"Surface discrepancies do not mean that nothing happened. Indeed, they are a remarkable indication that something remarkable happened, so remarkable that the first witnesses were bewildered into telling different stories about it."
Critics often come to Scripture asking historical accuracy questions -- finding minute discrepancies in the account of the Resurrection: well was Christ raised on the 2nd day or the 3rd day? Did Mary go to the tomb alone, or was she with someone? Etc.
I like the way N.T. Wright puts it -- comparing it to the way we think about the flood. There are so many myths, or stories, that exist from antiquity that chronicle the idea that there was at one time a great flood. These accounts diverge in perspective. But scholars often take this as evidence, not that a flood didn't happen, but that something big actually DID happen. We may not have the ability to know PRECISELY how it all went down, but there was almost certainly a great flood that had a massive impact on the cradle of civilization. Likewise, the Gospel stories are close enough in substance that it would be foolish to discount them all based on variant details...