The study of the "historical Jesus" refers to attempts by scholars to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth based on historical methods and evidence. This scholarly quest has grown significantly since the 18th century, particularly through the development of various methods of biblical criticism, such as source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism. Many scholars have sought to distinguish between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith," a concept that suggests there may be discrepancies between the figure of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and the historical person who lived in 1st century Judea.
However, from a conservative evangelical Christian perspective, we affirm that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and the Gospels are reliable historical accounts of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection. The historical Jesus and the Christ of faith are not two separate entities but one and the same person. Attempts to reconstruct a Jesus apart from the New Testament rely on flawed methodologies and presuppositions that often undermine the authority of Scripture. This article aims to defend the reliability of the Bible's portrait of Jesus and address the common challenges posed by the "historical Jesus" movement.
What Evidence Do We Have for Jesus’ Existence?
The first question we must address is whether we have any credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Skeptics have, at times, questioned whether Jesus even existed, but such skepticism flies in the face of the overwhelming historical evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources.
The New Testament is the most comprehensive and reliable source of information about Jesus' life. The four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are eyewitness accounts or based on the testimony of those who were close to Jesus. Luke begins his Gospel by stating that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning and wrote an orderly account so that the reader "may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3-4). This shows that the Gospel writers were concerned with accuracy and truthfulness.
Moreover, several non-Christian sources from the 1st and 2nd centuries confirm the existence of Jesus. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing in Antiquities of the Jews around 93-94 C.E., mentions Jesus twice. In one passage, Josephus refers to James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" (Antiquities 20.9.1). In another passage, Josephus describes Jesus as a wise man who performed surprising deeds, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was believed by his followers to have been raised from the dead (Antiquities 18.3.3).
The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions Jesus in his Annals, written around 116 C.E. While describing the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero, Tacitus states that "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44).
These non-Christian sources, though brief, corroborate the core historical claims of the New Testament about Jesus' life and crucifixion under Pilate. Therefore, the evidence for Jesus' existence is overwhelming, and the claim that Jesus never existed is not supported by serious historians, Christian or non-Christian.
Can We Trust the Gospels as Historical Documents?
Critics of the Gospels often argue that they cannot be trusted as historical documents because they were written with theological purposes in mind. This argument, however, misunderstands the nature of ancient historical writing and the reliability of the Gospel accounts.
The Gospels, like other ancient historical works, were written to communicate truth about real events. Ancient historians, such as Josephus and Tacitus, also had specific purposes and perspectives in their writings, yet they are still considered reliable historical sources. The fact that the Gospel writers believed Jesus to be the Messiah does not discredit the historical accuracy of their accounts. Rather, their faith was based on what they had seen and heard (1 John 1:1-3). The Gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, and they reflect an intimate knowledge of the geography, customs, and politics of 1st century Palestine.
Furthermore, the New Testament writers frequently appeal to the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and resurrection. The apostle Peter writes, "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). Similarly, the apostle Paul, in his defense of the resurrection, appeals to the testimony of more than 500 witnesses, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:6). The presence of living eyewitnesses would have served as a check on any false or exaggerated claims.
In addition, the Gospels exhibit what historians call the "criteria of embarrassment." This criterion suggests that when an account includes details that are potentially embarrassing or difficult for the author to explain, it is more likely to be true. For example, the Gospels record that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:11-18). In the 1st century Jewish and Roman cultures, the testimony of women was often regarded as less reliable than that of men. If the Gospel writers were inventing the resurrection accounts, they would have had no reason to include women as the first witnesses unless it was what actually happened.
Thus, the Gospels can be trusted as historical documents that provide a faithful account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
How Do We Address the Claims of Higher Criticism?
One of the major challenges to the reliability of the Gospels has come from higher criticism, particularly from scholars who apply the historical-critical method. The historical-critical method seeks to dissect the Bible through the lens of skepticism, often assuming that the Bible is a human creation rather than a divine revelation. Higher critics frequently attempt to "demythologize" the Gospels, claiming that the miraculous elements—such as Jesus' virgin birth, His miracles, and His resurrection—are later additions or myths that were layered onto the life of an ordinary Jewish teacher.
A key figure in higher criticism is Rudolf Bultmann, who argued that the supernatural elements of the Gospels should be discarded to uncover the "real" historical Jesus. According to Bultmann, the early Christian community created the miraculous stories about Jesus to promote their theological agenda.
However, this approach is flawed for several reasons. First, it dismisses the possibility of divine intervention, presupposing that miracles cannot happen. This naturalistic assumption is not based on historical evidence but on philosophical bias. If we believe in the existence of an all-powerful God, as the Bible clearly teaches (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 115:3), then miracles are not only possible but entirely consistent with His nature.
Second, the attempt to separate the "historical Jesus" from the "Christ of faith" creates a false dichotomy. The Jesus of the Gospels is both historical and divine. As Peter declared at Pentecost, "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32). The early Christian proclamation centered on Jesus' death and resurrection, events that took place in history. To deny the historical reliability of the resurrection is to undermine the entire Christian faith, as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:17: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."
Therefore, higher criticism fails to offer a credible alternative to the traditional understanding of Jesus. The miraculous elements of the Gospels are not later additions but are integral to the historical reality of who Jesus is—the Son of God who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
Did Jesus Really Perform Miracles?
Another major issue raised by critics of the historical Jesus is the question of His miracles. Many scholars influenced by modern skepticism reject the idea that Jesus performed supernatural acts, viewing them as embellishments or symbolic stories rather than literal events.
However, the Gospels present Jesus as a miracle worker who healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, and calmed storms. These miracles were not performed in secret but were witnessed by many people, including skeptics and opponents. In John 11, for example, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead in front of a large crowd, and even His enemies could not deny what had happened (John 11:45-48).
The miracles of Jesus served to authenticate His identity as the Messiah and to demonstrate His authority over nature, disease, and death. In Matthew 11:2-6, when John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask if Jesus was the one to come, Jesus responded by pointing to His miracles: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them."
Moreover, Jesus’ miracles were not merely acts of compassion or displays of power. They had theological significance, pointing to the arrival of God’s kingdom. For example, when Jesus cast out demons, He declared, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28). His miracles demonstrated that He was ushering in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6).
Therefore, we must affirm that the miracles recorded in the Gospels are not mythical embellishments but real historical events that reveal Jesus’ divine authority and His mission to redeem a fallen world.
What About the Resurrection of Jesus?
The resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, Christianity collapses, for it is the event that vindicates Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 15:14, where he writes, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."
Skeptics have offered numerous alternative explanations for the resurrection, such as the idea that Jesus’ disciples stole His body or that they experienced hallucinations of a risen Jesus. However, none of these explanations account for the historical facts.
First, the empty tomb is a well-attested fact of history. Both the Gospels and non-Christian sources acknowledge that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the third day after His crucifixion. If the tomb had not been empty, the authorities could have easily produced Jesus’ body to disprove the resurrection claim.
Second, the disciples’ transformation from fearful, disillusioned followers to bold proclaimers of the risen Christ requires an explanation. After Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples were in hiding, afraid for their lives. Yet, after they encountered the risen Jesus, they became fearless witnesses who were willing to die for their faith. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, the risen Jesus appeared to Peter, the Twelve, more than 500 brethren at one time, and finally to Paul. The widespread testimony of these eyewitnesses forms the foundation of the Christian faith.
Third, the early church’s shift to worshiping on Sunday, rather than the Jewish Sabbath, is another strong piece of evidence for the resurrection. The first Christians were Jews who observed the Sabbath, yet after Jesus’ resurrection, they began gathering on the first day of the week to celebrate the risen Lord (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). This dramatic change in worship practices can only be explained by the reality of the resurrection.
The resurrection is not just a spiritual metaphor; it is a historical event with profound theological implications. It is the guarantee of our own future resurrection and the hope of eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).
About the Author
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Explore the relationship between faith and reason through scripture and theology. Discover the balance between belief and logic.
Explore the evidence of intelligent design in cellular complexity. Discover how biology points to purpose. Read more now.
RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS: for Pastors, Teachers, and Believers
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS: Answering the Tough Questions: Evidence and Reason in Defense of the Faith
REASON MEETS FAITH: Addressing and Refuting Atheism's Challenges to Christianity
BATTLE PLANS: A Game Plan for Answering Objections to the Christian Faith
CREATION AND COSMOS A Journey Through Creation, Science, and the Origins of Life
ANSWERING THE CRITICS: Defending God's Word Against Modern Skepticism
IS THE BIBLE REALLY THE WORD OF GOD?: Is Christianity the One True Faith?
DEFENDING OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORSHIP: The Word of God Is Authentic and True
YOUR GUIDE FOR DEFENDING THE BIBLE: Self-Education of the Bible Made Easy
THE BIBLE ON TRIAL: Examining the Evidence for Being Inspired, Inerrant, Authentic, and True
THE HISTORICAL JESUS: The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ
THE HISTORICAL ADAM & EVE: Reconciling Faith and Fact in Genesis
UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS: Strategies for Strengthening and Defending Your Faith
BIBLICAL CRITICISM: What are Some Outstanding Weaknesses of Modern Historical Criticism?
THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST: Always Being Prepared to Make a Defense
THE EVANGELISM HANDBOOK: How All Christians Can Effectively Share God’s Word in Their Community
Comments