Why Four Gospels?

So, why isn't there just one composite gospel that tells your story. There was an earthquake (some mention it some don't). There were two angels (some refer only to one, and the other just wasn't mentioned). The angels were teenager in appearance (that way they could be described both as a young boy and as men). The two Mary's didn't go in alone, they went in with Peter and John, despite the fact that Peter and John were not mentioned as those who entered first. So why not have this single account? You don't seem to think that these differences matter, but 2nd century Christians sure thought they mattered. I think they matter. In scholarship I have been taught to look for these type of discrepancies, not to invalidate the work, but to open it up to layers of meaning and depth to the account. A single mish mash simplified story does not make the Bible better, it would only make it one dimensional. I challenge you to see the depth and hear the multiplicity of voices that come through the text. You do the richness of the Bible a disservice when you read it the way you do. The "No Contradictions in the Bible" claim means: I'm not going to see the Bible in its true complexity. I am going to deny it and imagine a simpler book.