Historical reliability of the Gospels
| Part of a series on |
The historical reliability of the Gospels is evaluated by experts; it is a matter of ongoing debate.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st-century Judaea in the Southern Levant but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of him. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There is no scholarly consensus about other elements of Jesus's life, including the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events such as the resurrection, and certain details of the crucifixion.
According to the majority viewpoint, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively called the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and the religious movement he founded. The fourth gospel, John, differs greatly from the other three. The Gospels are commonly seen as literature that is based on oral traditions, Christian preaching, and Old Testament exegesis with the consensus being that they are a variation of Greco-Roman biography; similar to other ancient works such as Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates or Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies were written shortly after the death of the subject and included substantial history.
Historians analyze the Gospels critically, attempting to differentiate reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. Scholars use textual criticism to resolve questions arising from textual variations among the numerous extant manuscripts to decide the wording of a text closest to the "original". Scholars seek to answer questions of authorship and date and purpose of composition, and they look at internal and external sources to determine the gospel traditions' reliability. Historical reliability does not depend on a source's inerrancy or lack of agenda since some sources (e.g. Josephus) are considered generally reliable despite having such traits.