This scholarly reflection offers a critical assessment of Pavel Hošek’s thesis regarding the impossibility of reconstructing the historical Jesus. The critique focuses on Hošek’s assertion that the "kerygmatic Christ" found in the Pauline epistles is historically better documented than the actual historical Jesus. The author argues that this position is fundamentally flawed due to imprecise thinking and methodological errors. First, it points out that the term "kerygmatic Christ" is a modern theological construct, not an authentic Pauline concept. More importantly, the author distinguishes between the historical documentation of objective facts and the interpretation of their significance. While history can document that a specific author attributed a certain meaning to a person or event, it cannot document the "meaning" itself as an empirical reality. Significance is a matter of hermeneutical understanding and personal acceptance, which falls outside the scope of historical proof. Consequently, the text highlights the logical limitations of Hošek’s argument and calls for a stricter separation between historical evidence and theological interpretation.