Why Did the Church Choose Four Canonical Gospels?

Brief Overview

• The early Church recognized four Gospels as authoritative based on their apostolic origin and widespread acceptance in Christian communities.
• By the late second century, the fourfold Gospel collection was firmly established across different regions of the Christian world.
• Church fathers like Irenaeus defended the number four as divinely ordained and connected to salvation history.
• Alternative gospels were rejected because they lacked apostolic authority, contained teachings contrary to apostolic tradition, or appeared too late to be authentic.
• The process of recognizing the canonical Gospels was gradual and organic rather than decided by a single council or decree.
• The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provide complementary perspectives on Christ’s life and teaching that together form a complete witness.

The Historical Context of Gospel Writing

The four canonical Gospels emerged during the first century of Christianity when eyewitnesses to Jesus’s ministry were still alive or their testimony was freshly remembered. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between approximately 50 and 100 AD, a period when the apostolic generation was passing away and communities needed written records of Jesus’s teachings. The early Christians initially relied on oral tradition, with apostles and disciples sharing their memories of Christ’s words and deeds. However, as the Church expanded geographically and the original witnesses aged, the need for written accounts became clear. Each Gospel was composed for specific communities facing particular pastoral needs. Mark’s Gospel, likely the first written, provided a fast-paced account of Jesus’s ministry for a community needing encouragement during persecution. Matthew’s Gospel addressed Jewish Christians by demonstrating how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. Luke wrote for a broader Gentile audience, emphasizing Jesus’s universal mission of salvation. John’s Gospel, written last, offered a more theological reflection on Christ’s divinity and relationship with the Father. These four texts circulated independently at first, copied and shared among various Christian communities. The Gospels were read during worship services alongside Old Testament scriptures. Early Christians recognized these texts as inspired accounts that faithfully transmitted apostolic teaching about Jesus Christ.

Apostolic Authority and Early Recognition

The early Church valued apostolic authority above all other criteria when determining which writings were genuinely inspired. Apostolic origin meant that a text was either written by an apostle or by a close associate of the apostles who accurately transmitted their teaching. Matthew and John were among the Twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus himself, giving their Gospels direct apostolic authority. Mark was a companion of Peter and is understood to have recorded Peter’s preaching about Jesus. Luke was a companion of Paul and carefully researched his Gospel by interviewing eyewitnesses, as he states in his prologue. This connection to the apostles gave these four Gospels a unique authority that other texts lacked. The criterion of apostolicity protected the Church from accepting texts written much later by authors with no connection to Jesus or his immediate followers. Christian communities in different regions independently recognized the same four Gospels as authoritative during the second century. Papias, writing around 125 AD, already referred to Gospels by Matthew and Mark. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 AD, mentioned that “memoirs of the apostles” called Gospels were read in Christian worship. The Muratorian Fragment, a document from around 170 AD, lists the four Gospels as accepted scripture. By the end of the second century, the fourfold Gospel was universally accepted across the Mediterranean world.

Irenaeus and the Fourfold Gospel

Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 180 AD, provided the most influential early defense of the fourfold Gospel collection. He argued that four Gospels were not merely accepted by tradition but were necessary and divinely ordained. Irenaeus pointed to patterns in salvation history and creation that corresponded to the number four. He noted four regions of the world, four principal winds, and four living creatures in Ezekiel’s vision as parallels to the four Gospels. Each Gospel, according to Irenaeus, emphasized a different aspect of Christ’s identity and mission. Matthew presented Christ as King and emphasized his human genealogy. Mark showed Christ as a servant and prophet, beginning with the prophetic voice in the wilderness. Luke emphasized Christ’s priestly character, starting with Zechariah’s service in the temple. John proclaimed Christ’s divinity, opening with the eternal Word who was with God. Irenaeus firmly rejected attempts to use only one Gospel or to accept additional gospels beyond the four. He specifically criticized groups like the Ebionites who used only Matthew and Marcionites who accepted only a modified version of Luke. Irenaeus understood that the four Gospels together provided a complete and balanced portrait of Jesus Christ. His theological defense of the fourfold Gospel influenced subsequent generations of Christian leaders.

The Challenge of Alternative Gospels

During the second and third centuries, various other texts claiming to be gospels circulated among Christian communities. These alternative gospels included the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, and many others. Some of these texts were written by Gnostic groups that taught salvation came through secret knowledge rather than faith in Christ’s death and resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, consisted of sayings attributed to Jesus but lacked any narrative of his crucifixion or resurrection. The Gospel of Peter contained docetic teachings that denied Christ’s true humanity and suffering. Church fathers recognized that these alternative gospels contradicted apostolic teaching and promoted theological errors. Most alternative gospels were written in the mid-second century or later, too late to have authentic apostolic origin. They often reflected the theological controversies of their own time rather than the actual teaching of Jesus and the apostles. The Church did not arbitrarily reject these texts but evaluated them according to clear criteria: apostolic origin, consistency with apostolic tradition, and widespread acceptance among orthodox Christian communities. Texts that failed these tests were not considered inspired scripture. Some alternative gospels were harmless but simply not considered authoritative, while others promoted dangerous heresies. The process of distinguishing authentic apostolic testimony from later innovations was crucial for maintaining the integrity of Christian faith.

Liturgical Use and Continuous Tradition

The four canonical Gospels were distinguished by their continuous use in Christian liturgy from the earliest times. When Christians gathered for worship, they read from these Gospels alongside the Old Testament prophets. This liturgical practice established which texts the Church considered authoritative for forming faith and practice. Justin Martyr described how Christians in the mid-second century read from the “memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets” during Sunday worship. The regular public reading of the Gospels made their content familiar to all believers. Communities scattered across different regions were reading the same four Gospels in their worship services. This widespread liturgical use provided strong evidence that these texts were universally recognized as scripture. Alternative gospels were not read in mainstream Christian worship because they lacked apostolic authority and contained questionable teachings. The liturgical criterion complemented the criterion of apostolic origin. A text might claim apostolic authorship, but if it had not been continuously used by Christian communities, that claim was suspect. The four canonical Gospels had been publicly read and transmitted from the beginning. Their texts were carefully copied and preserved because communities depended on them for instruction. The role of the Gospels in worship also meant they were interpreted within the living tradition of the Church rather than by individuals in isolation.

Manuscript Evidence and Textual Transmission

The manuscript evidence for the four canonical Gospels demonstrates their early and widespread acceptance. Papyrus fragments of the Gospels from the second century have been discovered, showing these texts were being copied and distributed shortly after their composition. The earliest known fragment of any New Testament text is part of John’s Gospel, dated to around 125 AD. Manuscripts of the four Gospels appear in Christian centers across Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome. The consistency of these manuscripts, despite being copied independently in different locations, confirms they were recognized as authoritative texts requiring accurate transmission. Scribes took great care in copying the Gospels because communities relied on them as the authentic record of Jesus’s life and teaching. The number of early manuscripts for the canonical Gospels far exceeds that of alternative gospels. This manuscript evidence reflects the Church’s recognition of these four texts as uniquely authoritative. In contrast, most alternative gospels survive in only one or two copies, often found in isolated locations. The textual tradition of the canonical Gospels shows they were central to Christian life throughout the Mediterranean world. Communities invested significant resources in producing copies and ensuring their accuracy. This practical reality demonstrates that the fourfold Gospel was not imposed by ecclesiastical authority but emerged from the Church’s lived experience of recognizing apostolic teaching.

The Role of Church Councils

Many people incorrectly assume that church councils in the fourth century created the New Testament canon by selecting books from a larger pool of options. In reality, councils recognized and confirmed what Christian communities had already accepted for centuries. The Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD listed the New Testament books, including the four Gospels, as canonical scripture. These councils did not debate whether to include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; these four were already universally accepted. The councils’ purpose was to affirm the common tradition and address questions about a few disputed books. The fourfold Gospel had been established more than two centuries before these councils met. Church leaders at these councils were not innovating but preserving what they had received from previous generations. The criteria used by the councils, apostolic origin and continuous use in churches, were the same criteria earlier Christians had applied. Some regional councils before the fourth century had also listed the canonical books, always including the same four Gospels. The Council of Laodicea around 363 AD listed the four Gospels in its canonical list. The consistency across different councils in different regions confirms that they were recognizing an existing consensus. The formal affirmation by councils provided certainty and protected against later attempts to add or remove books from the canon.

Patristic Testimony and the Rule of Faith

Church fathers throughout the second and third centuries consistently cited the four Gospels as authoritative scripture. Clement of Rome, writing around 96 AD, appears to reference Gospel material, though he does not explicitly name the texts. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 AD, referred to Gospel traditions in his letters. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of John the Apostle, cited Gospel passages in his writings. These early fathers treated the Gospel accounts as reliable sources for Jesus’s teaching. By the mid-second century, the four Gospels were explicitly named and quoted as scripture. Theophilus of Antioch referred to John as inspired scripture around 180 AD. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, extensively quoted all four Gospels as authoritative. Origen, writing in the early third century, provided commentary on the Gospels, treating them as the foundation of Christian teaching. These patristic writers never debated whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should be accepted; they assumed their authority. The fathers used the Gospels to establish what they called the “rule of faith,” the core apostolic teaching handed down in the Church. Alternative gospels were not cited as authoritative because they contradicted this rule of faith. The unanimous testimony of the fathers across different regions and generations demonstrates that the fourfold Gospel was the universal tradition of the Church.

The Unity and Diversity of the Four Gospels

The Church recognized that the four Gospels provided both unity and diversity in their presentation of Jesus Christ. All four Gospels agree on the essential facts: Jesus was born, performed miracles, taught about the kingdom of God, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead. This fundamental unity confirmed that the Gospels were faithful to apostolic testimony about historical events. At the same time, each Gospel offered unique perspectives and details that enriched the Church’s understanding. Matthew emphasized Jesus’s fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and his teaching on righteousness. Mark focused on Jesus’s actions and suffering as the servant of God. Luke highlighted Jesus’s compassion for the poor, women, and outcasts. John presented profound theological reflection on Jesus’s identity as the eternal Son of God. The differences among the Gospels were not contradictions but complementary witnesses to the same reality. Ancient readers understood that different witnesses to the same events would naturally emphasize different aspects. The Church valued having multiple Gospel accounts because they provided a fuller picture than any single text could offer. Attempts to harmonize the Gospels into one continuous narrative, like Tatian’s Diatessaron in the second century, were ultimately rejected because they eliminated the distinct voices of the evangelists. The fourfold Gospel preserved the richness of apostolic testimony while maintaining essential unity on core truths.

Theological Reasons for Four Gospels

Beyond historical reasons, the Church recognized theological significance in having exactly four Gospels. The number four symbolized completeness and universality in biblical thought. Four directions, four winds, and four corners of the earth appear throughout scripture. The four Gospels together proclaimed the universal message of salvation to all nations. Each Gospel reached different audiences: Matthew for Jews, Mark for Romans, Luke for Greeks, and John for all believers seeking deeper understanding. The four evangelists were associated with the four living creatures in Revelation 4:7 and Ezekiel 1:10. Christian tradition connected Matthew with the man, Mark with the lion, Luke with the ox, and John with the eagle. These symbols represented different aspects of Christ’s mission: his humanity, kingship, sacrificial death, and divine nature. The fourfold Gospel also protected against heretical readings of Christ’s identity. Having four accounts made it harder for heretics to manipulate texts to support false teachings. If one Gospel seemed to emphasize Christ’s humanity, another clearly proclaimed his divinity. If one focused on his teaching, another emphasized his miracles. The multiple witnesses reinforced orthodox Christology and prevented selective reading of scripture. The Church understood that God had providentially provided exactly the number of Gospels needed to faithfully transmit apostolic teaching.

The Criteria of Canonicity

The early Church applied consistent criteria when recognizing which books belonged in the New Testament canon. Apostolicity was the primary criterion; books needed connection to the apostles or their immediate associates. Orthodoxy was essential; texts had to agree with the apostolic rule of faith handed down in the Church. Catholicity meant widespread acceptance across different Christian communities rather than use by only one isolated group. Antiquity required that books originated in the apostolic age, not generations later. Liturgical use demonstrated that communities had consistently relied on these texts for worship and instruction. The four Gospels clearly met all these criteria, while alternative gospels failed one or more tests. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, lacked true apostolic origin despite its title. The Gospel of Peter contradicted orthodox teaching about Christ’s suffering. Various gnostic gospels were accepted only by sectarian groups, not the universal Church. These later texts appeared in the second century or later, too late for apostolic authorship. The canonical Gospels had been read in churches since the first century. The application of these criteria was not arbitrary but reflected the Church’s responsibility to preserve authentic apostolic teaching. The bishops and teachers who evaluated texts were not imposing their preferences but discerning which books truly came from the apostles. The Holy Spirit guided this process of recognition, as Jesus had promised the Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.

Regional Consensus and Universal Acceptance

The recognition of the four canonical Gospels was remarkably consistent across different regions of the early Church. Churches in Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, and North Africa all accepted the same four Gospels by the late second century. This geographical consensus occurred without centralized authority imposing a decision. Communities in different areas, speaking different languages, independently recognized the same texts as authoritative. The Syrian church used a Syriac translation of the Gospels from the second century. The Egyptian church had Coptic translations. Latin translations circulated in North Africa and Rome. Greek remained the language of the eastern Mediterranean churches. Despite these linguistic and cultural differences, all regions accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some variations existed regarding other New Testament books, but the four Gospels were never disputed. The universal acceptance of the fourfold Gospel suggests apostolic origin rather than later ecclesiastical decision. If the Gospels had been selected by church authorities in one region, other regions would likely have resisted. Instead, the consistent recognition across diverse communities indicates they were all receiving the same apostolic tradition. This geographical consensus provided powerful confirmation that these four texts authentically represented the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

The Witness of Early Christian Art

Archaeological evidence from early Christian art confirms the special status of the four canonical Gospels. Catacomb paintings from the second and third centuries show scenes from the Gospels, showing these texts were central to Christian imagination and devotion. The earliest Gospel manuscripts were often beautifully produced, indicating their importance to communities. By the fourth century, Gospel books were sometimes decorated with symbols of the four evangelists. Churches placed Gospel books on the altar during liturgical celebrations, treating them with special reverence. The physical treatment of Gospel manuscripts differed from how communities handled other Christian writings. Gospels were copied on higher-quality materials and preserved with greater care. Archaeological discoveries have found Gospel manuscripts in Christian sites throughout the Mediterranean world. The widespread presence of these manuscripts demonstrates how central the Gospels were to Christian life. In contrast, alternative gospels have been found in only a few locations, often in contexts suggesting they were used by marginal groups. The material evidence complements the literary evidence from patristic writings. Christians invested resources in producing and preserving the canonical Gospels because they recognized these texts as inspired scripture. The physical remains of early Christianity testify to the Church’s recognition of the fourfold Gospel.

Responding to Heretical Movements

The Church’s recognition of four canonical Gospels was partly shaped by the need to respond to heretical movements in the second century. Marcion, an influential heretic in the mid-second century, rejected the Old Testament and accepted only a modified version of Luke’s Gospel. Marcion’s rejection of the other Gospels demonstrated his misunderstanding of salvation history and Christ’s continuity with God’s covenant people. The Church’s insistence on four Gospels countered Marcion’s attempt to separate Christianity from its Jewish roots. Gnostic movements produced their own gospels promoting salvation through secret knowledge rather than faith in Christ’s redemptive death. The Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic texts minimized Jesus’s humanity and the importance of his crucifixion. By affirming the four canonical Gospels, the Church preserved the apostolic teaching that salvation comes through Christ’s real incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection. The montanist movement claimed new revelations from the Holy Spirit that superseded apostolic teaching. Against this claim, the Church affirmed that the apostolic age was complete and the four Gospels contained the definitive revelation of Christ. These controversies clarified why the Church needed a defined collection of authoritative texts. The criteria for recognizing canonical books emerged partly from the need to distinguish authentic apostolic teaching from later innovations. The fourfold Gospel became a standard against which all other claims to revelation were measured.

The Gospels and the Catechism

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that the four Gospels occupy a unique place in sacred scripture (CCC 125). The Gospels are described as the heart of all scripture because they contain the definitive revelation of Jesus Christ (CCC 125). The Church has always venerated the four Gospels because they are the principal witness to the life and teaching of the incarnate Word (CCC 127). The process by which the Gospels were written involved the Holy Spirit inspiring the human authors while respecting their individual styles and perspectives (CCC 126). The Church teaches that the four evangelists faithfully handed on what Jesus actually said and did, though they adapted their accounts for different audiences (CCC 126). The formation of the Gospels occurred in three stages: Jesus’s earthly life and teaching, the apostles’ preaching after the resurrection, and the evangelists’ written accounts (CCC 126). This three-stage process ensured that the Gospels authentically transmitted apostolic testimony while addressing the pastoral needs of different communities. The Church’s recognition of the canonical Gospels was guided by the Holy Spirit working through apostolic tradition (CCC 120). The same Spirit who inspired the writing of scripture also guided the Church in recognizing which books were truly inspired. The Church’s judgment about the canon is not independent of scripture but flows from the apostolic tradition that produced scripture. The Catechism emphasizes that the four Gospels together provide a complete witness to Christ that cannot be replaced by a single text or supplemented by additional gospels.

Scripture and Tradition Working Together

The Catholic understanding of how the Church recognized the canonical Gospels illustrates the relationship between scripture and tradition. Scripture did not fall from heaven as a complete book; the books of the Bible were written over centuries by various human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church, guided by apostolic tradition, recognized which books were genuinely inspired. This recognition was not an independent authority over scripture but rather the Church identifying its own apostolic heritage. The written Gospels emerged from the oral apostolic preaching that preceded them. The same apostolic tradition that produced the Gospels also guided their recognition as canonical. Scripture and tradition are not two different sources of revelation but two modes of transmitting the same apostolic faith. The Church’s recognition of the four canonical Gospels depended on tradition: the continuous practice of reading these texts in worship, the testimony of the fathers, and the rule of faith maintained in apostolic communities. Without tradition, there would be no way to know which books were inspired and which were not. The written text of the Gospels and the living tradition of the Church mutually support and illuminate each other. This principle, affirmed at the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, explains how Christians today can trust the Bible they hold. The Church that recognized the canonical Gospels in the second century is the same Church that preserves and interprets them today.

Historical Reliability and Faith

The Church’s process of recognizing the four canonical Gospels was both historically rigorous and guided by faith. The criteria of apostolic origin, widespread acceptance, and consistency with tradition were reasonable historical standards. Early Christians evaluated evidence: which texts came from eyewitnesses or their associates, which texts had been continuously used from the beginning, which texts agreed with the apostolic rule of faith. This historical evaluation was not purely secular scholarship but was guided by the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Faith and reason worked together in recognizing the inspired texts. The Church trusted that God would not allow his people to be deceived about which books contained his revealed word. At the same time, the Church examined historical evidence and rejected texts with dubious origins. The result was confidence that the four Gospels authentically transmitted the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. Modern historical scholarship has largely confirmed the Church’s ancient judgments about the Gospels. The canonical Gospels do originate from the first century and reflect Palestinian Jewish culture and language. Alternative gospels do appear later and often reflect second-century theological controversies. The historical reliability of the canonical Gospels supports faith but does not replace it; Christians trust these texts as inspired scripture. The Church’s ancient recognition of the fourfold Gospel demonstrates wisdom in distinguishing authentic apostolic testimony from later innovations.

The Importance for Catholic Faith Today

Understanding why the Church chose four canonical Gospels remains important for Catholics today. This history teaches that the Bible did not simply appear but emerged from the Church’s life and was recognized through apostolic tradition. Catholics should trust the Church’s judgment about the canon because the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of scripture guided its recognition. The fourfold Gospel provides a complete and balanced witness to Jesus Christ that no single text could offer. Catholics read all four Gospels to gain the fullest understanding of Christ’s life and teaching. The differences among the Gospels should not trouble believers but should be appreciated as complementary perspectives on the same saving truth. The Church’s ancient process of discernment provides a model for evaluating claims to religious truth today. Just as the early Church tested gospels against apostolic tradition, Catholics should test religious ideas against the teaching handed down from the apostles. The historical process that gave us the four Gospels confirms that the Catholic faith is rooted in history and apostolic testimony, not human invention. The Gospels connect Catholics today with the eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus and heard his teaching. Through the Church’s careful preservation of these texts, believers in every generation encounter the authentic voice of the apostles. The fourfold Gospel is a precious gift that the Church has faithfully guarded and transmitted for two thousand years.

Living with the Four Gospels

Catholics are called to live with the four Gospels as their guide for following Christ. The Gospels should be read regularly, both privately and in the liturgy. Each Gospel offers particular insights that can speak to different circumstances in a believer’s life. Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’s teaching provides guidance for living righteously. Mark’s focus on Jesus’s suffering encourages perseverance during trials. Luke’s attention to Jesus’s mercy offers hope for sinners seeking forgiveness. John’s profound theology helps believers grow in understanding of Christ’s divine nature. The Church structures the liturgical year around Gospel readings so Catholics encounter the fullness of Christ’s life throughout the year. Daily Mass includes Gospel proclamation, making this encounter with Christ possible every day. Lectio divina, the prayerful reading of scripture, should focus especially on the Gospels. Catholics should memorize favorite Gospel passages to carry Christ’s words in their hearts. The four Gospels form the foundation for understanding all other scripture and Church teaching. Catechesis and religious education should always return to the Gospel accounts as the primary source for knowing Jesus. The saints throughout history have been formed by meditating on the Gospels. Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, Thérèse of Lisieux, and countless others found their spiritual path through encountering Christ in the Gospel texts. Modern Catholics continue this tradition by making the four Gospels central to their faith life. The Church’s ancient recognition of these four texts ensures that believers today read the same accounts that formed the faith of Christians from the beginning.