There is no real comparison between gospel tales multiplied loaves and resurrection accounts. Latter are scattered and less consistent with a clear tradition.
Here’s a clear way to unpack that idea:
1. Feeding miracles (e.g., multiplying loaves)
These appear multiple times in the Synoptic Gospels, with two major versions: the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000. The accounts are highly parallel, following very similar structure, wording, and sequence. Because they are so closely aligned, scholars often treat them as examples of shared traditional material—possibly stemming from a common source or strong oral tradition.
The way the writer thinks it is two separate cases of feeding shows that legend was shaping the stories.
2. Resurrection narratives
Are much less uniform across the Gospels. Each Gospel includes the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, but the details, chronology, and characters vary significantly. Different women at the tomb. Different angelic messengers - Mark hinting that they were not angels at all. Different order and location of appearances. Different narrative emphases (e.g., Matthew’s earthquake and guards, Luke’s Emmaus, John’s Thomas episode). Because the accounts diverge more and are less tightly paralleled, they feel more scattered compared to the near-duplicate feeding stories.
There's no real comparison. The feeding miracles look like traditional, formulaic miracle stories preserved in consistent forms, whereas the resurrection narratives look like multiple independent traditions trying to describe the same bewildering event from different angles. Many scholars would agree that these two categories function differently in the Gospel tradition. The messing would indicate that imagination was taking its toll on the gospel writers.