It seems amazing to me that four "eyewitnesses" could tell such different stories. If I was writing an account of the most important thing that had ever happened to me, I think I could remember who told me, where and when I saw the proof, who I was with at the time.
Well, let's look at this. Luke wasn't an eye-witness, even according to Literalists. Mark was possibly an eye-witness, according to fundamentalists, but even that's not agreed on. I don't think there's anything in the Bible saying Mark was an eye-witness of the crucifixion or the resurrection. Even if he was an eye-witness of the crucifixion, none of the stories you mentioned includes him.
That taken care of, let me point out that your listing in post #1 is not accurate. Maybe you left a line out. It sounds like you said Luke said that the two men told the eleven, but Luke says that they told "women" that he was raised, and then the women told the eleven, and then it identifies the women.
The reason for mentioning that is that the synoptics agree that women went to the tomb, were told by angels or Jesus himself that he was raised, and then they told the apostles. Assuming Matthew wrote the Gospel named after him and was an eye-witness of Jesus, then he still heard about the resurrection secondhand from women.
So, concerning the synoptic Gospels, I can't say it's amazing that three witnesses would tell such different stories. None of them were at the tomb, only one of them definitely saw Jesus risen, and one of them definitely didn't. I think it's plenty consistent that they all say that women saw him, then they told the apostles, and later the apostles all saw him.
The final Gospel is John's. Again, even by fundamentalist standards it was written at least near sixty years after the resurrection. This Gospel differs from the others on a significant detail, that Peter and the disciple Jesus loved (John by fundamentalist standards) went to the empty tomb and that Mary didn't see Jesus till the second trip. Who's to say the others, especially with only Matthew being an eye-witness, and he not being one that ran to the tomb, didn't mention that trip, because Peter and John didn't see Jesus on the trip. In a sense, it's an insignificant detail.
Anyway, I don't think requiring that they remember "who told me, where and when I saw the proof, and who I was with at the time" is necessary in this case. Only Matthew and John were told, and both of them give agreeing accounts of who they were with when they were told and when he appeared to them.
™ Version 4.2
