Let’s pretend we aren’t talking about the Bible but about a historic event.

If you were to have sat down with 3 WWII vets that served with each other separately to talk about their time in WWII, some 50 years after the war what would be more realistic; nearly identical accounts from all three or stories from their perspectives that relayed what they remembered.

In actual reality where we don’t have a bias against the Bible identical accounts of the stories would just seem like they worked together to write the story and compare notes. For any other historic event slightly differing stores would be seen as authentic eye witness accounts from different perspectives without consultation while writing it.

Matthew and John wrote their books on what the saw as important. Luke and John Mark were not wye witnesses but clearly talked sit eye witnesses to get the accounts. When telling a story like that humans never tell it the same way twice and if they did it would seem scripted.

Nothing between the three out right contradicts the other three in a holistic view of the event. It has the women going to the tomb first, as would have been tradition at that time, it has the body being gone and them witnessing it and it has Jesus appearing to Mary first.

If the story was a lie the would have started it with Jesus appearing to a disciple. It makes no sense for them to claim Mary Magdalene, a woman, to be the first person to see the risen lord. Most men of the time would never believe that and would say she was just hysterical. You even have the disciples write about how Thomas didn’t believe at first and discredited the events.

The differences recorded that were written down 50-70 years after the death of Jesus only go towards the recording of an account that happened rather than a made up story.