top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Nov 139 min read

The Quest for the Historical Jesus



How Does the Historical Quest for Jesus Challenge the Foundations of Faith?


The quest for the "historical Jesus" is a controversial and often divisive subject, as it attempts to distinguish between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This effort to sift through the New Testament records in search of a purely historical figure has spanned more than two centuries and has led to numerous challenges to the reliability of the Gospels and the doctrines of Christianity. Understanding the timeline and motivations behind these quests reveals both the pitfalls of the modern approach and the soundness of traditional Christian apologetics in defending the biblical record of Jesus.


What Is the Basis for the Quest for the Historical Jesus?


The quest for the historical Jesus stems from skepticism and the desire to deconstruct the supernatural elements of Scripture. This effort primarily originated in the Enlightenment era, during which philosophers and theologians began to question the historical validity of the New Testament. Their objective was to discover the "real" Jesus, a figure stripped of any divine or miraculous qualities. In doing so, they sought to distinguish between the Christ of faith—promoted by the Church—and the Jesus of history, who they believed could be uncovered through critical scholarship and historical analysis.


This effort gained momentum with the posthumous publication of Hermann Samuel Reimarus’s Fragments, in which he suggested a major division between what Jesus said about Himself and what the apostles proclaimed about Him after His death. Reimarus's work challenged traditional Christian beliefs by implying that the apostles had deliberately distorted Jesus’ teachings to promote their own message. Reimarus’s skepticism toward the apostles marked the beginning of a trend toward viewing the New Testament as unreliable for understanding the historical person of Jesus.



How Did Enlightenment Thinking Influence the Quest?


The roots of this quest can be traced back to Enlightenment thinkers like Benedict Spinoza and Immanuel Kant, who introduced antisupernaturalism and the separation of facts from values. Spinoza, a pantheist, denied the possibility of miracles, asserting that everything in the universe operated according to natural laws. His influence led many scholars to dismiss the miraculous accounts in the New Testament as fabrications or misunderstandings of natural events. This paved the way for a purely naturalistic interpretation of history.


Kant, on the other hand, introduced the fact/value dichotomy, which suggested that historical facts could be separated from religious or moral values. In his view, the Gospels could be studied as historical documents without accepting the theological claims they made about Jesus. However, this division between fact and value is flawed, as it is impossible to separate the significance of an event from its occurrence. For example, the virgin birth is not just a historical event; it is also deeply significant to Christian theology. The same holds for the resurrection, which is not only a miraculous event but also the foundation of Christian faith.


This Enlightenment approach, while claiming to be objective, was inherently biased against the supernatural. As a result, many scholars working within this framework dismissed the Gospels' miraculous accounts outright, thereby undermining the historicity of the entire New Testament. David Strauss’s 1835 work, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, exemplifies this approach by attempting to "demythologize" the Gospels. Strauss denied the supernatural elements of the New Testament, reducing the accounts of Jesus' miracles to myths or legends created by early Christians.



What Did Albert Schweitzer Contribute to the Quest?


Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906, marked a turning point in the quest. Schweitzer critiqued the previous efforts of scholars to discover the historical Jesus, arguing that they had merely created a figure in their own image. According to Schweitzer, the Jesus that emerged from the critical studies of the 19th century was little more than a reflection of the researchers' own biases and philosophical presuppositions.


Schweitzer asserted that Jesus’ message was eschatological in nature—that is, centered on the expectation of an imminent end to the world and the establishment of God's kingdom. This apocalyptic focus, Schweitzer argued, had been downplayed by earlier scholars, who had instead portrayed Jesus as a moral teacher or a religious reformer. Schweitzer’s work effectively ended what is now referred to as the "first quest" for the historical Jesus by demonstrating that attempts to find a purely historical figure free of theological implications were futile.


Schweitzer famously wrote: “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in historical garb” (Schweitzer, 396). In his view, the historical Jesus could not be separated from the theological claims made about Him in the New Testament, and any attempt to do so would result in a distorted and incomplete picture of who Jesus was.



What Happened During the “No Quest” Period?


Following Schweitzer’s critique, the quest for the historical Jesus fell into disrepute for several decades. This period, often called the "no quest" period, was marked by the dominance of Rudolf Bultmann, a prominent theologian who believed that the search for the historical Jesus was both methodologically impossible and theologically unnecessary. Bultmann argued that the New Testament was primarily concerned with faith, not history, and that it was irrelevant whether or not the events it described had actually occurred.


In his influential work Jesus and the Word, Bultmann declared: “I do indeed think that we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist” (Bultmann, 8). For Bultmann, the historical Jesus was inaccessible, and the focus should instead be on the existential encounter with Christ through the proclamation of the Gospel.


Bultmann’s approach, known as demythologization, sought to reinterpret the Gospels in existential terms, stripping away the supernatural elements to reveal the underlying message of faith. In doing so, Bultmann effectively abandoned the historical quest for Jesus, asserting that the only Jesus that mattered was the one encountered in the preaching of the Church. This shift from history to existentialism marked a significant departure from earlier efforts to discover the historical Jesus.



What Was the “New Quest” for the Historical Jesus?


The "new quest" began in 1953 with a lecture by Ernst Käsemann, a student of Bultmann who sought to recover some historical foundation for faith in Jesus. While Käsemann shared many of Bultmann’s presuppositions, including skepticism toward the supernatural elements of the Gospels, he rejected Bultmann’s complete separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. Käsemann argued that the early Church’s preaching of Christ was rooted in the historical person of Jesus and that some connection between the two had to be maintained.


Käsemann’s approach marked a shift in focus from the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith to the continuity between the two. However, this new quest was still heavily influenced by the presuppositions of modern critical scholarship, including a naturalistic worldview that dismissed the possibility of miracles. The result was a Jesus who was more historically grounded than the figure of Bultmann’s existentialism but still far removed from the Jesus of orthodox Christianity.



How Did the “Third Quest” Change the Landscape of Historical Jesus Studies?


The "third quest" for the historical Jesus began in the 1970s and continues to the present day. This period has seen a wide variety of approaches to the historical Jesus, ranging from radical skepticism to conservative efforts to defend the reliability of the New Testament. One of the major developments in this period has been the increasing focus on placing Jesus within His first-century Jewish context. Scholars such as E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and N. T. Wright have emphasized the need to understand Jesus as a first-century Jew and to interpret His actions and teachings in light of Second Temple Judaism.


This shift in focus has led to a greater appreciation of the historical reliability of the New Testament, particularly in its portrayal of Jesus as a Jewish teacher and miracle worker. However, the third quest has also been marked by the continued influence of radical skepticism, particularly in the work of the Jesus Seminar. This group, founded by Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan, has attempted to reconstruct the historical Jesus by applying modern critical methods to the New Testament. The Jesus Seminar famously voted on the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings, concluding that only a small fraction of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were actually spoken by Him.


The work of the Jesus Seminar has been widely criticized by conservative scholars for its reliance on questionable assumptions and its rejection of the supernatural elements of the Gospels. The Seminar's conclusions, which portray Jesus as little more than a wandering sage or social reformer, stand in stark contrast to the Jesus presented in the New Testament.



How Do Conservative Scholars Respond to the Historical Jesus Quests?


In response to the various quests for the historical Jesus, conservative scholars have mounted a robust defense of the reliability of the New Testament. They argue that the attempts to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith are based on faulty assumptions and flawed methodologies. One of the central arguments of conservative scholars is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, and therefore provide a trustworthy account of Jesus’ life and teachings.


For example, the Gospel of Luke begins with the author’s explicit statement that he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning and has written an orderly account based on the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). This emphasis on eyewitness testimony is also found in the writings of the apostle Peter, who declares: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).


Conservative scholars also point to the early dating of the New Testament documents as evidence of their reliability. Many of the New Testament books were written within the lifetime of those who had known Jesus personally, and there is no evidence to suggest that the early Church distorted the historical facts about Jesus. In fact, the apostle Paul’s letters, some of the earliest Christian writings, affirm the core elements of the Gospel message, including Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).


Furthermore, conservative scholars challenge the notion that the Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic mythology or Savior cults. They argue that the New Testament is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism and that the portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God is consistent with the Old Testament’s messianic expectations. The idea that Jesus was a Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures is central to the New Testament’s message, and there is no evidence to support the claim that this picture of Jesus was borrowed from pagan sources.



How Do the Quests for the Historical Jesus Fall Short?


The quests for the historical Jesus have largely failed to produce a coherent or consistent picture of Jesus. This is due in large part to the presuppositions and methodologies employed by the scholars involved in these quests. The assumption that the supernatural elements of the Gospels must be discarded has led to a distorted view of Jesus, one that bears little resemblance to the figure described in the New Testament.


Moreover, the attempts to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith are based on a false dichotomy. The New Testament presents Jesus as both a historical figure and the divine Son of God, and any effort to divide these two aspects of Jesus' identity is misguided. The miracles of Jesus, including His resurrection from the dead, are integral to His identity and cannot be dismissed as later inventions or myths.


The third quest’s emphasis on understanding Jesus within His Jewish context is a step in the right direction, as it acknowledges the importance of the historical and cultural setting in which Jesus lived. However, many of the scholars involved in this quest still operate under the assumption that the Gospels are not fully reliable and that the Jesus of history must be reconstructed through modern critical methods. This skepticism toward the New Testament continues to undermine the effort to understand who Jesus truly was.


The conservative response, on the other hand, affirms the reliability of the New Testament and defends the view that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are one and the same. By accepting the New Testament as a trustworthy record of Jesus’ life and teachings, conservative scholars uphold the central tenets of Christianity and provide a solid foundation for faith in Christ.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE


Discover the inspiration of the original Old Testament texts. Learn about their significance and authenticity. Read more for insights.



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


21 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page