Examining Jesus's Resurrection: Who did Jesus first appear to?

[AgnosticBoy]

Non-believers often claim that they don't believe certain details about Jesus's life, especially the details surrounding his death and resurrection. I thought part of the reasons might have been philosophical, like not being willing to accept that a dead guy can come back to life, but there are also claims that the Gospels contradict each other. Let's discuss some of these contradictions. The Skeptics Annotated Bible is one of the best sites out there that lists contradictions in the Gospels.

Let's start with this question. Who did Jesus first appear to after his resurrection?

The Skeptics Annotated Bible site lists the contradictions as follows:

The two Marys​

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Matthew 28:1, 9

Mary Magdalene​

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Mark 16:9
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. John 20:11-14

Cleopas and another​

And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus.... And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? ... And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.Luke 24:13-31

Cephas​

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:4-5

For debate:
1. Who did Jesus first appear to after his resurrection?
2. Does this mean that the Gospels are unreliable?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

like not being willing to accept that a dead guy can come back to life,

I think some of this hinges on how common or how outrageous a person believes urban legend to be.

For example, some Christians will say Jesus is either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. And since he’s neither of the first two, he must be the third.

I’d say, be careful of “process of elimination” type of reasoning. There can frequently be other possibilities.

In this case, there can be a 4th L. The story of Jesus could mostly be legend.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

About a year ago, I read Luke as an adult, I think for the first time ever.
In the last chapter of Luke, the part about the “Road to Emmaus” is worth looking at. And I think people should read it and decide for themselves.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 24 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this...

www.biblegateway.com

Luke, chapter 24:

“13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them;16 but they were kept from recognizing him. . . ”

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Who did Jesus first appear to after his resurrection?

I initially thought this was going to be easy, but I underestimated it for sure.

I've found some questionable details when I compared Matthew 28 and Luke 24. In Matthew 28:1,9 says that Jesus appeared to Mary Margdalene while she was on the way to tell the disciples about the empty tomb. So it's safe to say that Mary would've reported to the 11 remaining disciples that she not only witnessed an empty tomb, but also Jesus himself.

But then, I get to Luke 24:1-12, there's no mention of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. There's no mention of Mary telling the apostles about seeing Jesus, but she did tell them about the empty tomb and that she was told that Jesus was alive based on the actions of the apostles in Luke 24:10-12. Luke 24:33-35 indicates that the disciples had knowledge of someone actually seeing Jesus. I figured they would've learned this from Mary, but again Luke does not say that Mary told the disciples about seeing Jesus in person. And worse, Luke 24 only says that the disciples were aware of Jesus appearing to Simon; no mention of Mary. So perhaps the disciples' knowledge of Jesus appearing to someone came from Simon?

I'll have to see if the rest of the NT sheds light here. Read a few analysis, other member's posts should help!

I'm beginning to feel like a detective
.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

cont'd from my last post...

John 20:11-18 talks about Jesus appearing to Mary and how she tells the disciples about it afterwards. This fits with the appearance account in Matthew 28:9. The account in Mark 16:9-11 also corroborates the account in John 20 and Matthew 19.

As I brought up in my last post, it seems Luke's account of Jesus's appearances causes the biggest problem. No mention of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene at the point that she discovers an empty tomb up to going back to tell the apostles about it. Again, during this time period, the other Gospels mention Jesus appearing to her. The only place I can see Jesus appearing to Mary in Luke's gospel is when all of the disciples are gathered together (Luke 24:36-53).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Who did Jesus first appear to after his resurrection?

After comparing all Gospels (refer to my last 2 posts), I conclude that there are some discrepancies. I believe that some of these discrepancies can be explained away as being due to the amounts of details for the event (a gospel either leaving out details or offering more than the other). For instance, Mark's gospel says that Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene whereas Matthew says Jesus appeared to "them" (more than one person). It's possible that Matthew only starts at a point when everyone with Mary Magdalene noticed Jesus, while Mark starts sooner by saying Mary Magdalene saw Jesus first. That's logically possible given the details of the story.

Luke's account presents the biggest challenge, and it's where I believe we have details that can't be reconciled with the other gospels. Luke does not mention Jesus appearing to Mary during the period of discovering the empty tomb up to the point of her going back to the disciples. Someone might say that Luke is silent on the issue. I think we can still show otherwise by seeing what Mary told the disciples. And there is no indication that she told the disciples about seeing Jesus because the disciples mention who Jesus appears to in Luke 24:33-35. The disciples only say that Jesus appeared to Simon at that point!

I'm not sure why 1 Corinthians 15:4-5 was brought up by the article I referenced in the OP because those passages don't mention that Jesus appeared to Cephas first. It just lists people who were appeared to and it doesn't seem to be a complete or exhaustive list. That probably wasn't even Paul's intention. There's no mention of appearance of Mary Magdalene nor Cleopas.

2. Does this mean that the Gospels are unreliable?

In my view, the reliability of the Gospels would depend on the amount of errors, the types of errors, etc. I've only dealt with one potential contradiction here. Eventhough I feel Luke contradicts the other gospels when it comes to who Jesus appearing to Mary, but conflicting accounts between witnesses does not always mean the entire story is wrong. 3 out of 4 of the gospels agree. I think some core facts can be establish, i.e. Jesus made post-resurrection appearances. The details vary slightly but I think that is to be expected given different witnesses. At least, the witnesses or the authors of the Gospels did not collude to make every detail match. That would stand out more as suspicious.

So yes, there is some conflicting accounts, but that alone does not make the gospels completely unreliable. And I'm thinking in terms of how I'd treat other writings and witnesses.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

The details vary slightly but I think that is to be expected given different witnesses. At least, the witnesses or the authors of the Gospels did not collude to make every detail match. That would stand out more as suspicious.

And that becomes the hat peg, as it were, where people will place their hats.

Big sigh of relief. It’s not a cooked up con game. And thank goodness. For that would be the most disappointing outcome of all.

But it could still be honestly developed legend. For example, my point that urban legend is a big universe. And specifically, more than 50% of people who have lost a spouse report a “grief hallucination,” of maybe sensing the person’s presence, or hearing their voice, or maybe seeing them.

I understand that 1 Corinthians was written maybe as early as 50 AD. And Galations was also written early. And then Mark is the earliest written gospel, maybe written as early as 70 AD.

Mark ends abruptly at verse 16:8. The versions 9 to 20 are NOT in the oldest manuscripts, and some versions of the Bible are very open about saying this and will have these verses in brackets or italics.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And that becomes the hat peg, as it were, where people will place their hats.

Big sigh of relief. It’s not a cooked up con game. And thank goodness. For that would be the most disappointing outcome of all.

But it could still be honestly developed legend. For example, my point that urban legend is a big universe. And specifically, more than 50% of people who have lost a spouse report a “grief hallucination,” of maybe sensing the person’s presence, or hearing their voice, or maybe seeing them.

I understand that 1 Corinthians was written maybe as early as 50 AD. And Galations was also written early. And then Mark is the earliest written gospel, maybe written as early as 70 AD.

Mark ends abruptly at verse 16:8. The versions 9 to 20 are NOT in the oldest manuscripts, and some versions of the Bible are very open about saying this and will have these verses in brackets or italics.

I definitely believe some of the NT contains legend.

As for who Jesus appeared to first, it's just not enough to make me question the reliability of the gospels. If anything, i really want an objective or reasonable standard of where I should draw the line. I'd like to think the number of discrepancies alone should not determine that but also the severity or types of discrepancies should also matter.

Maybe there's a bigger discrepancy that blows a hole into the gospels and its central message. Perhaps, the day Jesus died and resurrected? The only objection I've had against not believing much of the Bible is that the evidence is weak, anecdotal, etc.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

As for who Jesus appeared to first, it's just not enough to make me question the reliability of the gospels.

If you believe partially, that puts you squarely in the mainstream.

Of course, you’re free to believe whatever you wish, in whatever manner, whether mainstream or not.

Another mainstream view is to be against organized religion. In fact, many Christians will say they are not religious, but they are spiritual.

Outspoken atheists are outside the mainstream. They are often disliked, ironically, for being a holier-than-thou type of person.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's an interesting take from a skeptic on this topic:

If anyone knows any good Christian apologist, video or site, that addresses this topic then also feel free to post!