text: Of course, your are free to reject whatever you want, but my suggestion that the overwhelming majority of scriptural scholars (Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant) do not regard the Gospel as history in our modern sense is not a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact--in the precise sense that it can be verified or disproved be empirical research. 
  
  May I give you a widely accepted example?
  
  The synoptic gospels follow the same basic outline established by Mark. When one systematically collects all of the synoptic material shared by Mt and Lk but not Mr, we find almost exclusively a set of sayings of Jesus, and the bulk of that material is collected in The Sermon on the Mount in Mt and in the Sermon on the Plain in Lk (the long dialogue between Jesus and his disciples as they march from Galilee to Jerusalem for the passion). The majority of modern scholars agree that these Mt and Lk shared saying of Jesus existed as a separate collection not lost that is called "Q" cont.