As @Semaphore has observed in the comments, this is something that happens very frequently. The reason comes down to how historians use sources.
When I studied the subject, many years ago*, my tutor suggested seven guidelines:
- If all the sources agree about an event, we can consider the event
- However, majority rule does not apply; Even if a majority of sources
relate events in one way, that version will not be accepted unless
it can pass the test of critical textual analysis.
- In general, a source where part of the account can be confirmed by
referring to independent authorities, can probably be trusted in its
entirety – even if it is impossible to similarly confirm the whole
- When two sources disagree on a particular point, we generally prefer
the source with the most "authority". This will be the source created
closest in time to the event in question, by a person with
particular expertise, or by an eyewitness.
- In general, eyewitnesses are preferred, particularly when they are
dealing with events known by most, or at least many, contemporaries.
- If two or more independently created sources agree on a matter, the
reliability of each is reinforced.
- When multiple sources disagree, and we have no other means of
evaluation which source is "best", then Occam's Razor applies. Good
historians choose the source which seems to accord best with common
(Ironically, she never quoted her source for these guidelines).
Clearly, several of these guidelines are subjective - particularly the last one! It is not surprising then that interpretations of events often vary according to the personal views or prejudices of particular historians (leaving aside the minor detail that "new evidence" (which is often just new interpretations of existing evidence) is always good for creating controversy and stimulating book sales!).
A couple of fairly well-known examples from British history would be:
- The dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. This is often said to be simply the result of Henry's break with Rome, although a number of historians, including, for example, Suzannah Lipscomb in her book 1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII, have argued for a rather different interpretation based on the evidence.
- The murder of the Princes in the Tower. This is frequently attributed to Richard III, but some historians have argued that others were responsible. The arguments in this case generally arise over whether the "evidence" of Richard's guilt is actually Tudor propaganda.
*Almost so long ago that Pontius was still a Pilate, and Centurion was a rank and not a tank!