Editing Gospel (section)

==Canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John==
{{Main|Gospel of Matthew|Gospel of Mark|Gospel of Luke|Gospel of John|Four Evangelists}}
{{Redirect|Four Gospels||Four Gospels (disambiguation)}}
{{Infobox religious text|verses=3,779|period=[[Christianity in the 1st century#Apostolic Age|Apostolic Age]]|chapters=89|language=[[Koine Greek]]|name=Canonical Gospels|image=Sargis Pitsak.jpg|religion=[[Christianity]]|caption=The first page of the Gospel of Mark in [[Armenian language|Armenian]], by [[Sargis Pitsak]], 14th century}}

===Contents===
The four canonical gospels share the same basic outline of the life of Jesus: he begins his public ministry in conjunction with that of [[John the Baptist]], calls disciples, teaches and heals and confronts the [[Pharisees]], dies on the cross and is raised from the dead.{{sfn|Thompson|2006|p=183}} Each has its own distinctive understanding of him and his divine role{{sfn|Culpepper|1999|p=66}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ehrman |first1=Bart |title=Jesus as God in the Synoptics (For members) |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/ |website=Ehrman Blog |date=13 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150311164815/https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/ |archive-date=11 March 2015}}</ref> and scholars recognize that the differences of detail among the gospels are irreconcilable, and any attempt to harmonize them would only disrupt their distinct theological messages.{{sfn|Scholz|2009|p=192}}

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed the [[synoptic gospels]] because they present very similar accounts of the life of Jesus.{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=217}} Mark begins with the baptism of the adult Jesus and the heavenly declaration that he is the son of God; he gathers followers and begins his ministry, and tells his disciples that he must die in Jerusalem but that he will rise; in Jerusalem, he is at first acclaimed but then rejected, betrayed, and crucified, and when the women who have followed him come to his tomb, they find it empty.{{sfn|Boring|2006|pp=1–3}} Mark never calls Jesus "God" or claims that he existed prior to his earthly life, apparently believes that he had a normal human parentage and birth, and makes no attempt to trace his ancestry back to [[King David]] or [[Adam]];{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=158}}{{sfn|Parker|1997|p=125}} it originally ended at [[Mark 16]]:8 and had no [[Resurrection of Jesus#Biblical accounts|post-resurrection appearances]], although Mark 16:7, in which the young man discovered in the tomb instructs the women to tell "the disciples and Peter" that Jesus will see them again in Galilee, hints that the author knew of the tradition.{{sfn|Telford|1999|p=148-149}}

The authors of Matthew and Luke added infancy and resurrection narratives to the story they found in Mark, although the two differ markedly.{{sfn|Eve|2021|p=29}} Each also makes subtle theological changes to Mark: the Markan miracle stories, for example, confirm Jesus' status as an emissary of God (which was Mark's understanding of the Messiah), but in Matthew they demonstrate his divinity,{{sfn|Aune|1987|p=59}} and the "young man" who appears at Jesus' tomb in Mark becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.{{sfn|Beaton|2005|pp=117, 123}}{{sfn|Morris|1986|p=114}} Luke, while following Mark's plot more faithfully than Matthew, has expanded on the source, corrected Mark's grammar and syntax, and eliminated some passages entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7.{{sfn|Johnson|2010a|p=48}}

John, the most overtly theological, is the first to make Christological judgements outside the context of the narrative of Jesus's life.{{sfn|Culpepper|1999|p=66}} He presents a significantly different picture of Jesus's career,{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=217}} omitting any mention of his ancestry, birth and childhood, his [[baptism of Jesus|baptism]], [[temptation of Christ|temptation]] and [[transfiguration of Jesus|transfiguration]];{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=217}} his chronology and arrangement of incidents is also distinctly different, clearly describing the passage of three years in Jesus's ministry in contrast to the single year of the synoptics, placing the [[cleansing of the Temple]] at the beginning rather than at the end, and the [[Last Supper]] on the day before [[Passover]] instead of being a Passover meal.{{sfn|Anderson|2011|p=52}} According to Delbert Burkett, the Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, though other scholars like [[Larry Hurtado]] and Michael Barber view a possible divine [[Christology]] in the synoptics.<ref name="web">{{Cite web |date=16 March 2016 |title=Jesus in the Gospels |url=https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/jesus-in-the-gospels/ |access-date=29 September 2024 |website=Larry Hurtado's Blog |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Barber |first=Michael |year=2023 |title=The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew- Foreword by Dale C. Allison, Jr. |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=xi |isbn=978-1009210850}}</ref>{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=216}} In contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it.{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=214}}

===Composition===
[[File:Relationship between synoptic gospels-en.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|The Synoptic sources: the Gospel of Mark (the triple tradition), [[Q source|Q]] (the double tradition), and material unique to Matthew (the [[M&nbsp;source]]), Luke (the [[L&nbsp;source]]), and Mark{{sfn|Honoré|1986|pp=95–147}}]]

Like the rest of the [[New Testament]], the four gospels were written in Greek.{{sfn|Porter|2006|p=185}} The Gospel of Mark probably dates from around AD 70,{{sfn|Perkins|1998|p=241}} Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=108, 144}} and John AD 90–110.,{{sfn|Lincoln|2005|p=18}} which puts their composition likely within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses, including Jesus's own family.<ref name="van Os 2011 57, 83"/><ref name="Sanders 1996 5"/>  Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses to the [[Historical Jesus]], though most scholars view the author of [[Luke-Acts]] as an eyewitness to [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]].<ref>{{cite book |last= Keener |first= Craig |author-link=Craig Keener |year=2015 |title=Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Volume 1) |publisher= Baker Academic |page=402 |isbn=978-0801039898}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Dunn |first= James |author-link= James Dunn (theologian) |year= 2016 |title= The Acts of the Apostles |publisher=  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. |page= x |isbn= 978-0802874023}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Fitzmyer |first= Joseph |author-link= Joseph Fitzmyer |year= 1998 |title= The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) |publisher= Yale University Press |page= 50 |isbn= 978-0300139822}}</ref> However, Paul never met Jesus. Before the gospels were written, he claimed to have had a vision of Jesus after his death and later met his brother James.<ref>{{bibleverse|1 Corinthians|15:3-8}}</ref><ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|1:11-19}}</ref> All are the end-products of long [[oral tradition|oral]] and written transmission (which did involve claiming consulting eyewitnesses).{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=13, 42}}<ref name="Byrskog 2000 18–28, 69"/><ref name="Rodriguez 57"/><ref name="Becker 2017 39–40, 59"/> A few scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons, the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.{{sfn|Lindars|Edwards|Court|2000|p=41}}<ref name="Gathercole">{{Cite journal |last=Gathercole |first=Simon |date=1 October 2018 |title=The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels |url=https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/69/2/447/5101372 |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |language=en |volume=69 |issue=2 |pages=447–476 |doi=10.1093/jts/fly113}}</ref>

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death, his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations, but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.{{sfn|Reddish|2011|p=17}} The stages of this process can be summarized as follows:{{sfn|Burkett|2002|pp=124–125}}
* Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
* Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
* Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels – the dedicatory preface of Luke, for example, testifies to the existence of previous accounts of the life of Jesus.{{sfn|Martens|2004|p=100}}
* Gospels formed by combining proto-gospels, written collections, and still-current oral tradition.

Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel;{{sfn|Goodacre|2001|p=56}} it uses a variety of sources, including conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), [[apocalyptic literature|apocalyptic]] discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings, although not the sayings gospel known as the [[Gospel of Thomas]], and probably not the hypothesized [[Q&nbsp;source]] used by Matthew and Luke.{{sfn|Boring|2006|pp=13–14}} Most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus' career, supplementing it with the hypothesized collection of sayings called the Q&nbsp;source and additional material unique to each called the [[M&nbsp;source]] (Matthew) and the [[L&nbsp;source]] (Luke), though alternative hypotheses that posit the direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Runesson |first=Anders |title=Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins |date=2021 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=9780802868923}}</ref><ref name="TSP20222">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344}}</ref>.{{sfn|Levine|2009|p=6}}{{refn|group=note|name="Markan priority"|The priority of Mark is accepted by most scholars, but there are important dissenting opinions: see the article [[Synoptic problem]].}} The Gospels represent a Jesus tradition and were enveloped by oral storytelling and performances during the early years of Christianity, rather than being redactions or literary responses to each other.<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |title= Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text |year= 2010 |publisher= T&T Clark |page= 5 |isbn= 978-0567264206}}</ref> Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the [[synoptic gospels]] because of their close similarities of content, arrangement, and language.{{sfn|Goodacre|2001|p=1}} Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly theologically or historically different dubious.<ref>{{cite book |last= Kirk |first= Alan |year= 2019 |title= Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 298–306 |isbn=  978-0567686541}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2017 |title= Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe |journal= Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume= 15 |issue= 2–3 |page= 203 |doi= 10.1163/17455197-01502003}}</ref> The authors and editors of John may have known the synoptics, but did not use them in the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.{{sfn|Perkins|2012|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}} There is a near-consensus that this gospel had its origins as a "signs" source (or gospel) that circulated within the [[Johannine]] community (which produced John and the three epistles associated with the name) and later expanded with a Passion narrative as well as a series of discourses.{{sfn|Burge|2014|p=309}}{{refn|group=note |name="John"|The debate over the composition of John is too complex to be treated adequately in a single paragraph; for a more nuanced view see {{harvp|Aune|1987|loc="Gospel of John"}}.{{sfn|Aune|1987|pp=243–245}}}}

All four also use the Jewish scriptures, by quoting or referencing passages, interpreting texts, or alluding to or echoing biblical themes.{{sfn|Allen|2013|pp=43–44}} Such use can be extensive: Mark's description of the [[Parousia]] (second coming) is made up almost entirely of quotations from scripture.{{sfn|Edwards|2002|p=403}} Matthew is full of quotations and [[allusion]]s,{{sfn|Beaton|2005|p=122}} and although John uses scripture in a far less explicit manner, its influence is still pervasive.{{sfn|Lieu|2005|p=175}} According to Wesley Allen, their source was the Greek version of the scriptures, called the [[Septuagint]] and they do not seem familiar with the original Hebrew.,{{sfn|Allen|2013|p=45}} though other scholars point out that Matthew in particular has quotations closer to the [[Masoretic]] and could understand [[Hebrew]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barber |first=Michael Patrick |year=2023 |title=The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page= 243 |isbn=978-1-009-21085-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last= Ferda |first= Tucker |year= 2020 |title= Doubling Down: Zechariah's Oracle, Judah's Blessing, and the Triumphal Entry in Matthew |journal= The Journal of Theological Studies |series=New Series |volume= 71 |issue= 2 |pages= 466–512 |doi= 10.1093/jts/flaa088}}</ref>{{refn|group=note|Ferda: "I have no doubt that the First Evangelist could read Hebrew, and here I stand with a host of other interpreters."}}

===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}} meant to convince people that Jesus was a charismatic miracle-working holy man.{{sfn|Ehrman|1999|p=52}}{{sfn|Vermes|2013|p=32}}  As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,{{sfn|Keith|Le Donne|2012|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}} and modern [[Biblical studies|biblical scholars]] are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically as historical documents,{{sfn|Schoeps|1968|p=261–262}}{{sfn|Sanders|2010}}{{sfn|Ehrman|1999|p=53}}{{refn|group=note|name="a-historical"}}{{refn|group=note|name="nativity"}} though they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus.{{sfn|Sanders|1995b|p=4-5}}{{refn|group=note|name="Sanders_public_career"}}

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 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 some 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, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of later authors.{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=21–22}}

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}} and the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for Christ's ministry.{{sfn|Sanders|2010}}{{refn|group=note|name="Sanders_primary_sources"}}

Assessments of the reliability of the [[Gospels]] involve not just the texts but studying the long oral and written transmission behind them using methods like memory studies and [[form criticism]], with different scholars coming to different conclusions. There have been different views on the transmission of material that lead to the [[synoptic gospels]], with various scholars arguing memory and orality reliably preserved traditions that ultimately go back to the historical Jesus.{{sfn|Dunn|1995}}<ref name="Wright 1998"/><ref name="Bockmuehl 2006 166–178"/><ref name="McIver 2011"/> Other scholars have been more skeptical and see more changes in the traditions prior to the written Gospels.{{sfn|Ehrman|1997}}{{sfn|Valantasis|Bleyle|Haugh|2009}} Jeffrey Tripp observes a scholarly trend advocating for the reliability of memory and the oral gospel traditions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tripp |first=Jeffrey |title=The Eyewitnesses in their Own Words |journal=Journal for the Study of the New Testament |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=411-12}}</ref>

[[James D.G. Dunn]] believed that
{{blockquote|the earliest tradents within the Christian churches [were] preservers more than innovators [...] seeking to transmit, retell, explain, interpret, elaborate, but not create ''de novo'' [...] Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition [...] we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process [...] and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him.{{sfn|Dunn|1995|pp=371–372}}}}
Anthony Le Donne, a leading memory researcher in Jesus studies, elaborated on Dunn's thesis, basing "his historiography squarely on Dunn’s thesis that the historical Jesus is the memory of Jesus recalled by the earliest disciples."<ref name="Simpson">{{cite web |first=Benjamin I. |last=Simpson |date=April 1, 2014 |title=review of ''The Historiographical Jesus. Memory, Typology, and the Son of David'' |url=https://voice.dts.edu/review/historiographical-jesus-le-donne/ |website=The Voice |publisher=Dallas Theological Seminary}}</ref> According to Le Donne as explained by his reviewer, Benjamin Simpson, memories are fractured, and not exact recalls of the past. Le Donne further argues that the remembrance of events is facilitated by relating it to a common story, or "type." This means the Jesus-tradition is not a theological invention of the early Church, but rather a tradition shaped and refracted through such memory "type." Le Donne too supports a conservative view on typology compared to some other scholars, transmissions involving eyewitnesses, and ultimately a stable tradition resulting in little invention in the Gospels.<ref name="Simpson"/> Le Donne expressed himself thusly vis-a-vis more skeptical scholars, "He (Dale Allison) does not read the gospels as fiction, but even if these early stories derive from memory, memory can be frail and often misleading. While I do not share Allison's point of departure (i.e. I am more optimistic), I am compelled by the method that came from it."<ref>{{cite book |last= Le Donne |first= Anthony |year= 2018 |title= Jesus: A Beginner's Guide |publisher= Oneworld Publications |page= 212 |isbn= 978-1786071446}}</ref>

[[Dale Allison]] emphasizes the weakness of human memory, referring to its 'many sins' and how it frequently misguides people. He expresses skepticism at other scholars' endeavors to identify authentic sayings of Jesus. Instead of isolating and authenticating individual pericopae, Allison advocates for a methodology focused on identifying patterns and finding what he calls 'recurrent attestation'. Allison argues that the general impressions left by the Gospels should be trusted, though he is more skeptical on the details; if they are broadly unreliable, then our sources almost certainly cannot have preserved any of the particulars. Opposing preceding approaches where the Gospels are historically questionable and must be rigorously sifted through by competent scholars for nuggets of information, Allison argues that the Gospels are generally accurate and often 'got Jesus right'. Dale Allison finds apocalypticism to be recurrently attested, among various other themes.<ref>{{cite book |last= Allison |first= Dale |author-link= Dale Allison |year= 2010 |title= Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History |publisher= Baker Academic |page=2-8, 8-9, 16-18, 20, 23-26, 33-43|isbn= 978-0801048753}}</ref> Reviewing his work, Rafael Rodriguez largely agrees with Allison's methodology and conclusions while arguing that Allison's discussion on memory is too one-sided, noting that memory "is nevertheless sufficiently stable to authentically bring the past to bear on the present" and that people are beholden to memory's successes in everyday life.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2014 |title= Jesus as his Friends Remembered Him |journal= Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume= 12 |issue= 3 |pages= 224–244 |doi= 10.1163/17455197-01203004}}</ref>

[[Craig Keener]], drawing on the works of previous studies by Dunn, Alan Kirk, [[Kenneth E. Bailey|Kenneth Bailey]], and Robert McIver, among many others, utilizes memory theory and oral tradition to argue that the Gospels are in many ways historically accurate.<ref name="Keener 2019">{{cite book |last= Keener |first= Craig |author-link= Craig Keener |year= 2019 |title= Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels |publisher= Eerdmans |isbn= 978-0802876751}}</ref> His work has been endorsed by [[Markus Bockmuehl]], [[James Charlesworth]], and [[David Aune]], among others.<ref name="Keener 2019"/> 
According to [[Bruce Chilton]] and [[Craig A. Evans|Craig Evans]], "...the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism [...] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Chilton |first1=Bruce |author-link=Bruce Chilton |last2=Evans |first2=Craig |author-link2=Craig A. Evans |year=1998 |title=Authenticating the Words of Jesus & Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Volume 2 Authenticating the Activities of Jesus |publisher=Brill |pages=53–55 |isbn=978-9004113022}}</ref> [[NT Wright]] also argued for a stable oral tradition, stating "Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities [...] Such stories [...] acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology [...] they retain that form, and phraseology, as long as they are told [...] The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wright |first=NT |author-link=NT Wright |chapter=Five Gospels But No Gospel |title=Authenticating the Activities of Jesus|series=
New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents |publisher=Brill |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=112–113 |doi=10.1163/9789004421295_009|editor1=Craig A. Evans |editor2= Bruce Chilton }}</ref>

Other scholars are less sanguine about oral tradition, and Valantasis, Bleyle, and Hough argue that the early traditions were fluid and subject to alteration, sometimes transmitted by those who had known Jesus personally, but more often by wandering prophets and teachers like the [[Apostle Paul]], who did not know him personally.{{sfn|Valantasis|Bleyle|Haugh|2009|pp=7, 10, 14}} Ehrman explains how the tradition developed as it was transmitted:
{{blockquote|You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game "[[Telephone game|telephone]]." A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants—from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts—some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages.{{sfn|Ehrman|1997|p=44}}}}

While multiple quests have been undertaken to reconstruct the historical Jesus, since the late 1990s concerns have been growing about the possibility to reconstruct a historical Jesus from the Gospel-texts.{{sfn|Keith|2016}} According to Dunn, "What we actually have in the earliest retellings of what is now the Synoptic tradition...are the memories of the first disciples-not Jesus himself, but the remembered Jesus. The idea that we can get back to an objective historical reality, which we can wholly separate and disentangle from the disciples' memories...is simply unrealistic."{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=130-131}}{{sfn|Dunn|2003}}{{refn|group=note|name="Dunn_2003_back_to_Jesus"}} These memories can contradict and are not always historically correct, as the Gospels display. Chris Keith argues that the [[Historical Jesus]] was the one who could create these memories, both true or not. For instance, Mark and Luke disagree on how Jesus came back to the synagogue, with the likely more accurate Mark arguing he was rejected for being an artisan, while Luke portrays Jesus as literate and his refusal to heal in [[Nazareth]] as cause of his dismissal. Keith does not view Luke's account as a fabrication since different eyewitnesses would have perceived and remembered differently.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Keith |first= Chris |year= 2011 |title= Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened |journal= Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche |volume= 102 |issue= 2 |pages= 172, 176 |doi= 10.1515/zntw.2011.011}}</ref> According to Chris Keith, a historical Jesus is "ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the [[early Christians]], and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did." According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible," calling into question the methods and aim of the first model.{{sfn|Keith|2016}} Keith argues that criticism of the criteria of authenticity does not mean scholars cannot research the [[Historical Jesus]], but rather that scholarship should seek to understand the Gospels rather than trying to sift through them for nuggets of history.{{sfn|Keith|2012}} Regardless of the methodological challenges [[historical Jesus]] studies have flowered in recent years; Dale Allison laments, "The publication of academic books about the historical Jesus continues apace, so much so that no one can any longer keep up; we are all overwhelmed."<ref>{{cite book |last=Barber |first=Michael |year=2023 |title=The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew- Foreword by Dale C. Allison, Jr. |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=ix |isbn=978-1009210850}}</ref>

===Textual history and canonisation===
{{Main|Development of the New Testament canon}}

The oldest gospel text known is {{Papyrus link|52}}, a fragment of John dating from the first half of the 2nd century.{{sfn|Fant|Reddish|2008|p=415}} The creation of a Christian canon was probably a response to the career of the heretic [[Marcion]] ({{circa|85}}–160), who established a canon of his own with just one gospel, the [[Gospel of Marcion]], similar to the Gospel of Luke.{{sfn|Ehrman|2005a|p=34|ps=: "Marcion included a Gospel in his canon, a form of what is now the Gospel of Luke"}} The [[Muratorian canon]], the earliest surviving list of books considered (by its own author at least) to form Christian scripture, included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [[Irenaeus of Lyons]] went further, stating that there must be four gospels and only four because there were [[Four corners of the world|four corners of the Earth]] and thus the Church should have four pillars.{{sfn|Cross|Livingstone|2005|p=697}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2005a|p=35}} He referred to the four collectively as the "fourfold gospel" (''euangelion tetramorphon'').{{sfn|Watson|2016|p=15}}