Resurrection Contradictions? - Part 1:The Problem

As we approach Easter there may well be usual articles on the web and in the news media questioning the veracity of the resurrection. There are the usual arguments like “Jesus didn’t die”, “the disciples stole the body” etc. These are dealt with in many books and web pages. In this post I want to look at a more detailed criticism of the resurrection, which says that John’s account is at odds with that found in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). I will do this in two parts. This first post will outline the supposed problem. You'll get the answer tomorrow!

You can find a fuller description and some answers here, among other places. Bart Ehrman, among others, makes this kind of argument.

Essentially it goes something like this, and for the most part I’ll contrast Mark’s gospel with John:

Mark 14:12 says Jesus and the disciples ate the Festival of Unleavened Bread on the first day of the Festival. However, John 18:28 says “the Jewish leaders took Jesus for Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.” So the argument goes why would the Jewish leaders be worried about ceremonial uncleanness if the Passover had already been eaten?

John 19:14 says “It was the day of Preparation of the Passover, it was about the sixth hour”. But if Jesus had already eaten the Passover, how could it be the day or preparation?

Mark 15:25 says “It was the third hour when they crucified him”. Yet John 19:14 says it was the sixth hour. They cannot both be right, or so the argument goes.

Another related objection is that Jesus talks about being in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matt 12:40). Yet He was crucified on Friday and risen on Sunday, how can three days and nights fit into this?

So where does this leave us? Are the gospel accounts contradictory and we give up saying it was all a fabrication? Or do we accept that there are some discrepancies in detail, but the essentials of the events are true? Or can we reconcile them and explain the apparent differences? Obviously sceptics tend to take the first option. A number of apologists take the second, but I am going to give reasons for taking the third option. Answers tomorrow.