When it comes to Christ, historians base their data on philosophical, not historical, grounds omitting the miraculous due to "metaphysical speculation." This is not being a good historian according to McDowell who defines history as "knowledge of the past based on testimony" (xxxix).
Where would we be without historical evidence? We would not know much about our country and much less about our world. Christianity, without historical evidence, leaves us without a risen savior.
When gathering evidence, historians often treat eyewitness testimony seriously except in the realm of Christian faith. What many refuse to take into account is the fact that the writers of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses to the resurrection or in close contact with them and often wrote to audiences who were also present with Christ. Peter asserts,
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:16-21
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 1999. pp. xxxvii-xxxix.