The consistent events from Jesus' burial to His ascension

[RBD]

Here is the consistent timeline in order from the burial of Jesus, to His ascension 40 days later.

Many women from Galilee follow Joseph and Nicodemus to see Jesus laid in the tomb. Magdalen and the other Mary are specifically mentioned. (John 19) (Mark 15) Afterward that evening, some of the other women go home to prepare spices and ointments for Jesus' body. (Luke 23)

The next day on the high Sabbath, the chief priests go to Pilate for a guard on the tomb. (Matthew 27)

In the night, there's another earthquake, and an angel in appearance as lighting rolls away the stone, making the soldiers become as dead. (Matthew 28) Jesus either resurrects at this time, or any time during the night beforehand. At some time in the night, the guards awaken and depart the empty tomb, to report to the chief priests.

Magdalen comes later in the dark before dawn, and finds the tomb empty. She tells Peter and the other disciple, and they come running to see the tomb empty. They enter to see and depart. (John 20)

Magdalen remains behind and sees two angels in the tomb, and then Jesus Himself alive outside the tomb. She is the first person on earth to see Him after His resurrection. While still dark, she returns again to tell the disciples of His resurrection, and they don't believe it. (John 20) (Mark 16)

Magdalen, the other Mary, Salome, and the other women from Galilee, including Joanna, arrive at the tomb in the morning light. One group arrives with their prepared spices and ointments, while Magdalen's group arrives with bought sweet spices. They find the tomb empty. (Mark 16) (Luke 24)

Magdalen, the other Mary, and Salome are met by the angel that rolled away the stone, and are told to see in the tomb where the Lord had lain. Another angel sitting therein tell them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see Jesus. (Matthew 28) (Mark 16) The other women including Joanna enter the tomb and see no one, and while standing outside are met by two more angels, that send them also to the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. (Luke 24)

All the women depart and en route meet Jesus, and hold His feet in worship. He also sends them all to tell the disciples to meet Him in Galilee. They all then tell the disciples these things, and they don't believe it. (Matthew 28)

Peter runs to the tomb a second time and ponders these things. (Luke 24)

Jesus next appears to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus, and later toward evening they recognize Him at table, and He vanishes from their sight. In that hour, they go to the eleven to tell them of Jesus' resurrection. They don't believe it. Luke 24) (Mark 16) Peter has now also seen the Lord Jesus. Paul reports that Jesus also appeared to James at some time.

At evening, Jesus now first appears to the disciples with the others in the their midst, and shows He is indeed resurrected bodily from the dead, and not only a spirit, by showing His hands and side, and eats some fish. Thomas is not with them. (Luke 24) (John 20)

8 days later, He appears to the eleven with Thomas as they sat at meat, and upbraids them for their unbelief, and also challenges Thomas to insert His fingers into his hands, and his hand into Jesus' side. (Mark 16) (John 20)

Afterward on another day, Peter goes a fishin' at the sea of Galilee with 6 other disciples, including Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of thunder, and 2 other disciples. For the third time after His resurrection, Jesus meets His disciples on the Galilee shore with food on a fire. They all know Him. (John 21)

Afterward on another day, all the disciples meet Jesus at the Galilee mount, that He had appointed them, and worshipped Him. Some doubted what to do. (Matthew 28)

On the 40th day after His resurrection, He leads all the disciples and many others to Bethany on Mt Olivet. (Luke 24) (Acts 1) There He gives His great commission with promise of the Holy Ghost, and ascends to heaven to be recieved up in a cloud. The disciples remain standing and looking upward for Jesus, until two angels come to remind them to go to Jerusalem, and wait for the promise of the Father.

These are a consistent order of events from the 4 gospels and Acts 1.

Paul confirms Peter saw the Lord first before the other apostles, on the evening of the first day of His resurrection, and that above 500 saw Him during the 40 days after. He was also seen by James after the evening of the first day, either before His second appearance to them on the 8th day, or afterward before the sea of Galilee for the third time.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #129]

So, you are really arguing that there should have been one gospel/all gospels should have been the same.

I'm arguing that however many gospels there are, they shouldn't contain any details which are mutually exclusive.

Since the gospels were written by different people with different sources and purposes, what level of agreement would you expect? Is perfect consistency a realistic standard for any ancient event recorded by multiple witnesses?

Secular historians don’t reject multiple accounts just because they differ in details - they try to reconstruct what likely happened, discrepancies and all.

Is your real point one about historical reliability or theological consistency? If the latter, that’s a different discussion.

Is 'Mary was with other women' logically incompatible with 'Mary also went alone earlier'? One narrative includes a detail the other omits; that's not the same as them saying the other didn't happen.

Whether this is a problem at all depends on your expectations. If you're reading the gospels as a single composite narrative that must be internally consistent in every detail, then yes, you'll find tensions that need harmonizing. But if you're reading them as four independent accounts, each with its own perspective and emphasis, then differences aren't problems - they're what we should expect. The authors main focus is on the resurrection as an overall event.

Certainty is a high bar. But historians deal in probabilities. The core event (empty tomb, women discover it) is multiply attested. The discrepancies around the edges are exactly what we'd expect from independent traditions. They don't automatically disprove the core, they just complicate the reconstruction.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #131]

Since the gospels were written by different people with different sources and purposes, what level of agreement would you expect?

We should expect no disagreement.

Secular historians don’t reject multiple accounts just because they differ in details - they try to reconstruct what likely happened, discrepancies and all.

Secular historians don't assume that historical accounts are divinely inspired, and when there are discrepancies they admit that the accounts cannot all be correct.

Is your real point one about historical reliability or theological consistency? If the latter, that’s a different discussion.

My point is that when theology is supposed to be historical, it has to be historically reliable.

Is 'Mary was with other women' logically incompatible with 'Mary also went alone earlier'? One narrative includes a detail the other omits; that's not the same as them saying the other didn't happen.

That's not what I'm taking issue with. One account has Mary finding the tomb open early and another account [according to another poster] has her with other women wondering who will open the tomb for them later, and those are logically incompatible.

Whether this is a problem at all depends on your expectations. If you're reading the gospels as a single composite narrative that must be internally consistent in every detail, then yes, you'll find tensions that need harmonizing. But if you're reading them as four independent accounts, each with its own perspective and emphasis, then differences aren't problems - they're what we should expect.

Again, we should not expect mutually exclusive details----details which are incompatible with each other. Also again, we're under no intellectual or moral obligation to simply dismiss incompatible accounts as "perspective" and "emphasis" for the sake of preserving theological consistency.

Certainty is a high bar. But historians deal in probabilities.

And historians accept that when details are incompatible, some of them are probably wrong.

The core event (empty tomb, women discover it) is multiply attested. The discrepancies around the edges are exactly what we'd expect from independent traditions. They don't automatically disprove the core, they just complicate the reconstruction.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."
(Luke 16:10)

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #132]

You've raised several points. Let me work through them.

On "we should expect no disagreement":

Really? No disagreement at all? Name one ancient event recorded by multiple independent sources where the accounts agree on every detail. Just one. The expectation of perfect consistency is a theological standard, not a historical one. Historians expect differences between independent accounts - that's what shows they're independent.

On "secular historians admit accounts cannot all be correct":

Setting inspiration aside entirely and treating the gospels as ordinary ancient documents: yes, historians acknowledge that when accounts differ, not every detail is historically accurate. But they don't therefore reject the entire event. They reconstruct. They weigh the evidence. They look for core agreement amid peripheral disagreement.

So the question is: do these differences disqualify the gospels from historical consideration? If so, what ancient document survives your standard? Thucydides has chronological discrepancies. Josephus exaggerates numbers. Tacitus gets some details wrong. Yet historians still use them to reconstruct events. The criterion is plausible core attestation, not perfection.

On "when theology claims to be historical, it must be historically reliable":

I agree. But again, what does "historically reliable" mean? If it means "every detail must be accurate and complete," then no ancient history qualifies - including secular histories we trust. If it means "we can reasonably trust the core testimony despite minor peripheral differences," then the gospels meet that standard. The empty tomb is multiply attested. The women discover it. That core is consistent across accounts.

On Mary Magdalene's visits being "logically incompatible":

You say one account has Mary finding the tomb open early, and another has her with women wondering who will open the tomb later, and these are incompatible.

Let's test that logically.

For this to be a contradiction, you'd need:

One account to say "Mary went alone and found the tomb open, and this was her only visit"

Another to say "Mary went with women later and they wondered about the stone, and she had never been there before"

But neither gospel says that. John doesn't say she never went again with the women. Mark doesn't say she had never been there earlier. Mark simply doesn't mention the earlier visit. That's an omission, not a denial.

If I tell you I had coffee this morning and that I also checked email, and you tell the story of my morning omitting the opening email part, our accounts aren't contradictory. Yours is just incomplete. Omission is not contradiction.

On "no obligation to dismiss incompatible accounts as 'perspective' for theological consistency":

I'm not asking you to dismiss anything or to preserve theology. I'm asking you to apply the same standards here that you would to any other set of ancient documents.

Historians don't call accounts "incompatible" just because one includes something another leaves out. They reserve that term for cases where Account A says X and Account B says not-X. That's not what we have with the empty tomb narratives. You haven't shown that - you've only shown that one author included a detail another omitted.

On "historians accept that when details are incompatible, some are probably wrong":

True. But that only applies when details are genuinely incompatible. You haven't demonstrated that here. You've asserted it, but the assertion rests on reading Mark as if it were intended to be a complete, minute-by-minute chronology that excludes the possibility of an earlier visit. That's an interpretive choice, not a logical necessity.

On Luke 16:10:

This is a rhetorically effective move, but it assumes that inerrancy in minor details is the only basis for trusting major claims. Historians don't work that way. We trust Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War despite his chronological errors. We trust Josephus on the Jewish War despite his exaggerations. The criterion is plausible core attestation, not perfection.

By the normal standards of ancient historiography, multiple accounts with differences around the edges but agreement on a core event are stronger evidence than a single uniform account. Differences suggest independence; agreement on the core suggests a reliable memory. So by secular historical standards, the empty tomb tradition actually looks good. The Luke 16 principle is a theological standard, not a historical one.

To summarize:

You're applying a standard to the gospels that you wouldn't apply to any other ancient text. You're asserting "incompatibility" where you haven't shown logical contradiction - only omission. And you're using a theological prooftext to judge historical reliability.

If we had four independent accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination that agreed he was stabbed in the Senate, but differed on minor details like whether it was fully dark or just dawn, whether one or multiple senators spoke first, or whether his wife had a dream the night before - no historian would reject the core event. Those are exactly the kinds of peripheral differences we expect from independent witnesses.

So here's where we are: you're asserting these accounts are "incompatible," but you haven't shown logical contradiction - only omission. You're applying a standard of perfect consistency that no ancient historical source meets. And you're using a theological prooftext to judge historical reliability.

If you want to argue the gospels aren't historically reliable, fine - but do it by the standards historians actually use, not by standards that would discard every ancient text we have.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #133]

Name one ancient event recorded by multiple independent sources where the accounts agree on every detail. Just one. The expectation of perfect consistency is a theological standard, not a historical one.

When a theological statement is claimed as part of history, historical details have to support it. Do you take all the legends of the gods of Olympus literally?

Setting inspiration aside entirely and treating the gospels as ordinary ancient documents: yes, historians acknowledge that when accounts differ, not every detail is historically accurate. But they don't therefore reject the entire event. They reconstruct. They weigh the evidence. They look for core agreement amid peripheral disagreement.

The "core agreement" is just the claim they want everyone to accept. The central claim which they're all making isn't evidence of itself.

The empty tomb is multiply attested.

The empty tomb is part of the central claim. Again, it's not self-evident in hearsay accounts.

You say one account has Mary finding the tomb open early, and another has her with women wondering who will open the tomb later, and these are incompatible.

Let's test that logically.

For this to be a contradiction, you'd need:

One account to say "Mary went alone and found the tomb open, and this was her only visit"

Another to say "Mary went with women later and they wondered about the stone, and she had never been there before"

But neither gospel says that. John doesn't say she never went again with the women. Mark doesn't say she had never been there earlier. Mark simply doesn't mention the earlier visit. That's an omission, not a denial.

Another poster proposed that Mary found the tomb open early and that she later joined other women asking who would open the tomb for them without informing the other women that she had found it open earlier. No gospel account says that, and that's what it would take to harmonize those scenarios.

You're applying a standard to the gospels that you wouldn't apply to any other ancient text.

You want to apply standards equally? Then apply the same standard to the gospel accounts of the resurrection and to the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14. The text says that their witness didn't agree, but how do you know that they didn't just have different "perspectives", especially when we're not even told all of what they said?

If we had four independent accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination that agreed he was stabbed in the Senate, but differed on minor details like whether it was fully dark or just dawn, whether one or multiple senators spoke first, or whether his wife had a dream the night before - no historian would reject the core event.

If those four independent accounts all claimed that Julius rose from the dead three days later, would you be as willing to accept all the differences between minor details?

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #134]

Name one ancient event recorded by multiple independent sources where the accounts agree on every detail. Just one. The expectation of perfect consistency is a theological standard, not a historical one.

When a theological statement is claimed as part of history, historical details have to support it. Do you take all the legends of the gods of Olympus literally?

This is a false equivalence. The question isn't whether we take all ancient religious claims literally. It's whether the gospels, as historical sources, should be judged by standards unique to them or by the normal standards of ancient historiography.

You might note that historians don't reject the existence of Socrates because Plato and Xenophon give different accounts of his trial and death. They reconstruct. The question is whether the core events (Socrates tried and executed, Jesus crucified and tomb found empty) have credible attestation despite peripheral differences.

You haven't engaged with my actual point.

The "core agreement" is just the claim they want everyone to accept. The central claim which they're all making isn't evidence of itself.

This is a circularity argument you are making.
This misunderstands how historians work. When multiple independent sources agree on a core claim - especially one the authors would have reason to suppress or modify (like women discovering the empty tomb, which was embarrassing in that culture) - that agreement is precisely what historians treat as significant. It's not the claim proving itself; it's multiple witnesses independently attesting to the same basic event.

You are essentially saying "the only thing they agree on is the thing they want you to believe" as if that invalidates it. But that's true of any historical event recorded in sources with interests. Historians don't discard testimony just because the witnesses have a perspective. They ask: would they have invented this? Would they have included details that undercut their own interests? On those grounds, the empty tomb tradition fares well.

You haven't addressed the methodological point about how historians actually assess multiple attestation.

The empty tomb is part of the central claim. Again, it's not self-evident in hearsay accounts.

First, "hearsay" is a legal term, not a historical one. Almost all ancient history is based on sources that are "hearsay" by that standard - written decades later, relying on oral tradition. Historians don't dismiss sources for that reason; they evaluate them.

Second, you are treating multiple attestation as circular, but it's not. When multiple independent sources agree on a specific, culturally embarrassing detail (women as primary witnesses), that's not the claim proving itself - it's a pattern that requires explanation. The simplest explanation is that it reflects something that actually happened.

You haven't explained why multiple independent witnesses agreeing on the same core event doesn't count as evidence. You're just asserting it doesn't.

Another poster proposed that Mary found the tomb open early and that she later joined other women asking who would open the tomb for them without informing the other women that she had found it open earlier. No gospel account says that, and that's what it would take to harmonize those scenarios.

That's a different claim. It's no longer about what the gospels say, but about what a harmonized reading must supply.

The question becomes: is that assumption unreasonable? People sometimes fail to share information, even important information, for all kinds of reasons - confusion, fear, haste, assuming others already know. The text doesn't say she told them. It doesn't say she didn't. The harmonization fills a gap with a plausible human behavior.

You seem to want the gospels to spell out every connection. That's not how ancient narratives work.

You want to apply standards equally? Then apply the same standard to the gospel accounts of the resurrection and to the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14. The text says that their witness didn't agree, but how do you know that they didn't just have different "perspectives", especially when we're not even told all of what they said?

I agree in principle. However, this assumes the resurrection accounts are as inconsistent as the false witnesses were. They're not. The false witnesses couldn't even agree on what Jesus said. The resurrection accounts agree on the core (empty tomb, women discover it, Jesus appears) while differing on peripheral details.

So the analogy fails at the factual level. You would need to show that the resurrection accounts are as contradictory as the trial witnesses were.

If your argument is that people will lie for different reasons, then your focus should be on that as your main argument.

If those four independent accounts all claimed that Julius rose from the dead three days later, would you be as willing to accept all the differences between minor details?

Historians treat extraordinary claims with more caution than ordinary ones. That's fair. But the point about multiple attestation still stands - it's one tool among many for assessing any claim, extraordinary or not.

The real question you haven't answered: if four independent sources agreed Caesar rose from the dead, and all included culturally embarrassing details, and the claim emerged too early for legend to develop, would that count for anything? Or would you dismiss it entirely regardless of the evidence?

You're essentially saying the claim is so extraordinary that no amount of attestation could make it credible. That's a philosophical commitment, not a historical method.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #135]

The question isn't whether we take all ancient religious claims literally. It's whether the gospels, as historical sources, should be judged by standards unique to them or by the normal standards of ancient historiography.

You seem to want to judge the gospels by standards unique to them, dismissing all of their discrepancies for the sake of accepting their extraordinary claim.

You are essentially saying "the only thing they agree on is the thing they want you to believe" as if that invalidates it. But that's true of any historical event recorded in sources with interests. Historians don't discard testimony just because the witnesses have a perspective.

It isn't about witnesses have a "perspective"; it's about witnesses having an agenda.

They ask: would they have invented this?

In the case of something as extraordinary as a resurrection, it's most likely that they would have to invent it.

Would they have included details that undercut their own interests?

Their interest was in spreading their belief, and fanaticism can overshadow more practical self-interest.

First, "hearsay" is a legal term, not a historical one.

Secondhand, thirdhand, fourthhand etc. accounts are hearsay whether they're in a legal setting or not.

Almost all ancient history is based on sources that are "hearsay" by that standard - written decades later, relying on oral tradition.

Like the gospels.

"A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel."
https://share.google/Zaw1G9gmE3TN1TcbN

Historians don't dismiss sources for that reason; they evaluate them.

....taking into account what changes can be introduced in that time.

Second, you are treating multiple attestation as circular, but it's not. When multiple independent sources agree on a specific, culturally embarrassing detail (women as primary witnesses), that's not the claim proving itself - it's a pattern that requires explanation. The simplest explanation is that it reflects something that actually happened.

When an extraordinary event is involved, it's less likely to reflect what actually happened.

"If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why would they say that he appeared first to women, who weren't considered reliable witnesses?"

I think a better question is, "If Jesus did rise from the dead, why did he appear only to those who already believed in him?"

You haven't explained why multiple independent witnesses agreeing on the same core event doesn't count as evidence. You're just asserting it doesn't.

Multiple independent witnesses agreeing on the same extraordinary event doesn't count as evidence because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Another poster proposed that Mary found the tomb open early and that she later joined other women asking who would open the tomb for them without informing the other women that she had found it open earlier. No gospel account says that, and that's what it would take to harmonize those scenarios.

The question becomes: is that assumption unreasonable?

The answer is, Yes. It's unreasonable.

People sometimes fail to share information, even important information, for all kinds of reasons - confusion, fear, haste, assuming others already know. The text doesn't say she told them. It doesn't say she didn't. The harmonization fills a gap with a plausible human behavior.

I'm drawing the conclusion which is more likely. You're drawing the conclusion you prefer.

John says that Mary goes to the tomb, finds it empty and runs to tell the disciples. John then tells us that Simon and the other apostle run to the tomb and that Mary follows them. So Mary wouldn't have been able to be with the other women in Mark wondering who would open the tomb for them until after she had been to the tomb twice, seen it open twice AND seen the risen Jesus himself. I think it's fair to say that Mary not mentioning all that to the other women would be unrealistic (she would certainly have no reason to conceal that the tomb was open, because by then even two of the apostles had confirmed that).


The text says that their witness didn't agree, but how do you know that they didn't just have different "perspectives", especially when we're not even told all of what they said?

I agree in principle. However, this assumes the resurrection accounts are as inconsistent as the false witnesses were. They're not. The false witnesses couldn't even agree on what Jesus said.

The gospel writers couldn't agree on what the angels said at the tomb. Did they instruct the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee [Mark, Matthew] or did they not [Luke, John]?

And how can you know the witnesses didn't disagree on what Jesus said? If some witnesses told one thing that he said and other witnesses told of another thing he said, how do you know he didn't say both? Is it contradiction, or is it just "omission"? (If that logic seems familiar, it's because I got it from you).

The resurrection accounts agree on the core (empty tomb, women discover it, Jesus appears) while differing on peripheral details.

Tales of Zeus battling Typhon differ in peripheral details, but they agree on the core: Zeus battled Typhon and imprisoned him beneath the earth.

Now do you believe?

if four independent sources agreed Caesar rose from the dead,

....but disagreed on what he did or didn't say....

and all included culturally embarrassing details,

....like the story being spread by women who already believed in him, while Caesar didn't bother to appear to anyone who didn't believe in him....

and the claim emerged too early for legend to develop,

....even though something as simple as the Telephone Game demonstrates how quickly messages can be distorted....

You're essentially saying the claim is so extraordinary that no amount of attestation could make it credible.

I'm saying that the claim is so extraordinary that no amount of attestation alone could make it credible.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #136]

Your latest post clarifies something important. You say no amount of attestation alone could make [the resurrection] credible. That's not a historical judgment - it's a philosophical commitment that no amount of evidence could ever overcome.

This means we're not really debating historical method. We're debating whether resurrections are possible. That's a different discussion.

If your position is that no historical evidence could ever make a resurrection credible, say that clearly. But don't pretend you're applying neutral standards while doing it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #137]

Your latest post clarifies something important. You say no amount of attestation alone could make [the resurrection] credible. That's not a historical judgment - it's a philosophical commitment that no amount of evidence could ever overcome.

It's a philosophical commitment in the sense that logic is a branch of philosophy and it's a logical assessment.

This means we're not really debating historical method. We're debating whether resurrections are possible. That's a different discussion.

Which resurrections would you accept as possible? The resurrection of Osiris? Attis? Tammuz? Mithra?

If your position is that no historical evidence could ever make a resurrection credible, say that clearly. But don't pretend you're applying neutral standards while doing it.

If someone who had clearly died and been resurrected were to appear directly to people and interact with the physical world before firsthand eyewitnesses----not just in ancient texts, but repeatedly and openly in each generation, I'd say that would qualify as historical evidence. And if resurrection is possible and people should believe that it's possible, it's not too much to ask that it happen in verifiable fashion.

If someone claimed that Osiris, Attis, Tammuz or Mithra had been resurrected, wouldn't you demand some substantiation before accepting the claim?

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #138]

If someone claimed that Osiris, Attis, Tammuz or Mithra had been resurrected, wouldn't you demand some substantiation before accepting the claim?

Do those claims have the same kind and quality of attestation as the gospel accounts?

My own understanding of the Biblical accounts is that I don't believe or disbelieve. I have not claimed otherwise so I am not sure why you are making these comments at me...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #139]

Do those claims have the same kind and quality of attestation as the gospel accounts?

They've been around for thousands of years; they must have been attested to by someone.

My own understanding of the Biblical accounts is that I don't believe or disbelieve. I have not claimed otherwise so I am not sure why you are making these comments at me...

If you don't commit to belief in biblical accounts, I'm not sure why you've been fighting tooth and nail to defend them against all critical analysis.