Rather than ask "How can this be reconciled?", perhaps the better question is "What should we conclude from this discrepancy?"
The two accounts are from different authors, writing at different times and/or different places, with neither of them basing their accounts on direct or recent eye-witness experiences.
I haven't done serious research on this myself, but I gather from seeing numerous discussions, here at EvC and elsewhere, that the earliest NT writings date from a least 50 years after the purported death and resurrection of Christ. It seems entirely normal and expected that oral accounts would diverge over that sort of time span. Indeed, two different perceptions/reports of the supposed events could easily have arisen very soon after they occurred.
Presumably, at least one of the authors was padding the account with "details" for which there was never any firm evidence. It could be that both accounts contain one or more fabrications (or, to put it another way, different versions of some original fabrication).
What a shame that the Abrahamic religions have held such a fanatical insistence on maintaining and promulgating "sacred texts" entirely as-is, with no intention of assessing, let alone correcting, apparent mistakes.
It should be pretty obvious that the bible is not perfect, the various assertions of so many "holy men" notwithstanding. On the whole, their attempts to justify claims of perfection, in spite of the obvious inconsistencies, are ridiculous.
Even if we grant that it's all "God breathed" or "inspired" or whatever, nonetheless the text seems to show pretty clearly how the deity itself is prone to reassess its actions from time to time, and apply some "course corrections" now and then... At least, that's what a reasonable observer would have to conclude from the overall narrative.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2