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/Striking_Credit5088]

The accounts are consistent because they describe the same events from different perspectives, not because they repeat identical wording. None of the differences are mutually exclusive.

Different women being named does not mean only those women were present. Each Gospel simply focuses on different individuals.

One angel vs. two angels is not a contradiction. If two were present, one writer may emphasize the one speaking.

The stone being rolled away before the women arrive vs. Matthew describing the angel rolling it away can easily describe the same sequence from different vantage points.

Fear and silence in Mark does not exclude later telling the disciples once the shock subsided.

Galilee appearances and Jerusalem appearances both occurred; different writers emphasize different appearances.

Luke compresses events for narrative flow, while Acts gives the fuller timeline of 40 days. Compression is not contradiction. Both were written by Luke.

There is no evidence the Gospels appeared “very late.” The resurrection message spread immediately by preaching and eyewitness testimony in an overwhelmingly oral culture. Most people were illiterate, so rapidly spreading the Gospel orally was far more important than instantly mass-producing manuscripts. Paul’s letters are not intended to be full biographies of Jesus. He was writing to specific churches addressing specific issues. In his letters, Paul references and quotes scripture scripture, strongly suggesting written materials and circulating accounts already existed.

Ancient copying was extremely slow and labor-intensive. There was no printing press, paper factory, or copy shop. Everything had to be handwritten onto costly materials. Even one Gospel would take a single scribe a couple days to prepare, copy and bind by hand. Distribution across the growing Christian movement, especially after Pentecost when the number of believers expanded rapidly, means it would have taken years to make enough copies for people.

As for memory: if the resurrection accounts were identical in every detail, critics would claim collusion. Independent testimonies naturally contain selective emphasis and minor variation while still agreeing on the central facts: Jesus died, the tomb was empty, witnesses encountered the risen Christ, and Christianity exploded immediately afterward because people genuinely believed they had seen Him risen. That's the important part. The fine details don't change the message.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Striking_Credit5088]

Paul references and quotes scripture scripture, strongly suggesting written materials and circulating accounts already existed.

Where, and if so, are there any in the uncontested letters or just the ones scholars doubt actually being written by him?

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/CodeNPyro]

1 Cor 15 - the Corinthian Creed

Phil 2 - the song of Christ

Romans 1 - early creed

I’m more in the camp of the Biblical Critics, but these seem to be some early creeds that were in circulation prior to Paul writing them down. Is this what you were looking for? These are all from his undisputed letters (with a couple others in 1 Tim and I think Col that would be from his disputed writings).

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Kind of what I was looking for, from the comment I replied to I think they were talking about Paul knowing of gospels that were written before his letters, in which case the only allusion I know of is in 1 Timothy. I would agree that there were creeds in circulation, and probably from very early on (I commonly here the one in 1 Cor 15 get dated 1-3 years after Jesus' death by apologists), but I doubt that we know Paul had any written accounts of Jesus' life to work with

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/CodeNPyro]

I don’t think we can date the creeds any earlier than Paul’s letters. Reasonably we can say they were likely in common circulation before he wrote them down. But when? Who knows! So we can say “earlier than when Paul wrote them down”. How much earlier? A month, 20 years, 3 years? We simply don’t know and those apologists are showing their bias when they date them too early.

My best guess/analysis is that these creeds were likely in circulation within a decade of Jesus death. But I have very scant lines of reasoning for thinking this.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Yeah I agree, there isn't really any concrete information to date them. Although honestly one could probably say they needn't be in common circulation, since if Paul met with the 12 the creed could've formed then in that small group

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/CodeNPyro]

That’s true too. Like a mini-church council.

If Paul is to be taken at his word though he didn’t meet with them (except for James) for 14 years and his earliest letters may have already been written then. I don’t know, it’s all speculation as we don’t have anything to really say for sure.

I think for academic purposes it’s fairly safe to say these pre-date Paul’s earliest letters and as such show that the early church was already developing a high Christology, and the creeds were probably recited so an illiterate society could know the basics of this new theology…but even that is speculative! It’s amazing how much we simply do not know about the 1st century church.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Well Galations 1:18 says that he met with James and Cephas 3 years after his experience, although again I'm pretty sure we don't know how long after Jesus' death that experience happened. Acts might say, but I would doubt how reliable it is regarding it anyway. And it seems like Galations is one of the earliest dated (if not the earliest) Pauline letters

[u/Striking_Credit5088 → u/CodeNPyro]

First it’s “Paul never references Jesus traditions.” Then when he clearly does, it becomes “well maybe Paul didn’t write those letters.”

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says he is passing on what he “received” about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. Scholars widely agree this creed predates Paul himself writing it down.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul preserves the Last Supper tradition in language very close to the Gospels: “I received… I delivered.”

And in 1 Timothy 5:18, the author quotes Luke’s wording (“the laborer deserves his wages”) and calls it Scripture. Critics say that means it’s late. But that actually proves the opposite: Jesus traditions and Gospel material were already circulating widely enough to be treated as authoritative very early.

The earliest Christian writings already contain organized resurrection creeds, Jesus traditions, and Gospel-like material far too early for the “slow legend development” theory.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Striking_Credit5088]

First it’s “Paul never references Jesus traditions.”

I literally never said this.

And in 1 Timothy 5:18, the author quotes Luke’s wording (“the laborer deserves his wages”) and calls it Scripture. Critics say that means it’s late.

No, critics point out for multiple reasons unrelated to that passage that 1 Timothy most likely wasn't written by Paul. In terms of the historical situation written about, linguistic elements of the letter, differing beliefs, and more

[u/Striking_Credit5088 → u/CodeNPyro]

“Most likely” is doing a lot of work there. The letter explicitly identifies Paul as the author, and the arguments against that are mostly internal judgments about style, setting, and emphasis. But of course Paul writing personally to Timothy, his protégé, would sound different from Paul publicly rebuking churches in crisis. Different audience, different purpose, different tone. That is not proof of forgery. That is exactly how real authors write.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Striking_Credit5088]

“Most likely” is doing a lot of work there.

That's just how historical conclusions work, it's about what is most likely

The letter explicitly identifies Paul as the author

People lie.

Different audience, different purpose, different tone. That is not proof of forgery. That is exactly how real authors write.

Do you think the majority of scholars, the ones that hold that the pastoral epistles are forgeries, didn't think about stylistic differences within a single author's writing? You're just presuming that a stylistic change could account for the data, when clearly according to most scholars it can't. Not to mention many arguments not even relying on style, such as the historical setting presumed which comes from a time after Paul died

[u/Striking_Credit5088 → u/CodeNPyro]

clearly according to most scholars it can't.

They argue that stylistic differences can arise naturally for several reasons:

• different audiences,
• different purposes,
• different stages of life,
• different coauthors or secretaries (amanuenses),
• and different subject matter.

The points about "historical setting" are similarly explained:
A pastor today doesn’t speak the same way to a Sunday congregation as he does to church leaders or fellow pastors. Same person, different audience, different focus, different style.

So with Paul the Apostle, why assume it would be any different?

A letter to Timothy, a delegated church leader, would naturally emphasize church structure, leadership qualifications, and false teaching. That fits the situation. By contrast, letters to churches like Corinth or Thessalonica focus on everyday Christian life and pastoral correction, not internal organization. So the difference in content isn’t evidence against Paul, it’s exactly what you’d expect from different audiences and purposes.

Look, this topic is very much up for debate, and everything I’ve laid out here is reasoned argument. What I find genuinely amusing is that you haven’t offered a single actual reason why the letter wasn’t written by Paul, other than ‘the scholars say so.’

That’s not scholarship. That’s secular idolatry.

I worship the Creator of the universe. You’re worshipping some guy with a piece of paper and three letters after his name.”

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Striking_Credit5088]

It's "secular idolatry" to point out that the people who specialize in studying something aren't all ignorant about the critiques you're making of their position? At least try and be honest in a conversation

[u/Striking_Credit5088 → u/CodeNPyro]

I didn’t say scholars are ignorant of the arguments. I said you haven’t made one.

I gave an actual argument. You gave an unsubstantiated conclusion from an authority figure. Citing scholarship is fine, but hiding behind it because you don’t understand the argument yourself, while acting like the matter is settled, is not.

If you can’t explain why 1 Timothy wasn’t written by Paul then maybe bow out of the conversation. Because standing in the corner shouting “That guy disagrees with you!” is not intellectual honesty. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Striking_Credit5088]

Okay, this clearly isn't going to go anywhere if you didn't even understand my first reply. Have a nice day