Critics often ask, “Why was there not more written between the resurrection and the writing of the letters of Paul starting in 48-50 A.D.?” How helpful would it be to have a few documents written in 35, 38, or 40 A.D.? Concerning this time gap, we can perhaps gain some insight by looking at some internal evidence. It is essential to stop for a moment and consider a couple of biblical passages that shed some light on this document gap: why does it exist, and how can it be explained?

One reason there exists a document gap could be found in the fact that the testimonies of several eyewitnesses speak to a sense of imminency concerning the promised return of Jesus. In Matthew 10:23, Jesus tells the disciples, “You will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man returns.” Again, Jesus tells His disciples in Matthew 23:34, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” The same idea occurs again with Paul in his letter, admonishing the Thessalonians about idleness. Some scholars interpret those passages to the Thessalonians who were quitting work and waiting for the soon-coming return of the Lord. This idea of a soon return of the Lord was ever present in the thoughts of the early Christians. With that mindset, why would there be a logical need to record anything for posterity that was surely to be short-lived?

Interestingly, there is one other event in history that we must also keep in mind. In February of 303 A.D., the Roman emperor Diocletian ordered the destruction of Christian books, manuscripts, churches, and the killing of Christians. Over the next eight years, the Romans destroyed scores upon scores of manuscripts. It is quite possible that some of those destroyed manuscripts contained in the Gospel news predated the Gospel writings themselves.

However, critics most commonly refer to what are considered discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. There are some apparent discrepancies. Christians see them. How is it, then, that Christians account for those? One of the first discrepancies to look at occurs in the recording of the confession of Jesus. Jesus’s confession before the High Priest concerning who He truly is differs in Luke’s account from the ac- counts recorded in Matthew and Mark in that it is not so “Jewish” in its detail. The Matthew and Mark accounts emphasize Jesus affirming He is the apocalyptic Son of Man described in Daniel chapter 7 and the Jewish book, The Similarities of Enoch. At any rate, this apparent discrepancy is not surprising, as this level of information is essential in Matthew and Mark, which they are writing to a Jewish audience. Jesus’s professing and fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7 is hugely important to the Jews. This explains to the Jewish audience why the charge of blasphemy handed down by the Sanhedrin against Jesus was justified. This is a powerful reminder that context and audience matter. For a Gentile audience, about half of that “Jewishness” would have gone over their heads. As for Luke’s accounting, all that Jewish detail is not needed and would have been wasted upon his Gentile audience.

Another discrepancy critics often point to is the apparent contradictions related to Mary. For example, did she go to the tomb alone, or did other women go with her? John’s account reads as if Mary went to the tomb by herself. If we read closer, John focuses on Mary in 20:1; he refers to Mary in the singular. However, in the very next verse, he uses we in the plural sense. This is not an exclusive mixing of designations; he does the same thing with Peter when Peter runs to the tomb by himself in 24:12. Then, a few verses later, Luke writes that others actually went with Peter in 24:24.

Another critical point is the apparent discrepancies regarding what was seen at the tomb. Was it one angel, one man, two angels? Likewise, this “discrepancy” has a straightforward solution; it is essential to note that an angel is often referred to as a man. We see this here, in this case, but we also see it used in Genesis 19:16, where it is stated that when Lot hesitates to leave the city, the men grasp his hand and the hands of his wife and two daughters. So, referring to angels as men is not unique to the Gospels. This explains why Luke says two men at the tomb and then refers to them as angels a few verses later. The one or two angels are not that uncommon, either. Ancient writing styles often referred to the person speaking at a particular moment as singular, even if others were present. The important thing to note is that the discrepancies claimed by critics, for the most part, are quickly resolved. Even so, all of the details we have just observed are just that: peripheral details. None of them are pivotal points upon which the authentication of the resurrection lies. That being the case, it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the critic’s claim of deficiency of sources is likewise invalid.

All considered, how does the Christian resurrection narrative actually stand up to the critical criteria at large? Join us next time as we dig deeper. Until then, is God dead?

Gloria in excelsis Deo!