Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Aractus]

Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

Well, no you're incorrect. Historians look at ancient texts and ponder upon what the original wording might have been as well as what the author is witnessing and when he wrote the original, etc. With NT Biblical studies the first part is made much easier as there is little textual difference between the early and reliable manuscripts of the books themselves.

Some of the events appear in multiple books of the Bible - written down and recorded separately - and Biblical Scholars are very interested in these as it gives them as close to absolute certainty on certain events as is possible. You only get this for some of the Bible of course, if you were to only keep the material that the most sceptical scholars are "certain of" then you'd have a very short Bible.

So having the same event written down by more than one witness is a great thing. Witness statements never match 100% - ask any cop.

The fact that Jesus stands trial before Pilate is considered very reliable by sceptical scholars (eg Ehram).

Now, as you said the witnesses could potentially be writing about an event unrelated to its apparent meaning. You can't prove a negative though, so it's a moot point. You can claim "until I see proof otherwise, this was a different Pilate and he was in a play", but that would hardly make you right - much less likely to be right.

Generally speaking though, small disagreements like this are what historians look for to verify separate accounts and not a parroting of the same account.