Saying there's four separate organic accounts also doesn't deal with the problem of the two-source hypothesis. That is, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that it's more likely Matthew and Luke originate from Mark with some additions from another document -- the so-called "Q Document" -- which hasn't been found yet. And then we have the issue that John, the fourth Gospel, was initially seen as so funky and way-out compared with the others that one or two patriarchs called it a heretical text, on a par with the Gospel of Thomas, though it's unquestioned that by the time of Nicaea it was part and parcel of Christian teachings. And then we get into the fact that many of those texts -- including the four Gospels -- were not written solely as historical accounts; they were also intended as teaching texts and had purposes other than as simple historical accounts. You have to tread very carefully when you start looking at Biblical texts for historical accuracy, because they were not primarily written with that purpose in mind - not as compared with, say, someone like Josephus who, whatever his shortcomings as a scholar, was not intending on making philosophical or religious announcements as part of his accounts.