Gospel

===Genre and historical reliability===
{{main|Historical reliability of the Gospels|Quest for the historical Jesus}}
The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of ''bios'', or [[ancient biography]].{{sfn|Lincoln|2004|p=133}} Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were [[propaganda]] and ''[[kerygma]]'' (preaching).{{sfn|Dunn|2005|p=174}} As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,{{sfn|Keith|Le Donne|2012|p={{pn|date=July 2021}}}} and as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the [[census of Quirinius]] demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are  historically accurate.{{sfn|Reddish|2011|p=22}} 

The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies among these three versions and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable with regard to the historical Jesus.{{sfn|Tuckett|2000|p=523}} In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading [[Origen]] to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".{{sfn|Ehrman|2005a|pp=7, 52}} Most of these are insignificant, but many are significant,{{sfn|Ehrman|2005a|p=69}} an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.{{sfn|Ehrman|1996|pp=75-76}} For these reasons, modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically. Nevertheless, they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of later authors.{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=21–22}}{{sfn|Sanders|1995|pp=4–5}}

Scholars usually agree that John is not without historical value: certain of its sayings are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, and its representation of the [[topography]] around [[Jerusalem]] is often superior to that of the synoptics. Its testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and its presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels.{{sfn|Theissen|Merz|1998|pp=36–37}} Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the author had direct knowledge of events, or that his mentions of the [[Beloved Disciple]] as his source should be taken as a guarantee of his reliability.{{sfn|Lincoln|2005|p=26}}