I consider any disagreements among the Gospel writers to be highly significant historically.
So, if you read all four accounts carefully, you'll notice that none are precisely the same as any other.
That tells me none of those writers knew precisely what happened, or who said what, but were reporting what they supposed most likely happened.
Yes, of course, they generally agree, but if you attempt to impose precise theological doctrines on the gospel texts, you will often find the texts don't always agree with your doctrines.
I consider any disagreements among the Gospel writers to be highly significant historically.
***All 4 Gospel writers agree that Jesus was condemned for Blasphemy. When historians look at the minute details, they find a relative agreement between Mark recording a simple “I am” to Luke recording “I am He. And you shall see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven and seated on the right hand of Power.” Historians don’t have trouble with this, but people who are pushing an agenda do have such trouble.
The key issue here is that the crucifixion is recorded by all 4 gospel writers. All agree that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy. There was no miracle to deny here, so it’s simple and pure history being recorded. Their accounts are reliable when it comes to the crucifixion.
When people view a historical event and write it down, often their accounts might seem to disagree but careful examination of the writings will usually yield a historical harmony that makes sense. Historians do this all the time.
For instance, one of the early church fathers said that the gospel of Mark was written before Peter’s death, and another said it was written afterwards. The easy way to harmonize this is to see that it was started before Peter died and finished after his death.
In fact, if all 4 accounts were precisely in agreement, it would be a sign of forgery.