Objections to Using the New Testament as Historical Evidence

When we want to know history, we read the books of historians. When historians want to know history, they read the primary historical sources…and then write their books. Consider the differences between primary and secondary historical sources.

Primary Sources: Material from, or directly related to, the past. In History, primary sources are usually letters, records or other documents created during the period that is being studied, such as diaries, legal notices or accounts.

Secondary Sources: Material created by somebody removed from the event being studied – who was either not at the event, or was working later. For instance, all history textbooks are secondary sources.
Glossary of Historical Terms (ThoughtCo reference site)

By these definitions (which are standard), everything written about Jesus is a secondary source – except the New Testament. The 27 books of the New Testament are the 27 primary historical sources on his life. The great advantage, therefore, is that we don’t have to use a historian as a middle man; we can go directly to the primary sources.

Someone may object, “Wait a minute, the New Testament is religious history so that’s different.” You can call the New Testament religious history if you want, but that does not make it non-historical. Is military history not history? Is art history not history? So then, the subject matter of primary historical sources – whether dealing with religion, military affairs, the world of art, or some other subject – does not change the fact that they are primary sources. Nor does it make those sources any less historical. History is history, no matter the subject in focus.

Someone else may object, “But the New Testament is a biased source because it was produced by Christians.” Are you saying Russians can’t write Russian history or that the French can’t write French history? Are you saying Jews can’t be primary sources for the Holocaust? I’m not saying it’s impossible for ancient Christians to lie; I’m just pointing out that to automatically exclude their testimony because they have an interest in the subject matter is a standard we don’t apply to any other branch of history. Art history – especially the best art history – is not written by people who are indifferent to art. If I want to know what happened at the PTA meeting but exclude the testimony of anyone who was at the PTA meeting then I ought to have my head examined. Jesus did not head a nation, nor did he command an army. His life ended in the shame of a gruesome public execution. Therefore, there was no reason for the Romans to document his story, and the Jewish authorities wanted talk of him to cease – not continue. The only people we should expect to be capable of being primary sources for Jesus were those who didn’t reject him and wouldn’t have killed him.

I’m not saying you have to accept the New Testament as factual before you’ve even read it. I’m only saying that it constitutes the primary historical sources for Jesus’ life. The time to decide whether you think it’s factual or not is after you’ve read it, not before.

9/22/25