The document entitled According to Luke
, which we can think of as having been composed sometime during the last couple of decades of the first century--although it has traditionally been seen to have been penned earlier
--is the guide we'll use to investigate and test. In chapter 24 the story of the resurrection of Yeshua begins. We will look at that and compare it with the other documents.
It must be kept in mind that the said event was to have happened around 30~33 CE. From that point in time, as can be reasoned out in any event, those who told, kept, and/or published the story did so by oral methods at first (oral tradition). There is evidence that a form of 'note
' may have eventually been used (as was used from time to time by some in that era) and this may have led to documents like the Q sayings, or the Didache; and the likes. Therefore, from the spread of the oral stories, we eventually, and in gradual degrees, get to the more fully documented on writing material narratives.
In applying historical method, we can use the did you, or did you not . . .
style reasoning/questioning that a trial lawyer could be imagined using, because we are dealing with what is reported on as being actual history--in the mind of the authors of these narratives
. In the process of trying to reconstruct said event, we can test for supernatural superintendence in the conclusion.
Luke has the women who had followed Yeshua's troupe out of Galilee coming to the tomb (which they had inspected two days before, Lk 23:55, 56) early in the morning with the spices and perfumed oils they had prepared to rub the body with. The sabbath had been sandwiched between the day of burial and this day (vs 23:56b). There is no problem really with the Greek term, orthrou batheos
, here as being early in the morning with some degree of light. (which would be realistic for working inside a tomb, where it'd be dark anyway--unless one had been carrying tourches)
Upon arriving at the tomb, they find the stone which had covered it had already been rolled away. Unlike Matthew's account, there was no earthquake at that moment, and unlike Mark's account, Luke does not give information about whether they had been wondering about how to roll the stone from the door. One matter here, is that Luke gives us a bunch of women making the trip (vss 23:55, 56a; 24:1, 10
), whereas Matthew and Mark give us only two (the two Marys) while John tells us that only Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb.
The group of women go into the tomb and find no body (vs 3; 'of the lord Jesus' is spurious). Then, as they were perplexed about that, suddenly two male figures in shining garments appeared (or entered the tomb...not told exactly). The women look down in fear--the report tells us--as the male figures (men, basically) ask them why they were looking for the living among the dead. The 'he is not here, but was raised up' line is spurious, but the message they are to have given the women asks them to recall how Yeshua was to have earlier told them he would be impaled and that on the third day he would rise (stand up). Having heard those words, Luke tells us that the women remembered, then left the memorial tomb to go report to the eleven disciples and others of the small sect.
Now in the flow, it is certain that these two male figures had appeared after the women had entered the tomb and had spoken such to the women. This will directly contradict with Matthew's report that an angel of YHWH had descended and rolled away the stone before the two Marys, and the guardmen (Mt 28: 4, 11), sat down on it, told them pretty much the very same thing--for that would mean the information would have already been known
. Actually, Matthew's account does not give any room for the two women to have gone inside the tomb.
Luke also will not allow room for Mark's account's having had a young man already sitting to one side inside the tomb as the two Marys entered it--because they would be aware of it as they entered
--saying basically, the same thing.
Luke of course gives no room to consider John's account as being worthy of historical correctness up to this point because John has only Mary Magdalene going there while it was still dark (skotias
; vs1a) and no appearances by any men in shiny clothes or angels of YHWH.
Up to this point, therefore, we can see that while holding Luke to be the control group (historically accurate and in order), Matthew, Mark, and John have been shown to be false reporting. This will have to be (and should be, anyway) broken down into a number of posts. I will pick up from here.