[1] In this sense a gospel can be defined as a loose-knit, episodic narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus, culminating in his trial and death, and concluding with various reports of his post-resurrection appearances.

[2] The gospels are a kind of bios, or ancient biography,[3] meant to convince people that Jesus was a charismatic miracle-working holy man, providing examples for readers to emulate.

[4][5][6] As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[7] Modern biblical scholars are therefore cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically as historical documents, and although they afford a good idea of Jesus' public career, critical study has largely failed to distinguish his original ideas from those of the later Christian authors,[8][9] and the focus of research has therefore shifted to Jesus as remembered by his followers,[10][11][note 1][note 2] and understanding the Gospels themselves.

[24] 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.

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.

[35] He presents a significantly different picture of Jesus's career,[40] omitting any mention of his ancestry, birth and childhood, his baptism, temptation and transfiguration;[40] 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.

[65][66] 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.

[24][note 4] 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.

[71] 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.

[3] 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),[5] meant to convince people that Jesus was a charismatic miracle-working holy man.

[85][note 9] 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.

[89] 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.

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.

Dunn believed that 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.

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.

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.

[99] Craig Keener, drawing on the works of previous studies by Dunn, Alan Kirk, 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.

"[102] 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.

[8] 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.

[110] 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.

[112] The many apocryphal gospels arose from the 1st century onward, frequently under assumed names to enhance their credibility and authority, and often from within branches of Christianity that were eventually branded heretical.

[113] They can be broadly organised into the following categories:[114] The apocryphal gospels can also be seen in terms of the communities which produced them: It was originally written in Greek and is often interpreted as a Gnostic text.