I'm not arguing for more or less than our 4 Gospels. But the intellectual issue is complicated by these 2 questions:It struck me this evening that this entire thread, as far as I can tell, has focused on the authors and the various processes and even politics that contributed to 4 gospels.
Correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, but what if the holy Spirit definitely inspired 4 different perspectives to bring to us 4 different aspects to the nature and character of Jesus? After all, Jesus is the centerpiece and focal point of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, why are we focusing on anyone else, particularly in the Gospels?
(1) None of the 4 Gospels even claim to be divinely inspired. That decision was made by Catholic church councils centuries later.
How do you know that none of the other first and early 2nd-century Gospels are not just as inspired--the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Poor (Latin: "Ebionites")?
(2) The scholarly consensus is that Matthew's Gospel was not written by the apostle Matthew and the Fourth Gospel was not written by John the son of Zebedee. Matthew (80-90 AD) copies 90% of Mark (70 AD). Why would an eyewitness of Jesus need to copy a Gospel written by a non-eyewitness like Mark? Neither Mark nor Luke knew Jesus.
John is composed by an editor, John "The Elder," using traditions passed on by "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The identity of this anonymous disciple is unknown and vigorously debated. But whoever he is, he is a source, not the author. Consider this obvious question: wouldn't it be highly arrogant for John to refer to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," as if Jesus didn't love His other disciples?
The circumlocution is obviously created by an admirer.