Mark - by the secretary of Peter; based on Peter's preaching
Luke - by the companion of Paul; intended as a historical document
We presume, based on data presented in the just-linked article, that the following represents the authorship and purpose of each Gospel, other than as ancient biographies (bioi):
John - by the Apostle; a kerygmatic and missionary presentation
But the question remains: Is it truly realistic and reasonable to expect the kind of certitude that Carmichael implicitly demands from the Gospel writers? Quite frankly, no. As part of our answer, it will be necessary to briefly recap some of the material we have used in an article relative to Gospel authorship - for understanding WHO wrote the trial accounts is a key to understanding WHY they were written as they were.
This, indeed, seems well-agreed to by critics:
There is, however, no clear evidence of a verdict, as we shall see; nor is it clear that any vote taken was unanimous, other than overliteralizing an "all" passage. (In fact, we KNOW that Joseph and Nicodemus at least would have voted against a conviction, so there was probably no violation here. Fricke, rather oddly, suggests that Luke, who makes note of Joseph's dissidence, was trying to "fix up" the other writers' mistakes - ibid., 156. In that case, one wonders how Luke, who is the "least professional" of the evangelists in his reportage of Jewish customs, knew to make the fix, and why he did not fix every other error that was noted.
And now some other relevant objections:
But, Fricke says, these fellows had been "rudely awakened from sleep" and had the night before drunk at least 4 glasses of seder wine each. This, needless to say, is Fricke's own interpretation of events; we will argue that no one involved was rudely awakened, and all were very likely to have been alert, because they knew what was coming and wanted to be ready.
High-quality & not expensive work
However, as Fricke points out immediately after this, the Jewish practice was "(i)n contrast to Roman criminal procedure, (where) the confession of the accused was sufficient." Under all interpretations, Jesus' extracted "confession" was USED by the high priests to convict Him in a Roman court before Pilate. The question by Caiaphas, Kilpatrick recognizes in a similar vein, "was put in order to have grounds for a political charge, to be preferred by Pilate". Whether it was used to convict Him in the Jewish court is another matter.