Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?

by John W. Wenham

As Dr. Wenham states early in his introduction, The story of Jesus' resurrection is told by five different writers, whose accounts differ from each other to an astonishing degree. Wenham begins by setting the scene of Jerusalem and its environs, going on to describe the main actors in the events with particular attention to Mary Magdalene and the five writers themselves, and then examining in detail all the biblical narratives from Good Friday through Easter Day to the Ascension. He concludes that the various accounts as they stand can be satisfactorily reconciled to provide a trustworthy record for the church. Valuable appendices elucidate Wenham's response to the technicalities of gospel criticism.

Genres: Faith, Biblical Studies

160 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1984

Reviews

[Michael Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wenham’s aim is noble and worthwhile, so I hesitate to register my disappointment with his book. His goal is to create a harmonization of the allegedly conflicting resurrection narratives found in the gospels and I Corinthians.
In a sense, he accomplishes this goal. But while his reconstruction is (merely/barely) plausible, he claims that the details “fall into place” and his harmonization is a “tolerable certainty,” though he admits its based on “imagination and reasoned conjecture.” That is what is immensely frustrating about this book; it is guesswork, speculation and conjecture, but he can’t help presenting it as though it is fact.
His retelling is filled with some wonderful and imaginatively-detailed retellings of these familiar stories. It reads like a historical novel at times – at its best times. But his interpretations and harmonizations are thoroughly larded with hedge words (e.g., probably, apparently, suggests, presumably, might have, may have, seems, perhaps, we may suppose, possibly, almost certainly, plausibly, likely, evidently, implies, indicates, may, speculate, hint, virtually, et al.) on nearly every page! It jars, and it undermines the credibility of his reconstruction. At one point he states (with a straight face?), “Together the two seeming probabilities add up to one firm probability.” Four pages later he concludes, “These two possibilities . . . add up to a satisfying explanation of the facts as presented in the gospels.” Perhaps satisfying to Wenham, but I found it suggestive at best, unfounded conjecture at worst.
As Gary Shogren said in his ETS review, “Most of us are content to believe that while the different accounts are historically accurate, we cannot piece together a complete story with only the available clues.” I’m ok with that. My faith is ok with that. If yours is not, perhaps this book may help.

[Travis Wise · Rating 3 out of 5]

Promising, with some neat little details, and very thankfully, short (~100pgs). It won’t resolve for everyone how the different resurrection accounts MUST be resolved, but it gives a plausible suggestion for how they COULD be resolved. In giving his plausible suggestion, Wenham is at times pretty speculative (sometimes it’s necessary, but at other times you wonder why, e.g. 10 pages on how Mary of Bethany is no other than Mary Magdalene… fo’ real?). Even in its brevity, the journey through details begins to bog, and he doesn’t zoom out enough to remind us what the big sticking point “contradictions” are that we should realize he’s answering. However, one awesome thing? In fact, so awesome that I considered moving this up to 4 stars, and it’s more than a prize for buying the book? The presence of some half dozen hand drawn diagrams of Jerusalem’s geography and the relative location of everything—if anything, this was worth the price of the book and helped ingrain the comings and goings of that Easter week.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting, enjoyable, enlightening read. It shows how the gospel accounts are told from the perspectives of the different groups of people involved on the day of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once you see that three groups of people are involved two staying in Jerusalem and another at Bethany the accounts supplement and support each other rather than contradict. A re-read but I shall, d.v., re-read again.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book serves as a plausible harmonization of the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels. I thought it was very thorough and well done.

My only critique is that from time to time, it cited verses without putting them in the text, so I'd have to look them up to see what he was talking about.

I'd recommend this book to anyone wondering how the Resurrection accounts can be harmonized or if you think they're hopelessly contradictory.

[Steve Herreid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does an excellent job harmonizing the resurrection accounts in the New Testament. I loved this book.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE WELL-KNOWN BIBLICAL SCHOLAR LOOKS IN DETAIL AT THESE NARRATIVES

John William Wenham (1913-1996) was an Anglican Bible scholar, who wrote books such as 'The Goodness of God,' 'The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?,' 'Christ and the Bible,' 'Facing Hell,' etc.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1984 book, "The most obvious point of difficulty [in harmonizing the Resurrection accounts] concerns the events of the first Easter morning, where Luke mentions at least five women at the tomb, while Mark refers to three, Matthew to two, John to one and Paul to none at all... Mark's and Luke's messengers are men (Mark one, Luke two). Mark, Luke and John locate them inside the tomb, while Matthew's angel starts outside the tomb and finishes inside. Matthew tells of an appearance of Christ to a number of women who held his feet unrebuked, while John tell of an appearance to one woman who is forbidden to touch him. As to appearances to the Eleven, Matthew only records one in Galilee, while Luke only records an appearance in Jerusalem. It is by no means easy to see how these things can be fitted together while remaining faithful to what the writers say." (Pg. 11)

He observes, "The placing of the guard was 'next day AFTER the day of Preparation'... In other words, it was on Saturday that the members of the Sanhedrin took such alarm that, even though it was sabbath, they sent a deputation of Pharisees and Sadducees to Pilate. How are we to account for this remarkable move?... the Gospel of Peter may shed some light... This gospel says that there was great disquiet among the people at the crucifixion of Jesus ... [and] a crowd gathered at the sepulcher on Saturday morning. If the authorities sensed a growing public sympathy for Jesus ... the prospect of what might happen when the restraint of the Sabbath observance was removed would alarm them." (Pg. 72)

He states, "The story of the setting of the guard is one of the most extraordinary pieces of Christian apologetic ever written. As we have said, it bristles with improbabilities at every point: the sabbath visit to the governor, the great earthquake, the flashing angel rolling back the stone, the reporting to the chief priests, the bribe to the soldiers to tell the tale that THEY WERE ASLEEP ON DUTY---everything invites, not belief, but incredulity. And how stupid, having introduced the useful apologetic idea of a closely guarded tomb, to give a handle to the opposition by even hinting that the guards did not do their job! It is a worthless piece of Christian apologetic... unless it happens to be undeniably true!" (Pg. 78-79)

Or the appearances at the tomb in the synoptics, he notes, "When these stories are compared it is clear that Luke's account is strikingly different from those of Matthew and Mark, especially in the record of the angels' message. There is no 'Fear not,' no invitation to see where he was laid, no command to tell the disciples, no promise of seeing him in Galilee... The different reference to Galilee is particularly noteworthy. Whereas Matthew and Mark look forward to Jesus about to go ahead of them to Galilee, Luke looks back and refers to what Jesus told them while they were together in Galilee... there is nothing to suggest that the wording has a common source, oral or literary... There is nothing in any of the three messages which is contradictory to anything in either of the others, the matter is complementary. All that is recorded could have been uttered without hurry in a couple of minutes." (Pg. 84-85)

He concludes, "So ends an investigation which we believe has shown that the charge of irreconcilability brought against the resurrection stories has not been proved. Rather it has shown that these records exhibit the characteristics of accurate and independent reporting, for superficially they show great disharmony, but on close examination the details gradually fall into place... Maybe there are problems not fully solved and problems given a wrong solution, but when every effort has been made to give the details of the narratives their full weight, they add up to a consistent story." (Pg. 124)

Wenham's account is one of the most detailed examinations of this particular issue, and will be "must reading" for anyone studying the resurrection accounts.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wenham draws together the details in the 4 gospels and 1 Corinthians 15 to reconstruct the events of the first Easter.

He shows that whilst the accounts highlight different scenes and likely draw on different witnesses, there are no contradictions. And he helps us to see that the full sequence of events would have been more complex than we may initially think. This is an engaging, edifying and even exciting read.

As another reviewer has noted there is some significant conjecture involved in Wenham's reconstruction he may indeed be off on some details BUT the point was to show the accounts can be brought together and do fit together not to produce certainly on exactly how they fit.

[Caleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intriguing, plausible reconstruction of how the events of Easter morning could have played out. While we don't have enough information to accurately harmonize the accounts beyond a reasonable doubt, Wenham's book kills the claim that the resurrection narratives are "hopelessly contradictory". He may be totally wrong in his suggestions, but until they're criticized, the accounts of Jesus' resurrection hold water.

[Andrew Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really helpful in looking at some of what others call contradictions in the Easter accounts. Particularly valuable was his insights into John being connected to Jesus' family and the connection with Zebedee and his sons.

[Anlee Fekkes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Official rating : 3.5

[Alicia Rushton · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this short book, John Wenham adeptly handles a detailed examination of the varied accounts we have of the resurrection of Jesus. He has a logical, succinct approach full of common sense and clarity that I love. To begin he honestly lays out his starting point, “…the presupposition of this study is that the evangelists were honest and well informed men, writing gospels which God purposed should be used for the instruction of his church…Our presupposition, however, demands that we should dismiss no detail until we have fully explored the possibility of taking the narratives just as they stand.” He explains that there is a trend in scholarship to take a “maximal doubt approach” to (among other things) the resurrection accounts. The approach can lead to a premature dismissal of evidence because of perceived discrepancies. But what happens if as a hypothesis, we assume the authors were honest and reported what they saw and heard? Might the details despite the apparent discrepancies fit together into one plausible coherent story? And if they do, we are not justified in dismissing them without other reasons to do so. After detailing his purpose, Wenham spends some time exploring specific features of the accounts: namely the sources, characters, their possible relationships and activities, the locations including some topography of Jerusalem, and some other relevant details. He then lays out a plausible account of the events from Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday and beyond. What he finds is differing points of view and points of emphasis but a plausible story that eliminates the discrepancies as contradictions. He carefully explains that this does not mean every detail of his “story” is correct. What this exercise does is undercut the discrepancies as evidence against the accounts being true. If there is a way they fit together plausibly, then one is not justified in thinking the disparities themselves prove the accounts to be false. If we have reasons to believe the authors were eyewitnesses of the events or had eyewitnesses as their sources, we must take their accounts into consideration if we are honestly seeking to know the truth.