It is you who has nothing. Simon Greenleaf, writing 140 years ago, despite his legal training, shows himself to be just another apologist. A believer trying to erase the contradictions so evident in the passages describing the so-called resurrection. The only way he can do this is by using "premises" and assumptions, nevermind that "great earthquake" for which there is no record.
In the second paragraph under the heading The Time, we can read "To harmonize this apparent discrepancy, we may premise". Sure, you can 'premise' anything you wish in an attempt to harmonize the stories.
Second paragraph under the heading The Number of the Women, we see another assumption, one which has zero support outside of the Gospel. John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, sees fit to mention only Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Ooop, I erred, that's two assumptions - the author of the Gospel of John being "personally connected" and that the author didn't need to name any other person present before the tomb.
When Greenleaf has no explanation for an obvious contradiction, he just brushes it away. The Vision of Angels in the Sepulchre. Of this John says nothing. Matthew and Mark speak of one angel; Luke of two. Mark says he was sitting; Luke speaks of them as standing. This difference in respect to numbers is parallel to the case of the women, which we have just considered; and requires therefore no further illustration. "Yep, can't illustrate it so it ain't there."
Mr Greenleaf makes a valiant effort to find harmonization between the four accounts but there are just too many suppositions and assumptions, owing of course to the ever so small fact that Greenleaf was a True Believer. As we see with those of similar faith in these forums, Greenleaf could twist and squirm and create a whole new story using some very nice words, all in an attempt to justify what he knew was true before he even started his defence. Contradictions not allowed.
Simon Greenleaf is seen as one of the leading legal scholars of the 19th Century, author/editor of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and a professor of law at Harvard University.