The Gospel of Matthew's account of the resurrection of Jesus is regarded by many scholars as the least reliable historically. This article does not provide definitive answers to the questions raised, but it indicates some of the avenues that could be further explored. The relationship of Matthew 28 to the other gospels is examined. The major arguments that supposedly justify treating Matthew 28 with suspicion are each considered in turn.

This article's main point is that if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke did use Mark, they also knew early non-Marcan traditions of the life and teaching of Jesus well. Matthew 24:10-12 functions as a case in point.

In this article, Wenham gives a summary of the argument of R. Riesner's latest book on the chronology of the early life of Paul. This book is further related to the work of G. Ludeman in this topic. Wenham calls attention to Riesner's appreciation of the book of Acts as a historical source.