We will take a closer look at harmonizing the Resurrection narratives, using relevant literary principles. We must understand the text in light of the various cultural and literary factors:

• The Gospel writers did not have unlimited paper and ink at their disposal; this was expensive stuff. The Resurrection narratives were at the end of their works, so they were constrained to be as succinct as possible in their reportage.
• A second factor is precision writing in the ancient East. Easterners offer what we call "misstatements" which "are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive... The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered."
• The oral nature of the original material. Variations in oral tradition in no way contradict the idea of Scriptural inspiration and truthfulness. There is no indication that such variations were considered "erroneous" by the ancients, under whose paradigms we are compelled to work here.
• John's Gospel we see as having been written as a sort of supplement to Mark. Hence we expect John to report things that Mark does not, purposely, in order to fill gaps.

The first verses bring a series of questions, which are answerable in light of the principles outlined:

What time did they go?
The times are read as, "as it began to dawn," "very early in the morning," and "when it was yet dark". All of these are subjective readings that are fully capable of describing the pre-dawn twilight just before the sun peeks over the horizon. In an era before precision clocks for all but the wealthy, this is hardly an issue.

Who went?
We have Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; we have those two plus Salome; we have those two plus Joanna and unnamed "others"; we have Mary Magdalene, though obviously not alone. No one list excludes any other; none speaks of these being the only persons to travel to the tomb. Anointing the dead was considered women's work; a composite party is not at all unlikely.

Each writer chose women representative of the party, based perhaps on their own knowledge or on that of their audience. Mary Magdalene appears in all four accounts; this suggests her prominence in the tradition. It is likely that she had the strongest, most detailed testimony of all the women.

Why did they go?
John does not specify; Luke and Mark agree that it was for burial issues, leaving only Matt's "see the sepulchre" claim. The reason for the difference: To polemically stand against the controlling "stolen body" apologetic. To note that they came to do burial work is to allow an inroad for the charge of a stolen body. In the high context of the ancient world, it would have been recognized that they could be going to the tomb for no other purpose than to perform burial services.

The Angels
Mark's "young man" is one of the angels; the phrase was used elsewhere to describe angels, so that there is no contradiction of identity. The differences in the message reported and in the variably described reactions of the women are readily attributable to oral tradition variations.

Why shouldn't Paul name all the women witnesses? He went all out in 1 Corinthians 15...
Paul was not "going all out" to name witnesses; the creed was meant to show that the leaders of the church, and the church at large, had witnessed the resurrected Jesus. Furthermore, he was trying to correct false ideas about what sort of body a resurrection body would be, using the apostolic witness to the "real" body of Jesus as an example.

According to Mark and Luke, the women came to the tomb in order to anoint the body... why would they have done that if they saw how the body was laid?
The spices brought by Nicodemus and Joseph were the sort that came in blocks, and were laid beside the body -- they were not the sort of spices one "anointed" with.