I Believe in the Historical Jesus

This monograph represents a significant intervention in 1970s biblical scholarship, mounting a robust defense of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts against the skepticism of radical form criticism. Marshall systematically challenges the methodological assumptions that had led many scholars to conclude that the Gospels preserve little authentic information about Jesus of Nazareth.

The work directly confronts the legacy of Rudolf Bultmann and his followers, who had argued that the Gospel traditions were so thoroughly shaped by the theological concerns of the early church that recovering the historical Jesus was virtually impossible. Marshall contends that this skepticism rests on flawed presuppositions about oral tradition, community creativity, and the relationship between history and theology in early Christianity. He argues that the form-critical method, while valuable for understanding how traditions developed, had been pressed beyond its legitimate limits to support conclusions about historicity that the evidence does not warrant.

Marshall's approach combines careful exegesis with broader methodological reflection. He examines specific Gospel passages that critics had dismissed as unhistorical, demonstrating that many can withstand historical scrutiny when freed from unnecessarily skeptical assumptions. The work engages with the criteria of authenticity developed by post-Bultmannian scholars, arguing for their judicious application while warning against their use as rigid filters that automatically exclude material. Throughout, Marshall maintains that theological interpretation and historical reliability are not mutually exclusive categories - the early church could preserve accurate memories of Jesus while simultaneously interpreting their significance.

The monograph's significance for discussions of God lies in its defense of the epistemic foundations for Christian theism. If the Gospels preserve reliable testimony about Jesus, then claims about his teachings, actions, and self-understanding become historically accessible rather than merely products of later theological reflection. Marshall thus provides intellectual support for a theistic worldview grounded in historical revelation, countering both the fideism that abandons historical questions and the skepticism that dismisses the possibility of historically mediated divine disclosure. His work exemplifies a mediating position that takes seriously both critical scholarship and traditional Christian claims, arguing that responsible historical method need not lead to the radical conclusions drawn by many of his contemporaries.