The Evidence for Jesus, Part 2: Can We Trust the Accounts?

This is Part 2 of a 3-part series examining the historical evidence for Jesus. Part 1 established that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Part 3 evaluates the evidence for the resurrection.

In Part 1, we saw that virtually all historians accept Jesus existed. But existence is just the beginning. Can we trust what the Gospels tell us about him?

The usual objection goes like this: The Gospels were written decades after the events by anonymous authors who weren't eyewitnesses. They're religious propaganda, not reliable history. How could oral tradition preserve accurate information over 30–60 years?

These are fair questions. Let's examine the evidence.

The Manuscript Evidence

An Embarrassment of Riches

When scholars study ancient texts, they typically work from manuscripts copied centuries after the original. For most ancient works, we have a handful of copies — sometimes just one or two.

For the New Testament, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts, plus thousands more in other languages.¹

To put this in perspective:

Ancient Work	Earliest Copy	Time Gap	Number of Copies
Homer's Iliad	c. 400 BC	~500 years	1,800
Herodotus's Histories	c. 900 AD	~1,350 years	8
Thucydides's History	c. 900 AD	~1,300 years	8
Caesar's Gallic Wars	c. 900 AD	~1,000 years	10
New Testament	c. 125–250 AD	25–200 years	5,800+ (Greek)

No other ancient document comes close. If we're skeptical about the New Testament's transmission, we'd have to throw out virtually everything we think we know about the ancient world.

Early Manuscripts

The earliest fragment of the New Testament is P52, a small piece of John's Gospel typically dated around 125 AD — within 30 years of John's likely composition.²

By the third and fourth centuries, we have substantial manuscripts containing most or all of the New Testament. This allows scholars to compare manuscripts and identify where copyist errors crept in.

What About Variants?

Yes, there are differences between manuscripts — roughly 400,000 variant readings across all manuscripts.³ That sounds alarming until you understand what it means.

Most variants are obvious scribal errors: misspellings, word order changes, or accidentally skipped lines. When you have thousands of manuscripts, small copying errors multiply.

The vast majority of variants are trivial and don't affect meaning at all. Of the variants that do matter, none affects any major Christian doctrine. Bart Ehrman, a scholar critical of Christianity, acknowledges:⁴

Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

The abundance of manuscripts actually works in our favor: we can compare them to identify and correct errors. Scholars estimate we can reconstruct the original text with about 99% accuracy.⁵

The Dating: Earlier Than You Think

The Gospels

The Gospels were written roughly 30–60 years after Jesus' death:

Mark: c. 65–70 AD
Matthew and Luke: c. 70–85 AD
John: c. 90–95 AD⁶

Skeptics sometimes suggest this gap is too long for reliable memory. But consider: many people alive today have clear memories of the Kennedy assassination, the Moon landing, or the fall of the Berlin Wall — events 35 to 60 years ago. Holocaust survivors testified with remarkable accuracy decades after the events. Sixty years isn't beyond living memory, especially for life-changing experiences.

More importantly, the Gospels weren't the beginning of the tradition. They were writing down what communities had already been teaching and remembering.

The Creed in 1 Corinthians 15

Here's where it gets remarkable.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around 53–55 AD — roughly 20 years after Jesus' death. In chapter 15, he quotes what scholars recognize as an early Christian creed:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. — 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 (ESV)

Paul says he "received" this creed — meaning it predates his letter. When did he receive it?

Paul was converted around 33–36 AD. In Galatians 1:18, he says he visited Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Most scholars believe he received this creed either at his conversion or during that Jerusalem visit.⁷

That places this creed within 1–5 years of Jesus' death.

This isn't legend developing over centuries. It's a formal statement of Christian belief circulating within a few years of the events — while eyewitnesses were still alive and could be consulted.

German scholar Gerd Lüdemann, himself a skeptic who denies the resurrection, acknowledges:⁸

The elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus... not later than three years after the death of Jesus.

Eyewitness Testimony

The Claim

The New Testament repeatedly claims to be based on eyewitness testimony:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account. — Luke 1:1–3 (ESV)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands... — 1 John 1:1 (ESV)

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 (ESV)

Richard Bauckham's Argument

New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham, in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, argues that the Gospels are much closer to eyewitness testimony than typically assumed.⁹

He notes that the Gospels include specific names — people like Simon of Cyrene, Jairus, Bartimaeus, Joseph of Arimathea — in situations where names aren't necessary for the story. Why include them?

Bauckham's answer: these were the sources. The names function as a kind of citation, pointing readers to people who could verify the events. Mark mentions that Simon of Cyrene was "the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21) — a detail that makes sense only if Alexander and Rufus were known to Mark's community and could be consulted.

This isn't legend. It's testimony that could be checked.

The Criterion of Embarrassment

One of the tools historians use to identify authentic traditions is the "criterion of embarrassment." If early Christians invented material about Jesus, they would have made themselves look good and avoided anything that would have undermined their message.

Yet the Gospels include numerous embarrassing details:

The Women at the Tomb

In first-century Jewish and Roman culture, women's testimony was not considered reliable in legal contexts. Yet all four Gospels agree that women — not the male disciples — were the first witnesses to the empty tomb.¹⁰

If you were inventing the resurrection story to convince a skeptical ancient audience, you would never make women the primary witnesses. The fact that the Gospels do suggests they're recording what actually happened, not what was convenient.

Peter's Denial

Peter became the leader of the early church, yet the Gospels record that he denied Jesus three times on the night of his arrest. Why preserve this humiliating story about your most prominent leader unless it happened?

The Disciples' Failures

Throughout the Gospels, the disciples are portrayed as cowardly, slow to understand, and faithless. They argue about who's greatest. They fall asleep when Jesus asks them to pray. They abandon him at his arrest. Thomas doubts the resurrection.

This isn't hagiography. It's uncomfortably honest portrayal that makes sense only if they were committed to reporting what actually happened.

Jesus' Family's Unbelief

Mark 3:21 records that Jesus' own family thought he was "out of his mind." John 7:5 states plainly that "even his brothers did not believe in him."

Why invent that your founder's own family thought he was crazy? Unless his family's initial skepticism was well known — and their later conversion (James became a church leader) was part of the evidence for the resurrection.

Undesigned Coincidences

J.J. Blunt, in the 19th century, and more recently Lydia McGrew, have catalogued "undesigned coincidences" — places where the Gospels fill in each other's gaps in ways that suggest they're describing real events from different perspectives.¹¹

Example: The Feeding of the 5,000

John 6:5 records that Jesus asked Philip specifically, "Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" Why Philip? John doesn't explain.

Luke 9:10 tells us this event happened near Bethsaida. John 12:21 mentions that Philip was from Bethsaida.

Jesus asked Philip because Philip was local and would know where to buy food. John includes the question without explaining it; Luke provides the location without mentioning Philip. Neither Gospel seems aware of how it complements the other — suggesting both are reporting genuine memories of the same event from different sources.

Example: Herod's Question

Luke 9:9 records that Herod "sought to see" Jesus. Why? Luke doesn't explain.

Matthew 14:1–2 tells us that Herod heard about Jesus' miracles and wondered if he was John the Baptist risen from the dead.

Luke mentions Herod's desire without explaining it; Matthew provides the explanation without mentioning the desire. These dovetail naturally, suggesting both Gospels reflect independent access to genuine historical events.

There are dozens of such coincidences throughout the Gospels — more than would exist if the accounts were fabricated or copied from each other.

Archaeological Confirmation

Archaeology can't prove miracles, but it can verify the Gospels' accuracy on checkable details.

The Pool of Bethesda

John 5:2 describes a pool in Jerusalem "with five roofed colonnades." For centuries, critics suggested this was a fictional detail. Then in the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the pool — with five colonnades, exactly as John described.¹²

The Pool of Siloam

John 9:7 mentions the Pool of Siloam. In 2004, archaeologists discovered the pool, dating to Jesus' time.¹³

Pontius Pilate

Some critics questioned whether Pilate was a real historical figure. In 1961, a stone inscription was discovered at Caesarea Maritima mentioning "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judaea."¹⁴

Crucifixion Evidence

In 1968, the bones of a crucified man named Yehohanan were discovered near Jerusalem, with a nail still embedded in his heel bone. This confirmed details of Roman crucifixion practices described in the Gospels.¹⁵

The Gospels get the checkable details right. This doesn't prove the miracles, but it establishes the writers knew what they were talking about.

What Cold-Case Detective Work Reveals

J. Warner Wallace was a cold-case homicide detective and atheist who decided to apply his professional skills to the Gospel accounts. In Cold-Case Christianity, he examines the evidence as he would an unsolved murder from decades ago.¹⁶

Cold-case detectives regularly evaluate eyewitness testimony that's 25–50 years old. Wallace notes that reliable testimony typically shows:

Agreement on the big picture with variation in details
Personal perspectives that differ based on what each witness noticed
Internal consistency without signs of collusion

The Gospels fit this pattern. They agree on the major events and sequence while differing on details in ways consistent with genuine eyewitness accounts.

Wallace also notes that false testimony has detectable signs: implausible claims of perfect memory, accounts that are too harmonized, or stories that serve the teller's interests too conveniently. The Gospel accounts lack these markers.

The Genre Question

The Gospels read like ancient biography, not like mythology. They're packed with circumstantial details, geographical references, named individuals, and mundane observations that serve no theological purpose. They read like people trying to describe what actually happened, not like people creating religious allegory.

Richard Bauckham and other scholars have compared the Gospels to ancient Greco-Roman biographies (bioi) and found strong similarities in structure and approach. The Gospels were written to tell people what Jesus actually did and said — not to spin elaborate myths.¹⁷

What This Means

None of this proves Christianity is true. You can have reliable documents about events you still don't believe happened.

But the evidence should give skeptics pause. We're not dealing with legends that developed over centuries. We're dealing with:

Testimony that emerged within years, not generations
Manuscripts that are remarkably well-preserved
Details that keep getting confirmed archaeologically
Internal evidence suggesting genuine eyewitness memory
Embarrassing details that wouldn't have been invented

Whatever happened in first-century Palestine, it happened early, it was testified to by people willing to die for their claims, and it has left a documentary trail that historians take seriously.

The question isn't whether we have early testimony. The question is whether that testimony is true.

Questions to Consider

How does the manuscript evidence for the New Testament compare to your expectations? Does it change how you think about the reliability of the text?
The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dates to within 1–5 years of Jesus' death. What does such early testimony suggest about how the first Christians understood what happened?
The criterion of embarrassment suggests the Gospel writers recorded things that would have been convenient to leave out. What does this tell you about their commitment to accuracy over propaganda?
If you were fabricating a religion in the ancient world, would you make women the first resurrection witnesses? What does their inclusion suggest?

Continue the Series

We've established that Jesus existed and that the accounts about him are remarkably early and well-preserved. But what about the central claim — that he rose from the dead?

In Part 3, we'll examine the evidence for the resurrection itself: the empty tomb, the appearances, the transformations, and why scholars across the theological spectrum agree on certain key facts.

Read Part 3: Did He Rise? →

Want to examine the evidence yourself? TheoGPT can help you explore ancient sources, compare manuscript traditions, and investigate the historical claims at your own pace — without pressure and without pat answers.

Start exploring →

Sources

1. Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus. Kregel, 2006. See also Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 1992.

2. The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, housed at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, contains verses from John 18. Most scholars date it to 100–150 AD. See Roberts, C.H. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library. Manchester University Press, 1935.

3. Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Though Ehrman highlights textual variants, he acknowledges in debates and interviews that none affect core doctrines.

4. Ehrman, Bart D. and Daniel B. Wallace. "The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts" (debate), 2008. This quote is from Ehrman's published acknowledgment of this point.

5. Wallace, Daniel B. "The Reliability of the New Testament Text." Lecture at Dallas Theological Seminary. Wallace estimates we can recover the original with 99%+ accuracy.

6. These dates represent mainstream scholarly consensus. Some scholars argue for earlier dates. See Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Westminster Press, 1976.

7. See Galatians 1:18–2:10 for Paul's account of his early contact with the Jerusalem apostles. For analysis of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, see Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus. College Press, 1996.

8. Lüdemann, Gerd. The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. Prometheus Books, 2004. Lüdemann rejects the resurrection but accepts the early dating of the creed.

9. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Second Edition. Eerdmans, 2017.

10. All four Gospels name women as the first witnesses: Mary Magdalene appears in all four accounts (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:1).

11. McGrew, Lydia. Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. DeWard Publishing, 2017. See also Blunt, J.J. Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings Both of the Old and New Testament. 1847.

12. The Pool of Bethesda was excavated in the 19th century near the Church of St. Anne in Jerusalem. See Shanks, Hershel. "The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man." Biblical Archaeology Review, 2005.

13. The Pool of Siloam was discovered in 2004 during sewage work in the City of David. See Reich, Ronny and Eli Shukron. "Light at the End of the Tunnel." Biblical Archaeology Review, 2013.

14. The Pilate Stone was discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1961. It is now housed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

15. Tzaferis, Vassilios. "Crucifixion—The Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review, 1985. The bones of Yehohanan were discovered in an ossuary in Giv'at ha-Mivtar.

16. Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. David C Cook, 2013.

17. Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Cambridge University Press, 1992. Burridge's comparison of the Gospels to ancient biographies is widely accepted among scholars.