The Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish law require confirming details of at least two witnesses in a court of law. Would the descriptions of Jesus last hours as found in the four canonical Gospels meet that standard?
Christians argue that the four passion accounts in the four Gospels are analogous to four eyewitnesses to a car crash: there might be discrepancies in the minor details among the four eyewitnesses but the primary facts will be consistent.
But do the four passion accounts agree on the primary facts? I guess it would depend on what you consider a “primary” fact. Yes, all four Gospels allege that Jesus was arrested, tried, crucified, placed in Arimathea’s tomb, and three days later, the tomb was found empty.
But what would a Jewish court of law think if each of the four alleged eyewitnesses claimed that the last words of the dying victim of the crash were something completely different? What if three eyewitnesses said the event in question happened on one day while one says it happened on another? What if one eyewitness claimed that the event was accompanied by an eclipse, earthquake, and the rising of the dead, yet the other eyewitnesses do not mention these events in their statements? What if one eyewitness reports that the victim of the accident is first seen shortly after the accident by his male fishing buddies in a distant region of the country, another eyewitness reports that the victim of the accident is first seen by his male fishing buddies in the same region as the accident, a third eyewitness alleges that the victim was spotted in both regions but under very different circumstances, and the fourth eyewitness says absolutely nothing about appearances of the deceased victim to anyone after the accident?
Are such major discrepancies consistent with what one finds among eyewitnesses to a car crash?
I am dubious.
I will bet that a first century Jewish court would throw this case out due to a lack of corroboration between at least two alleged eyewitnesses.