It puzzled me all the time this question, since all Christian sheeple of this site argue that since the core of them is the same, why not having four of them despite the contradictions and omissions among them?
Marcion for example, accepted only one gospel and some Pauline epistles. Namely, he used his own gospel known as “The Gospel of Marcion, or “The Gospel of the Lord” which was believed to be a modified gospel of Luke with alterations to fit his theology.
Studying the Nicaean Synod’s reports with the strife and controversies among the participants, a puzzling question arises on the number of the gospels finally chosen. One may equally argue that “why not only one, or five, or even many more” since there were over 20 at that time in circulation?
Why haven’t the early fathers “corrected” only one according to the other gospels to avoid such controversies? Besides, as we read in historical accounts, Pamphilus and his friends and pupils, including Eusebius, corrected and revised much of the biblical text in their library.
Don’t you think that due to different fractions among the “early bishops” and the strife among them, they finally chose four gospels to satisfy all parts of them?
Don’t you find ridiculous to have four gospels that teach the same creed?
Δεσμώτης
Article URL : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion