This study is an examination that the relationship between the fleeing youth (Mark 14:51-52) and the youth announcing Jesus' resurrection (Mk. 16:5) effects the additions and deletions in Matthew and Luke. Based on the hypothesis of “Marcan Priority," the identities of the youths are established in this study. Based on philologizing patristic testimonies, traditional theories that the youth in 14:51 is identified with St. James the Just, St. John the Apostle, and St. Mark Evangelist are rebutted. And, it is proclaimed that Mark has a lexical cohesion between 14:51-52, 15:42-47 and 16:1-8 by the evidence of neaniskos (youth), sindon (linen cloth), and periballo (wear). As a result, on the basis of reading that a certain neaniskos casts off a sindon representing “death," it is clear that the neaniskos reappears while wearing a white robe representing “eternal life" against “death." Therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that the two neaniskoi are regarded as St. Peter because St. Peter was the first eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor.15: 3-8. Meanwhile, it is observed that the plot of Mark consists of two temporal systems: i.e. one is represented as a line between the origin and end, and the other is based on the causality between the forenotice and the fulfillment of Jesus' Resurrection. As a result of semasiologically criticizing the connotation of “resurrect," the denotation's distinction between egeiro and anistemi establishes Mark's logical structure as follows: [(10:38)∧(14:36)⊃(1:9)] ∧[(1:9)⊃(15:25)]∧[(15:37-38)≡(1:10-11)] / [(16:1-8)⊃(1:35-36)]. Therefore, the absence of Jesus Resurrection story in Mark is fulfilled in 1:35-36 by the re-reading system. Then, the Synoptic Gospels have a common sense that those who rise up from the dead are as the angels that are in heaven (Mk.12: 25, Mt. 22:30, Lk. 20:34-36). This common sense explains the reason for the mutual omission of Mk. 14:51-52 in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the author adds “the Saints' R