Which Resurrection Account?

The student has identified real differences, but the leap to 'contradiction therefore legend' is too quick. Mark's shorter ending is a textual issue; the women's fear is a literary ending, not necessarily a denial. The Gospels select, arrange and interpret traditions; John's Mary Magdalene scene and Matthew's guards serve different theological concerns. A contradiction requires two claims that cannot both be true in the same sense; differences in detail, order or emphasis may be complementary or may reflect separate traditions. Historians can ask about the empty tomb, the earliest kerygma and the appearances, while recognising that the narratives are not modern reportage. The resurrection claim is theological and historical: 'God raised Jesus' is not the same as a video record. The student should be asked to assess genre, tradition and criteria, not merely count differences. The teacher should also note that faith is not proved by eliminating every tension, nor refuted by pointing to them.

Strict harmonisation treats the Gospels as if they were four camera angles on one event and can produce strained solutions, such as multiple angels or multiple visits. It can obscure each Evangelist's theology and make faith depend on a fragile chronology. Dismissal is equally uncritical: it ignores the early testimony, the empty tomb tradition, the transformation of the disciples and the literary sophistication of the accounts. A responsible approach uses literary analysis, historical reasoning and theological interpretation; it can acknowledge unresolved tensions while affirming the central kerygma. Faith is not proved by eliminating every discrepancy, nor is it refuted by them. The seminar should model a middle path: neither forcing a single reconstructed timetable nor treating difference as automatically fatal. The Muslim pupil's presence is an opportunity to discuss how different religious traditions read Scripture without caricature.

A model paragraph could argue that the resurrection narratives are reliable as theological testimony without being reliable in the sense of a modern news report. They agree on the core: the tomb was found empty, the disciples encountered the risen Jesus, and they proclaimed him as Lord. They differ in detail and emphasis because each Evangelist writes for a community and shapes the tradition to bring out a particular truth: Mark stresses fear and the summons to Galilee, Matthew stresses vindication and authority, Luke stresses Scripture and witness, John stresses personal encounter and belief. These differences limit naive harmonisation but do not by themselves disprove the central claim. The historian can examine the early kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15, the role of women as witnesses and the disciples' transformation, while the theologian asks what kind of truth the texts claim. The paragraph should conclude that the narratives are best read as kerygmatic testimony, not as neutral chronicles, and that this is compatible with a serious historical and theological affirmation of the resurrection.