Many Jesus Mythicists point out differences between the canonical Gospels as evidence for why they can’t be treated as history. This could be differences among the Synoptic Gospels or differences between the Synoptics and John.
This is a weak argument.
The ironic thing is that some Mythicists and Christian Apologists are looking at the data in the same way. That is why some apologists spend so much time trying to harmonize the Gospels (e.g. See two cleanings of the Temple to harmonize the Synoptics and John).
I think both are mistaken. There is no problem with the differences between them and no ancient writer would have dismissed them as historical sources for these differences.
In addition, contemporary historians of antiquity do not dismiss sources if there are some differences in detail. Any time we have multiple witnesses to the same event, we have differences of detail. That is how both history and biography were written.
Are there differences between the Gospels? Yes.
Is this a problem for accepting the historicity of Jesus? Absolutely not.
