FAQ

The distinction between the four so-called canonical Gospels and all other Christian literature was already characteristic of the Church in the second half of the first century; by the beginning of the second century, any doubts on this matter disappeared.

The Church accepted these four accounts of Christ as its Holy Scripture because their content fully corresponds to the lived faith of Christians and contains nothing extraneous. The Church has never relied on the text as the sole source of faith; rather the opposite, the value and significance of the texts are verified by faith. In addition, and this is also essential, the four canonical Gospels have a clearly defined origin from the disciples of Christ and were known to the entire Church already at the turn of the first and second centuries. The others, even those inscribed with the authoritative names of the apostles, originate from fringe Christian circles, for the most part from the Gnostic milieu, and became known no earlier than the middle of the second century. Their origin from the apostles is more than doubtful. As a rule, they also differ noticeably in content; as a rule, they are written in a specific vein in order to support the spread of Gnostic ideas. So there is a difference in doctrine, and a considerable one.

As for the logic of all the disciples writing testimonies, it is not a matter of logic at all. The four Evangelists compiled their texts not because they considered it necessary and "logical"; moreover, Mark and Luke were not direct witnesses to most of the events they described. But they were called by God for this purpose, and for that reason alone they undertook their labor. Surprisingly, this resulted in these four presenting a comprehensive picture of what transpired, outside of which, of course, many minor details remained. The authority of their testimony ("as in criminology") is confirmed by:

• a) their unity in essence and diversity in details, which indicates the absence of collusion;
• b) their correspondence to the historical context (which the apocryphal gospels lack);
• c) extra-biblical testimonies, of which there are quite a few;
• d) finally, the fact that no one reports any fundamentally new facts compared to the four Evangelists (apart from the obvious fabrications of the apocrypha).

And most importantly: why are any other texts needed at all? Experience shows that outside the Four Gospels there is nothing that is fundamentally important for us to know, and conversely, everything we need to know about Christ is found in the Four Gospels.