It’s not a matter of inerrancy but inconsistency and contradiction. It wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. So many failures from authors alleged to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
If you are interested in conformity between the accounts, you might check this version: newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm . It is not definitive, but it is one of the possible versions.
Here is an outline of a possible harmony of the Evangelists’ account concerning the principal events of Easter Sunday:
•The holy women carrying the spices previously prepared start out for the sepulchre before dawn, and reach it after sunrise; they are anxious about the heavy stone, but know nothing of the official guard of the sepulchre (Matthew 28:1-3; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
It’s a stretch to say that the women left when dark and got there when light, since in John it states that it was dark and that Mary Magdalene arrived at the sepulchre in the same sentence. Still it’s minor and if it was the only flaw in the narrative we could let it go.
•The angel frightened the guards by his brightness, put them to flight, rolled away the stone, and seated himself not upon (ep autou), but above (epano autou) the stone (Matthew 28:2-4).
None of the other Gospels make any mention of an earthquake or an angel sitting upon the stone. They mentioned the stone but don’t seem to think it’s important that an angel was sitting on it.
•Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome approach the sepulchre, and see the stone rolled back, whereupon Mary Magdalen immediately returns to inform the Apostles (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1-2).
If these three women were together, why does John not mention either the other Mary or Salome? Why does Matthew not mention Salome? I’ll get to Luke below.
•The other two holy women enter the sepulchre, find an angel seated in the vestibule, who shows them the empty sepulchre, announces the Resurrection, and commissions them to tell the disciples and Peter that they shall see Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7).
Matthew 28 makes no mention of Mary Magdalene leaving. He only mentions that the two Marys arrived and then spoke to the angel on the stone. He then says the “women” left (of which Matthew says there were two). Mark 16 also makes no mention of Mary Magdalene leaving.
•A second group of holy women, consisting of Joanna and her companions, arrive at the sepulchre, where they have probably agreed to meet the first group, enter the empty interior, and are admonished by two angels that Jesus has risen according to His prediction (Luke 24:10).
Supposedly there was a second group of women, despite the other Gospel writers making no mention of them. More interesting is that the apologist states that “they have probably agreed to meet the first group”. Not only does the apologist have to construct two groups but also a meet-up to try to have it makes sense. Perhaps the authors at NewAdvent.org should take seriously the calls in the Bible not to add to scripture. But this wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen a believer do so in order to advance a desired narrative.
•Mary Magdalen returns to the sepulchre, sees first two angels within, and then Jesus Himself (John 20:11-16; Mark 16:9).
Mark 16 doesn’t say that Mary Magdalene returned to the sepulchre and that’s where she saw Jesus. It doesn’t say that she saw the two angels. It does say she was one of three women that saw a single man in a white robe (not two angels) in the tomb. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that Mark 16:9-20 appears to have been a later addition to the scriptures. John 20 doesn’t say she saw the man in the white robe.
•The two groups of pious women, who probably met on their return to the city, are favored with the sight of Christ arisen, who commissions them to tell His brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:8).
Again, there is no mention in any of the Gospels of two groups of women or a meeting up between said groups. Revelation 22:18 is still in effect, right?
The harmony of the other apparitions of Christ after His Resurrection presents no special difficulties.
“No special difficulties”? If the apologist bent over backwards any more he could join Cirque de Soleil.
All narratives agree on the key witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Mary Magdalene, Peter), agree on the angels appearing to the women, agree on Jesus appearing to all the Apostles, eventually. The disagreement you are talking about is about the consequence of events.
It doesn’t agree on the parties involved, how many angels, whether there was an earthquake, whether the women spoke to no one or told the 11.
It’s like three people telling a wedding story. One of them says the bride and groom made it on time. One says the bride and groom were late but luckily Paul McCartney happened by and drove them to the chapel, then later played with the wedding band at the reception. A third says the bride and groom were late but the bride’s uncle picked them up. They’re contradictory and two of them don’t mention something amazing that happened. By this logic we can assume the stories to be true because they all involve the bride and groom getting married.
Christians often lament why non-Christians often don’t take to their faith. It’s things like this where the tales don’t make sense and the rationalizations make even less sense.