Apparent Inconsistencies in the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

[Berserk]

1 Corinthians 15:5-6: "He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the 12, then to more than 500 brethren, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

I have explained how the Gospels confirm the sequence: Peter, then the 12. But at first sight the Gospels oddly omit reference to Jesus' numerically most impressive appearance. How can this be reconciled with Paul's tradition? The best answer is Jesus' appearance "to the 11" on a Galilean mountain in Matthew 28:16-20. Here are 4 reasons why:

(1) Matthew expresses no interest in Jesus' other disciples like Nathaniel (John 1:45-51; 21:2) and the 70 (Luke 10:1). In fact, a comparison of the shared sayings of Jesus in the missionary instructions in Matthew 10:1-12 with Luke 10:1-10 suggests that they are 2 variant reports of the same missionary commissioning. This fact opens the door for many more than the 11 being present at the mountain resurrection appearance.
(2) Matthew's account notes that "some doubted (28:17). Jesus' prior Jerusalem appearance to the 11 suggests that followers other than the 11 are included among the doubters.
(3) Paul's tradition does not specify where the appearance to more than 500 occurred. No indoor facility is a viable candidate; and the site must surely have been a recognizable site that every follower could recognize and visit. No Galilean site is better than a mountain such as the mount by the Sea of Galilee where Jesus fed the 5000.
(4) Jesus' promised appearance in Galilee is vague. Where in Galilee? But Matthew's phrase "to the mountain where He had directed them" (28:16) implies that Jesus' instructions were more specific. Jesus first predicts His resurrection appearance in Galilee on the Mount of Olives after the Last Supper (Mark 14:28). The disciples would surely have spread the word of the specific locale for this appearance' so it is understandable why over 500 Galilean followers would show up.

2 more resurrection appearances to go in order to harmonize all the Gospel appearances to the apostles with Paul's list of appearances. Stay tuned.

 

[Berserk]

Let me add a personal note here. When I was a UMC pastor, a parishioner and I joined a tour of the sacred sites in Israel. Before the day when we rode to Capernaum on a replica of a first-century Galilean fishing boat, we stayed overnight in a motel along the east side of the Sea of Galilee across from Tiberias. The lights from Tiberias made the Sea of Galilee shine like a pearl at night. The next morning I noticed the only mountain in the area next to our motel. I then realized that this was the likely mountain where Jesus fed the 5,000 near the sea and was also likely the mountain where the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 followers! I say this for 3 reasons:
(1) John tells us that people from Tiberias noticed that Jesus didn't join His disciples and road across to look for Him in vain (John 6:22-23).
(2) When the disciples had rowed 3 or 4 miles ("25-30 stadia") in troubled water towards Capernaum, Jesus came walking to them on the water (see 6:16-19). That would place them roughly half way to Capernaum. This detail points the mountain by our motel as the only possible starting point! I suddenly felt like I was standing on holy ground.
(3) The alternative, the much smaller traditional site of the Sermon on the Mount, is much too close to Capernaum to qualify.

Early Christians often left inscriptions on sacred sites (e. g. the first century inscription that identifies Peter's house in Capernaum). So I asked our Israeli tour guide if archaeological digs had explored this mountain for buried inscriptions that might have identified it as the site of Jesus' feeding miracle and possibly also of His mountain resurrection appearance. The Israeli guide said No because the mountain was private property. So I thought to myself: "If I could start an archaeological dig anywhere in Israel, I would choose that mountain in the hope of finding evidence identifying it as the sacred Gospel mountain in question.

 

[CoreyD]

You're very welcome. I am an Evangelical, Pentecostal by experience and upbringing. Keep in mind that my thread is merely intended to keep Evangelicals honest about the APPARENT inconsistencies, which I intend to resolve after I refute inadequate proposals. Stay tuned for my posts that sketch out my proposed sequences that remove most of the difficulties.

Here's how I propose to resolve the APPARENT contradiction--go to Galilee vs. stay in Jerusalem:
(1) The disciples brought sufficient food and provisions for the Passover celebrations; so physical necessity likely requires them to return to Galilee to acquire more food (e. g. salted fish) and other provisions through their former livelihoods for their new life in Jerusalem.
(2) Most of Jesus' followers were Galileans, who either didn't go up to Jerusalem for Passover or returned before they could learn about Jesus' resurrection. There is urgent need for the disciples to return to Galilee to share the news of Jesus' resurrection with them.
(3) In a future post I will provide evidence that the disciples' stay in Galilee is just brief enough to accomplish goals (1) and (2) above, thus eliminating the apparent contradiction.

I really am grateful you sent me to read that account. Thanks a lot.
I took my time and read it, and yes it could actually be the same day, or the next, depending on how far into the evening they were before Jesus left.
If Jesus left around sundown, then the men reached Jerusalem the next day, but that's nothing significant, or of importance in this discussion.

Spoiler: Luke 24

Luke 24
13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem.
28 Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther.
29 But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them.
33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,
34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.”
49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.

Spoiler: Matthew 28

Matthew 28
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

I suppose because we are different in our thinking, a person might see a discrepancy when they read those verses, bu I think that might have to do with us.
I don't see a discrepancy, but that may be because I am not looking for any.
Or, it may be that I know that what I hear in conversation between individuals, I can misunderstand, since I don't know all the details.

For example, Tom and John earlier conversed about, where they will find him Matthew 26:32 But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.”, in a few days, and a meeting in an upper room in Jerusalem at a particular time.

I was not there to hear that conversation.
Later, I heard John tell Tom, "Go to Galilee, where you will see me", but then later I heard John tell others, "Do not depart Jerusalem, until what I promised arrives."

I conclude that there is some contradiction, because I don't understand what John is relating to those that understand what John is communicating to his friends, who knows exactly what John is talking to them about.
Perhaps the details I am missing, is the arrangement John made with his friends, for that meeting. So that they know when they were to be not far from the city.

It happens.
Could it happen with those who are reading these words nearly 2,000 years later?
What do you think?

 

[Berserk]

I have defended this integration of Paul's list of the risen Lord's appearances with those in the Gospels:
"He appeared to Cephas (Luke 24:34; John 21:15-23 [editorially relocated]), then to the Twelve (Luke 24:34-49; John 20:19-23). Then He appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died (Matthew 28:16-20)."

The appended Gospel texts are the last 2 resurrection parallels needed to remove the apparent contradictions between Paul's list and the Gospels:
"Then He appeared to James (John 21:1-14), then to all the apostles (John 20:24-29)."

In John 21:1-14 only the Beloved Disciple recognizes Jesus standing on the shore. His recognition is based on Jesus' appearance combined with His voice. Neither Peter nor the other disciples in the boat recognize Jesus. Thus, we are told, "When Peter heard it was the Lord... (21:7)." In other words, Peter recognizes neither Jesus' appearance nor His voice and needs to take the BD's word for it. Even when they join Jesus for breakfast, they seem to doubt that it's Jesus: "None of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are you (21:12)?" Remember, even the disciples on the road to Emmaus don't recognize Jesus during their walk; they recognize Him only through His breaking of the bread. So the risen Jesus apparently looked different than the earthly Jesus. So Paul's tradition recalls this as primarily an appearance to James or a recognition by James.

But I'm reconciling Paul's list with Gospel testimony by assuming that the BD is Kesus' brother James. My next plsnnrf post will present a more comprehensive case for this identification. For now, I'll merely observe that the BD is not John the son of Zebedee. In the list of men in the boat, everyone is named, including "the sons of Zebedee" (James and John), except "2 other disciples." The BD must be 1 of these 2. Why? Because of the many references to the BD or the anonymous disciple in John, this disciple is always distinguished from the named disciples mentioned in the context.

"Then to all the apostles (John 20:24-29):

The use of "all" distinguishes this appearance to the 11 in Jerusalem from the first appearance in Jerusalem when Thomas was absent. Paul can refer to the first appearance as "to the Twelve," even though only 10 were present, because "the Twelve" is a technical way to designate Jesus' bamd of disciples. The 2 Jerusalem appearances are separated by "8+" days ("after 8 days"--20:26). This interval is created by the disciples quick trip to Galilee to summon and join the 500+ Galilean followers on the predesignated mountain for Jesus' appearance. The disciples needed food (salted fish, etc.) for their quick return to Jerusalem to honor Jesus' command in His first appearance to them: "Stay here in the city (14:49)."

 

[Andrewn]

The appended Gospel texts are the last 2 resurrection parallels needed to remove the apparent contradictions between Paul's list and the Gospels: "Then He appeared to James (John 21:1-14),

The appearance in Joh 21 is called the 3rd appearance (v. 14). In what sense is this true according to your chronology?

 

[Berserk]

The appearance in Joh 21 is called the 3rd appearance (v. 14). In what sense is this true according to your chronology?

Good question. The answer is that 21:1-14 is only the 3rd appearance recorded in John.. But the claim that is historically the 3rd is contradictory in several ways:
(1) It contradicts Paul's tradition which lists the appearance to more than 500 as the 3rd appearance.
(2) But suppose we accept his first 2 appearances within roughly 2 weeks at face value. Then 21:1-14 would be the 4th appearance to the male disciples because it would also follow the appearance to the 2 "disciples" on the road to Emmaus. Remember. too that neither Cleopas nor Nathaniel are members of the Twelve.
(3) More seriously, it would leave the apparent contractions between the sequence in Paul's list and the implied Gospel sequence unresolved.
(4) It would create the problem that the Twelve would wait 15 days before letting the many Galilean disciples know that Jesus is risen and that they can see Him at a designated place, this despite the fact that the risen Jesus instructed them to go to Galilee for an appearance before He later told them to await "power from on High" in Jerusalem.
No, we need to recognize that stories about Jesus often circulated independently in Gospel oral tradition, so that the Gospel disagreement about sequences extends beyond resurrection accounts. So detective work is needed to reconstruct the original sequence of resurrection appearances.

 

[Andrewn]

No, we need to recognize that stories about Jesus often circulated independently in Gospel oral tradition, so that the Gospel disagreement about sequences extends beyond resurrection accounts. So detective work is needed to reconstruct the original sequence of resurrection appearances.

How about Christ's appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, mother of James and Joses (Mat 28:8-10)? I don't remember you mentioning this in your chronology. Did the Lord appear to Peter before or after this appearance? There are 4 appearances before the appearance to the Eleven in the Upper Room: Mary Magdalene, the two Maries, the Emmaus-goers, and Peter. What is their sequence?

Then what is the sequence of the appearances at Lake Tiberius, the 500 on the Mount, to James, the 2nd Upper Room appearance, and the Ascension? You probably answered this already, but it will be nice to recap briefly.

 

[Berserk]

JESUS' BROTHER JAMES AS THE BD: HID IDENTITY IN 21:7

(1) The anonymous follower of John the Baptist (1:40): John the Baptist and Jesus' brothers are relatives and ancient Jewish Christian tradition says that Jesus' brothers ask Jesus to join them to be baptized by John.

(2) The anonymous disciple is not mentioned again until he is identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" at the Last Supper. Prior to that, Jesus' brothers were hostile to His ministry (e. g. John 7:5). It would be highly pompous for him to refer to himself that way, especially since Jesus loved all His disciples. So this is a technical phrase adapted from Psalm 47:4:

"He chose our heritage for us, the pride of JACOB WHOM HE LOVED. THE Lord has ascended with a shout."

"James" is of course "Jacob in both Hebrew and Greek and the Last Supper marks the beginning of the ascent motif in John (13:1; 20:17. lohn has just applied the nearby Pslam 41:17 to Kudas' betrayal in 13:18.

(3) The BD at the Last Supper (13:24-25)
In the Gospel of Hebrews Jesus' brother James plays a prominent role at the Last Supper. This suggests his recen conversion.

(4) The BD follows the arresting mob and is known to the High Priest (18:15-16).
Only 2 disciples from the Last Supper follow the arresting mob, Peter and the BD.
The "young man" in Mark 14:51-52 has his "linen robe' grabbed by a soldier. James is famous for his white robe and patristic tradition identifies this "young man" as Jesus' brother James. James asks the high priest's servant to open the door of the high priest's palace for Peter. James is famous for spending so much time on his knees in the Temple that he would be recognized by the high priest.

(5) The BD at the cross: Jesus identifies him as the son of His own mother (19:25-26) and therefore as Jesus' brother. Later, as expected, Mary is in the company not of John the son of Zebedee, but of Jesus' brothers (Acts 1:14).

(6) Though first to the tomb, the BD waits for Peter to enter the tomb first (20:2-8).
Why didn't the BD enter the tomb? Because James is a Nazirite and Nazirites take a vow to avoid "contamination" from a corpse.

(7) Only the BD initially recognizes the risen Jesus on the shore (21:2, 7).
The only way this account fits Paul's sequence is if the BD is James. In the Fourth Gospel the BD is always distinguished from the named disciples around him. So in 21:2 the BD must be 1 of the "2 other [unnamed[ disciples" and is distinguished from "the sons of Zebedee." Therefore, he can't be John.

(8) In the dislocated 21:15-23, the BD follows Peter and Jesus apparently at a great distance and neither recognizes the risen Jesus nor participates in their conversation (21:20-22). The rehabilitating appearance to Peter is Jesus' first appearance to; the apostles (so Paul).

 

[Berserk]

A logical sequence that reconciles Paul's list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 with those in our Gospels has now been established in a way that accounts for every Gospel resurrection story. But there remain 2 loose ends after the logical resolution of the many apparent inconsistencies involving the women at the tomb that seemingly defy reconciliation.

(1) In Luke 24:22-23 the women at the tomb report to the disciples that they have seen angels, but by implication not Jesus.

"When they [the women] did not find His body, the came back and told us that they had seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive."

But Matthew 28:8-10 and John 20:11-18 report their encounter with the risen Jesus right after their angelic vision.

(2) In John 20:1-10 neither the women nor Peter and the Beloved Disciple see angels on their initial visits to the tomb.
But Matthew 28:1-7 paints a picture of the women experiencing an earthquake and encountering an angel in dazzling white who rolls back the stone while the guards at the tomb lie paralyzed with fear.

Put your detective cap on and identify a way of reconciling these 2 apparent inconsistencies and then I'll chime in with a new post.

 

[Derf]

A logical sequence that reconciles Paul's list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 with those in our Gospels has now been established in a way that accounts for every Gospel resurrection story. But there remain 2 loose ends after the logical resolution of the many apparent inconsistencies involving the women at the tomb that seemingly defy reconciliation.

(1) In Luke 24:22-23 the women at the tomb report to the disciples that they have seen angels, but by implication not Jesus.

"When they [the women] did not find His body, the came back and told us that they had seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive."

But Matthew 28:8-10 and John 20:11-18 report their encounter with the risen Jesus right after their angelic vision.

(2) In John 20:1-10 neither the women nor Peter and the Beloved Disciple see angels on their initial visits to the tomb.
But Matthew 28:1-7 paints a picture of the women experiencing an earthquake and encountering an angel in dazzling white who rolls back the stone while the guards at the tomb lie paralyzed with fear.

Put your detective cap on and identify a way of reconciling these 2 apparent inconsistencies and then I'll chime in with a new post.

If you read carefully, Matthew says nothing about the women seeing the stone being rolled away.

 

[Berserk]

If you read carefully, Matthew says nothing about the women seeing the stone being rolled away.

So? What are you saying the women in Matthew's version saw?

 

[Berserk]

First, let's solve the mystery of @Derf. Hi "Fred!"

(1) Source Criticism can remove the apparent inconsistency created by the story of the guards at the tomb. Matthew copies Mark and blends in with it his own special source M, from which he takes the story of the guards at the tomb, which is found only in Matthew.
Matthew inserts the story of the women at the tomb (28:1, 5-10) between his M material about the story of the guards (28:2-4, 11-15). So the contradiction is removed by realizing that the women never encounter the guards at the tomb and thus never share in the guards' terrifying encounter with the angel rolling back the stone and sitting on it. The correct sequence can now be identified.
(2) The guards are spooked by the angel and run to report what happened to the chief priests.
(3) Peter returns home alone and sees the risen Jesus en route. But the BD ("the young man" in the white robe of Mark 14:51-52 and 16:5-7) remains behind to tell the waiting women that Jesus is risen and that they should go, tell the disciples that Jesus will appear to them in Galilee just as He previously had previously predicted on the Mount of Olives (14:28).
(4) Then the BD leaves. But the women tell no one (16:8) because they don't trust the BD's claim and they fear ridicule.
Instead, they wait for the slower Mary's return, at which time they encounter 2 angels at the tomb, who reinforce the BD's message.
(5) It takes the angelic reinforcement to induce the women to obey the BD's instruction and report the news to the disciples. They return from the tomb together (Luke 24:9-10).
(6) Matthew knows the tradition of 2 angels instructing the women at the tomb, but misidentifies "the young man" at the tomb as an angel, the same angel who had terrorized the guards. His misidentification solves the mystery of 1 vs. 2 angels at the tomb.

 

[Derf]

I meant to post this last night. It doesn't address your post from today, although I agree with some of what you wrote there.

So? What are you saying the women in Matthew's version saw?

It doesn't say the women saw the angel descend or roll the stone away, and the other gospels all day the stone was rolled away before they got there.

That testimony in Matthew is unique, but it gives clues as to where it came from:
Matthew 28:2-4 KJV — And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Later in the chapter there's another reference to the soldiers:
Matthew 28:11 KJV — Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
Only "the keepers" or "the watch" would know that second part, especially where it goes on to say they were bribed to say it was the disciples who removed the body, when THEY SAW the angel; THEY SAW the women go into they tomb. They verified that the body was gone and told the chief priests. I believe that one of the soldiers became a believer and told this episode to Matthew later, including confessing to taking the bribe.

 

[Derf]

First, let's solve the mystery of @Derf. Hi "Fred!"

(1) Source Criticism can remove the apparent inconsistency created by the story of the guards at the tomb. Matthew copies Mark and blends in with it his own special source M, from which he takes the story of the guards at the tomb, which is found only in Matthew.
Matthew inserts the story of the women at the tomb (28:1, 5-10) between his M material about the story of the guards (28:2-4, 11-15). So the contradiction is removed by realizing that the women never encounter the guards at the tomb and thus never share in the guards' terrifying encounter with the angel rolling back the stone and sitting on it. The correct sequence can now be identified.
(2) The guards are spooked by the angel and run to report what happened to the chief priests.

This makes sense.

(3) Peter returns home alone and sees the risen Jesus en route. But the BD ("the young man" in the white robe of Mark 14:51-52 and 16:5-7) remains behind to tell the waiting women that Jesus is risen and that they should go, tell the disciples that Jesus will appear to them in Galilee just as He previously had previously predicted on the Mount of Olives (14:28).
(4) Then the BD leaves. But the women tell no one (16:8) because they don't trust the BD's claim and they fear ridicule.
Instead, they wait for the slower Mary's return, at which time they encounter 2 angels at the tomb, who reinforce the BD's message.
(5) It takes the angelic reinforcement to induce the women to obey the BD's instruction and report the news to the disciples. They return from the tomb together (Luke 24:9-10).
(6) Matthew knows the tradition of 2 angels instructing the women at the tomb, but misidentifies "the young man" at the tomb as an angel, the same angel who had terrorized the guards. His misidentification solves the mystery of 1 vs. 2 angels at the tomb.

This is where you lose me. There's no reason to discredit the text ("misidentification") to push your pet theory. Better far to drop your pet theory and trust the text.

 

[Derf]

First, let's solve the mystery of @Derf. Hi "Fred!"

Hi!
But my name's not Fred. See? Pet theories need to be discarded when they don't fit all the facts.

 

[Berserk]

This makes sense.

This is where you lose me. There's no reason to discredit the text ("misidentification") to push your pet theory. Better far to drop your pet theory and trust the text.

(1) Matthew identifies "the young man" inside the tomb as an angel and has him mouth the words that the young man" spoke the women..
But this is likely the same unidentified "young man" as the very human "young man" ("neaniskos" in both cases) who follows Jesus after His arrest in Gethsemane.
I have argued that this is the BD who remains at the tomb after discovering it empty to tell the women to send the disciples to Galilee for an appearance.
(2) The women don't find the human BD's claim credible and disobey his instruction (Mark 16:7). But they do obey the later instructions from 2 angels to tell the disciples that Jesus is alive. The women see the 2 angels only after Mary Magdalene returns after notifying Peter and the BD.
(3) This sequence is needed to solve the contradiction created by Luke and John's specification of 2 angels at the tomb vs. Matthew's only 1.

 

[Derf]

(1) Matthew identifies "the young man" inside the tomb as an angel and has him mouth the words that the young man" spoke the women..

Right.

But this is likely the same unidentified "young man" as the very human "young man" ("neaniskos" in both cases) who follows Jesus after His arrest in Gethsemane.

You have no reason to believe this except that you want it to be so. This clouds your ability to look at the text for other options.

I have argued that this is the BD who remains at the tomb after discovering it empty to tell the women to send the disciples to Galilee for an appearance.
(2) The women don't find the human BD's claim credible and disobey his instruction (Mark 16:7). But they do obey the later instructions from 2 angels to tell the disciples that Jesus is alive. The women see the 2 angels only after Mary Magdalene returns after notifying Peter and the BD.
(3) This sequence is needed to solve the contradiction created by Luke and John's specification of 2 angels at the tomb vs. Matthew's only 1.

#3 is not contradictory. It is only different in reported numbers of angels. Such difference can be attributed to either the story tellers (two or more of the women, so one might have been more vague than the other(s)), or the story hearers (specifically Matthew or Mark) who didn't hear how many angels there were and focused on just the talking Angel's role.

If my brother and I were counting police cars going by at night and reporting them to my father in the morning, I might have only noticed 1 police car, while my brother noticed 2. We each tell Father what we saw and our testimonies would differ, but would not be contradictory (I might have slept through one of the cars passing by).

Then when Father tells Mother that the kids saw a police car (or cars), she might think either one or two. When we each give our own version of the number, she might want to be sure she doesn't overstate the number to the neighbor, who slept through the whole thing, so she just says "A police car drove by last night."

So, after all that, can you tell exactly how many police cars drove by that night, being assured that everyone that related a number was telling the truth?

 

[Berserk]

Right.

You have no reason to believe this except that you want it to be so. This clouds your ability to look at the text for other options.

On the contrary, the fact that both "neaniskoi" are anonymous and known by their linen robe suggests that they are the same young man.
The movement of Jesus' entourage from the Last Supper to the Mount of Olives to Gethsemane suggests that the "young man" in Mark 14:51-52 was at the Last supper. Patristic testimony identifies "the young man" as Jesus' brother James and the Gospel of Hebrews locates Jesus' brother James at the Last Supper. I have provided detailed evidence that this "young man" was the BD, who in turn was James and you have provided no answer to this detailed evidence.

My harmonization removes the otherwise serious contradiction between 1 vs. 2 angels at the tomb, and your view does not.
Worse, your view leaves unresolved the contradiction between Matthew and Mark in the women's reaction to the instruction to send the disciples to Galilee to see the risen Jesus:

"So they (the women) left the tomb QUICKLY AND RAN to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:8)."
"And they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid (Mark 16:8)."

P.S. can it be that you didn't realize that "derf" is "Fred" spelt backwards?

 

[Derf]

On the contrary, the fact that both "neaniskoi" are anonymous and known by their linen robe suggests that they are the same young man.
The movement of Jesus' entourage from the Last Supper to the Mount of Olives to Gethsemane suggests that the "young man" in Mark 14:51-52 was at the Last supper. Patristic testimony identifies "the young man" as Jesus' brother James and the Gospel of Hebrews locates Jesus' brother James at the Last Supper. I have provided detailed evidence that this "young man" was the BD, who in turn was James and you have provided no answer to this detailed evidence.

My harmonization removes the otherwise serious contradiction between 1 vs. 2 angels at the tomb,

Bit it introduces a more serious contradiction...that Matthew's gospel has inaccuracies. As long as you're willing to say that one or more of the gospels has inaccurate information, you are admitting that some of the gospel accounts are not trustworthy, in which case there's no need to iron out inconsistencies. The whole reason people try to find inconsistencies is because they want to discredit the story of Jesus's death and resurrection. You're doing that job for them

and your view does not.
Worse, your view leaves unresolved the contradiction between Matthew and Mark in the women's reaction to the instruction to send the disciples to Galilee to see the risen Jesus:

"So they (the women) left the tomb QUICKLY AND RAN to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:8)."
"And they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid (Mark 16:8)."

Those statements fit perfectly together. They were afraid to tell anyone besides the disciples, who they ran quickly to tell.

P.S. can it be that you didn't realize that "derf" is "Fred" spelt backwards?

Nope.

 

[Berserk]

Those statements fit perfectly together. They were afraid to tell anyone besides the disciples, who they ran quickly to tell.

Only your inerrantist agenda could induce this absurd statement. Mark says, "The women said nothing to ANYONE, for they were afraid," and then Mark's Gospel ends. What is it about the all-inclusive term "anyone" that you don't understand? It obviously includes the disciples, especially since the Gospel ends there. No one would expect the women to delay their race to the disciples to explain to perfect strangers passing by what they have just heard. So no academic commentary on Mark even entertains such a trivial suggestion!

Derf: "Bit it introduces a more serious contradiction...that Matthew's gospel has inaccuracies. As long as you're willing to say that one or more of the gospels has inaccurate information, you are admitting that some of the gospel accounts are not trustworthy, in which case there's no need to iron out inconsistencies."

Duh! In other words, find one error and you can conclude the Resurrection never happened! Besides, Matthew and Luke report angels at the tomb greeting the women on their arrival. That already contradicts John in which the women find the tomb empty. The original circulation of detached resurrection stories in oral tradition inviters honest seekers who believe in the Resurrection to search for ways to integrate these stories into a credible sequence.

The whole reason people try to find inconsistencies is because they want to discredit the story of Jesus's death and resurrection. You're doing that job for them

The issue is not whether the Gospels are inerrant, but (1) the extent to which the Gospels are credible witnesses and (2) the extent to which they support Paul's list of appearances in 1 Cor. 15, which we know from Galatians Paul confirmed with the eyewitnesses. Bibliolatry is the enemy of honest and open inquiry into the Truth, especially the Truth of the Resurrection.