A few key points:

1) “Four” doesn’t imply “only four existed”

Ancient sources are often selective—surviving counts of documents don’t equal original counts. Texts can be lost for many non-theological reasons (fragile materials, local church priorities, copying accidents, wars, libraries burning, etc.).

2) The early church shows plural Gospel-like traditions

By the second century, there were other writings circulating that people treated as authoritative or useful (even if later rejected), and we have evidence of them through citations and fragmentary remains. That doesn’t prove “eight” specifically, but it does weaken the idea that the situation was “just 4, nothing else.”

3) “Erased because they didn’t fit papal views” is a big causal leap

The claim that early “papal mythological view” drove an intentional purge needs evidence—e.g., clear historical documentation of coordinated removal and specifically that “papal” authorities singled out those missing texts.

What we can say from mainstream scholarship is more modest:

• Some texts were excluded because communities judged them inconsistent with their teaching, or because they didn’t fit particular standards of authorship/authority.
• Others survived only as fragments or were absorbed/rewritten rather than systematically “erased.”

4) “Logically means 8 gospels not written” isn’t valid logic

Even if we assume there were more, the correct inference is just:

• “We don’t have them now.” Not:
• “Therefore they were erased.” Not:
• “Therefore the reason was papal myth-making.” Not:
• “Therefore the number was exactly 8.”

If you want to treat this as a forensic reconstruction, the crucial step is to anchor it to a specific claim: where does “8” come from, and which historical source asserts that number (or that a purge occurred)?