Doesn't sit any righter with me. Now, conflicting OT stories, that's different, because Judaism is based and founded upon debate and discussion, but Christianity claims a tight dogma--as does superhero fiction.
Hebrew scriptures were mainly oral for the longest time, then written down, then translated to Greek for Ptolemy's library (the Septuagint), then filtered down after the 2nd destruction of the Temple to include only the books they could originally find in Hebrew, throwing out all the ones they could only find in Greek. They'd be insane if they held onto any tighter, scriptural dogma than they already had because they know the above stated has had an impact.
Christian scriptures are a hard case because this all happened during a very tumultuous time. At the earliest, the Gospel of St. Mark may have been written slightly before the fall of the 2nd Temple, but all the rest were afterwards, with St. John written perhaps around 100AD, nearly 70 years after Yeshua's death. The Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) are fairly in-sync, hinting that they are pulling from maybe a source document, with St. John an outsider and giving off slightly more of a theological attack against the Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism in general.
There's not too much disparity given that the times were pretty crazy and St. John tends to be more of a metaphorical book. Granted, the ending of St. Mark's didn't even hardly include a resurrection story originally, but it was amended later and St. Matthew and St. Luke's did.
All in all, there's not too much conflict between the Synoptics, and those are probably the ones that should be analysed for disparities both in known historical scholarship and in the books themselves.
This took me about 4 minutes to type and is seemingly one of the longest posts I've made since...jeeze, since before most of you guys knew about this website. :P