This Sunday, the lectionary invites us to ponder John 20:1-18. The English Standard Version divides the selection into two parts. To the first part,[1] it supplies the heading “The Resurrection.” To the second part,[2] it supplies the heading “Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene.”
The account of the resurrection is central to the gospels. If there was no resurrection, there would be no Christians.
There are four Gospels in the Bible. They were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus. Or, based on accounts of eyewitnesses who were close to Jesus.
From the very beginning, each Gospel was called “The Gospel According to …” either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. No one issued orders to find and destroy accounts which diverged widely from these accounts.
But some accounts were rejected – because they were written much later than the four Gospels, or made false claims, or both. Consider the last verse in “The Gospel of Thomas,” written in the second century:
Verse 114: Simon Peter said to [Jesus], “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
That is surely false. Someone has explained very well why it’s false:
“[That] is just wacky. Jesus was a great respecter of women as women (i.e., without them having to become like men). After all, as the Creator, he himself had “made them male and female” (Mt 19:4). And so, whether one is a man or a woman makes no difference in salvation. As St. Paul said, “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).”[3]
In addition to credibility of the authors, the early church considered the differences between the four Gospels as proofs of reliability. One very well-argued online source called Christian Think Tank[4] says:
“(1) the vast majority of ‘testable’ claims in the NT have proven to be accurate – well beyond the 50% ‘guessing’ chance – and
(2) the variation in the accounts ‘appearing to be’ multiple eyewitness accounts of the events themselves lends the normal credibility associated with eyewitness testimony.”[5]
I’m speaking about differences in the accounts, and the reliability of eyewitnesses because of differences in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
According to today’s reading, Mary Magdalene[6] arrived at Jesus’ tomb early in the morning, on Sunday, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone over the entrance had been removed. She ran to tell the others. She told Peter and John. They ran to the tomb. John arrived first. Peter went in, then John went in. They saw that Jesus’ body wasn’t there, but the cloths he’d been wrapped in were there, with the head cloth neatly folded. John believed Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter and John left. Mary Magdalene remained, weeping. She saw two angels in white seated where Jesus had been laid. She spoke with them. Then someone appeared whom she mistook to be the gardener. She spoke with him. He replied. She didn’t recognize it was Jesus. Until he called her by name. Then she believed it was him. He sent her back to the disciples with a message. She returned to them.
According to Matthew,[7] it was Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” who went to inspect the tomb on the Sunday morning. While they were there, there was an earthquake. An angel came and rolled the stone away, and sat on it. And the guards “became like dead men.” The angel told the two women to return to the others with a message. As they returned, Jesus met them and greeted them. They took hold of his feet and worshipped him. Then he sent them on their way.
According to Mark,[8] it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, who went to inspect the tomb on the Sunday morning. When they arrived, with spices, they found the stone had already been rolled away. And a young man dressed in white was sitting where Jesus’ body should’ve been. He told them Jesus had been raised from the dead. He sent them away with a message. They were terrified. They fled. They didn’t tell anyone anything.
According to Luke,[9] it was a group of women who went, also early on Sunday morning. Among the women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. They found the stone rolled away, Jesus body missing, and two men in dazzling white. He says nothing about a message. But he says the women went and told the apostles, all of whom didn’t believe them. But Peter ran to the tomb, saw the cloths, and marvelled at what had happened. Luke says nothing about belief.
In the interest of time and space, I’ve left out a lot. But you get the point. The accounts have many similarities, and many differences. The point is that there was a new beginning on that Sunday – God raised the crucified Jesus up from the dead. Because of this, there are Gospels and churches.
Though Jesus chose men to be his apostles, the first witnesses were women. All of them didn’t get it at first. They didn’t expect the resurrection – but when they saw it, they wondered and began to think again about the prophecies. Matthew built his entire Gospel around prophecies of the Messiah which were fulfilled in Jesus.
The women[10] delivered the message to the apostles and the disciples.
They were to meet him in Galilee. They did. He commissioned them. He told them to wait in Jerusalem. He ascended to heaven. The Holy Spirit came. The apostles changed from scared chickens to roaring tigers. They taught, healed, cast out spirits. They suffered. They built the church.
We are the result. Happy Easter!
[1] Verses 1-10.
[2] Verses 11-18.
[3] https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-church-suppress-the-gospel-of-thomas-because-it-was-afraid-of-what-it-contained.
[4] I’ve not been able to identify the author.
[5] We could add a third point: since the evidence of women was so undervalued in those days, the authenticity of the Gospels is strengthened by the fact that they say the first witnesses of the resurrection were women.
[6] Also called Mary of Magdala.
[7] Matthew 28:1-4.
[10] Women’s testimony was generally under-valued in relation to men’s testimony: “… if a woman’s testimony contradicted a man’s testimony, the man’s testimony was generally accepted unless two women both testified against the man. Even then, there was no guarantee that the woman’s testimony would be accepted (see m. Ned. 11:10). In rabbinical tradition—not the law of God—a woman could not participate in the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. She was not even permitted to cite the Shema, the greatest commandment found in Deut. 6:5 (Ber. 3:3).” (Link) The author also says “
To learn more about Rama, click here.