“The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book. . .. More than eighty Gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.”
“Who chose which Gospels to include?” Sophie asked.
“Aha!” Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.”[1]
1. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Anchor, 2003), 251. Emphasis original.
Since 2003, over eighty-two million copies of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code have been sold. Today, on social sites like X, Brown’s key idea—numerous Gospels vying for acceptance, but the Council of Nicaea (and Constantine) only choosing four—can still be encountered. Almost certainly, your neighbor with only passing interest in this question has probably breathed this air and has a similar view for how we got the Bible without even knowing where he or she learned it.
In this brief article, I will answer how many Gospels were there, what is the Gospel, what is the relationship of the Gospel to these Gospels, and when did Christians begin acknowledging the Four Gospels or when did the Four Gospel canon crystalize?
How Many Gospels were There?
Given the stir caused by Brown’s novel, one might be tempted to think that there were many, many ancient books claiming to be Gospels.[2] But in this case, at least, the truth is less dramatic than the fiction.
2. For an accessible web article defining “apocryphal Gospel,” see Markus Bockmuehl and Jacob Rodriguez, “What are the Apocryphal Gospels?” (Text & Canon Institute, 2025), who list and describe the various types of Gospel texts as well as show that one would craft such a text in order to (1) fill in gaps left by the canonical Gospels, (2) provide entertainment and moral instruction, (3) cater to spiritual needs of specific communities, and (4) provide diverse groups with their interpretations of Jesus and the Gospels.
We should not be surprised that there were more accounts of Jesus’s life and ministry beyond the four in our Bibles. Luke begins his Gospel saying, “Since many have undertaken to compile an account concerning the things that have been accomplished among us . . . it seemed also good to me who investigated accurately everything from the beginning to write a consecutive account for you…” (Luke 1:1–3, emphasis added). We do not know the full number of attempts at written accounts about Jesus. Luke says many put their hand to crafting accounts.
Still, how many were there? Were there eighty Gospels being considered for inclusion in the Bible? Some modern collections of Apocryphal Gospels contain up to forty Gospel texts in Greek, Latin, and Coptic, even though many of the texts included in this work are considered to have been written later than the second century.[3] If we limit the roster of Gospel texts to physical evidence from the second or third century, there are only about eight or nine other Gospel texts.[4] In order to produce meaningful comparisons between the Four Gospels and other Gospel texts, Simon Gathercole limits his sample to the seven, best-preserved, best-known noncanonical Gospels.[5] The different ways of reckoning and grouping these Gospel texts shows they did not and do not form an established collection.
3. Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
4. C. E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 8, providing William Peterson’s list, includes Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoraeans, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, ‘Unknown Gospel’ [P. Egerton 2], and Gospel of Judas, while omitting Peterson’s inclusion of Infancy Gospel of James; thus, eight or nine texts preserved materially.
5. Simon Gathercole, The Gospel and the Gospels: Christian Proclamation and Early Jesus Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), 19, lists Gospel of Peter, Marcion’s Gospel, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Coptic Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas, and Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians.
But even if only one of these alternative Gospel texts remained, how did the church fail to recognize it as one of its Gospels? Was there an oversight? This question leads us to the heart of the issue: what is the Gospel? And then how do written Gospels relate to the Gospel?
What is the Gospel?
There are different answers to the question of what the Gospel is. What are its themes or elements? We’ll content ourselves with Paul’s received and handed-down Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4.[6] In this passage, Paul rehearses four distinct components of the Gospel he preached: (1) that Christ died for our sins, (2) and that he was buried, (3) and that he was raised on the third day, (4) and that he appeared to Cephas. Of course, Christ fulfilled the Scriptures with respect to 1–3, thus the Gospel is in continuity with God’s revelation under the old covenant—not discontinuous with it.
6. Gathercole, The Gospel, 49.
Paul doesn’t claim to invent the preached Gospel. He received it and passed it down to the church at Corinth. Is there a reason to doubt Paul’s description of the traditionally preached Gospel? No. First, Gathercole notes the connections between Corinth and Jerusalem. If Paul were presenting a different Gospel than the one the Jerusalem apostles were preaching, the church at Corinth would have known it. Furthermore, Gathercole shows the core components or themes of the preached Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 can be clearly observed in New Testament books outside of Paul such as Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation.[7] Therefore, Paul’s received and handed-down Gospel was both ancient and widely used and accepted.[8]
7. Gathercole, The Gospel, 54–69.
8. Gathercole, The Gospel, 69.
What happens when the traditionally preached Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 is compared to the Four Gospels and the alternative Gospel texts? How do these texts compare to the core components of that Gospel?
What is the Gospel’s Relationship to the Gospels?
The earliest record of the preached Gospel defined it according to four themes. But what are the elements of written, narrative Gospel texts? Interestingly, an anonymous, early Christian text known as the Muratorian Fragment attempted to identify “various elements” of the combined four Gospels:
And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things have been declared in all the Gospels: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming . . .[9]
9. Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 179, 181. The date of this text is a matter of dispute with proposals ranging from late second century to the fourth century with recent studies arguing for the traditional, second century date.
Not all four Gospels contain each of these elements, even though they are implied. The author of this text presumes Jesus is the Christ, subsumes his death under his passion, and assumes his burial from his resurrection. He also includes the elements of Christ’s birth and advents. Later, the author says that Paul in Romans explained “the plan of the Scriptures and that Christ is their main theme.” This early description of the Gospels depicts Christ suffering, dying, being raised in accordance with the plan of the Scriptures, which is remarkably close to the four traditional Gospel themes presented in 1 Corinthians 15.
But how do the other Gospel texts compare to the four themes? As expected, it is not as though these Gospel texts contain none of the four traditional Gospel themes—they do.[10] But Gathercole’s study revealed that:
10. For example, Gathercole, The Gospel, 478, shows the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip describe Jesus’ death as a saving event.
(1) None of these texts claim Jesus’s death and resurrection fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
(2) The Gospel of Judas, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Thomas, and from what can be determined the Gospel of Peter lack reference to the vicarious death of Jesus.
(3) The Gospels of Thomas, Truth, Philip, the Egyptians, and Judas lack the salvific significance of the resurrection as a distinct event.[11]
11. Gathercole, The Gospel, 479.
Thus, while the Four Gospels share in common the four themes of the traditionally preached Gospel, the other Gospel texts do not share all relevant theological themes as consistently.
Thus, there were many Gospel texts in addition to the four New Testament Gospels, but a close analysis shows that the Four Gospels share basic theological themes with the traditionally preached Gospel, while the alternative Gospel texts more or less corresponded to that preached Gospel. This doesn’t make the church’s recognition of these four Gospels automatic, but as we will see in the next and final section, by 200 many early Christians recognized only the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
When did the Four Gospel Canon Crystalize?
Although Athanasius of Alexandria’s canon list (367 AD) often becomes associated with the closing of the New Testament canon, Athanasius would be surprised that he had such a formative role in the process. By his time, the church had long recognized the canon’s subcollections (e.g., Four Gospels, Paul’s Letters, et al.). Cyril of Jerusalem had listed the New Testament books (lacking Revelation) in 350, and Origen had already listed the books of the traditional New Testament canon around the year 250.[12] In sum, eighteen New Testament canon lists in Greek, Latin, and even one in Syriac up to the year 400 begin with the Four Gospels.[13]
12. Gallagher and Meade, Canon Lists, 91–92.
13. The opening of the Muratorian Fragment is mutilated, preserving only clear reference to Luke and John, but no one doubts the manuscript originally contained Matthew and Mark.
But how far back does the Fourfold Gospel go? In about 180, Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul says:
It is not possible that there be more Gospels in number than these [the Four], or fewer. By way of illustration, since there are four zones in the world in which we live, and four cardinal winds, and since the Church is spread over the whole earth, and since ‘the pillar and bulwark’ of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, consequently she has four pillars, blowing imperishability from all sides and giving life to men. (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)
Shortly after this statement, on the other side of the Roman Empire, Clement of Alexandria says about the Gospel of the Egyptians that it is not “among the Four Gospels passed down to us” (Stromata, 3.13.93.1), indicating he had received the traditional Fourfold Gospel. Around 200, Tertullian criticized Marcion for relying only on a mutilated copy of Luke since two apostles, Matthew and John, and two apostolic men, Mark and Luke, have written Gospels (Against Marcion, 4.2). From about 217–240, during both his Alexandrian (Commentary on John, 1.21–2) and Caesarean (Homilies on Luke, 1.2) residences, Origen affirmed the church has only Four Gospels. Around 200, the first indisputable Four Gospel manuscript (labeled “P45”) appears.[14]
14. For different views over whether P75 (Luke and John) and a combination of P4 (fragments of Luke) with P64 and P67 (fragments of Matthew) are older than P45 and contained all four Gospels, see the literature in Gallagher and Meade, Biblical Canon Lists, 34.
Reconstructing second century Christianity is challenging, and tracing the reception history of the Gospels during this time is no exception. Some scholars doubt the veracity of Irenaeus’ statement about the exclusivity of the Four Gospels because in the period immediately leading up to his statement, researchers cannot verify it.[15] The evidence is often ambiguous, but some groups chose one Gospel (e.g., Ebionites used only Matthew), while others like the Valentinians accepted more.[16] Around 170, Tatian created a harmony of the Four Gospels (the Diatessaron), showing his knowledge of the traditional Fourfold Gospel but also leaving some researchers with the impression he was unhappy with problems raised by the discrete Gospels. But we do not really know why he created this harmony. He may have only wanted a simplified account of the life and ministry of Jesus.
15. Hill, Who Chose, 70, notes alleged evidence against the early tradition of the Fourfold Gospel and systematically shows how that evidence does not contradict the mainstream.
16. Gallagher and Meade, Canon Lists, 37.
Early Christians did read other Gospels. Eusebius tells the story of how the second-century bishop, Serapion of Antioch, permitted the church at Rhossus to read the Gospel of Peter because the matter had caused a quarrel among them; that is, some in this church were reading this Gospel (Serapion apud Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3). This story shows that some early Christians read more Gospels than the Four (see also Origen, Hom. Luc. 1.2), but it doesn’t necessarily show the Gospel of Peter was accepted as authoritative scripture or what we might refer to as canon. Use of a text, including reading it, is no sure criterion for canonicity, since we know early Christians read texts that they would not include among the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles.[17]
17. For example, the Muratorian Fragment envisions a situation where some books that were not read publicly in church could be read privately.
Conclusion
There is hardly a book from antiquity as well preserved and commented on than the Bible. Of the New Testament books, the Four Gospels are the most copied. They received the earliest, least ambiguous testimony to their closure and canonical status of the New Testament books. In reading the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, one encounters the authentic stories of Jesus and the narratives that most closely cohere with the earliest description of the traditionally preached Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. Why not read them and see why Christians have been recognizing the voice of the Shepherd within them for two millennia?
