Far less myself, you surely don’t expect even Biblical scholars to answer your questions in the context of a blog or internet thread without providing an enormous back-up of interpretative materials. The sources are all there for you to consult. I’ve recommended that your read two books by BXVI “The Apostles” and “On the Way To Jesus Christ.” (OWJC)
Indeed, on the issue of proof, Ratzinger has unbelieving individuals like you in mind (OWJC at pp.87-88) where he alludes to the First Temptation of Christ to “prove” himself and again in Matthew 27:40 the demand made by one of the thieves, “If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross’
These books are not easy reading. Ratzinger essays all the major philosophical, biblical, and historical tracts in support of his arguments and refutations reminiscent of a “theological Einstein” or what TIME magazine called a “walking theological encyclopaedia.” In the Bordleian Library in Oxford, (where I studied) , the treatise of Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” is placed alongside the Bible for its profound scholarship and riveting theological insights.
You point to variations in narrative as “mutually exclusive” but do not specify the nature of the doctrinal exclusivity you seek to advance. Biblical accounts, usages, phrases, differences in oral traditions, translations, text and hypertext are not the common stock of contemporary readers understanding a modern account of events.
I could just as easily direct you to scholars whom you would find disagreeable. Spouting name is either a stalling tactic or a feeble defense of one's convictions insufficiently thought through and digested.
My variations point to mutually exclusive claims as to whom Jesus allegedly appeared first, when, where and how he did that. There is no doctrinal issue here. Just mutually exclusive and unsupported "witness." accounts.
Doctrinally tricky and made-up biblical verses are also plentiful, but these are not the subject of the discussion.