A short, cheeky reflection on history, bias, and the gospel that survived the empire
You’ve heard the proverb, haven’t you?
“Until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter.”
It’s clever. It’s cutting. And it’s often true.
Empires write their victories in gold. Colonisers inscribe their virtues on marble. Powerful institutions preserve their legacy, while their victims are buried beneath forgotten dust. And so we grow suspicious. Of textbooks.
Of history.
Of authority.
Even of Scripture.
In response to my claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus, a client once replied: “Historians were threatened to write what they wrote.”
That’s the heart of it, isn’t it? If the winners always write the past, how can we trust anything?
Fair Point… But Let’s Think.
History has been weaponised.
But the answer is not to burn every book or canonise every counter-narrative.
The answer is to learn how to read more wisely.
Because here’s the twist: sometimes, the lion does write back.
And when he does, it doesn’t look like power.
It looks like a cross.
The Gospels Were Not Written by Hunters
Let’s be clear: Jesus was not the empire’s hero.
He was executed. Naked. Humiliated. Outside the city walls.
His followers? A bunch of poor, terrified, Galilean misfits who went into hiding.
There was no military. No government. No hunter’s pen.
And yet, His story survived. And not just survived, it transformed civilisations.
Even hostile, non-Christian sources from antiquity confirm His existence and crucifixion:
Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote: “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”¹ Josephus, the Jewish historian, although some parts are disputed, recorded: “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus… He was the Christ… Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion.”² Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia, noted with confusion: “They were in the habit of meeting on a fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god.”³
Even Bart Ehrman, a secular agnostic historian critical of Christian doctrine, states bluntly:
“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”⁴
Not All History Is Equally Corrupt
Yes, bias exists. But if all historical testimony is dismissed, then no knowledge of the past is possible.
That’s not intelligence, that’s nihilism.
Historians use a range of tools to evaluate historical reliability:
Multiple attestation (independent sources confirm the same event), Enemy attestation (hostile voices corroborate facts they wouldn’t invent), Embarrassment criterion (unflattering details lend authenticity), Coherence with geography, culture, and external archaeology.
As E.P. Sanders, secular New Testament scholar—puts it:
“We know more about Jesus of Nazareth than about almost anyone in the first century.”⁵
Even Tom Holland, a historian of empires and critic of institutional Christianity, admits:
“In the crucifixion of Jesus, we see something utterly novel… the belief that God had become not the king or the conqueror, but the executed.”⁶
Biblical historian Craig Keener affirms that the Gospels exhibit the structure and tone of historical biographies, not religious myth, and argues that they reflect “substantial eyewitness material” from Jesus’ contemporaries.⁷
N.T. Wright, equally respected in academic and ecclesial spheres, has demonstrated in overwhelming detail that Jesus’ resurrection was not a theological metaphor but a historically grounded claim understood by Jews as bodily and physical.⁸
Even F.F. Bruce, in his famous study on the New Testament documents, points out that the New Testament is better attested than any ancient classical work, by sheer volume, consistency, and proximity to the events.⁹
Gary Habermas and Michael Licona build on this with their “minimal facts” approach, showing that even using only the facts accepted by most secular scholars, the resurrection hypothesis stands as the most coherent explanation.¹⁰
And finally, Richard Bauckham’s meticulous study of names, memories, and geography in the Gospels shows that they carry the marks of firsthand testimony.¹¹ John P. Meier, a Catholic scholar writing for secular academia, concluded that while miracles are debated, the core of Jesus’ life and death are as historically certain as anything from antiquity.¹²
These scholars do not all share the same theological commitments, but they share a willingness to let truth speak through the noise of modern scepticism.
The Modern Twist: New Hunters with New Pens
Today, it’s fashionable to say “history is biased,” while rewriting it in new ideological garb.
But denying historical testimony while replacing it with speculative revision is still the voice of the hunter, just in fresher robes.
So the better question is:
Which lion is roaring beneath the ink?
Because if we cancel every narrative without ever asking what’s true, we are not seeking justice. We’re just making space for our own voice by silencing others.
The Gospel: When the Lion Did Write Back
And here’s the gospel’s punchline:
Jesus is the Lion of Judah who became the Lamb slain, and yet His voice still roars.
His story was not preserved by empires. It was opposed, persecuted, and suppressed, and still it survived.
His story is the lion’s story that defied the hunter’s edit.
And it was written not in blood spilled by enemies, but blood offered for them.
Final Word
Yes, history can be biased.
But if the hunter always wins, how do you explain the survival of the Crucified?
Because sometimes, the Lion writes back.
And the grave can’t censor Him.
References
1. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, in Michael Grant, Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (London: Penguin Classics, 1996), 365.
2. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. Translation from Paul L. Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994), 284–85.
3. Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96, in Betty Radice, The Letters of the Younger Pliny (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 294.
4. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 12.
5. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 10.
6. Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (London: Little, Brown, 2019), 83.
7. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 37–45.
8. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 658–675.
9. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 10–25.
10. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 43–79.
11. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 5–124.
12. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1–30.
#Hayibo 