Who should we trust for historical info about Jesus?

History vs theology

We start by noting that there is a difference between historical facts about Jesus and theological beliefs about him.

Historians try to ascertain what Jesus did and said, what people of his time believed about him and how historically accurate the gospels are. They examine written sources and archaeological evidence and try to understand this evidence within the culture, language and history of the day. This is more or less the same as they would do about Julius Caesar, Hannibal or any other ancient figure.

In theory, this evidence can be objectively assessed in the same way by believer or disbeliever alike, although in reality we all have our perspectives. Nevertheless, the aim of historical analysis is to reach a conclusion that people of all beliefs can accept.

But beliefs about Jesus – whether he was divine, whether his death achieved something for others, etc – are theological. They are based on interpretations of the historical evidence and they are much more personal. For various reasons, we may each reach different conclusions about Jesus belief.

On this page, I am dealing with historians and historical evidence, not theological beliefs.

Why do we need experts?

Assessing the history of Jesus requires a good understanding of historical method plus ancient culture, language and literature. Trying to approach ancient Middle Eastern history with a modern European (or other) mindset is likely to be misleading.

Academic historians spend years learning ancient languages, examining historical sources and artefacts and learning about culture and religion. Few of us have access to this information nor the skill and training to interpret it.

So it is wise to understand what the experts have concluded, and I suppose you wouldn’t be reading this page if you didn’t think so.

So how do we know who is an expert?

A competent and expert Jesus historian would (i) have relevant qualities and qualifications and (ii) be respected and influential among their peers.

Qualities and qualifications

• Relevant study: a PhD degree in history, classics, archaeology or a related field.
• Up-to-date knowledge: actively working in the field in a respected academic or research institution, and publishing results in respected academic journals or books.

These are fairly objective criteria and can generally be easily assessed from Wikipedia.

Respect & influence

This is much more subjective but the following criteria can be used:

• Citations: how frequently their works are referenced in footnotes and bibliographies of academic books and peer-reviewed journal articles. (It is possible to obtain citation counts, but only for some scholars, so this assessment is inevitably fairly subjective.
• Peer Recognition: participation in major academic societies, editorships of important journals, election to prestigious academies plus other high-ranking scholars engaging with their arguments. Sometimes scholars will specifically name who they most respect.
• Influence: scholars who present ideas that define a new approach to an area of study are seen as highly influential.

The AI analysis was based on these criteria, and generally confirmed my own more subjective impressions.

The information sources I used

• Lists of the leading scholars in books by Mark Alan Powell, Paula Fredriksen and Maurice Casey. (These books were written a decade or two ago and so their lists are not current.)
• AI assessments by Claude, Gemini and ChatGPT, who I asked to identify influential older historians (many now retired or no longer living) and those currently most influential.

And the winners are ….

Many names are mentioned in one or two of my sources (e.g. all the scholars pictured above), but several names come up over and over again in the 6 sources I used:

• Most influential currently: NT Wright, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Dale Allison, Amy-Jill Levine, Richard Bauckham, Craig Keener.
• Influential older scholars: EP Sanders, James Dunn, Larry Hurtado, John Meier.

These scholars have different areas of expertise. For example:

• Amy-Jill Levine, Paula Fredriksen and EP Sanders: early Judaism.
• NT Wright, Dale Allison, Craig Keener, John Meier: historical Jesus & the gospels.
• Bart Ehrman: the New Testament text.

It isn’t always necessary to read these historians’ academic books or journal articles. Many have written popular level books. Many have written magazine or website articles. Some have lectures or interviews online.

Keeping a balance

The above lists include scholars from different religious beliefs and no belief, and different degrees of historical scepticism. I find it helpful to try to read both Christian and non-believing scholars, to discount the different perspectives.

As a Christian, I particularly appreciate the viewpoints of non-believing scholars, for I can feel confident in the historicity of anything they conclude to be historical. In the same way, I feel non-believers should especially read Wright or Bauckham to round out their reading.

I have read something by almost all of the 11 historians I’ve named, but I’ve found the following to be the most helpful:

• Maurice Casey: a non-believer with special expertise in the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. I probably refer to his book on Jesus more than any other.
• Dale Allison: an extremely stringent and sceptical historian who is also a Christian.
• Bart Ehrman and EP Sanders: non-believers with great expertise in their field.
• Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado and NT Wright: Christians and excellent authors – Bauckham’s book Jesus a very short introduction is the best little book about Jesus I have read, while Wright also has a strong presence on Youtube.

You may want to avoid ….

Christian theologians and apologists

Christians who are looking for theological or devotional material, or christian approaches to belief, history and the scriptures, may find these writers helpful, but they typically start with christian assumptions and so are not always so useful for objective historical information.

There are many writers in this category. Some of the best known are Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, Don Carson, Michael Bird, Ben Witherington and Scot McKnight.

Sceptical “apologists”

At the other end of the spectrum are non-believers who use speculative or radical methods not generally endorsed by mainstream historians, and often write to disprove or discredit the christian faith rather than make an objective assessment. Some non-believers are happy to accept what these authors say, but they are also not generally useful for objective historical information.

Writers in this category include Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, Tom Harpur, David Fitzgerald, Neil Godfrey, Frank Zindler, Rene Salm, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

My assessment of these writers is based primarily on the following:

• They often espouse views that the majority of scholars have rejected for good reason – e.g. that Jesus is just a myth, Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, or that stories about Jesus were copied from pagan gods – all ideas that mainstream scholars have considered and rejected based on the available evidence.
• Recognised scholars like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Craig Evans, James McGrath and Robert Van Voorst have strongly criticised their methods and conclusions.
• Most don’t have relevant qualifications or experience.

Choosing authors

If a book or author looks interesting, it is generally possible to check out how credible and informed they are before reading.

• Check out their credentials on Wikipedia or their university page.
• Read online reviews.
• Often we can check out excerpts on Amazon “Look inside” or Google Books.

Happy reading!

Main photo: 12 respected New Testament historians. Top row from left: EP Sanders, Anthony Le Donne, Helen Bond, Chris Keith, Robyn Walsh, Maurice Casey. Lower row from left: Amy-Jill Levine, Dale Allison, Richard Bauckham, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, NT Wright.