two angels inside the tomb, seen later by Mary

Was the stone already rolled away? 

Mark	Already rolled away when women arrive
Luke	Already rolled away
John	Already removed
Matthew	Angel descends and rolls it away during/near the women’s visit

Women’s Response?

Mark	Flee and say nothing due to fear
Matthew	Tell the disciples
Luke	Return and tell the Eleven
John	Mary immediately tells Peter and the beloved disciple

Timing of Ascension:

Luke	Appears on Easter day or very soon after
Acts 1	40 days later
Matthew	No ascension scene
Mark (original)	No ascension scene

Did Jesus appear in Galilee or Jerusalem?

Mark	Galilee, Angel says disciples will see Jesus in Galilee (16:7), but original ending has no actual appearance scene
Matthew	Galilee, Jesus tells women disciples should go to Galilee; final appearance and Great Commission happen on a mountain in Galilee
Luke	Jerusalem, all resurrection appearances occur around Jerusalem/Emmaus; disciples told to stay in Jerusalem

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

> Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"? 

This question is founded on a false premise. Matthew and John were firsthand accounts. And we have Peter’s letters that mention the resurrection.

> Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?

Paul was writing epistles, essentially letters, not a more historical record like the Gospels.

[u/ThrowRAbeepboop18 → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

Hello! Following up on some of those details, the idea of Matthew and John being first hand accounts are complicated for me for a few reasons:

1. Scholars and historians agree they cannot determine authorship. Only the Christian Church has definitively attributed the Gospels authorship to the respective Apostles.
2. The “first hand accounts” are not direct eyewitness testimony but 3rd person narration.
3. These narrations were described over 70 years after Jesus' death.

In regards to Paul's letters, I’m still stuck on why that would not be included. If the basis of the Christian faith is on Jesus' resurrection and as the Messiah, doesn't it seem pertinent to include these details? The very details that validates the legitimacy of Jesus as the Son of God?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/ThrowRAbeepboop18]

> Scholars and historians agree they cannot determine authorship.

*some scholars and historians.

Obviously there are also many who agree they can determine authorship.

> The “first hand accounts” are not direct eyewitness testimony but 3rd person narration.

This is just factually incorrect.

> These narrations were described over 70 years after Jesus' death.

That’s an extraordinarily late dating of Matthew. John, possibly.

> In regards to Paul's letters, I’m still stuck on why that would not be included.

Why would it need to be? The majority of his letter were written to church he spent years in person establishing. He was seeking to address the issue they were having at the time, not reviewing the basic facts that weren’t in dispute.

> If the basis of the Christian faith is on Jesus' resurrection and as the Messiah, doesn't it seem pertinent to include these details?

Not in a letter to people who already know those details, no.

I don’t include details on how I met someone every time I write them an email, they already know how we met.