The question of whether the gospel stories in the Bible about Jesus contain genuine or verifyable history has fascinated scholars for centuries. These texts clearly serve religious purposes, yet they also appear to preserve some authentic memories from first century Palestine. While some fringe theories claim the Romans simply invented Jesus and Christianity, the evidence tells a very different story, and are mostly dismissed by scholars. By examining these ancient texts alongside other historical sources, we can see how oral traditions, eyewitness memories, and theological reflection were combined to orchestrate the gospels we have today.

The idea that Romans made up Jesus completely falls apart when we look at the evidence. Roman writers who had no interest in promoting Christianity, well not till the third century CE (especially from the time of Emperor Constantine), still mentioned Jesus as a real person and clearly identified Christianity as a aberrant religious sect or offshoot of Judaism.

Pliny the Younger, as governor of Bithynia-Pontus around 112 CE, wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking guidance on prosecuting Christians. He questioned whether Christianity itself was punishable or only associated non-religious crimes, and how to handle those who recanted. Trajan responded that Christians shouldn’t be actively sought but should be punished if denounced and they refused to recant (Pliny 1969).

The Roman historian Tacitus, writing around 116 CE, described how Nero blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome. In passing, he mentioned that their movement started with someone called “Christus” (meaning “anointed one”) who was executed by Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Annals 15.44). The same is true of Jewish writers. The Jewish historian Josephus also wrote about Jesus twice, including a reference to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1). These writers treated Jesus as a historical figure, not a myth (Meier 1991, pp. 56–88; Vermes 2003, pp. 12–14).

The earliest surviving gospel manuscript fragment is the Rylands Papyrus (P52), containing portions of John’s Gospel, dated to approximately 125-150 CE (Metzger & Ehrman 2005). Most scholars date the original gospel compositions to between 70-100 CE. The time gap between the original composition of the gospels and our earliest surviving manuscripts is thus shorter than for most other ancient texts.

Think about it logically: why would Rome create a Jewish religious movement that initially refused to worship the emperor? The earliest Christian writings come from Jewish communities who often found themselves in conflict with Roman authorities (Fredriksen 2018, pp. 45–67). Paul’s letters, written in the 50s CE before any of the gospels, show that Christian communities already existed across the Mediterranean world. As scholar Bart Ehrman puts it simply, “the idea that Jesus was simply made-up falters on every ground” (Ehrman 2012, p. 171).

One puzzle that often confuses people is why Paul’s letters say so little about Jesus’s life and teachings. Paul wrote to established churches about specific problems they faced, assuming they already knew the basic stories about Jesus (Allison 2010, pp. 18–21). It would be like writing an email to Star Wars fans without retelling the plot; you assume they know the story. But Paul does show some knowledge of Jesus traditions. When discussing the Lord’s Supper, he tells the Corinthians he is passing on what he “received from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23), showing he knew existing traditions about Jesus’s final meal.

Paul actually references Jesus’s teachings several times, though he does not always quote them directly. He mentions Jesus’s teaching about divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10–11), which matches what we find in Mark’s gospel (Mark 10:11–12). He also refers to Jesus’s saying that preachers deserve support (1 Corinthians 9:14), similar to Luke 10:7. As scholar James Dunn notes, “Paul’s letters show clear evidence of knowledge of Jesus tradition, even if he does not quote it explicitly” (Dunn 2003, p. 183). Ancient letters rarely retold stories everyone already knew; they dealt with current issues while assuming shared background knowledge (Casey 2010, pp. 98–102).

Understanding when and why the gospels were written helps us see how these traditions developed. Paul’s letters came first, written between 50 and 60 CE, roughly twenty to thirty years after Jesus’s death (Brown 1997, pp. 428–433). The gospels came later: Mark around 70 CE (during or just after the Jewish revolt against Rome), Matthew and Luke in the 80s CE, and John probably in the 90s CE (Goodacre 2001, pp. 56–58). This timeline matters because it shows a progression from Paul’s theological reflections to Mark’s urgent, action-packed narrative to the more polished accounts of Matthew and Luke.

Each gospel writer had specific purposes and audiences, though we do not know who these writers actually were. The names of the gospels are designations rather than factual. Mark wrote to a community facing persecution, which explains his emphasis on suffering and the cost of discipleship (Marcus 2000, pp. 29–31). His abrupt ending at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb in fear, fits his theme of following Jesus even through confusion and terror. Matthew, writing for a largely Jewish Christian audience, constantly quotes Hebrew scripture to show Jesus fulfilling prophecy (Davies & Allison 1988, pp. 58–72). Luke, addressing gentile converts, emphasises Jesus’s concern for outsiders, women, and the poor (Fitzmyer 1981, pp. 57–59). John, the latest gospel, reflects decades of theological development, presenting Jesus’s identity through long discourses and “I am” statements (Brown 1966, pp. lxiii–lxvi).

Source analysis reveals fascinating connections between these texts. Most scholars agree that Mark wrote first, and both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, often copying him word for word while adding their own material (Streeter 1924, pp. 151–198). Matthew and Luke also share about 200 verses not found in Mark, suggesting they both used another source (scholars call it “Q” from the German word Quelle, meaning “source”). This shared material consists mainly of Jesus’s sayings, like the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer (Kloppenborg 1987, pp. 51–54). Each gospel writer also had unique sources: Matthew’s stories about Joseph’s dreams and the Magi, Luke’s account of Jesus at age twelve, and John’s entirely different collection of miracles and teachings (Bauckham 2006, pp. 240–252).

This layered composition actually strengthens the historical case. We are not dealing with a single story that someone made up, but multiple independent traditions that different communities preserved and valued (Theissen & Merz 1998, pp. 25–27). The fact that Matthew and Luke independently chose to incorporate Mark’s basic narrative, while Paul’s earlier letters confirm key elements like the crucifixion and resurrection appearances, suggests a stable core of tradition about Jesus’s life and death.

However, it’s important to note that certain historical claims in the gospels lack corroboration from other contemporary historical sources. For instance, Luke’s account places Jesus’s birth during a census under Quirinius as governor of Syria, yet historical records show Quirinius governed around 6 CE, roughly a decade after Herod’s death in 4 BCE, creating a chronological discrepancy with Matthew’s placement of the birth during Herod’s reign. Similarly, Matthew describes Herod’s massacre of infant boys in Bethlehem, yet this dramatic event goes unmentioned by Josephus and other contemporary historians who extensively documented Herod’s atrocities. These examples demonstrate how some gospel narratives exist without independent historical verification, which scholars must consider when evaluating the reliability of these texts, noting the possible ways that historical truth was seen at the time. We see the same in some of Herodotus’s heroic accounts of Greek history, for instance.

Before anyone wrote the gospels down and redacted the range of traditions into cohesive narratives, stories about Jesus circulated orally for decades. This might seem unreliable to us, but ancient cultures had sophisticated methods for preserving important traditions through memory. Jewish teachers used repetition, rhythm, and memorable phrases to help students remember their teachings accurately (Bailey 2008, pp. 35–39). Birger Gerhardsson’s research shows that Jewish oral tradition employed techniques that kept stories relatively stable as they passed from person to person (Gerhardsson 1998, pp. 123–145). Different types of stories circulated independently before being collected into gospels: parables, healing stories, and accounts of conflicts with religious authorities (Bultmann 1963, pp. 39–45; DeConick 2006, pp. 50–53).

Several factors suggest the gospels preserve at least some verfiable history. When multiple independent sources report the same event or saying, historians take notice (Meier 1991, pp. 174–175). Some stories would have embarrassed early Christians, making them unlikely inventions. Why would Christians invent John baptising Jesus (Mark 1:9–11), which could suggest Jesus needed cleansing from sin? Why create the story of Peter denying Jesus (Mark 14:66–72), showing a founding apostle as a coward? The crucifixion itself posed a massive problem: claiming a crucified criminal as the Messiah seemed absurd in that culture (Hengel 1977, pp. 1–10). Christians would not have invented such a challenging story (Sanders 1985, pp. 294–318).

We should remember that ancient biographies worked differently from modern ones. Books about Roman emperors by writers like Suetonius and Plutarch mixed genuine history with stories about omens and divine signs (Dihle 1987, pp. 23–25). Historians still use these sources to reconstruct real events while recognising their limitations. The gospels fit the pattern of ancient biography, suggesting their authors meant to convey at least some historical information within the literary conventions and religious and mythological worldviews of their time (Burridge 2004, pp. 185–212; Keener 2003, pp. 17–34).

The transformation from oral traditions to written gospels reveals how early communities shaped their memories of Jesus. The Q source, reconstructed from material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark, appears to have been a written collection of sayings compiled in the 50s or 60s CE (Robinson et al. 2000, pp. 1–4). This document, if it existed, would represent one of the earliest attempts to preserve Jesus’s teachings systematically. Mark then created the first narrative framework around 70 CE, combining oral traditions, possibly some written sources, and his own theological agenda into a dramatic story (Collins 2007, pp. 15–20). Matthew and Luke independently reworked Mark’s narrative in the 80s CE, each incorporating Q, while adding their distinctive material to serve their communities’ needs (Luz 2007, pp. 7–10; Bovon 2002, pp. 1–8). This editorial process shows ancient writers actively crafting texts rather than simply recording events, which is common practice in ancient times.

From a historian’s perspective, the gospels are neither pure fiction nor unfiltered history. They represent what early Christians believed about Jesus and how those beliefs developed over time (Crossan 1991, pp. 426–434). The supernatural elements reflect the worldviews of ancient Mediterranean peoples who saw divine intervention as part of everyday life (Wright 1996, pp. 186–196). Whether Jesus actually walked on water or multiplied loaves matters less historically than understanding that his followers experienced him as someone who transcended normal categories, so they followed him. The theological interpretations woven throughout these texts tell us what Jesus meant to these communities, which is itself historical data about the early Christian movement (Fredriksen 1999, pp. 214–216).

When we strip away the theological layering and tendency to mythologise, a plausible historical figure emerges: a Jewish teacher from Galilee who gathered disciples, taught about the divine kingdom using parables, gained a reputation as a healer, created controversy in Jerusalem during Passover, and was executed by Roman crucifixion (Sanders 1985, pp. 294–318; Vermes 2003, pp. 2–5). This basic outline appears across multiple independent sources and fits the volatile political context of first century Palestine (Horsley 2003, pp. 20–34). The fact that his followers regrouped after his death and developed increasingly elaborate theological explanations for that death (including the resurrection) suggests something significant happened, though historians cannot verify resurrection claims using historical methods (Allison 2005, pp. 301–304).

What is reasonable to suggest is that belief in Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and claim that he would come again, motivated a movement that spread rapidly across the Roman world as a set of communities, transforming oral memories through sources like Q and Mark into the carefully constructed theological narratives we call the gospels (Hurtado 2003, pp. 134–152).

References

Allison, DC 2005, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters, T&T Clark, London.

Allison, DC 2010, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Bailey, KE 2008, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, IVP Academic, Downers Grove.

Bauckham, R 2006, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Bovon, F 2002, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Brown, RE 1966, The Gospel According to John I–XII, Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York.

Brown, RE 1997, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, New York.

Bultmann, R 1963, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J Marsh, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Burridge, RA 2004, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd edn, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Casey, M 2010, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching, T&T Clark, London.

Collins, AY 2007, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Crossan, JD 1991, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

Davies, WD & Allison, DC 1988, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.

DeConick, AD 2006, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas, T&T Clark, London.

Dihle, A 1987, Die Entstehung der historischen Biographie, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg.

Dunn, JDG 2003, Jesus Remembered, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Ehrman, BD 2012, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperOne, New York.

Fitzmyer, JA 1981, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX, Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York.

Fredriksen, P 1999, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Knopf, New York.

Fredriksen, P 2018, When Christians Were Jews, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Gerhardsson, B 1998, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Goodacre, M 2001, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, Sheffield Academic Press, London.

Hengel, M 1977, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Horsley, RA 2003, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Hurtado, LW 2003, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Josephus, F 1965, Jewish Antiquities, trans. LH Feldman, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Keener, CS 2003, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody.

Kloppenborg, JS 1987, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Luz, U 2007, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Marcus, J 2000, Mark 1–8, Anchor Yale Bible, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Meier, JP 1991, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, Doubleday, New York.

Metzger, B.M. & Ehrman, B.D. 2005, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edn, New York, Oxford University Press.

Pliny 1969, Letters and Panegyricus. Translated by B. Radice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Robinson, JM, Hoffmann, P & Kloppenborg, JS (eds) 2000, The Critical Edition of Q, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Sanders, EP 1985, Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Streeter, BH 1924, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Macmillan, London.

Tacitus, C 1956, The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. M Grant, Penguin, London.

Theissen, G & Merz, A 1998, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Vermes, G 2003, Jesus in His Jewish Context, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Wright, NT 1996, Jesus and the Victory of God, SPCK, London.