Serious history is not a matter of hiding difficulties. It is a matter of naming them and working through them. This page collects the contested points in the first-century story, states the strongest version of each argument, and says what the evidence supports and what it does not.
The Census of Quirinius
The Question
Luke 2:2“This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
JosephusQuirinius conducted a census of Judea in 6 AD, after the deposition of Archelaus (Antiquities 18.1–10).
The problemHerod the Great died in 4 BC. If Jesus was born before Herod’s death, the 6 AD census is ten years too late.
Possible solutions(1) Luke refers to an earlier registration begun under Augustus and completed in stages. (2) Quirinius held a prior legateship in Syria before 6 AD. (3) Luke has compressed two separate events. (4) The census under Quirinius was not a one-time event but a rolling registration.
What the evidence supportsA genuine tension. The most honest position is that Luke had a specific census in mind that does not exactly match Josephus, and that the precise reconciliation is unknown.
The Date of the Crucifixion
30 AD or 33 AD?
The SynopticsPlace the crucifixion on the first day of Passover (the 15th of Nisan), after the Passover meal.
JohnPlaces the crucifixion on the day of preparation for Passover (the 14th of Nisan), before the Passover meal.
Astronomical reconstructionThe 14th of Nisan fell on a Friday in 30 AD and again in 33 AD.
The tensionIf the crucifixion was in 30 AD, the ministry lasted roughly one to two years. If in 33 AD, it lasted roughly three to four years.
What the evidence supportsBoth dates are defensible. The majority view currently favors 30 AD, but 33 AD has strong defenders.
The Testimonium Flavianum
Josephus on Jesus
The textJosephus, Antiquities 18.63–64. A short paragraph describing Jesus as a wise man, a teacher, and the Messiah.
The problemJosephus was not a Christian. The paragraph as it stands contains explicitly Christian phrases: “if indeed one ought to call him a man”; “he was the Christ”; “he appeared to them alive again on the third day.”
Scholarly consensusMost scholars (Meier, Vermes, Dunn, Ehrman) believe the core is authentic and that a few phrases were added by a later Christian scribe.
The Arabic witnessA 10th-century Arabic version of Josephus, quoted by Agapius of Hierapolis, preserves a version with a less Christian phrasing, which many scholars consider closer to the original.
The Martyrdom of Peter in Rome
Did Peter Die in Rome?
1 Clement 5:4Written around 96 AD from Rome. Refers to Peter’s martyrdom in the city, though not to the method.
IrenaeusWriting around 180 AD, records that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and were martyred there.
The Vatican excavationsA 2nd-century shrine was found under St. Peter’s, venerated as Peter’s tomb. The shrine bore the Greek inscription “Peter is here.”
What the evidence supportsThat Peter died in Rome is attested early and consistently. The precise method (crucifixion), and the detail about upside-down crucifixion, are later traditions.
The Date of Polycarp’s Martyrdom
155 AD or 166 AD?
The traditional date155 AD, based on the internal chronology of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus.
The alternative date166 AD, favored by some scholars who argue that the internal chronology does not add up to 155.
The core consensusThe core narrative is accepted by historians. The precise year is disputed. The difference does not affect the historical significance of the account.
The Empty Tomb
Was There an Empty Tomb?
The GospelsAll four place the tomb in Jerusalem, in a garden, cut in rock, with the stone rolled over the entrance. Joseph of Arimathea is named as the owner.
1 Corinthians 15:3–7The earliest creed mentions the burial as part of the tradition. It does not describe the tomb itself.
Jewish counter-claimMatthew 28:11–15 records that the Jewish authorities claimed the disciples stole the body. This presumes the tomb was in fact empty.
Alternative theoriesWrong tomb (Kirsopp Lake), hallucination (Gerd Lüdemann), swoon (Hugh Schonfield). Each has documented problems, discussed on the Resurrection page.
What the evidence supportsThat the tomb was empty is the position of the earliest Christian sources and is presumed by the earliest Jewish counter-argument. It is the minimal fact that all parties to the dispute accepted.
The Historical Reliability of Acts
Is Acts Good History?
Traditional viewWritten by Luke, a companion of Paul, and historically reliable. The “we” passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16) suggest eyewitness travel.
Sceptical viewWritten in the 2nd century by an unknown author, with substantial legendary expansion.
ArchaeologyThe titles Luke uses for local officials (politarchs at Thessalonica, proconsul at Corinth, asiarchs at Ephesus) have been confirmed by inscriptions. This is evidence of careful research.
What the evidence supportsActs is a serious historical work. Its details are more accurate than sceptics of a century ago assumed, though it is not a neutral chronicle and it presents its material with theological purpose.
Where to Go from Here
For the method used in this section, see the Historical Reliability page. For the fullest treatment of the resurrection claim, see the Resurrection page. For the primary sources, see the Sources hub.
