The Synoptic Gospels: Three Uniquely Similar Resurrection Accounts

The Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.  Each writer tells their own story of the life of Jesus and its significance.  The stories contained in these three Gospels are similar—or synoptic.  They likely draw from similar ancient source material.  For example, Luke and Matthew both probably used Mark’s Gospel as one of their sources.  However, it’s pretty obvious as we read them that the three stories are far from identical.  Each author wrote his story for a different first century audience and thus decided to emphasize different details that would have mattered to that audience.  We combine these to get a fuller picture of who Jesus was—and why his life matters to us living 2000+ years later.  

 

For example, in the Easter season, we often combine the stories to form a picture of the discovery of the empty tomb and of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances to his disciples.  (We do the same thing at Christmas with the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew.)  But sometimes it’s interesting to consider each story on its own merit and see how they differ—not so we can pick apart discrepancies to disprove the factuality of the events describes—but to appreciate the nuanced beauty of the individual storyteller’s accounts of the life of Jesus.  

 

What I’ve done below is to give a quick take on the resurrection stories in each of the Synoptics.  I started with Mark, since it is widely agreed to be the “original” story of Jesus, and then proceeded to Luke and Matthew—since they both drew from Mark’s story and essentially follow his outline.  I did this quick exercise on my deck on a Wednesday afternoon so it’s hardly a rigorous academic review.  Nevertheless it underscored some details about the individual Easter stories that I never noticed before.  Although these tales are indeed similar and describe the same event—and the overall plot is one I know well—each individual account has unique details that are worth taking time to appreciate.  I hope you find it helpful as well—ABW.

 

Mark 16:1–8 (9–19, added later).  Start with Mark’s story, since this is the earliest account. 

 

·      The original ending of Mark leaves the reader with a mystery.  The woman run off seized by both terror and amazement (see verse 8).  

·      And our human nature is to ask: But what happened next?!

·      As if readers couldn’t live with an “open-ending” of such an important story, at some point someone (or maybe a group of people) decided to “finish” the story. 

·      If you read Mark 16:9–19, it’s clearly written in a different style than Mark 16:1–8.  The “added” verses read like a CliffsNotes summary of events described in other Gospels, with a few unique details added (e.g., followers of Jesus picking up snakes, verse 18).

 

Luke 24:1–12.  While Luke’s resurrection story is similar to Mark’s, he adds unique material.

 

·      The overall structure is similar to Mark’s original account of the resurrection, but details are different…

·      There are two angels in Luke’s story—as opposed to one in Mark’s account (verse 4).

·      The women are never told to Galilee to find Jesus in this account, but they are reminded of what Jesus said to them while they were in Galilee (verse 6).  

·      Several women (5+) report the empty tomb to the skeptical men (verses 10–11).

·      Only Peter—not John as in John’s account—runs to the tomb to see for himself what has happened; he too leaves amazed by what he discovered (verse 12). 

·      Luke uniquely gives us the famous Walk to Emmaus scene (Luke 24:13–35). 

·      Luke uniquely records another post-resurrection encounter where Jesus eats a meal with the disciples.  This is no ghost; it really is Jesus in the flesh!  (Luke 24: 36–49).  

 

Matthew 28:1–10.  Matthew adds some material that’s unique to his version of events.

 

·      While similar to Mark’s account, Matthew’s resurrection story has some unique details. 

·      Overall, events are more dramatic than Mark’s (and Luke’s) telling… 

·      There is an earthquake (verse 2) as the women approach the tomb.

·      A lone angel makes a spectacular entrance as the women approach, rolls away the stone, and sits on it (verse 2).  Matthew leaves no doubt how that stone got moved. 

·      Contrast Matthew’s story with Mark and Luke’s more passive accounts where the angel(s) appear to the women inside the tomb—which is already open when they arrive. 

·      Only Matthew mentions the Roman soldiers standing guard outside the tomb—who are paralyzed with fear and become like dead men when the angel shows up (verse 4).

·      Jesus meets the women as they run from the tomb to tell the others (verses 9–10) but Matthew never specifically mentions the men visiting the tomb to see for themselves.

·      The guards are later bribed into participating in a cover up of what really happened at the tomb (Matthew 28:11–15).