Interrogation of an Apostle

I believe that inconsistency between the gospels and even omissions support the validity of the witnesses. In court if four testimonies were exactly the same the judge would not allow them as evidence because they were most likely corroborated. The testimonies of the four gospels should have minor differences for the same reason that a college professor doesn’t get multiple identical essays unless some of the students have cheated.

swensenpower writes: I believe that inconsistency between the gospels and even omissions support the validity of the witnesses.

Identical stories might suggest collusion but inconsistencies don't necessarily indicate accuracy. Where they disagree, how do you know which version (if any) is true?

We know of considerable copying in the Synoptic Gospels (usually held to be material copied from Mark in Matthew and Luke, and material from another, lost, source copied into both Matthew and Luke, although other scenarios are possible).

Any consideration of the differences between the Gospels needs to take this into account. The superficial approach if labelling the differences "minor" and simply asserting that they are evidence of accuracy is hopelessly inadequate, and ignores the reality of the texts.