"First*, the accounts in the Gospels are neither the only nor the earliest evidence we have of Christian writing about the Resurrection. That honor goes to 1 Thessalonians; one of the earliest of Paul’s letters, which will be examined below, which was written around AD 50."
According to Catholic Tradition, that is more than a decade after the Gospel of St Matthew.
"But the Gospel accounts, while penned decades after the events they describe (AD c. 30–33)"
Matthew : 34 or 37 or 40 at latest. Perhaps 34 for Aramaic original and another of these years for his own Greek translation.
Late datings of Gospels, like c. 70 for Mark and post-Mark for others, are Bultmannite errors, except for Gospel of St John which really was late (after Patmos and thus after Apocalypse) - but by an eyewitness.
"go back to early oral tradition, which seems remarkably untainted by ‘theologizing’ on the part of the authors."
Theology in NT writings is not a product of merely human theologising on part of hagiographer, but inspired by the Holy Ghost.
"It makes sense that the men who wrote the accounts might recall different details, even seemingly conflicting details, in their retelling of the event. What does not make sense is to say that since the authors include different women in the group that went to the tomb, the Resurrection obviously did not occur, and the same goes with all the other alleged contradictions."
Any woman who is mentioned in any Gospel account as going to the tomb did, of course./HGL
* This and other quotes are from: CMI : The Resurrection and Genesis
by Lita Cosner
First published: 10 April 2009
Re-featured on homepage: 5 April 2015