1. Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47, 16:1; Luke 23:55, 56
A. There are hints that there could have been two groups of women. Joanna was the wife of Herod's steward and was a private contributor to Jesus and the disciples, and was likely an affluent woman. Mary Magdalene had been demon-possessed so was almost certainly lower class and poor. The other women were probably likewise stratified. Given the possibility of two distinct socio-economic classes of women, it is possible that some already possessed the spices whereas others needed to purchase them still. Also, it is possible there were different groups going to the tomb at different times, if they were not close friends, but merely acquainted through Jesus. This also illustrates a recurring issues, as does the next note, #3. The authors did not record the events exhaustively, rather they gave various details according to their purpose. Generally, not mentioning someone being somewhere does not mean they weren't there, just that the author didn't include it. Here, specifically, the various authors mentioned different women by name according to their goals. By combining the accounts, a fuller picture of the events develops.
B. Is it light out or dark at dawn? Both, depending on your perspective, which is what's communicated in the different accounts.
2. Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2, 3; Luke 24:1, 22; John 20:1
C. The variations in women named are because the different authors just mentioned of a few of the group according to their purposes.
D. It is not stated explicitly in Matthew that the women saw the angel roll the stone away. Their traveling to the tomb could have been simultaneous with the angel account. Further, this passage, when aligned with the other Gospels, is seen as not having been intended to be strictly sequential. Some events seem to be concurrent, others with unspecified gaps between them.
E. There's no mention of the guards being there when the women arrive so it's reasonable to conclude they had already recovered and left. Since another account says the angels appeared to the women, I conclude that the angel disappeared before the women arrived.
6. Matt 28:1; Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2, 3, 23; John 20:1
F. Given at least three women seeing unexpected angels in different positions of the tomb, I imagine that either not everyone was cognizant of both angels or they didn't tell about both angels when recounting the story.
G. Presuming that a supernatural being is hard to describe, the angels are given strikingly similar depictions. As I suggest with my interpretive descriptions, I see no conflict.
7. Matt 28:5-7; Mark 16:6,7; Luke 24:4-8, 23
H. The phrasing in Mark indicates to me that they ran to the disciples without speaking to anyone along the way, not that they ran off, and never told anyone at all. That's pretty reasonable, since Mark is giving their account. Mary M. seems to have wanted to see Peter specifically.
8. Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9; John 20:2
I. John's description suggests that Mary M. had Peter in mind.
J. At first it seems troubling to claim that Mary M. saw the angels, heard them saw that Jesus was risen, and then tell Peter that she doesn't know where the BODYis. But I know there have been times when people have given me instructions and, despite having heard the words clearly, done something completely different, without realizing it until later. It is not unreasonable to think that Mary hadn't really processed the angels' unusual message yet, still reeling in her confusion.
9. Matt 28:8; Luke 24:9-11; John 20:2
K. John mentions both Peter & John, while Luke only mentions Peter. Another example of different perspectives.
L. What did John believe? That Jesus was indeed missing? That He was risen? I'm not sure.
10. Luke 24:12, 24; John 20:3-10
M. It seems that they don't return to the house with the rest of the disciples right then, but go separate ways for a time, later rejoining the group.
N. Mary probably ran or walked slower than Peter and John. It seems they were still there when she arrived, but perhaps they had left already. She clearly stood outside the tomb crying for a bit after they were gone.
O. She is still fixated on knowing where the BODYis. It may have been in this case that she didn't even realize they were angels in the moment, only understanding later, after recognizing Jesus.
P. She didn't recognize Jesus here. Since this is a separate event from the Matthew account, there is no conflict. Also, not recognizing Jesus is a recurring theme. Throughout the accounts, Jesus is not recognized until He reveals Himself. Even then, some people are unsure of what's happening.
12. Mark 16:9-11; John 20:15-18
Q. I feel that this is my biggest leap. To maintain coherency with the Mark passage stating that Mary M. was the first to see Jesus, I place the Matthew passage after Mary sees Jesus on her return trip. Although a simple reading of Matthew seems to have the women seeing Jesus on the trip home, this entire section clearly not strictly sequential, as I observed earlier. So, I don't think I'm harming the text to distance this event from the morning events.
R. This is to harmonize with the 1 Cor passage. I have doubts that Paul intended that to be a chronological account. Even if he did, Paul doesn't mention every appearance of Jesus, showing he didn't intend the list to be complete. Given that, it's not a problem that Jesus appeared to the women before Peter. Those just aren't mentioned in the "creed" that Paul is repeating. While it is odd that the Gospels accounts don't give a detailed account of Peter's first encounter, there's no conflict with the event happening.
S. It's interesting the two aren't recorded as saying anything about Mary or the other women seeing Jesus. Walking at a leisurely 2 mph, the seven mile trip would take about 3.5 hours. If evening is around 6 p.m., they left about 2:30 p.m. My question is whether they heard Mary M.'s or the other women's account of seeing Jesus. If not, that implies they left the house shortly after the women first reported seeing the angels, still early in the morning.That also requires that Peter and John (or some others) to have returned to the house before they left. That is interesting, since it my first thought was that Peter and John didn't return right away. If that's so, then perhaps the men had heard the womens' claims of seeing Jesus, but just didn't mention it out on the road, perhaps feeling crazy enough talking about angels and not wanting to mention the even more outrageous claim. Or perhaps Luke just didn't record them mentioning it. While that seems odd at first, it's not inconceivable.
T. The structure of this passage is confusing. It's not clear whether the clause is being spoken by the Emmaus travelers or the disciples. Given the 1 Cor passage, and noting that neither of the travelers was identified as Simon, I interpret it as the disciples talking about Simon Peter. However, it could be the travelers talking about themselves, without difficulty.
U. It seems odd that the group, having proclaimed Jesus a being risen, doesn't believe that the travelers saw Him. Perhaps the group doubted that Jesus would have appeared to the travelers, seemingly "lesser" disciples, before coming to the 11. Or the group, despite their belief, was still struggling, as suggested as still occurring even later in Matthew 28:17. This sort of thing is also seen in Mark 9:24.
V. Mark says they made a report, were doubted, and then Jesus appeared. Luke says as they were talking about these things Jesus appeared. It seems trivial to place them together as I've done to give a slightly more detailed picture of how the events unfolded, eliminating the apparent conflict.
W. Mark, in typical blunt style, says "reproach." Luke, in typical detail, states it less bluntly, but still communicates that Jesus comments on their unbelief, showing His wounds. Which gives a little more details about how Jesus reproached them and reacted to their doubts.
18. Mark 16:14; Luke 24:34-43; John 20:19-23
X. I love this section. I think He did something so incredibly blasé just to help ease the tensions. It also comments directly on His physical manifestation - He wasn't just spirit.
Y. If Thomas was gone, why did Mark state that Jesus appeared to the 11 themselves? Both "11" and "12" and "the disciples" are used as general terms for the primary group of disciples and are not meant to express an exact count of who was where. John does the same thing in 21:14. Also, given Mark's consistent terse writing, it's not surprising that he didn't elaborate on Thomas not being there.
Z. Since Galilee is about 80 miles north of Jerusalem, it seems odd that the disciples would have made the trip. But that round trip is part of the pattern shown in the Gospels of Jesus leading the disciples throughout the area. Traveling up there subsequent to the events in Jerusalem is not so strange as it first seems.
AA. Many people think this is when Jesus appeared to the 500 that Paul mentions.
25. John 20:30-31, 21:25; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:6, 7
BB. This makes clear that the history is not exhaustive, and may imply that various details are not included in the recorded stories.
CC. This was probably given in various forms on multiple occasions. It 's just easier to recount it as a singular event.
DD. Mt. Olivet (the Mount of Olives) was less than 2 miles from Jerusalem proper. In essence, it was a suburb, and going there was not really "leaving" Jerusalem, so there is no conflict between Jesus' command to remain in Jerusalem and His leading the disciples out to Bethany for His ascension.
26. Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 19; Luke 24:44-51; Acts 1:4-9, 12
EE. There is some question about the ascensions, specifically whether John 3:13 conflicts with Heb 11:5 & 2 Kings 2:11. Both Jesus and Nicodemus are assumed to have know the Tanakh (the Old Testament) well, and would likely have recalled those passages during the discussion, which suggests that Jesus meant that what would happen with Him would be different from the cases of Enoch and Elijah. However, I do not know what the distinction is.