why only 4 gospels?

[igotgoodnews]

and 2 of them weren't even from apostles?

you'd think that there would be more accounts from the other apostles.

 

[GA777]

the 2 others wrote the books based on what witnesses said, and about what they heard from some jesus disciples

And why would every apostle write his own experience, it's like repeating the same thing over and over, the things God wanted us to know are already in those 4 books and of course in the letters written in the new testament.

 

[Lee52]

Actually, there is but one Gospel; (Good News) in four accounts from different perspectives telling the same accounts of Jesus' time on this earth.

The message is the same; salvation in Jesus Christ based upon grace from GOD for his children, that none should perish in their sins, but all can be brought back into fellowship with GOD through the perfect sacrificial blood of the only perfect man to ever walk the earth. It is a free gift, given in perfect love, for all who will accept it, and avoid perfect punishment for wanting to live a selfish, sinful life instead.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[pilgrimgal]

The Gospels were written mainly from oral accounts from witnesses as well as some early writings like something called the "Q" document. Overtime these four were proved to be the most authentic. There were other gospels which did not make it into the Church canon of the time and so weren't considered inspired as these, e.g. The Gospel of Thomas. Lots of work went into this by the early church to determine which would remain.

Even though Mark was not one of the apostles he was a co-worker and was mentored by Peter. And Luke, a physician, was a disciple of Paul. Yes, John and Matthew were among the 12 first chosen. Much of Matthew's gospel is taken from Mark's which preceeded his.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

you'd think that there would be more accounts from the other apostles.

Peter, John, Luke, Jude, James, Matthew, Mark and of course Paul contributed books to the NT. There may have been one more as well for the authorship of Hebrews is unknown...to me that seems like quite a bit.

 

[Harry3142]

In the Muratorian Fragment, a list of New Testament books that was written circa 170 A.D., the author states that there were 4 gospels known to be from the time of the apostles, and one other that they knew to have been written after the lifetime of St. Peter, whome its author claimed to be. As well, it lists all the epistles which we now include in the New Testament, with the exceptions of James and Hebrews.

An interesting note on The Muratorian Fragment is that it also gives us a timeline for the writing of the 4 gospels. It states that Acts was already completed prior to St. Paul's being released fom his first imprisonment (circa 62 A.D.), and his journeying to Spain. This puts The Gospel of Luke as having been written well within the lifetimes of the apostles, since it preceded Acts. It was also understood to have been the third of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) so this puts the other two synoptic gospels as having been written even earlier.

You can read the english translation of The Muratorian Fragment here:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

If you're interested, you can also read arguments for a very early dating of the gospels, as well as the epistles of the New Testament, here:

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html