Over the centuries, New Testament has caused a lot of controversy and caused a lot of people to disbelieve in the miracle that was resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament has been canonized over time, but the first definitive list matching today’s Canon appeared in Athanasius’s Easter Letter in 367 AD, with formal affirmation by councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), solidifying it by the late 4th century after centuries of debate and discernment. That is 4 centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many scholars and theologians questioned why the first books were written so late after the death of Jesus Christ, causing people to disbelieve and think it was all made up for the purpose of church control.
The first and major criticism of Christianity is the fact that the Gospels were written many years after Jesus’ resurrection and the first written teachings on Jesus came not from Jesus’ disciples, but from the Apostle Paul, who wasn’t part of Jesus’ original 12 disciples. Early Christians preserved Jesus’s sayings, parables, and miracle stories through spoken word and biblical scholars widely agree that the Gospels emerged from a rich period of oral tradition, where stories and teachings about Jesus circulated for years before being written down. We also have to take into consideration cultural facts like the paper was generally difficult and effectively impossible to get in the first century for many. Second important fact is that the disciples of Jesus Christ were not educated people or deep thinkers and certainly not rich people that could afford abundance of paper or to hire someone who could write for them in comprehensive way. The disciples were simple men, most of them were fisherman and therefore the oral way was the most obvious way for them to spread the “good news”.
Therefore, the first Christian writings were not actually Gospels, but letters of the Apostle Paul, who, as I wrote on many occasions, was a false Apostle. Pauline epistles were written between late 40s and early 60s AD. Paul was a highly educated Pharisee, coming from a wealthy family of Pharisees and a Roman citizen. He not only had an access to resources like papirus, which in those times was hard to get, but also ability to write in a philosophical style, which came from his education that was rooted in the Greek system. Paul’s writings were associated with thinkers like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and Seneca – this shaped Paul’s theological arguments and his understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Paul’s education and philosophical understanding naturally transpired into his own teachings and understanding. His letters are full of philosophical approach and his interpretation of the events through the bias of his Greek education system. If today people are still analyzing, arguing and misinterpreting Paul’s letters, which were written almost 2 thousand years ago – imagine how it was for people back then with 3% literacy! The problem with Paul’s writings is not only his philosophical and difficult to understand for many style, but the fact that Paul wasn’t part of Jesus disciples, he never met Jesus and he wasn’t an eye witness to any major events. How come he was the main representative of the Christian thought?
In the first century not many people had access to education as opposed to today, especially not those who were coming from poor backgrounds. Many sceptics of the Gospels argue that the Gospel hasn’t been written by any witness testimonies and not even by Jesus disciples, therefore they must be false. It also doesn’t help that there are some big discrepancies between the Gospel causing people to be confused about what actually happened. 3 Gospels that are known as Synoptic Gospel, of Matthew, Mark and Luke, focus on the action – orientated events of Jesus’s ministry and one Gospel of John, very much differs from the other three. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that was written by a disciple who witnessed all major events of Jesus, which was his ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, therefore this is a witness testimony, which I will present.
Why then the Gospels came much later than the writings of Paul?
What if I told you that the Gospels came as a response to the false teachings and theology of Paul and to straighten the facts about what the actual message of Jesus was.
Pauline epistles emerged relatively quickly after Jesus’ resurrection, as if Paul wanted to solidify his Apostleship and steer the direction of Christian movement. Paul essentially hijacked the role that was assigned only to the disciples of Jesus. I have written on many occasions that Paul’s legitimacy was questionable and the main claim to be an Apostle was, well because he said so. He appointed himself to not only be “the light to the Gentiles” but also to lead the disciples in the direction that Jesus did not appoint for them. Paul was teaching lawlessness, saying the Law was finished, that God somehow made a mistake by giving people the Law and Jesus saved us from this useless covenant. Now we can rejoice, eat anything we want, not to worry because we only have to proclaim Jesus as our savior and Paul never mentioned that we have to repent, which was actually one on the main teachings of Jesus. Teaching of Paul was a main reason for divide between Jews and the Gentiles and later divide within Christianity. Apostle Paul used the fact that Gentiles were uneducated and unaware about the Law to his advantage, therefore they couldn’t correct Paul or know when Paul was misleading them. Paul on many occasions twisted the scripture from the Old Testament, conveniently taking away the words like repent. For example, in the letters to Romans Paul quoted from the book of Isaiah and said:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.” Romans 11:27
However, let’s compare this with the actual verse from the book of Isaiah:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”
Says the Lord.” Isaiah 59: 20
Both verses have similar but also very different feel. Paul said the “Deliverer” will come out of Zion, whereas the original verse from the book of Isaiah says “the Redeemer” will come to Zion. Paul then says that this deliverer will magically take away sins from Jacob, no words about repentance or turning away from sin. However, the book of Isaiah says that “those who turn from transgression in Jacob”, which is a huge difference. In the book of Isaiah, the Redeemer will not take away sins magically, but will come to those who repent. That is a huge difference. And that was a perpetual message of Paul, rejoice and do nothing, just believe. Paul was always conveniently taking away the words of repentance, even from the original books of the Old Testament. And this is something Gentiles couldn’t check if Paul was telling the truth. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew which many people didn’t know, unless they were educated, therefore they couldn’t check it for themselves. And Paul used this fact and the fact that people were seeing him in high regard, trusting that he wouldn’t want to deceive them.
Gentiles were unfortunately not aware of mistakes, however Jews were. At the beginning of Paul’s ministry, Paul was teaching that the Law was finished and nailed to the cross with Jesus. “The law stood against us. It judged us. But he has taken it away and nailed it to the cross.” Colossians 2:14 This was contradicting with what Jews and followers of Jesus were teaching about and Paul got into trouble with them. Early Christians were a Jewish and underground sect that was very different from Orthodox Judaism. Paul was accused of spreading false teachings and Jews wanted to persecute him, because of the blasphemy. According to Jewish law at that time, teaching against the Law of Moses was blasphemy and blasphemy was a capital offense punishable by death. Just as Jesus was persecuted to death for blasphemy and claiming to be the Son of God, which Jews didn’t believe in, Paul was accused of blasphemy for teaching against the Law. Paul however used arguments like Roman citizenship, being a Pharisee and eventually lying that he never taught against the law. The Roman government held ultimate power of capital punishment and in the case of Paul, they decided to save Roman citizen. Therefore he was saved not because they believed him, but because they were afraid to do anything to the Roman citizen and to a Pharisee. Soon after confusing teachings of Paul, other Christian sects emerged like Nicolaitans, who interpreted Paul’s words as “the license to sin”. I explain in more details here.
After being saved, Paul stayed in Rome and started spreading his teachings and his view on Christianity. Christian doctrine and theology among the Gentiles was established mainly, or should I say only through the letters to Romans. Letters to Romans are widely regarded as Paul’s most systematic and comprehensive presentation of the Christian gospel. It has been branded as the “cathedral of Christian doctrine” and the “Constitution of Christianity” due to its foundational role in shaping Christian thought. The letters to Romans provided explanation of core Christian beliefs such as the sinfulness of all humanity, justification by faith alone, the relationship between Law and grace, and God’s plan for both Jews and Gentiles. The problem is that Paul divided Jews and Gentiles with his teachings and explained that somehow God had a different plan for Jews and different for the Gentiles, because Gentiles didn’t have to follow the Law or convert to Judaism, however Jews still had to follow the Law. This double mindedness caused a lot of contradictions and confusion and it seemed every region was interpreting Paul’s teachings differently. Therefore it was necessary to have actual words of Jesus and this is where the Gospels comes in, which were created much later. When we take a closer look at the Gospels and the teachings and actual words of Jesus and compare it to Paul’s main teachings on salvation, there is a lot of contradiction particularly with the issue of repentance.
Paul was preaching salvation as a gift of God through faith – Jesus was preaching “whoever does the will of the Father”, Paul was preaching the law is finished – Jesus was preaching the Law stands till heaven and earth passes away. Paul was preaching to just confess Jesus with your words – Jesus was preaching “not everyone who confesses me shall enter the kingdom of heaven’. Paul was preaching we will be “snatched away” – Jesus was preaching to endure till the end. More on this you can find here.
That is why Gospels were necessary – to straighten the facts about what the actual message of Jesus was. They came as a response to the false teachings of the Apostle Paul. However there was another problem, not all the Gospels were written by Jesus’ actual disciples, but only two were.
The Gospels of Jesus came in different times and many sceptics argued that none of the Gospel was written by an actual witness. Another point of concern for sceptics was the fact that there were many differences between the four Gospels. The explanation given was that no event will be viewed in the same way by four different people. Even during the crime, witnesses will always give testimonies with slight differences. This is true, however some differences between the Gospels were quite evident when describing the same event, making people doubt that the events were true. Because settle differences can happen but not too obvious, otherwise it raises concerns and suspicions or worse, adding events, which was the case in some Gospels, can create more skepticism than trust. The sceptics therefore stated that because none of the Gospels were actual testimony, therefore it was just a story told by someone who heard about it, not witnessed, and therefore cannot be believable.
And what is testimony? Testimony is a witness statement, spoken or written account of events. This needs to be an actual information provided by the witness, which can be compelling or contradictory. Can we say any of the Gospel was a testimony of a witness? Yes, two Gospels, according to Matthew and John were written by Jesus actual disciples, therefore those two can be viewed as the actual testimony.
When examining four Gospels, it’s important to highlight what is the most important event that Christianity was build on? The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without those two events, Christianity would have been just like any other religion comparable to Buddhism, Hinduism or perhaps would fall into some philosophical movements like Stoicism or Taoism. Those events made Christianity as unique religion with the most divine revelation towards humanity and with the core message of “good news”, which was the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. However, the problem for many sceptics was the fact that resurrection event had many differences in the Gospels and therefore people doubted if this even happened.
The Gospel according to Mark was written by John Mark, who was a companion of the Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul. It was written around 70 AD, so over 10-20 years after the writings of Paul. Yes, John Mark gathered much information from the Apostle Peter, who was Jesus’ disciple, however he was also influenced by the false Apostle Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh. Many scholars argue the Gospel of Mark was significantly influenced by Paul’s theology. Mark presents a theology echoing Paul, particularly in passages like the Last Supper and the emphasis on suffering, suggesting Mark shaped traditions with Pauline convictions. Essentially, Mark’s Gospel fulfils the same function as the Pauline gospel, where Mark’s primary purpose was to defend the vision of Christianity championed by Paul the Apostle against his “Judaizing” opponents. This was to clear Paul’s name in the eyes of Jews, who as I mentioned earlier, wanted to persecute Paul, and therefore Mark agrees with Paul on many aspects.
However, what I would like to focus on is to show differences in the resurrection event. In the Gospel of Mark we see the event of resurrection written in this manner:
“Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Mark 16: 1-8
What we see here is two Mary’s and Salome, so three women, went to anoint Jesus’ body. This was a Jewish custom and therefore it wasn’t unusual to do so. However, the women saw the stone was rolled and the tomb open. When they went into the tomb, they saw a man in a white robe, who reassured them that Jesus has risen and he told them to tell other disciples, with special emphasis on Peter. The man said that they will see Jesus in Galilee. However, what happens next is very questionable: “they fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Not only apparently they didn’t say anything, but also they were afraid. How then Mark is trying to explain the message was spread? Later we read that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, however there is no information where. Mary tells others but they do not believe her. Jesus then appears to two other disciples, however their names are not disclosed. The same happens again, others don’t believe. Then we see that Jesus appears to the eleven and He rebukes their unbelief. Therefore the first witness of Jesus is Mary Magdalene with many other women, however the fact that the resurrection message comes from Mary is diminished.
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the physician and traveling companion of Paul between 80 and 90 AD, therefore after the Gospel of Mark. This was the Gospel, which was mostly influenced by the false Apostle Paul. This Gospel has very distinct style of Apostle Paul, as if it was written by him and I wouldn’t rule that out to be honest. This Gospel was most definitely written as a confirmation of the teaching of the Apostle Paul, therefore to reassure people of Paul’s legitimacy. This was another Gospel, after Mark’s Gospel, to reassure people that the Apostle Paul’s letters were in fact true teaching of Jesus. But when reading about the events like crucifixion or resurrection, we can see the author added so many additional events that it caused people to be divided into which Gospel sounded better, more exciting or more forgiving. And this is where the Gospel of Luke was winning because it was the most forgiving gospel, no matter if someone was repenting or not. This was a typical Gospel to tickle the ears of people and none judgmental. But like I mentioned, some events were added which we can’t see in any other Gospel.
One of those events was presenting Jesus at the cross. The first red flag was Jesus having long conversations while hanging on the cross. From a medical point of view, if anyone was crucified it was in such position that it was difficult to breathe, let alone talk! Many professionals describe crucifixion that the crucified person would experience hypovolemic shock, fluid accumulation, cardiac distress and lack of oxygen, cardiac rupture and suffocation. It was not a time for a conversation for sure! However in the Gospel of Luke we read:
“But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’ For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?” Luke 23: 28-31
I can’t of course say if those words of Jesus are true, but I find it suspicious that not only Jesus had long conversations with people while hanging on the cross and being tormented and suffocated, but also that such detail was described by an author who didn’t witness this event. You have to wonder. Another important details was Jesus having a conversation with two other criminals that were crucified with Jesus. What is suspicious is this additional fact that is only present in the Gospel of Luke:
“Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” Luke 23:42-43
The word “paradise” is very unusual because Jesus never used this word when describing heaven. And also the author didn’t witness crucifixion, yet added such detail. Could it be that it was added for special purpose to highlight God’s forgiveness no matter the sins or repentance? We know that Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul and Apostle Paul was preaching about God’s grace without repentance so Luke could have been influenced by Paul. This detail hasn’t been mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew and Mark. Another time we see the word “paradise” is in the letters of Paul. This makes it clear that Paul wanted to influence the Gospel to highlight that repentance is not essential and to justify his teachings in his letters through this event. No other Gospel presents this event and also we can’t be sure if the crosses were close enough for the crucified to even have the conversation.
When we look at the event of ressurection in the Gospel of Luke, it also calls for some concerns. This event is presented as:
“And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.” Luke 23: 55-56
“Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ ”
And they remembered His words. Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them. But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.” Luke 24: 1:12
Here we see that many women went to the tomb, we don’t see the number but one of those was Mary Magdalene and we also see a specific detail, which is bowing down to two men who stood there in shining garments. In this Gospel they were also afraid like in Mark, but here they actually told the other eleven disciples, yet they also didn’t believe them. We see that Peter decided to check it for himself and he sees linen cloths lying.
After this we see a specific event – The road to Emmaus – which sounds very similar as the road to Damascus, which Apostle Paul experienced. Another evidence of influence of the Apostle Paul in this Gospel. This is the weirdest event because it presented Jesus as not only as a spirit only, as a prophet and that two of his disciples didn’t recognize him, which can make a reader left puzzled if that was really Jesus. The whole event is very questionable!
“Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?”
Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?” And He said to them, “What things?” So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”
Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24: 13-27
First of all, this was a very weird detail of two of Jesus disciples travelling and meeting actual resurrected Jesus, having full conversation with Him but not recognizing either Him or His voice! Not only that, the disciples say he was a prophet! and Jesus did not correct them. Then Jesus rebukes them and still not reveals Himself to them. I find it hard to believe that Jesus would act sneakily like this. After this Jesus apparently “vanished from their sight”, making it look as it was a spirit only.
I could see why Luke wrote it like that. To justify Paul’s road to Damascus and Paul’s vision of Jesus. Both events present Jesus appearing on the road to destinations sounding similar, but also in a way that looks like a spirit. Therefore the reader can question, was the resurrection in a real body or in a spirit only? The Gospel of Luke can definitely confuse people.
Another time Jesus appears, He is also seen as a spirit or as if in a spirit, which gives Apostle Paul more credibility to his story. We read:
“Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.” Luke 24: 36-37
We know that it was Jesus in the flesh, however using this comparison as a spirit, makes the reader question, wonder and be open minded to a story of Paul who just saw a spirit. Then Paul sounds credible and possible. Another important fact is that only in the Gospel of Luke we see Jesus saying: “your faith has made you well”, which is another justification for Paul’s theology that Jesus only required faith in Him, no repentance. Now I don’t reject the Gospel of Luke in entirety, however I am cautious of those details that sound too similar to the Apostle Paul. Once you know the Apostle Paul was false, you see other false details even in the Gospels or the fact that Paul was under scrutiny, so he wanted to prove that he was in fact chosen by Jesus and he could use both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark as his justification documents. On many occasions we see Jesus talking about himself as a prophet in the Gospel of Luke:
“Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.” Luke 13:33
This is the reason so much confusion was created among many people throughout centuries and many sceptics emerged questioning whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a prophet. This is very evident today, where many people even in some Christian denominations believe that Jesus was just a prophet because it was mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.
For contrast, when we look at the Gospel according to Matthew, we see much clearer picture of the events and we can have more reassurance that those were written by an actual disciple of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew was written between 80 to 90 AD, therefore as you can see after the letters of Paul and after two Gospels of Mark and Luke that were influenced by Paul. This was a first response to Paul. Why so late? Again, I mentioned that probably because at that time, disciples thought oral traditions and spreading the gospel in that way was enough. But also because of logistics like paper and ability to write. Some scholars suggest it was written after the Gospel of Mark as a response to Mark and it was written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek and the Gospel that was found was already translated into Greek. The Gospel of Matthew contains the most of Jesus parables and teachings, making it the most compelling when it comes to the teachings of Jesus.
What is convincing about the Gospel of Matthew is that it presents facts when it comes to the events of crucifixion and resurrection. The crucifixion is presented where Jesus doesn’t have any conversations with people while hanging on the cross or with the other two criminals and only shouts: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Matthew 27:46
This is much more convincing to know, no conversations but in the time of distress, a sorrowful shout to God. We also find out from the Gospel of Matthew that the crucifixion was witnessed by women only. Men disciples didn’t witness the crucifixion as they fled before due to the arrests and prosecutions that were happening:
“And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” Matthew 27: 55
The resurrection event is presented in this way:
“Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.” Matthew 28: 1-3
Here we see two women only, Mary Magdalene and other Mary, as opposed to three women in the Gospel of Mark and many women in the Gospel of Luke. In the Gospel of Luke it sounded like a crowd! So far, Mary Magdalene was present in all three of those descriptions. Further, we see that there was one man who is described to be an angel and who rolled the stone. This is much more believable because in the other two Gospels we see two men or one men but not described as angels and the sceptics can read and be confused who had the strength to roll the stone so easily. Here, in the Gospel of Matthew we see that is was an angel and therefore he had unusual strength.
“But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you. So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.” Matthew 28: 5-9
Here we see that the women didn’t fall on their faces but received message to go and bring this word to the disciples and this is what they did.
“And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.” Matthew 28: 9-10
Here we have additional detail Mary Magdalene and another Mary meets Jesus who said to them to “rejoice” and to tell the others to go to the Galilee where He will meet them. Therefore the first people who see the risen Jesus was Mary Magdalene and another Mary in this Gospel. The event of Jesus appearing to the disciples is very short however, as if the focus of the Gospel of Matthew were teachings of Jesus and His parables, rather than the resurrection event. We read:
“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.” Matthew 28: 16-20
Therefore we see disciples meeting Jesus in Galilee on the mountain and they saw him but some doubted. Then Jesus commands them to “make disciples of all the nations”, teaching them all what Jesus taught them and spreading the gospel. It is very clear what disciples have to do, which we don’t see in the Gospel of Luke or Mark.
The Gospel of John was written as the last one, around 90AD and therefore after the other thee Gospels that are considered Synoptic Gospel. It’s much different in style when compared to the other Gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke, portraying Jesus as a divine being and capturing more spiritual truths that Jesus was teaching about. Many believe the Gospel of John is a spiritual Gospel. The author focused more on the conversations of Jesus and His actual words and unique events that couldn’t be found in the other three Gospels. Through the Gospel of John we find out about the divine nature of Jesus, whereas if we only had Synoptic Gospels, maybe we would have missed the idea that Jesus was divine, due to the fact that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as a prophet.
The controversy around the Gospel of John is that the author is anonymous. Unlike the other three Gospels where it’s more clear who was the author, here we don’t know if it was really John, however the author is very clear it is a testimony of a witness who saw and experienced those events. As I mentioned before, testimony is a witness statement, spoken or written account of events. The other three Gospels were more of a description of the events and we know for example that Matthew didn’t witness crucifixion as all male disciples fled beforehand. It was only women, including Mary Magdalene who was Jesus’ disciple, who really witnessed crucifixion and resurrection, therefore two main events of Christianity.
In the Gospel of John we read at the end:
“This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” John 21: 24
Therefore we know the author must be a disciple, someone who spent a lot of time with Jesus and knew quite intimate moments that we read about throughout the Gospel, who testified those things and who wrote it. To testify means to give evidence as a witness. It is very clear this person wrote what he experienced and witnessed with eyes. Therefore this couldn’t be someone who learnt about those things from other disciples, someone who was around Jesus sometimes or someone who researched about Jesus like early church father, as some scholars suggest. But someone who frequently participated in the ministry of Jesus and his journeys. Also, this was His disciple, and as we know, disciple was someone Jesus would have chosen and accepted to the group. This excludes any claims of third parties writing about it because it wouldn’t have been a testimony or the disciple as the author suggested at the end.
In my other post I presented that the author of the Gospel of John was in fact Mary Magdalene. Mary was the only of Jesus disciples that witnessed all those events, however as a woman living in the first century, she had her voice taken away from her. If she clearly stated that she was in fact the author, it wouldn’t be included in the Bible. We also know that Mary wrote another Gospel, which is considered Apocrypha, which suggests she was a writer. Her Gospel however was very much destroyed and only few pieces were left, which confirms my point, that if the Gospel of John was clearly stated that the author is a woman, it wouldn’t have survived! Therefore the Gospel of John is the most believable when compared to the other Synoptic Gospel, due to the fact Mary really witnessed those events. She was an eye witness. Another important fact is that only the Gospel of John has been changed more than 400 times and there was an attempt to somehow remove Mary or diminish her role in that particular Gospel. In one of the events Martha was added and this was done to diminish Mary’s role and her significance in that particular Gospel, due to the fact it her role would have been too significant and important.
The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that showed Jesus divinity, that highlighted He was the Son of God and that He existed before the earth was created. Mary was the only one who understood deeper spiritual messages but also portrayed it in a very simple and easy to understand way. This was very important that she hid her identity as an author because that Gospel would have been destroyed straight away by the Apostle Paul, who was preaching women should remain silent.
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Another important factor is that in the first-century of Jewish and Roman societies, a woman’s testimony was generally not accepted as legally valid in court. This context makes the Gospel accounts of women being witnesses to the crucifixion or resurrection very significant, because it was viewed as an “embarrassment” or unlikely choice for myth-makers, questioning their historical accuracy. This was due to cultural norms and any female claims would initially face disbelief. According to the Jewish Law “women are not valid witnesses”, as it states in the Mishnah. These laws were practiced by the Jewish community, therefore it would be logical to say that women were excluded from any events where they could be treated as witnesses.
“The oath of testimony is conducted with men and not women.” Shevout 4:1
From the Josephus books, the historian stated: “From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex” (Antiquities 4.219)
Moreover, “writers would likely have used more credible male witnesses to persuade their audience, not women writers, whose words were already devalued”, say The Gospel Coalition.
Early critics like Celsus mocked the idea, calling Mary Magdalene a “hysterical female,” which further underscored the unconventional nature of women as primary witnesses, according to The Gospel Coalition.
This gives you more understanding of those times. Now imagine living in a 1st century as a woman, who had no place in the religious systems. Women were disregarded and not acknowledged completely. If it was known that the Gospel of John was written by a woman, it would have never been included in the Bible. But Mary, by pretending to be a male, could have told the story from her perspective, showing us a different side to Jesus and different side to His ministry and the events. Therefore those events are different to the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in the case of crucifixion we see:
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” John 19: 25
Therefore we see only 3 witnesses to the crucifixion, three Mary’s. Mary Magdalene was an eye witness to the event, which makes Gospel of John a testimony of Mary Magdalene.
Then we see this detail that proves of the divinity of Jesus Christ:
“Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” John 19: 32-37
From this verse we see three major things: first of all fulfillment of two prophecies from the Old Testament that “Not one of His bones shall be broken” and “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” This is major detail that was not present in the Synoptic Gospel, which shows a confirmation of the word of God. Another detail is the fact that “and immediately blood and water came out“, making the event very divine. Without this detail we would think Jesus was just another human being, perhaps just a prophet, but water and blood came out of his side. From the medical point of view, this is also confirmation of a severe fluid accumulation, cardiac rupture and suffocation that Jesus must have experienced. And finally, third point are the words: “he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe” – if that doesn’t shout witness testimony, then I don’t know what does. Again, written as a “he” to hide identity as it wouldn’t be accepted as “she”. But we know only three women witnessed crucifixtion, therefore it must be Mary Magdalene.
Moreover, the second most important event – the ressurection, looks much different in the Gospel of John:
“Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.” John 20: 1-10
What do we see here? First of all, Mary Magdalene went on her own to the tomb and saw the tomb empty first. Then she ran to tell Peter. A sceptic will probably point on the fact that it says “and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, which suggest to someone else, however this was to hide her identity, otherwise it would have been obvious that it was her. However later we see: “so they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there” which means the disciple that Jesus loved outran Peter, saw linen cloths and didn’t go into the tomb. Then Peter went in and then the author reveals identity by saying: “Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.” – why to highlight “who came to the tomb first” if we know that this disciple didn’t go inside but Peter did? Because this was referring to the early morning visit, when Mary went to the tomb on her own! Therefore Mary was the first disciple who went to the tomb and believed and she is the “beloved disciple” who wrote the Gospel of John. Because Mary believed without seeing Jesus, Jesus then appears only to Mary:
“Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” John 20: 14-17
This makes Mary Magdalene not only a true disciple, but also an Apostle who preached the “good news” first to the disciples. This also makes the Gospel of John as the only Gospel that is a witness testimony, and therefore the most believable when it comes to the events of crucifixion and resurrection. Mary had her voice taken away from her, squashed by the men in the religious systems and her role would have never worked in the church, that wanted to silence women. It would have been very inconvenient for church to present a woman with a darker past, who was not only the only disciple who understood Jesus’ mission, who was independent thinker, writer and spiritual leader. The church decided to give her another label – a sinner and constant repentant without a voice but who somehow saw all those events but was never given much credibility. This is also why Apostle Paul was fighting for the position so much and wanted to silence women. If Jesus gave Mary command to preach the gospel, then it mean Jesus never wanted to silence women. It was the system that caused this and only now, after 2 thousand years, we can entertain that thought and really consider Mary Magdalene as a significant figure in Christianity. Her Gospel of John was a response to the false teachings of the Apostle Paul, she knew he was a false apostle and therefore she wanted to present a Gospel that differed from the other three to somehow diminish Paul’s teachings. And that is why the Gospels were written as a response to the letters of Paul and therefore had to be written after Paul’s writings, not before.
By Dagmara Z.