Program / Course 7: New Testament Theology and History / Lesson 2.2
What you will learn
- Outline the history of historical Jesus research from the eighteenth century to the present.
- Name the main phases: the Old Quest, the No Quest period, the New Quest and the Third Quest.
- Explain why different scholars reach very different portraits of Jesus.
- Describe how assumptions, such as views of miracles, shape the results.
The big idea
Since the eighteenth century, scholars have tried to reconstruct the Jesus of history by using the tools of historical study. Their results have varied widely: a teacher of morals, a failed prophet of the end, a Jewish sage, a social reformer, a prophet of Israel’s restoration. The variety does not show that nothing can be known. It shows that the sources are limited, that methods differ, and that every scholar brings assumptions. Understanding the history of the quest is the best protection against both naive trust and easy dismissal.
Key terms
- Historical Jesus
- The figure scholars reconstruct from the sources by historical method, as distinct from the portraits in the gospels or the Christ of later faith.
- Quest
- A word taken from the English title of Albert Schweitzer’s 1906 book. Scholars use it for successive waves of research on the historical Jesus.
- Form criticism
- A method that sorts the gospel material into small units, such as parables or miracle stories, and asks how each was used in the early church.
- Redaction criticism
- A method that studies how each gospel writer edited and arranged his sources to express his own theology.
- Eschatology
- Teaching about the last things: the end of the age, judgment and the coming of God’s kingdom.
- Naturalism
- The assumption that historical explanation should proceed as if events have natural causes. Scholars differ on whether this assumption is a method or a belief.
- Jesus Seminar
- A group of scholars, formed in 1985, who voted on the authenticity of sayings and deeds of Jesus. Many other scholars criticized its methods and its results.
Background
Before the Enlightenment, Christians read the gospels as a unified and trustworthy account. The rise of critical history in the eighteenth century led some thinkers to ask whether the Jesus of the gospels could be separated from the claims of the church. The result was a series of attempts, each shaped by its own age.
Because historians have only some of the evidence, and must interpret it, no reconstruction is final. Some scholars are Christians who see their work as serving faith. Some are Jewish, secular or of other convictions. Their conclusions do not follow neatly from their beliefs, and Christians have reached very critical conclusions while others have defended the gospels strongly.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The Old Quest (about 1778 to 1906)
Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a German scholar who died in 1768, wrote an unpublished work arguing that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who expected a political kingdom and failed, and that the apostles invented the resurrection. Parts were published after his death. David Friedrich Strauss, in 1835, argued that much of the gospel story was myth that grew from the community’s faith. Ernest Renan, in 1863, wrote a romantic life of Jesus as a gentle teacher.
Many portraits of this period showed a Jesus who looked like the author: a moral teacher for liberal Europe. In 1906 Albert Schweitzer published a history of the quest and argued that these scholars had made Jesus in their own image. He proposed instead that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who expected the end of the world soon and was disappointed.
Step 2: The No Quest period (about 1906 to 1953)
Several developments turned scholars away from the project. William Wrede argued in 1901 that Mark’s theme of the ‘messianic secret’ was the writer’s own device. Form critics such as Rudolf Bultmann argued that the gospels reflect the faith of the early church so heavily that little can be known of the historical figure. Bultmann held that the message of the cross and resurrection mattered more than biography.
The term ‘No Quest’ is a label scholars use, and it is a simplification. Work on Jesus continued, but the confidence that his life could be written was low.
Step 3: The New Quest (about 1953 to 1970s)
In 1953 Ernst Käsemann, a student of Bultmann, argued that Christians had a reason to ask about the historical Jesus, since a faith with no link to a real person would drift into myth. He proposed a criterion, treating as likely authentic whatever differs from both Judaism and the later church. Others, such as Günther Bornkamm, wrote portraits of Jesus on this basis.
This quest depended on a criterion of dissimilarity that later scholars criticized, and it tended to separate Jesus from his Jewish setting. The next lesson returns to this.
Step 4: The Third Quest and today
From the 1980s, many scholars placed Jesus firmly within first-century Judaism. E. P. Sanders argued that Jesus should be understood as an eschatological prophet who expected God to restore Israel. Geza Vermes, a Jewish scholar, portrayed him as a charismatic holy man of Galilee. John Meier, a Catholic scholar, produced a multi-volume study of what can be said of the ‘marginal Jew.’ N. T. Wright, an Anglican bishop and scholar, argued that Jesus saw himself as acting out Israel’s story and its return from exile. John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, associated with the Jesus Seminar, saw him as a wisdom teacher or social critic.
These portraits conflict at important points. Was Jesus mostly an apocalyptic prophet, or a teacher of wisdom? Did he think of himself as Messiah? How should miracle stories be handled? Scholars still debate these questions, and some wonder whether the term ‘quest’ still serves a useful purpose. Many now stress the role of social memory and the study of how traditions about Jesus were passed on.
- Why might a scholar’s own culture and beliefs affect the picture of Jesus he or she draws?
- What did Schweitzer mean by saying that earlier scholars made Jesus in their own image?
- Why is it difficult to write a biography of Jesus in the modern sense?
- How should a historian treat reports of miracles, and does this depend on prior beliefs?
- Is a purely historical portrait of Jesus enough for Christian faith? Why or why not?
- Which of the portraits in this lesson seems best supported by the sources, and what evidence would change your mind?
Examples
Two portraits compared
One scholar describes Jesus as a prophet who announced that God’s kingdom was about to arrive and gathered a renewal movement for Israel. Another describes him as a teacher of subversive wisdom who challenged social boundaries without expecting the end. Both use the same sources, but they weigh the apocalyptic sayings differently.
The Jesus Seminar’s voting
Seminar members used colored beads to vote on how likely each saying was to be authentic. Critics said that its starting assumptions led to a very small core of authentic material. Supporters said it made scholarly judgments open and public.
A believing scholar and a skeptical one
Two scholars, one an Evangelical, one a non-believer, may agree that Jesus was crucified under Pilate and disagree on whether he rose. Their agreement on the first is a result that does not depend on faith.
Different perspectives
Scholarly consensus and debate
Most agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who proclaimed God’s kingdom, and that his death by crucifixion is nearly certain. They debate how apocalyptic he was, how he understood himself, and how far the gospels can be trusted for the details.
Catholic view
The Catholic Church teaches that the gospels are historical in the sense of faithfully handing on what Jesus did and taught. Catholic scholars take part fully in the quest. The Pontifical Biblical Commission has encouraged historical study alongside faith, and warned against both reducing the gospels to myth and ignoring their literary character.
Orthodox view
Orthodox theologians often doubt that the ‘historical Jesus’ as a scholarly construct can replace the Christ known in the church’s worship and tradition. Many Orthodox scholars still use historical tools to understand the texts.
Protestant view
Liberal Protestants began the quest, and some conservative Protestants resisted it, then entered it with works defending the gospels’ reliability. Today Protestants hold a wide range of views from skepticism to strong confidence.
Why it matters
The quest shows how much a portrait depends on method and assumption. A student who knows its history can read a new book or documentary on Jesus critically, recognize which questions are settled, and see why a different scholar might disagree. It also helps believers see that historical study and confession ask different questions.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Historical Jesus scholars are all out to disprove Christianity.
Correction: The field includes believing Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews, and non-believers. Many hold that historical work strengthens understanding of the faith. Others reach critical conclusions. Motives and results vary.
Misunderstanding: Scholars know nothing certain about Jesus.
Correction: There is wide agreement on the broad outline, including the baptism by John, the proclamation of the kingdom, the crucifixion under Pilate and the existence of a movement afterward.
Misunderstanding: A neutral, assumption-free history of Jesus is possible.
Correction: All historical work involves assumptions. The goal is to state them and test them, not to pretend that they are absent.
Misunderstanding: The Jesus Seminar represents the view of scholars in general.
Correction: It was one group of scholars and a minority position. Many specialists, including skeptical ones, criticized its methods.
Knowledge check
What are the four phases of the quest, in order?
The Old Quest, from the late eighteenth century to Schweitzer in 1906. The No Quest period, when scholars doubted a life could be written. The New Quest, begun by Käsemann in 1953. And the Third Quest, from the 1980s, which stresses Jesus’ Jewish setting.
What was Schweitzer’s main criticism of the earlier quest?
That scholars had recreated Jesus in their own image, as a figure who fit nineteenth-century ideals, while overlooking the strangeness of a first-century Jew who expected the end of the age. He proposed an apocalyptic Jesus.
Why did Bultmann and others doubt that a biography of Jesus could be written?
They held that the gospels were shaped by the early church’s faith and needs to such an extent that the historical details could rarely be recovered. For Bultmann the call of the gospel message mattered more than details of the life.
What marks the Third Quest?
A strong emphasis on placing Jesus within first-century Judaism, a wider use of sources and archaeology, and more attention to his eschatological message. Its scholars include Sanders, Vermes, Meier and Wright, who nevertheless reach differing portraits.
Why do portraits of Jesus differ among scholars who use the same sources?
Because the sources are limited and must be interpreted, scholars weigh them differently, apply different criteria, hold different views of miracles and of how the gospels were composed, and bring different assumptions to the work.
Think it through
- Which of the portraits in the lesson most resembles the one you grew up with?
- Do you think it is possible to study Jesus historically without bringing a faith position or an anti-faith position?
- How might a believer respond to a portrait of Jesus that differs from the church’s teaching?
- What would count, for you, as good evidence that a portrait of Jesus is true to the sources?
Independent assignment
Reading a new book on Jesus
In your own notebook, write 300 to 450 words. Imagine you have picked up a popular book or documentary on the historical Jesus. List five questions, based on this lesson, that you would ask about its method and assumptions. Then apply two of them to a book or program you know. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God Read the introduction to see how one scholar frames historical method and the question of resurrection.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Read the opening chapters on form criticism and the argument for eyewitness testimony.
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Read for a traditional defense of the reliability of the gospels, and compare it with the critical positions in this lesson.
- Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Read the chapter on the gospels for guidance on reading them as both history and theology.
- Luke 1:1 Many had taken in hand to set forth a declaration of the things surely believed.
- Mark 8:29 Peter answers the question who Jesus is.