Oh, I don't agree with that at all.
Across the accounts, a remarkably consonant story emerges:
The women go up to the tomb.
The tomb is empty.
The women return to the menfolk.
Mary Magdalene remains, and sees a man she mistakes for the gardener until He addresses her.
She then returns to speak to the disciples.
Peter and John run to the tomb.
The role of the angel(s) is manifold: For Mark, he recalls for the women the prophecies of Christ they knew but did not yet understand. For Matthew, there are echoes of former events to show the fulfilment of Scripture. The 'behold' and 'the angel of the Lord' link to the annunciation (the same angel appeared to Joseph), the earthquake links to the death on the cross. In the Synoptics, the angels fulfil a narrative device, to recall the teachings of the Lord, but also to show that the empty tomb was a profound shock to them all.
If Mark's gospel is indeed the gospel of Peter (as I rather think it is), then what follows is typical of Peter's dour treatment of himself and just about everyone else with regard to the failure to comprehend who Jesus is and what Jesus is and is all about. The women leave 'for a trembling and fear had seized them: and they said nothing to any man; for they were afraid'. So much for their faith, and their understanding of Jesus' prophecy of his death and resurrection.
Mary Magdalene then arrives later with the news but, "they hearing that he was alive, and had been seen by her, did not believe." Jesus appears to 'two of them walking', (the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24), but no-one believed them, either. At length He appears to the eleven 'and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again.'
In Mark, there's no mention of where Christ came from, no mention of His departure, and not many understood Him when He was there. John's is a gospel of love. Peter's is take it or leave it. Will we follow or walk away, believe or misunderstand, see Him or remain staring blindly into an empty tomb? The choice is ours.
+++
Matthew identifies the young man explicitly as an angel. Luke has two angels. John has two angels who appear to Mary only, after Peter and he have left the tomb.
Matthew's account is full of drama — he's a rabbi writing to a Jewish audience — and this testimony is the equivalent of the Haggadah, the Passover 'telling' of the deliverance of Israel. (He alone bothers to scotch the rumour, probably put about by the authorities, that Jesus was spirited out of the tomb by his own disciples while the guards slept.)
John's is more tempered. He simply says: "Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." By 'knew not' he means they did not realise that what they took to be Christ speaking figuratively was in fact Christ speaking literally.
+++
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)
Paul wrote to the community in Corinth in the mid 50s. According to Acts 18, Paul arrived in Corinth 49-50, and stayed there for 18 months. The letter speaks of 'received' and 'passed', indicating Paul was relaying an oral tradition(s) from which the gospels would later derive. So we know that before 50AD, the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ was effectively part of the Christian creed.
Scholars like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann, severe critics of orthodoxy, nevertheless agree that the empty tomb and Paul's gospel of 50AD date to within two to five years of Jesus's death. Gerd Ludemann: "[T]he elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus ... not later than three years ... the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Corinthians falls into the time between 30 and 33CE." (Ludemann: The Resurrection of Jesus.)
Robert Funk: "The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 CE., the time for development was thus two or three years at most." (R Hoover & the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus).
+++
I do not accept Ludemann's theory that the risen Christ evolved out of a psychological episode, a guilt-induced vision of Peter, reinforced later by a similarly-induced vision by Paul.
As for Ehrmann's critique of the stories:
"Who actually goes to the tomb that morning, is it Mary Magdalene by herself or with other women, and with how many, and what were their names?"
It's inconsequential, which is why they're not named. The same thing would happen today. Mary Magdalene is there because she is a principal player.
"Was the stone rolled away before or after they got there? It depends which Gospel you read."
No, only Matthew has the stone rolled away while they are there. And Matthew's reason for doing so is easily understood if one reads his gospel in context.
"What did they see when they got there? Was it one man, or two, or an angel? It depends which Gospel you read."
He's actually mis-representing the material here.
"Did they tell anyone? Mark says they didn’t tell anyone, Matthew says they ran and told the disciples, so which is it? It depends which Gospel you read."
Ehrman uses the discrepancies among incidental details to cast doubt upon the main elements, which is a dubious practice at best.
Nor is the problem is not new. It comes from a too-literal reading of the text, and a too-narrow view of the materials. That Ehrmann went from evangelical to atheist points not so much to the nature of the text as his own nature. He wants a forensic report, he wants the impossible, and it casts a shadow on his scholarship because of it. No doubt had the accounts been precisely the same, he would assume collusion and or editing.
It's so easy, in the absence of faith, to cast doubt. But to cast one's doubts as the only reliable way to treat the data is disingenuous.
And with that in mind it is possible to harmonise the accounts, showing that there are no irresolvable contradictions between them. Certainly not with regard to matters of faith.
