What I do find interesting, but in a positive way, is that the Gospel writers did not always agree on what happened with any particular narrative. An example is when the women visited Jesus' tomb, saw and heard the angel(s), and then returned to tell the men. "Problem" is that no two Gospel accounts match.
When still in high school back in the early 60's [that's the
1960's btw], my mother bought me a book through our Lutheran church entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels", which I did read. But what I quickly noticed is that these narratives all so often didn't exactly match. OK, if they're supposedly "Divinely inspired", then why don't they match? So, I saw this as a weakness-- at first.
But over some time I began to realize that this actually was more a strength than a weakness for the vadity of the scriptures. Here's why:
What it showed me is that there was no attempt by the authors and by the early Church to change their wording to match a single source, of which "Aramaic Matthew" hypothetically might have been [if you have a copy of it, please let me know, OK?
]. It's sorta like "I heard it a little differently than Apostle X did, so I'm gonna tell you what I heard". IOW, there wasn't a conspiracy of sorts to make it all uniform. To me, that's a strength.
So, back to the visitation at the tomb: Even though the details differ from Gospel to Gospel, the general narratives are the same: some of the women went to Jesus' tomb, saw that he wasn't there, was told by an angel or angels that he had risen, and then went to tell the men.