The secondary details are not that important-
Some can be reconciled.
If they were exactly the same, we accuse them of collaboration.
We have but two records of Hannibal crossing the Alps to attack the Romans. The secondary details are “incompatible and irreconcilable”, but no one says that it didn’t happen.
If the Apostles didn’t sign their name, it was for the better. “Hi, my name is Matthew and I am a disciple of Christ.” HEAD LOBBED OFF
By the way, I’m assuming you meant differences on discovering the missing body at the tomb. What were the differences in the Crucifixion itself if thats what you meant? Although the same principal holds true for both of them.
A quote from The Case for Christ
"'The core of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in a tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, and they find the tomb is empty. They see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen.
The careful historian, unlike the philosopher, doesn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. He says, ‘This suggests that there is a historical core to this story that is reliable and can be depended on, however conflicting the secondary details might be.’
So we can have great confidence in the core that’s common to the naratives and that would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today, even if there were some differences concerning the names of the women, the exact time of the morning, the number of angels, and so forth. Those kinds of secondary discrepancies wouldn’t bother a historian.’
Even the usually skeptical historian Michael grant, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and professor at Edinburgh University, concedes in his book Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, “True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indded, found empty.”
I can give you the man who is being interviewed’s name and credentials, if you wish.
I would personally trust the four (+?) sources saying Jesus was crucified over the one that says he wasn’t.