The United Theological College, Bangalore

BS NT 029a – Jesus Movement and Gospel Tradition

Quests for the Historical Jesus
Submitted to : Rev. J. Jeyakumar
Submitted by : Andrew J.S., B.D. II
Submitted on : 13/1/2020

Introduction

The quests for the historical Jesus can be defined as the academic efforts to determine what
words and actions, if any, may be attributed to Jesus in the sense of history, and to use the findings
to provide portraits of Jesus as a historical figure. Systematic Scientific attempts to this end began
after the enlightenment.

For more than 1600 years after Jesus, the idea of asking such a question did not come up. In
the thoughts of Christian interpreters of the Bible, there was absolutely no difference between the
Jesus of History and the Jesus in the faith proclamation of the church. The accuracy of biblical
narratives were taken for granted. However, this changed in the 17th century, i.e. the beginning of the
European Enlightenment, which would result in the separation of the claims of faith and those of
history. The taken-for-granted authority of the Bible was undermined and a historical distance
developed.1

The development of the search of the Jesus of history can be seen as progression under four
phases:2

1. The Old / Original / First Quest: From Reimarus to Schweitzer (1778-1906)

2. The “No Quest” phase: From Schweitzer to Kasemann (1906-1953)
3. The New Quest: 1953 – 1970s
4. The Third Quest: 1980s to present

These quests are different from earlier approaches because they rely on the historical method to
analyze the biblical accounts of Jesus. While textual analysis of biblical sources had taken place for
centuries, these quests introduced new methods and specific techniques to establish the historical
validity of their conclusions.3

1
Gregory W. Dawes, ed., The Historical Jesus Quest (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 1
2
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 10 - 30
3
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals
(London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 102; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, eds., The Historical Jesus: A
Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998), 2
1
Before the Quests

Gospel Harmonies

Before the Enlightenment what we had as similar to the quests were ‘gospel harmonies’. Till
then Jesus was not studied as a historical figure in the modern sense. Non-Christian scholars took
little or no interest in him and Christian scholars simply considered the biblical narratives as direct
historical accounts of his life. However from the early days of Christianity, there were concerns with
the biblical narratives as they gave four different accounts of Jesus' life and they did not always seem
to agree on what they reported concerning him.

Hence, for many centuries, creating a historical biography of Jesus was basically a matter of
harmonizing the four Gospel narratives. There were many of this kind in the early centuries of
Christianity. 4

The most widely known of these was by a Mesopotamian Christian named Tatian in the
second century (c.160-175) called the Diatessaron ("four-in-one").5 Tatian knit the four Gospel
accounts together into one continuous narrative. This work was translated into several languages and
was widely used for three hundred years. It is believed by some that Justin Martyr, the teacher of
Tatian, used a harmony of the Gospels, which might have influenced Tatians work. Early church
father Jerome reports that Theophilus of Antioch (circa. 180 CE) also composed a harmony, and
Eusebius in ‘The Letter to Carpianus’ (325 CE) reports that Ammonius of Alexandria (3rd Cent CE)
prepared a commentary on Matthew which indicated parallel passages from the other Gospels. 6
Eusebius, after pointing out the weaknesses of Ammonius’ method, stated that influenced by him, he
developed a more effective system of references to reflect the various relationships between the
materials in the canonical Gospels. He divided the Gospels into small, consecutively numbered
sections and set up ten Canons or Tables to indicate the interrelationships between these sections. 7
Augustine, in reaction to critics of Christian faith who pointed out the discrepancies in the different
gospel narratives prepared a study “The Harmony of the Gospels”.8

Throughout the patristic and medieval periods the literature produced on the Historical Jesus
was comparatively limited. However, related to this genre we have in the fourth and fifth centuries,

4
Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1996), 38
5
"Tatian," The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross., and E. A. Livingstone.
(London: Oxford University Press, 2005)
6
Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1996), 38,39
7
The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus 44, 45
8
The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus 48
2
the poetic presentations of the life of Jesus. Similar efforts can be seen in the history of Christianity
throughout the patristic and medieval times.9

The religious orders in the medieval times took special interest to reproduce the actual life of
Jesus. This interest found expression, particularly in the fourteenth century, in what are known as
Vitae Christi – Lives of Christ. Three important ones of these are (1) “The Meditations on the Life of
Christ”, (2) the “De Gestis Domini Salvatoris”, and (3) “Vita Christi”10

Martin Luther, faced the problem of dissimilarities in the Gospel narratives about Jesus in the
16th century and his take on the matter was that the Gospels follow no order in recording the acts and
miracles of Jesus, and for him, the matter was not much important. Therefore, if an unsolvable
difficulty arises, he suggested that it be left alone.11

In producing Gospel harmonies, scholars were already asking historical questions about Jesus,
but they did so within a context of faith, not skepticism. But, all this changed with the Enlightenment.

What is The Historical Jesus?12

Jesus of Nazareth is an undeniable historical figure. No modern historian would deny the
historicity of Jesus. There was a person back in time, called Jesus of Nazareth. There’s just too much
evidence that he existed and it’s just not deniable when it comes to reliable historical evidence. But
saying that is quite far from accepting all of the Gospel materials as reliable. “Scholars basically are
caught in the middle of saying we believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth, we believe we might even
be able to say some things as historians about who he was, what he said, what he did, why he may
have been executed”, and so on. Here we use critical historical tools to analyze the Gospel accounts
which are faith-based texts, theological texts, and we try to figure out what we could say historically,
about Jesus.

Now this leads us to another concern. The theological Jesus, the Jesus of Christian confession
is not the historical Jesus. The Jesus of theological confession is the Jesus that matches what the
church has traditionally believed about Jesus. For example, Jesus that matches the creeds, a Jesus that
matches Christian confessions. The problem here is that, divinity of Jesus, the reconciling mission of
Jesus, the incarnation, etc. which are fundamental aspects of Christian faith for most Christians are
not things that any historian can state in any professional manner. There’s no possible way that a

9
The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus 57-62
10
Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1996), 63
11
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 12
12
“13. The Historical Jesus” (video of the Yale Courses, Introduction to New Testament - RLST 152), YouTube post, 1
Sep, 2009, accessed 10 Dec 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0
3
practicing historian by the normal historiographical tools of history could tell whether God was in
Jesus Christ. This is simply because one cannot test that. The historical Jesus is a construction made
by historians practicing the typical trade of modern historiography. Just like they would, for any other
historical figure.
There are two very common uses of the word ‘history’. One is when people use the word to
simply refer to the past, and then we have ‘history’ proper, that is a more professional use of the term,
“history” and here we’re not talking about the past, we’re talking about an account of the past. What
does this mean? Histories are accessible, to us. For example, we can get a biography of Gandhi, or
Nelson Mandela. But do these give you the Gandhi or Nelson Mandela? No. they give us an account
of the lives of these people. The actual Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are radically inaccessible to us.
“The past is non-existent when it comes to our experiences of it. All we can experience are different
accounts of the past. We can experience different constructions of the past. We cannot experience the
past itself. It’s gone; it’s lost to us forever.”
That means the historical Jesus, as Jesus actually existed in history, like any other part of
history, is inaccessible to us. We cannot and will never find him. The Jesus who lived in first-century
Palestine is knowable only through the evidence that has survived. What we can do is by using the
techniques and rules of the trade of modern historiography, construct a “historical Jesus”. That means
a Jesus of Nazareth constructed using the same kinds of historical tools as historians would use to
construct the historical Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. However that is a construction. We could
therefore use the phrase “the historical Jesus” to mean, not all that Jesus was, but Jesus insofar as his
historical reality is accessible to us.13
In the words of Morton Smith: “Trying to find the actual Jesus is like trying, in atomic physics,
to locate a submicroscopic particle and determine its charge….. Admittedly history is more complex
than physics; the lines connecting the original figure to the developed legends cannot be traced with
mathematical accuracy; the intervention of unknown factors has to be allowed for. Consequently,
results can never claim more than probability….”14

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

1. The Old / Original / First Quest: From Reimarus to Schweitzer (1778-1906)

The Lives of Jesus15

During the period following the Enlightenment, scholars went beyond the production of
Gospel harmonies, to write biographies, called Lives of Jesus. Lives of Jesus were heavily founding
on the harmonization of Gospels, but they were different in at least three ways:

13
Richard Bauckam, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Michigan: William B.
Eerdmanns Publishing Company, 2006), 2
14
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: Harper
Collins Publishers, 1992), xxvii
15
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 12
4
 i. They typically impose some grand scheme or hypothesis upon the material that allowed
everything to be interpreted in accord with a consistent paradigm (for example, "Jesus was a
social reformer" or "Jesus was a religious mystic'')
ii. They excluded material in the Gospels that did not fit with this paradigm, submitting the
biblical record to the author's critical judgment of what seemed most likely to be correct
iii. They included reflection about Jesus not derived from the Gospels, attempting to fill in gaps
in the biblical record with the author's own projections concerning Jesus' motivations, goals,
or self-understanding.
16
The roots of the Old Quest, in which we have the Lives of Jesus goes a lot back from Hermann
Samuel Reimarus, who is considered as the “Father” of the Quest. Reimarus’ ideas are not ex-nihilo.
The roots of the Old Quest, lie in the seventeenth century on the period of Enlightenment, in the
British and French Deism, and the biblical-criticism, to which it eventually gave rise. Deist appraisals
of the notions of divine revelation and miracles accelerated a developing scepticism toward the
gospel. Early Enlightenment thinkers such as Benedict Spinoza, Isaac La Peyere, Richard Simon,
Thomas Woolston, Peter Annet and Thomas Morgan laid the groundwork for what would eventually
emerge as the advanced historical-critical method.

Hundreds of these Lives of Jesus were written, mainly during the nineteenth century. The
following are the most important of them.

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768)17

Reimarus was a professor of Semitic languages at the University of Hamburg. According to

Albert Schweitzer, Reimarus had no predecessors18, however, as we have seen above we can see that
the works of many Enlightenment thinkers and writers formed the roots of Reimarus’ work. However
Reimarus’ work is original in many senses. He begins by arguing for a clear distinction between the
actual Jesus of history and the Gospels’ presentation of him. In Reimarus’ opinion, from a historian’s
perspective, Jesus was a Jew and intended to remain one. We can list out his major opinions as
follows:

16
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 11; Gregory W. Dawes, ed., The Historical Jesus Quest (Kentucky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2000), 1
17
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 1112-14; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, eds., The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive
Guide (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998), 2,3; Gregory W. Dawes, ed., The Historical Jesus Quest (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 54-86; Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of
its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911), 13; Tom Holmen and Stanley E.
Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of Jesus (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill
Inc., 2011) 863
18
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede
(London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911), 23
5
 Jesus was an unsuccessful political claimant who thought it was his destiny to be established by
God as king of the restored people of Israel.
 He interpreted all of the passages in the New Testament where Jesus speaks of "the kingdom of
God" or "the kingdom of heaven" as references to a new political reality about to be established
on earth.
 Jesus believed he was the Messiah (or "Christ''), but he meant this in a worldly sense. He thought
that God was going to deliver the people of Israel from bondage to the Romans and create a new
and powerful kingdom on earth where Jesus himself would rule as king. And he was crucified
precisely for this reason.
 He realized in his last moments that God had failed him, that his hopes had been misplaced. And
this is the reason why he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt.27:46)
 However, Jesus’ disciples were not ready to accept the fact and conferred upon Jesus after his
death the supernatural narratives, the stole away his body and made up the story of Ressurection.

James Dunn, a quester in the third quest, summarizes Reimarus’ (and Strauss’) methodological
presuppositions as follows, “Where texts seemed to contradict other texts or were inconsistent with
the universal laws which were now known to govern the course of events, the accounts in these texts
should be judged unhistorical on scientific grounds. Here scientific criticism in effect was posed from
the outset as a contradiction to the traditional claims of faith…”19

Reimarus’ work was never published as a single unit during his lifetime, rather was posthumously
published as fragments by Gotthold Ephraïm Lessing (1729–81), between 1774 and 1778. The
publications invited severe reactions from theologians of those times.20

Between Reimarus and Strauss: The Lives of Jesus of the Earlier Rationalism21

Albert Schweitzer considers works of scholars such as J.J. Hess, F.V. Reinhard, E.A. Optiz, J.A.
Jakobi and J.G. Herder in this category. Common features of these studies was an emphasis to
rationalist explanations to Gospel materials, and also to the moral teachings of Jesus. This was in
attempt to render Jesus appealing to the more rational “enlightened” though of the times. 22 Worth
mentioning of this category is H.E.G. Paulus.

19
James D. G Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making (Michigan: William B. Eerdmanns Publishing
Company, 2003), 30
20
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326-341
21
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 14
22
The Historical Jesus: Five Views, 14
6
 Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus (1761-1851)23

Paulus was a veteran rationalist who offered naturalistic explanations to the miracle narratives.
He was professor of theology at the University of Heidelberg. He published a two-volume work on
the life of Jesus in 1828, which was in essence, a Gospel harmony with explanatory notes. For Paulus
miracle narratives were reports of historical events, but reasoned that a primitive knowledge of the
laws of nature led people in biblical times to consider events understandable with the advancement of
knowledge as supernatural.

David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) 24

According to Strauss, Jesus was simply a Jewish rabbi of such a charismatic personality that
the disciples conjured up an image of Him in their mind of a mythical quality (devoid of any
objectivity) after His death and set forth those beliefs in the Gospel. Strauss rejected the traditional
view that the gospels present an accurate, historical picture of Jesus. He also disagreed with Reimarus
and other "rationalists" who rejected the miraculous elements in the gospels. Strauss offered a "third
way," in contrast to these "traditionalist" and "rationalist" interpretations of the gospels, by labeling
the miracle stories as myths- symbolic narratives that speak religious truths about Jesus. His views
were published in the 1835/36 work, ‘The Life of Jesus Critically Examined’. It caused a lot of
reactions and criticisms and affected Strauss’ academic career as well.

The Enlightenment Epistemology in Reimarus and Strauss25

It is important that we understand Reimarus and Strauss (and contemporary scholars) in the light of
enlightenment epistemology of their times. By enlightenment epistemology is meant a
historiographical approach which works with History as a hard scientist would work with data within
a lab. The historical-critical method followed an enlightenment epistemology of

i. Objectivity in History: History is to be treated as an extension of the natural sciences as

historical facts are objects in history which can be recovered by scientific method.
ii. Neutrality/Impartiality: The historian could be impartial, strictly objective in his treatment of
historical facts.

23
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 14; James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five
Views (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2010), 15
24
Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Historical Jesus Quests,” Journal Of Dispensational Theology (March, 2007): 25; David B.
Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2007), 5; Mark Allan Powell, Jesus
as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press,
1998), 15; James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2010), 15
25
Jon Swales, Historical Jesus: Introduction, Chapter 1- Historical Jesus: Quest, Methods and Criteria (Bristol:
Trinity College, 2008), 5
7
iii. Rationalism: Human reason is the sufficient measure of truth
iv. Methodological Naturalism: The cosmos is a single harmonious structure of forces and masses.
All events are predictable, the effects of causes already observable. There is no room for divine
intervention.26

Liberal Quests in the First Quest: Ernst Renan, Adolph von Harnack, and Albrecht B. Rishctl are
examples of liberal questersin the first quest.

Ernst Renan (1823-1892)

Renan represents the liberal quest for the historical Jesus. His work ‘Life of Jesus’ (1863) became
extremely popular and went on to be published in several languages. Regarding the Gospels as
"legendary biographies," Renan sought to uncover the personality that inspired the legends while also
displaying his own fondness for poetic, even sentimental, description.

Renan portrayed Jesus as a human being, and his views were quite radical as well as challenging to
Christian faith. For example in his view, Jesus was born at Nazareth, He proceeded from the ranks of
the people and hence not of the lineage of David. His father was Joseph , and his mother, Mary.
Through these views Renan rejected the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, his Davidic lineage , and two of
the pillars of Christian orthodoxy: the virgin birth and the incarnation.

Because of this book, Renan was dismissed from his professorship at the College de France and was
excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church27

Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930), and Albrecht B. Rishctl (1822–89)28

Liberal Protestant theologians in the First quest for Historical Jesus, such as Adolf von
Harnack and Albrecht Ritschl, sought to free the historical Jesus from the dogma of the church. The
concern for both of them was making the moral teachings of Jesus relevant to their context.

Adolph Von Harnack in his work ‘What is Christianity’ (1900), attempted to remove any
offensive apocalyptic teachings from the historical Jesus. Although von Harnack believed that Jesus
did teach on eschatological events, he also believed that the disciples added the apocalyptic element
to Jesus’ teachings. The supernaturalism of eschatological judgments and deliverances was
incompatible with von Harnack’s universalistic worldview, so he attempted to remove the offensive
material through his work. Harnack emphasized that Christianity is a way of life, and not a system of
beliefs , dogma, or doctrine. He emphasized the moral, ethical aspect of Christianity.

26
James D. G Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making (Michigan: William B. Eerdmanns Publishing
Company, 2003), 26-29
27
David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2007),7
28
What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus 10,
8
 Ritschl’s gave emphasis to the empirically observable experience of the church. In his opinion,
the origin of the person of Jesus transcends all enquiry and hence was not a fit theological topic.
Jesus’ divinity was not to be understood as a statement of fact but as an expression of the revelational
value of Jesus to the church.

The End of the First Quest: William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer29

It is widely regarded that Albert Schweitzer’s ‘Quest of the Historical Jesus’ marks the end of the
Original Quest. This is to a large extent true, however this doesn’t mean that his book caused the end
of the Original Quest. The real cause for the end of the Original Quest can also be found in a series
of basic shifts happening in the New Testament scholarship at the opening of the 20th century.

William Wrede (1859-1906)30

Initially William Wrede was in company with Albrecht B. Rishctl. However he later got acquainted
with the ‘history of religions’ school of thought and began to view the rise of Christianity in the
broader context. His work was mainly focussed on Mark’s Gospel, which in his days as well was
considered as the first. In Wredes opinion, despite its priority, Mark’s Gospel cannot be taken as a
reliable source for the life of Jesus. Mark’s gospel can only be seen as a document of faith. Wrede
proposed that Mark had invented the scheme of a “messianic secret” to facilitate a presentation of
Jesus that was not historically accurate. In course of time, specifics of Wredes thesis fell out of favour,
however the suspicions it created remained.

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)31

Schweitzer's ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ summarized and critiqued the different Lives
of Jesus that had been written to that point. He identified the missing element in most of the Lives of
Jesus as ‘eschatology’. Schweitzer adopted the method of form criticism to study the Gospels in order
to determine which parts of the written material had been preserved in a form most similar to that
used for oral transmission. In his view the proper context for understanding Jesus was Jewish
apocalyptic eschatology. Therefore Jesus is not merely a liberal social reformer and teacher of love,
but an end-times enthusiast who fervently believed that his own sufferings would play a vital role in
the apocalyptic consummation of the world. In his opinion Jesus was a failed or misguided

29
Jon Swales, Historical Jesus: Introduction, Chapter 1- Historical Jesus: Quest, Methods and Criteria (Bristol:
Trinity College, 2008)
30
Gregory W. Dawes, ed., The Historical Jesus Quest (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 113, 114;
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 24
31
David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2007), 12-15; Ron J.
Bigalke Jr., “The Historical Jesus Quests,” Journal Of Dispensational Theology (March, 2007): 26; Jon Swales,
Historical Jesus: Introduction, Chapter 1- Historical Jesus: Quest, Methods and Criteria (Bristol: Trinity College,
2008) 8
9
apocalyptic prophet. He was deluded into thinking that he was the God appointed Messiah.
Schweitzer twice concluded in his work that Jesus was wrong. First when he believed that God was
about to send a supernatural figure whom he called "the Son of Man" to establish the kingdom, who
apparently did not come.32 Jesus was again wrong as the kingdom he expected did not come. His
death, as noble and inspiring as his life, did not effect the change that he believed it would.

Schweitzer’s conclusions about Jesus stripped him off significance in his contemporary age.
However the impact of his work lasted for decades that those who opposed him as not qualified for
the kind of work he did were also challenged by the arguments he made through his work.

Important Aspects of the First Quest

Scepticism about the miracle stories and reluctance to accept anything that deals with the supernatural
as proper historical accounts was a common feature in all the works of the First Quest

All questioned the accuracy of the Gospels at certain points and sought to supplement the stories
with what they thought were reasonable conjectures at other points

The most important aspect to be considered was mentioned by Albert Schweitzer in 1906. These
authors, and numerous others, all managed to produce portraits of Jesus that they personally found
appealing. For the non-Christian, the historical Jesus rather conveniently turned out to be a fraud. For
the Christian, the historical Jesus seemed in every case to end up believing things that the author
believed and valuing whatever the author valued. The scholars, Schweitzer claimed, had modernized
Jesus, dressing him in clothes of their own design. Their interest, whether conscious or not, was in
discovering a figure who would be relevant for their time, and this interest prevented them from
seeing Jesus as a figure in his own time, as a figure of the past, a figure in history. One sign of this
was that the Christian studies tended to present Jesus in a fairly generic ethnic guise. There was little
about him that seemed specifically Jewish. 33The so-called quest for the historical Jesus had tended
in fact to become a quest for the relevant Jesus. Historical accuracy and relevance need not be
necessarily mutually exclusive, but the Original Quest scholars apparently failed consider the
possibility that they might be. In the final analysis, Schweitzer concluded, the quest had yielded only
negative results.

32
In Matthew 10:23 Jesus tells his disciples that they will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son
of Man comes. But, of course, the disciples completed their mission and the Son of Man did not come.
33
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 16
10
 2. The “No Quest” phase: From Schweitzer to Kasemann (1906-1953)34

The powerful critiques of Schweitzer and Wrede on the Old Quest led many German scholars to
question whether it was possible to reconstruct the historical Jesus. And even if it was, the theological
climate had changed greatly, so that now the Christ of faith rather than the historical Jesus was seen
as important.
The term ‘No Quest’ phase might suggest that the quest came to a halt for nearly half a century.
However this is not true as a good number of studies on Jesus were produced during this time. At the
same time in German academic circles the quest was severely hampered due to a variety of reasons.
Two of these reasons are associated with the work of Schweitzer and at least two more factors are
found by scholars as its cause.
i. Inevitable Scholarly Subjectivity: This was in fact a common criticism of Schweitzer on all the
questers of the Original Quest. They inevitable found in their sources a Jesus created in their own
image, or at least a Jesus very convenient for them. In George Tyrrell’s opinion, whenever a
scholar gazes into the deep well of history in search of Jesus, there is always the danger of seeing
merely one’s own reflection gazing back, and mistaking that for Jesus. This awareness about
inevitable scholarly subjectivity fostered skepticism on the possibility of ever arriving at an
objective portrait of Jesus.
ii. Jesus as a misguided apocalyptic prophet, Schweitzer’s own conclusion about Jesus was not
something even the enlightened European mind could handle.
iii. The new method of Gospel analysis: Form Criticism. Form Criticism focused on the pre-Gospel
oral Jesus tradition. However it also brought with it methodological assumptions that caused to
further amplify skeptical attitudes to the Gospels as historical sources. Rudolf Bultmann can be
seen as the prominent scholar who thought in these lines.
iv. The first three factors were historical hurdles to reach the historical Jesus. The fourth one was a
theological objection put forward by Martin Kahler in his famous work titled, ‘The So-called
Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ’ (1892). Kahler argued that the quest was
theologically unnecessary, even illegitimate.
Now let us analyze the prominent scholars of the ‘No Quest’ phase, and their views.
Martin Kahler
Martin Kahler was a biblical theologian who rejected the assumptions on which the quest of the
historical Jesus had been based. Kahler’s may be seen as the first of the protests in the counter-

34
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 21-24; Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View
the Man from Galilee (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 18; Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A
Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 13

11
movement against the Old Quest. Martin Kahler is well remembered for his 1892 work, ‘The So-
Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ’. It was originally written as an address to a
conference of pastors. We can point out his major ideas as follows
 The Historical Jesus of modern scholars conceals from us the living Christ.
 The Jesus reconstructed by historical critical method is just a human fabrication.
 Kahler points to the impossibility of reconstructing a historical Jesus from the Gospels as they
are not adequate historical sources.
 Our focus of attention should not be on ‘the historical Jesus, rather ‘the historic, biblical
Christ’. We approach Jesus because of his religious significance. Therefore our focus should
be not on the historical details of his life, rather how he encounters us today. Hence, historical
details are relatively insignificant.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976)35

Both Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth protested against the idea that historical research could
provide a foundation for faith. Their view was that while historical research will give a better
understanding of Christianity as a religion, revelation must be given pre-eminence over human
knowledge.

Bultmann’s approach to Jesus is characterized by a strong contrast between ‘the Jesus of

History’ and the ‘Christ of Faith’. The historical Jesus is inaccessible, and at the same time in the
view of Bultmann, it is not really a necessary venture to attempt. Christ of Faith, is the figure who
comes to us in the proclamation of the Gospels. Bultmanns viewpoint is very much theological.

Bultmann opines that, the attempt of scholars to redeem Jesus from the clutches of dogma was
doomed to failure, and that historical research can only bring up approximations which are
unsatisfactory as basis for faith.

Neo-Orthodoxy: Karl Barth (1886–1968) and Emil Bruner (1889– 1966)36

In reaction to liberalism with its emphasis on humanity, religious experience and scientific study, the
neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner stressed the sovereignty of the transcendent God,
human need of redemption and revelation, and the centrality of Jesus Christ.

Barth’s emphasis on revelation brought him into sharp conflict with his former teacher Harnack. The
Christocentric theology developed in Barth’s Church Dogmatics (1932–81) elaborated the theme of

35
David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2007),15
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the
36

Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326-341

12
God taking humanity into partnership with himself on the basis of the incarnation of God in Jesus of
Nazareth. Barth stressed the historical reality of this event, but showed little interest in the historical
Jesus as such.

Barth views that historical enquiry was theologically misguided when it attempted to reach ‘behind’
the text, with the belief that the facts so-discovered would be of religious significance. Barth views
the Bible as a witness to divine revelation, and that revelations is not to be found in the reconstructions
of a historian, rather in the facts, as presented by the biblical writers. Historical Criticism is of
significance to understand the biblical witness of Gods activity. Bu

Brunner’s ‘The Mediator’ (1927) rejected attempts to interpret Jesus as a religious hero, genius or
moral personality. God must be understood biblically rather than philosophically, and known through
personal encounter through Christ. Although Brunner insisted on the reality of the humanity of Christ,
his lack of interest in history alleged him of Docetism.

Form Criticism3738

Form criticism analyzed the formation of the Gospels. Bultmann and his German colleagues argued
that stories about Jesus had circulated orally for some time, quickly assuming a number of clearly
defined ‘forms’ – sayings, miracles, conflict stories, legends and so on – which had been worked over
by the early church and finally edited and placed randomly within the gospel framework by the
evangelists. Some of these units of tradition, when stripped of later accretions, might well go back to
the historical Jesus, but many had been made up by the church. They reflected the particular Sitz im
Leben (or life situation) of early Christian communities, and displayed their earliest kerygma (or
proclamation).

No Quest Phase: A Partial Eclipse: 39

Despite the claims of Schweitzer that his historical Jesus was the sole credible option, and the claims
of the neo-orthodox and the Bultmann school that recovery of the historical Jesus was impossible and
fortunately unnecessary, many scholars patiently pursued historical research. Hence it is not
completely correct to mention that this period was marked by no quests for the historical Jesus.

37
Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: T&T
Clark International, 2010), 9
38
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 14
39
Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1996), 124
13
3. The New Quest: 1953 – 1970s40

Ernst Kasemann (1906-1998)

Ernst Kasemann is considered to have reopened the historical Jeusus Quest. Kasemann viewed
that theology about Jesus must be thoroughly grounded in a historical reality or else Jesus can be used
to support anything. It is highly likely that Kasemann and his German colleagues had this view based
on the recent events that happened in Nazi Germany. Nazi leaders had presented Jesus (whom
historians know was Jewish!) as a proponent of anti-Semitism. Kasemann also firmly believed that it
is methodologically possible to discover a historical grounding for Jesus.

Ernst Kasemann’s lecture on "The Problem of the Historical Jesus" to an alumni gathering of
academics in the University of Marburg is seen as the turning point which started the New Quest.

Kasemann’s ideas came in the background of the rejection of the historical Jesus quest by Bultmann,
Barth and others. Kasemann endorsed the criticisms upon the Old Quest. Barth and Bultmann had
emphasized the theological irrelevance and the historical impossibility of the Historical Jesus.
Theologically, Christianity was founded on an act of divine revelation, historically, form criticism
had made it clear that the Gospels are proclamations of Early Christian Kerygma rather than mateirals
for the biography of Jesus.

However the question of the historical foundation of the early Christian Kerygma remains significant.
No matter, how much deep, the historical Jesus is buried under the layers of reinterpretation, the early
Christians clearly had the understanding that their proclamation of Gospel to be grounded in the
events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Kasemann feared a going back into Docetism, if the Christ of faith, the exalted Lord of the kerygma
was detached from the human Jesus, the humiliated Lord in history. The method for Kasemann was
to discover the earthly Jesus through the kerygma

Hence Kasemann did not venture into the writing of any more Lives of Jesus, but simply supported
the affirmation of what could be regarded as facts concerning him. Historical scholars could
determine whether individual sayings or deeds attributed to Jesus are likely to be authentic without
engaging in speculation regarding the chronology or psychological motivations behind such matters.
Those scholars who went in line with this view were called as the New Questers. They produced

40
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 19-21; Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Historical Jesus Quests,” Journal Of
Dispensational Theology (March, 2007): 27; Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the
Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of Jesus (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011) 867; James K. Beilby and Paul
Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2010), 24;
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 15,16

14
numerous historical studies of Jesus in the 1950s and 1960s. Prominent scholars in this New Quest
are, Ernst Fuchs, Gunther Bornkamm, Hans Conzelmann, Ferdinand Hahn, and Eduard Schweizer,
in Germany and in North America by Schubert M. Ogden, Reginald H. Fuller, Norman Perrin, and
James M. Robinson, whose work ‘A New Quest of the Historical Jesus’ popularised the term. here
we will look into few scholars, both European and American who have been especially influential in
The new Quest.

Gunther Bornkamm41

Gunther Bornkamm was a former student of Bultmann who responded to the call of Kasemann
in 1953. His work was titled ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. He showed almost no interest in chronology of
events or in Jesus' motives, goals, or self-understanding. He agrees that it is not possible to pursue an
historical understanding of Jesus along historical, psychological lines. He, however affirms that we
can still discource about ‘occurrence and event’ in the life of Jesus. Bornkamm attempts to
reconstruct something of the characteristic teachings and conduct of Jesus. Despite its limitations,
Bornkamm viewed the traditional sources as ‘brim full’ of history sufficient enough for him to
"compile the main historically indisputable traits and to present the rough outlines of Jesus' person
and history" He developed a list of historically indisputable facts about Jesus, all derived from the
first three Gospels, which can be summarised as follows:

 Family: Jesus was a Jew from Galilee, his family lived in Nazareth, his father was a carpenter,
and we know the names of four of his brothers.
 Language: Jesus spoke Aramaic, but as a Jewish rabbi must have been versed with the Hebrew
of the Jewish Bible. We cannot determine if Jesus spoke any Greek, but he does not show any
trace of the influence of Greek philosophy or of the Greek lifestyle.
 Baptism: We can be almost sure of this this event as historical in the life of Jesus. However we
cannot know what it meant for Jesus, his decisions, or his inner understandings.
 Ministry: We can, learn much about Jesus’ teachings, conflicts with opponents, healing activities,
that he gathered disciples, that people flocked to him, and that his enemies arise and increase.
 Death: The last decisive turning point in Jesus’ life was the trip to Jerusalem with his message
of the kingdom of God. [This was seen as rebellious by both religious and political offcials and
he was executed on the Roman cross]

41
James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 2010), 25; Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark
International, 2012), 16, 17; David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist
Press, 2007), 20
15
 Bornkamm was of the view that Christian faith was not dependent upon historical Jesus
research and that there was continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith. In his view
the nature of gospel traditions demands inquiry into the historical Jesus, because those traditions are
concerned with the pre-Easter history of Jesus.

Norman Perrin42

Norman Perrin applied the discipline of redaction criticism to sayings of Jesus recorded in the first
three Gospels to determine which of them were historically authentic. The method of redaction
criticism a main aspect of Bornkamm's work as well, attempts to distinguish material that would have
reflected Jesus' own thinking from that which appears to reflect the aims of the Christians who
redacted the Gospels.

Perrin sought to work within the tradition of the New Quest in his work, ‘Rediscovering the Teaching
of Jesus’ (1967). However, Perrin say as a serious weakness of the New Quest, the assumption of the
identity of the historical Jesus with the kerygmatic Christ. The assumption ignored the variety of
different kerygma in the NT, and assumed that historical research would always point to parallels
between Jesus and a form of the kerygma.

J. M. Robinson43

J.M. Robinsons work ‘A New Quest of the Historical Jesus’ is devoted to justifying the basic idea of
having a quest for the historical Jesus. It moves entirely within a Christian frame of reference,
especially one which echoes German concerns. In Robinson’s opinion, the historical Jesus quest
continued uninterrupted outside German academic circles, during the so-called No Quest phase.
Robinson affirms that the Old Quest was ‘Impossible’ (as the sources do not provide necessary
information, as they are faith affirmations rather than historical resource material) and ‘Illegitimate’
(as the recovery of the external elements of Jesus’ ministry could not serve as a foundation and norm
of faith). In chapters 3,4, and 5, of his book he delineates the ‘Possibility’, the ‘Legitimacy ‘ and
‘Procedure’ for a New Quest. Robinson says that a new quest for the Historical Jesus is both possible,
and at the same time necessary, because of the modern scientific developments in historiography.
Faith, is, and cannot be based upon historiography, but modern historiography has well outlined the
distinction between the Christ of the Kerygma and the Historical Jesus. Hence it is necessary to

42
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326-341; Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History:
How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 20
43
Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: T&T
Clark International, 2010), 12; Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical
Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1996), 122, 123; James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London:
SCM Press Ltd., 1963) 67, 81; David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist
Press, 2007), 23
16
explain that the Kerygma is not just ‘symbolized principles’, rather it is the ‘interpreted history’ of a
real person. Robinson says that the quest cannot, even if it is successful prove thje ultimate truth of
the Kerygma, however it can test whether the Kerygmatic understanding of Jesus’ existence
corresponds with the historical understanding.

The quest is deemed as possible by Robinson, because of the changed understanding of the term
‘history’ in the early second half of the 20th century. For him “History is the act of intention, the
commitment, the meaning for participants behind external occurences”. In this renewed
understanding of history, despite the transformations that happened in the early Christian traditions,
we may say that some saying and incidents of the original Jesus still can be reeled out. So while the
materials in Gospels may not give adequate information to construct a biography of Jesus, it definitely
does provide material to determine something essential about the Jesus of History – the act of
intention, the commitment.

ipsissima verba44

The most striking aspect of the New Quest was its attention to methodology. Scholars wanted to reel
out the real words of Jesus - ipsissima verba. But how was this possible? Form critical analysis of the
text could identify a original form of a tradition, but one cannot be certain that the tradition went back
to Jesus. In an attempt to give maximum scientific base for such conclusions, scholars developed a
number of criteria for determining which sayings went back to Jesus.

Criteria in the New Quest

We can say that the New Quest was marked by three criteria. The first was already used by Bultmann,
the second and third were proposed by Norman Perrin.

i. The criterion of dissimilarity: Jesus had to be dissimilar to Judaism and to the early church
whose picture of Jesus was coloured by belief in the resurrection. In the words of Norman
Perrin, “the earliest form of a saying we can reach may be regarded as authentic if it can be
shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of ancient Judaism and of the early
Church”45.
ii. The criterion of coherence: ‘material from the earliest strata of the tradition may be accepted
as authentic if it can be shown to cohere with material established as authentic by means of
the criterion of dissimilarity’46
iii. The criterion of multiple attestation: a material can be authentically ascribed to Jesus if it can
be found in various independent sources and in a variety of forms. In practice, this works

44
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 17
45
N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967), 38–47.
46
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 17
17
 better for themes than for specific sayings, few of which are reproduced in more than one
strand of the tradition. Eg. Jesus’ concern for tax collectors and sinners, occurs in different
places in different forms, the theme ‘Kingdom of God’ is repeated in many places suggesting
that Jesus really preached about it.47
As the New Quest developed and flourished among Bultmann’s former students, it had a
homogeneity which was lacking in previous and future quests.
4. The Third Quest: 1980s to present48
The Third Quest for the historical Jesus began in the early 80’s. Third Quest scholarship was
characterized by a special focus to situate the life and message of Jesus in 1st century Judaism.
However, the Third Quest is also embedded in the same naturalistic perspective that characterized
the previous two quests and hence the Third Quest rejects the supernatural element in Jesus’ miracles
because its scholarship believes that they are myth. The Third Quest also has a strong presupposition
that a large sequence of transmission exists between the traditions of the early church, as revealed in
the New Testament documents, with the actual life and teachings of the historical Jesus. While the
earlier quests were marked by a clearly theological agenda - either discrediting or defending
Christianity, reconstructions in the third quest are more historically oriented: their main concern is to
place Jesus in his own social world in first century Palestine.
All current Jesus research can be seen as part of this Third Quest, and we can observe some
common elements:
i. "Sociological interest" replaces "theological interest"
ii. Jesus is situated within Judaism rather than distinct from Judaism
iii. Openness of many scholars to using non-canonical sources
iv. Attention to questions broader than merely debates over the authenticity of individual sayings
v. Frequent critiques of New Quest methodology, including the criterion of dissimilarity
vi. Placing the "Jewish Jesus" into a wider first-century context
vii. Openness of many scholars to interdisciplinary approaches.
Three main lines of approach may be noted in the Third Quest of historical Jesus:49
i. The radical tradition
The radical redaction-critical tradition is exemplified by the Jesus Seminar in the United States.
ii. The conservative tradition

The Conservative Tradition. The best example of the conservative tradition is C. F. D. Moule in The
Origin of Christology (1977). Moule sees a developmental process taking place which relates later

47
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 18, 19
48
Csertháti, Márta (2000) Methods and models in the third quest of the historical Jesus, Durham theses, Durham
University. 9. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4369/ ; Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic, Sage, or
Son of God? (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1995), 49; David B. Gowler, What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus
(New York: Paulist Press, 2007), 29
49
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326-341
18
perceptions of Jesus to Jesus himself. Moule seeks to show how the titles Son of man, Son of God,
Christ and Lord were appropriate to the historical Jesus, and how the corporate savior of Pauline
theology was grounded in him. In similar vein is Graham N. Stanton’s The Gospels and Jesus (1989).
Other examples of the conservative tradition are I. Howard Marshall’s commentary on The Gospel
of Luke (1978), Marshall’s collected studies Jesus the Saviour (1990) and G. R. Beasley-Murray’s
Jesus and the Kingdom of God (1986). At its best conservative scholarship exhibits meticulous
attention to detail as it seeks to justify and improve our understanding of the history behind the text.

iii. New Perspectives

Possibly the most distinctive development in the Third Quest is the search for new approaches by
way of forming general hypotheses to account for questions posed by the text. Such hypotheses seek
to address questions sometimes neglected in the past and endeavour to understand Jesus in the context
of the religious, social, economic and political world of Judaism. In particular, attention is focused
on the questions “Why did Jesus come into conflict with the Jewish authorities?” “Why was he handed
over to the Romans, and put to death in a manner normally reserved for political revolutionists?”

However the variety in Historical Jesus Scholarship of the Third Quest is much more diverse:50

Different methods can lead to a variety of competing portraits of Jesus. Each have their own
foci and that influences much of the scholarship. Some scholars stress his healing activity and
characterize him as a magician (Morton Smith), or as a charismatic healer and exorcist in the manner
of other Jewish figures at the time (Geza Vermes). Others stress the centrality of Jesus’ apocalyptic
eschatology, presenting him as an eschatological prophet of restoration (E. P. Sanders, J. P. Meier,
Dale Allison). Where teaching is central, Jesus is portrayed as a sage or rabbi (David Flusser), a
Pharisee (Hyam Maccoby), a wisdom teacher preaching a radical egalitarianism (Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza), a subversive sage (Marcus Borg) or a social revolutionary (Richard Horsley). And some
of those who see a high degree of Hellenism within Galilee detect similarities between Jesus and
Cynic philosophers (Gerald Downing, J. D. Crossan). All these studies are trying to situate Jesus
firmly within his Jewish environment and to show his significance within that setting. Yet the
differences between them are significant.

This very diversity has led some to once again question the whole attempt to uncover the historical
Jesus. The Quest is criticized as too much subjective, with modern scholars (just like the authors of
the Liberal Lives) quick to project their own priorities onto Jesus, to use him as a spokesman for their
own concerns.

50
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 21-22
19
 The best way to understand the range of ‘Jesuses’ constructed by the Third Quest is to take
some of the studies as examples. This will give us insight into number of different methods as well
as a number of different conclusions. It will also allow us to have a glimpse of the complexity and
coherence of each study. Let us look at a few of the most influential scholars of the Third Quest.

The Jesus Seminar51

The Jesus Seminar is a group of largely U.S. academics, founded in 1985 by Robert Funk under the
premises of the Westar Institute in Sonoma, California, and was co- chaired by Funk and John
Dominic Crossan until the death of Funk in 2005. The Jesus Seminar seeks to examine the layers of
tradition in both the NT and extra-canonical accounts of Jesus’ words and actions in order to develop
a firm data base for determining who Jesus was. The Seminar meets twice yearly to discuss research
papers and vote on the authenticity of the material. Their findings have been characterized both by a
high degree of scepticism regarding the canonical Gospels and an openness to the authenticity of
material preserved in other, non-canonical sources, with priority given to the Gospel of Thomas .
Using a colour system of balloting, the Seminar is producing a series of Red Letter Editions. The first
to be published was The Parables of Jesus (1988). In the text words printed in red indicate that Jesus
said it or something very like it, and that it could be used for the data base. Pink indicates that Jesus
probably said it. Gray indicates doubt, and black rejection of authenticity. As in all scholarship, the
conclusions of the scholars involved depend on the methods employed. Some of the seminar’s
findings were published in ‘The Five Gospels’ (1993), a colloquial translation of the four canonical
Gospels along with the Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus’ sayings were colour- coded.

The Jesus constructed by the Jesus Seminar is an unconventional one. An illiterate peasant, he began
as a supporter of John the Baptist but rejected both his ascetic lifestyle and apocalyptic preaching of
imminent judgement. Instead, he became an itinerant sage, using concise sayings to announce that
the Kingdom of God had already arrived, and shamelessly celebrating its presence by eating and
drinking with outcasts. Jesus’ message was essentially a call to social justice; he enjoyed attacking
the arrogance of Israel’s religious leaders but showed little interest himself in the religious
underpinnings of his Jewish faith – its Scriptures, its Law, or any hope of restoration. He made no
exalted claims on his own behalf and was eventually arrested and summarily executed in Jerusalem
after the incident in the Temple.

51
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 326-341; Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for
the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 25-26
20
N.T.Wright52

N.T.Wright is credited with coining the term the Third Quest. He claims that it is characterized
by a methodology different from the previous quests. Over against the criterion of dissimilarity
Wright proposes a criterion of double similarity and double dissimilarity. To qualify as a contribution
to the Third Quest, accounts of Jesus must follow this approach. Otherwise Wright dismisses them as
remnants of earlier quests, even though they may be contemporary with the Third Quest. He opines
that the ‘new quest’ and ‘third quest’ are happening simultaneously, with works from the Jesus
Seminar, Crossan and Ludemann being placed in the ‘new quest’ and scholars like Sanders, Theissen,
Wright, Dunn and Meier being placed in the category of ‘third quest’.

In Wright’s understanding the third Quest is different from the New Quest in at least three different
ways

i. move away from the form-critical paradigm

ii. Placing Jesus thoroughly in his Jewish context.
iii. This placing of Jesus in his historical context can take place more effectively due to increased
understanding of the second temple Judaism

Marcus Borg: The Politics of Holiness53

‘Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus’, was originally published in the year
1984. N.T. Wright characterizes the book as one of the foundational works in the ""third quest"" for
the historical Jesus. In the book, Marcus Borg argues that conflict between a politics of holiness and
a politics of compassion, and their implications for Israel, resides at the center of Jesus' activity and
teaching. He emphasizes several features that have since become central to Jesus scholarship: the
importance of Jesus' inclusive meal practice, a non-apocalyptic paradigm for understanding Jesus,
and Jesus as a social prophet and boundary-breaker.

E. P. Sanders54

Sanders stands very much in the tradition of Albert Schweitzer. His two major publications, Jesus
and Judaism (1985) and the more popular The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), present Jesus as a
Jewish apocalyptic prophet, announcing the establishment of a new Temple and the restoration of the

52
Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of
Jesus (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011), 880
53
Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995),
100-102
54
Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of
Jesus (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011) 878
21
twelve tribes of Israel. Rather than focusing on analysis of Jesus’ sayings, Sanders presents in both
his books a list of ‘almost indisputable facts’ about Jesus.

Geza Vermes55

Geza Vermes is Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. He has authored several books on
Jesus. In his first work, ‘Jesus the Jew’ (1973), he shows his desire to approach Jesus in the same
manner as any other historical subject and his concern to place him within his first- century Jewish
context. Vermes’s major contribution is his claim that Jesus is to be seen alongside other roughly
contemporary charismatic holy men, or Hasidim. These men, he claims, were well known and revered
within the Galilean society. Jesus, was a pious, Law- observant Jew, who is best understood as one
in a series – perhaps even the paramount example – of such holy men. While Vermes’s construction
of a charismatic ‘type’ in rural Galilee has been criticized, his focus on Jesus’ Jewish context set the
agenda for much later study.

Richard A. Horsley56

Horsley opined that Jesus is best understood as a social revolutionary. Depending heavily on the
social sciences, he paints a rather unpleasant picture of first- century Galilee, a society ravaged by
class struggle, economic inequalities, and violence, repression and disenfranchisement. Jesus
appeared as one in a long line of contemporary prophets, preaching a Kingdom which was not other-
worldly and remote, but a concrete transformation of everyday life. He set himself against the rich
and powerful, the ruling elite and even the Temple (which in Horsleys view, was a symbol of imperial
legitimation and control), and sided with the poor and oppressed, the marginalized and downtrodden.
Jesus’ message was not political as it was not addressed to the rulers and was not concerned with a
change of government (that aspect was left to God). Instead, jesus endeavoured a social revolution,
primarily directed at the Galilean villagers who were exhorted to renew society and eradicate all
forms of hierarchy, patriarchy and repression. Jesus rejected Rome and all it stood for; Similarly,
Horsley cannot believe that Jesus associated with tax collectors, people widely regarded as traitors
and collaborators. In the end, for Rome Jesus was a threat, and he was crucified as a rebel against the
imperial order.

J. D. Crossan57

J.D. Crossan was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar. His work builds on earlier studies of the
parables, the passion narratives and non- canonical gospels. As a prominent member of the Jesus

55
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 22-23
56
The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed,24-25
57
The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed, 27-29
22
Seminar, Crossan invested much time analysing the sayings of Jesus and his larger work opens with
a list of about a hundred authentic words of Jesus, mainly consisting of parables and aphorisms (short
concise sayings). He compares his quest to that of an archaeologist, sifting through various layers of
tradition in an attempt to uncover the oldest deposit. He pays particular attention to the earliest
sources, and uses only material multiply- attested in working out the earliest layer of tradition.
Crossan also pays attention to reconstruction of society in Jesus’ day. Similar to Horsley, Crossan’s
reading of ancient sources is strongly influenced by cross- cultural anthropology; he envisages Jesus
as an illiterate peasant within an agrarian society dominated by patronage and exploitation.
Two aspects of Crossan’s reconstruction are particularly noteworthy.
i. He connects Jesus and the Cynics, a group of Hellenistic philosophers who advocated a
simple, itinerant life, with little time for ordinary social conventions or authority structures.
ii. The way Crossan approaches the passion narratives is also notable. Drawing on non-
canonical texts, particularly the Gospel of Peter, he argues that the accounts of Jesus’ last few
hours contain virtually no historical details.
David Flusser58
In Flussers idea, Jesus was a well- educated Jewish carpenter. While he was not an official scribe, it
is quite possible that people called him rabbi (my teacher/master) to indicate his great learning in the
Law. An ecstatic experience at his baptism by John convinced him that he had been set apart by God,
chosen to proclaim salvation to the disadvantaged and the arrival of God’s Kingdom. Throughout his
ministry, Jesus preached only to Jews and remained thoroughly Jewish. Most of his teaching,
particularly concerning purity, morality and love, was shared by other moderate scribes. He had much
in common with the Pharisees, his disputes with them demonstrating a typical clash between the
charismatic holy man and more institutional religious leaders. In the opinion of Flusser, the debates
reported in the Gospels, reflect early church - synagogue controversies of a later period. Jesus had a
strong messianic awareness, and saw himself as the prophet of the End Times, or even God’s Messiah.
The Kingdom he preached would be fully consummated in the future, but was already being realized
among his followers. In the end, it was the despised Sadducean leadership in Jerusalem who had Jesus
executed. The night- time Jewish trial of Mark’s gospel is not completely historical. In reality, a
‘temple committee’ met to formulate the charges. Jesus was crucified as a rebel agaist the empire.

J. P. Meier59

J.P.Meier has provided probably the most thorough analysis of the chronology of Jesus’ life. In his
opininion Jesus was born somewhere between 4 and 7 CE and he was crucified betwee 28 and 30 CE.

58
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 29-30
59
The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed, 30-31
23
He bases his quest on the Synoptics, though appeal is often made to John (including some of the
latter’s miracles). Meier’s portrayal of Jesus has much in common with that of Sanders. Jesus was a
Galilean prophet who proclaimed God’s offer of mercy and forgiveness. This was manifested by
healings and open table- fellowship with sinners. Yet Jesus never abandoned the message of a coming
day of jadgement. He proclaimed the restoration of Israel and he operated as an apocalyptic prophet
rather than a social revolutionary. Unlike Sanders, however, Meier opines that Jesus did take on the
right to annul and change parts of the Law on his own authority, and this led to controversies with
Pharisees and religious leaders of his times. In the end, it was his staged Jerusalem entry and the
Temple demonstration which led to Jesus’ death. In the opinion of Meier, Jesus was ‘marginal’ in the
sense that he was irrelevant in the valuation of his contemporaries, in following his prophetic
commission rather than his carpenter’s trade, and in his lifestyle and preaching, which caused others
to regard him as dangerous.
J. D. G. Dunn60
The most distinctive aspect of Dunn’s work is his stress on oral traditions. In the opinion of Dunn the
material preserved in the Gospels, largely echoes the impact Jesus made on his first disciples and not
just after the Resurrection. This was given its essential shape through oral performance and retelling
within the earliest Christian communities. This retelling, combined both stability with regard to the
main points at the same time was flexible regarding details. Dunn does not focus on the historicity of
individual sayings and events, rather he constructs his portrait of the historical Jesus from regular
emphases and themes within the tradition. According to him, Jesus emerged from John the Baptist’s
movement, preaching the arrival of an imminent Kingdom/Kingship of God, the renewal of Israel,
and a return to the nation’s covenant loyalties. He called on his listeners to repent and to live already
as subjects of the Kingdom – to practice forgiveness, acceptance and gratitude to their heavenly
father. All unnecessary boundaries were to be swept away, including those set up by over- thorough
religious groups, and the reign of God found concrete expression through images of a new family and
an open table. Jesus’ activities were already seen as troublesome by the Jewish authorities, but it was
during his last visit to Jerusalem that the chief priests, regarding him as a threat to the Temple, the
cult and themselves, passed him to Pilate for summary execution. While, some of his disciples
suspected whether he was the royal messiah the Jews expected, during his lifetime, this was a title
Jesus rejected.

Dale Allison61

Allison contributed in a number of areas in the quest. His work, ‘Constructing Jesus: Memory,
Imagination and History’ (2010), includes an interesting study of human memory. Drawing on
resources of social–scientific analyses, he argues that observers tend to retain the gist of what was

60
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 33-34
61
The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed , 34-35
24
said or done but not the specifics. We are programmed to fill in the gaps, to make logic of what we
see in light of later information, to blur several events into one, and to retell our memories differently
according to diverging situations. Thus, when we appeal to the general storyline of the Gospels –
motifs, recurring themes and broad contours – rather than precise details, we are in better position to
explain the historical Jesus. He is not just concerned with the process of transmission like Dunn, but
with memories of the eyewitnesses themselves. What this means is that it is highly unlikely with the
standard criteria of authenticity to be able to determine with any accuracy whether a saying does in
fact, go back to Jesus. As Dunn, Allison prefers to follow the general impressions left in the records
rather than analyse individual units. His approach is to start with a list of everything relating to a
particular motif and even if some components are very likely to be secondary, in his opinion, the
general gist of the tradition may well preserve an accurate memory of what the historical Jesus said
and did. In common with many Third Quest scholars, he starts with a broad reconstruction of the ‘big
picture’, then goes on to test whether that offers the best explanation for specific details.

Sources in Historical Jesus research

Questers are not just interested in the source materials that give us insight about Jesus, but also about
his context. New perceptions drawn from archaeology and the social sciences have become especially
valuable for modern reconstructions of Jesus' life and work. However, here we shall consider the
ancient writings that mention Jesus. References to Jesus in such works are not numerous but they are
quite diverse. 62

Roman Literature63

There is no mention of Jesus in Roman records during his time or during the first century of
Christianity. However, within a century of the traditional date of Jesus’s death, he is referred to on
three occasions by Roman authors. They were all writing about eighty to eighty-five years after the
traditional date of his death.

i. Pliny, the Younger mentions in a letter to emperor Trajan (112CE) about the early Christian
community gathering together illegally. He mentions that they sing hymns in praise of Christ
as God. That is all that he says about Jesus.
ii. Roman biographer Suetonius (CE 115), mentions about followers of Chrestus, who caused
problems with other Jews, during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Many scholars think that

62
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 32
63
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012);
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 32
25
 Chrestus is misspelt Latin word for Christ – Christus. However it is also possible that
Suetonius was mentioning some other Jew named Chrestus.
iii. Tacitus, in his ‘Annals of Imperial Rome’ (CE 115), mentions the Neronian Persecution of
CE 64.

Jewish Writings64

Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient
Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the Targums, and the Midrashim. Occasional
polemical comments in these writings are sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but
since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure.

The only Jewish source from the first century, that mentions Jesus is ‘the Antiquities of Jews’ by
Favius Josephus – a Jewish aristocrat, military leader and historian. He mentions John the Baptist, in
his work and twice mentions Jesus.

Early Christian leaders:

We have many traditions and mentions of Jesus in the early second century writings of church fathers.
Papaias, is considered to have composed ‘Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord’ (as later sources
report). Ignatius, who composed seven letters en route to his execution in Rome, mentions the
necessity of believing in Jesus ‘in the flesh’ as a counter to Docetism. The First Letter of Clement is
believed to have been written in 90 CE, by Christians in Rome to the church in Corinth. In this letter
are sayings of Jesus which do not align with the canonical Gospels. Also the writing has an
assumption not just that Jesus lived, but also that he was well known.

We also have many debates of early church fathers against Pagan and Jewish thinkers about Jesus.
Interestingly there is no argument questioning the historical existence of Jesus by these thinkers. This
does provide a strong foundation to the fact that Jesus was a historical person.65

New Testament Sources66

i. The Synoptic Gospels: Most scholars do not believe that any of these three works were written by
disciples of Jesus or by eyewitnesses to the events that they report. The Gospels themselves are
anonymous. Church tradition that the first Gospel was written by Matthew the tax collector who
became a disciple of Jesus is almost universally rejected by modern scholars. Traditions that the

64
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 34; Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of
Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012) 46
65
Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, 84
66
Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, 35
26
 second Gospel was written by John Mark and the third by Luke the physician are also challenged,
but in any case neither John Mark nor Luke was a person who had met Jesus.
ii. It is now generally considered that Marks was the first gospel to be written. Both Matthew and Luke
had access to Mark and they redacted it to form their work. If Marks is the first gospel to be written
then it is probably the closest to the historical Jesus. However things are complicated as most
scholars now believe that both Mark and Matthew had access to another early Christian document
no longer extant, called Quelle, or the Q Source. Mark is dated around 70 CE,
iii. The Quelle67: Q is the most controversial of the early sources. Some scholars doubt that it ever
existed. Others propose that it was a written document, perhaps a collection of notes taken by one
of Jesus' own disciples. Still others think it may have been only a memorized collection of sayings
that Christians passed on to one another in an age when most people were still illiterate. Despite the
arguments, however, there is broad agreement on certain points. The great majority of scholars,
including all of the historians discussed in this book, believe that the material attributed to the Q
source is among the oldest and most reliable material found in the Gospels. This material is
considered especially valuable in describing the teaching of Jesus.
iv. The Gospel according to John68: The fourth Gospel is almost universally regarded as the latest of
the New Testament witnesses to Jesus. Like the other Gospels, it is anonymous. The book claims
that some of the things it records are based on the testimony of a mysterious figure designated as
"the disciple whom Jesus loved. However this claim is very much contested and even if it was
composed by this person, the question of who this person is remains. Modern scholarship now
considers that the Gospel of John was composed in stages. And hence, as with the Synoptic Gospels,
some of the material would then be earlier than the rest. Historians are unsure of the date and origin
of most of the material in John's Gospel, and so do not rely on it as strongly as they do on Mark or
on the material attributed to Q. In one sense, this means that when images of Jesus in John and the
Synoptics differ, the latter is usually preferred by historians.
v. The Epistles69: Paul's letters are regarded as an important source for what little they do reveal. This
is primarily true because the letters are so early. By most estimates, Paul's letters were written some
twenty to thirty years before the Gospels. Furthermore, despite the apparent lack of interest in Jesus'
earthly life and ministry, Paul unintentionally gives information about the same. For instance, Paul
refers in 1 Corinthians 15:5 to "the twelve," confirming the (later) report in the Gospels that some
of Jesus' disciples were known by this designation.
Other New Testament Writings offer even less than the writings of Pauls and they are much later,
and hence it is possible that they were influenced by the Gospels.

67
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 38
68
Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, 42,43
69
Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, 35
27
Apocryphal Gospels70
Many other Gospels besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written in the first few centuries
of Christianity. Those that did not ultimately become part of the New Testament are called apocryphal
gospels to distinguish them from the four canonical Gospels. Some of these works have only recently
been discovered and some exist only in fragmentary form. A few are completely lost and are known
only through quotations in the writings of church leaders, who often did not approve of them.
Concerning information about the historical Jesus as well, historians are generally negative about the
Apocryphal gospels, except for the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Peter. These two, especially
the gospel of Thomas are considered as providing credible information about the historical Jesus.
Both were recently found, though scholars knew of their existence through the quotations in other
early Christian writings. It is believed that the gospel of Thomas has many authentic sayings of Jesus.
The status of the gospel of Peter as an authentic source is very much debated.

Criteria in Historical Jesus

Research71

Criterion of Multiple Attestation7273

Matters are more likely to be accepted

as historically accurate if they are
attested by more than one source. For
example, Jesus is portrayed as telling
parables (though not the same ones) in
Mark, Q, M, L, and Thomas. Thus,
historians are inclined to accept as a
well-attested fact the premise that
Jesus taught in parables.

The significant point here is to find

sources that are independent of each
other, and, as we have seen, scholars
do not always agree on which sources
these would.

70
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 43,44
71
Citation for the table: ‘The Rise of the Criteria and the Development of Form and Redaction Criticism in 'Quests' for
the Historical Jesus’ Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion
and New Proposals (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 118
72
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New
Proposals (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 82
73
Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of
Jesus (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011) 103
28
The multiply attested tradition of this criterion was first defined in terms of comparing independently
attested traditions, such as Mark, Q, M (material unique to Matthew), or L (material unique to Luke),
which is what is meant by taking a cross-section of the tradition. Later, in the light of further
formcritical research, this criterion was also defined in terms of multiple literary forms (for example,
sayings found in two or more forms within the tradition, such as parables, miracle stories, etc.).

Double Dissimilarity74

Material is more likely to be deemed historically reliable if its contents and ideology are dissimilar to
those most relevant to the source itself. An important concern in this regard is whether the Gospel
writers are reporting what Jesus actually said and did or whether they (or the sources they drew upon)
are attributing to Jesus things that they want to convey. If, therefore, Jesus is presented as saying or
doing things that seem almost out of place for both Palestinian Judaism and early Christianity, the
likelihood of the presentation being accurate seems great. For example, Jesus is described as calling
God by the rather personal name "Abba," an informal term for father (Mark 14:36). Most historians
accept this as historical because the address does not appear to have been used by Jews in Palestine,
nor did it become part of the early Christian liturgy.

Least Distinctiveness75

In the words of Bultmann, “Whenever narratives pass from mouth to mouth the central point of the
narrative and general structure are well preserved; but in the incidental details changes take place, for
imagination paints such details with increasing distinctiveness”. The tendencies observed include,—
increasing length, increasing detail, diminishing Semitisms, utilization of direct discourse, and the
tendency to conflation.

The major criticism on this criterion is that the dynamics in oral transmission are far more complex
than this criterion presumes. The kinds and degrees of change are far more intricate, rather than being
linear and always progressing from simple to complex structures, as the form critics posited. In the
words of E.P. Sanders, “….On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became
both longer and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both more and less Semitic…..”
Language and Environment76
Language refers to particular grammatical features in the Greek of the New Testament that are thought
to be directly traceable to a Semitic, and most likely, Aramaic origin. Environment refers to various
environmental features of Palestine that are mentioned, often inadvertently, in the Gospels and are

74
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New
Proposals (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 71
75
The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals, 77, 78
76
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New
Proposals (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 90
29
said to point to origin of the tradition in Palestine. These environmental features would include
reference to various practices, customs, geographical features, or beliefs that are thought to have been
characteristic of first-century Palestine. The idea is that many of these would probably have only been
known to or by someone who had firsthand acquaintance with that environment. The presumption
with each of these sub sections is that a larger number of Semitic or Palestinian environmental features
in a given passage is more likely to indicate authentic tradition regarding Jesus, because he spoke a
Semitic language (Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew) and lived in Palestine.
Material is more likely to be deemed historical if it is compatible with the language and environment
of the period it describes (the life of Jesus in Palestine) rather than the period of the source itself. The
Gospels were probably written in various cities of the Roman Empire in settings different from that
in which Jesus lived. If what they report of Jesus is accurate, historians say, it should be free of
anachronism.
Criterion of Embarrassment (or Movement against the Redactional Tendency)77
Related to the criterion of dissimilarity is what is sometimes called evidence for "awkwardness" or
"embarrassment." Matters that are reported in the Gospels might be judged historically accurate if
they are likely to have caused some discomfort among the early Christians who treasured these stories
and wrote them down. The point, quite simply, is that Christians would not have made up stories that
caused problems for the church. The most used example to portray this criterion is the fact that Jesus
was baptized by John the Baptist. This was potentially embarrassing to Christians because (1) John's
baptism was for those who repented of their sins, and Christians claimed Jesus was sinless; and (2)
by submitting to John's baptism Jesus seems to have implied that he wanted to become the latter's
disciple. Indeed, the story is told in Matthew's Gospel in a way that tries to address some of these
concerns (Matt. 3:1315).
Criterion of Memorable Content or Form78
Material is more likely to be judged authentic if it is conceived in terms that would have been easy to
remember. The assumption here is that almost nothing concerning Jesus was written down during his
lifetime. The culture in which he lived was given mainly to oral transmission, that is, to conveying
information by word of mouth. Accordingly, historians think it more likely that people would have
remembered short sayings, such as proverbs ("Prophets are not without honor, except in their
hometown," Mark 6:4) or beatitudes ("Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth," Matt.
5:5). Because stories are intrinsically memorable, parables tend to score high by this criterion also.
Other factors that make material memorable include the use of humor, exaggeration, or paradox.

77
The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals, 106-108
78
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998),
30
Historical Plausibility79
Developed by Gerard Theissen, this criterion is a complex one with multiple subsections. The basic
premise of this criteria is that one must assess plausible scenarios. That is, one creates a complex
picture of Jesus, which cannot be rejected apart from creating a more plausible scenario. For this end,
Theissen proposes a method which integrates all three traditional criteria, the criteria of dissimilarity,
the criteria of multiple attestation and criterion of coherence.
Coherence/Consistency80
Finally, material that cannot be established as historical by such criteria as those given above may
nevertheless be judged authentic if it is generally consistent with the information that is so derived.
In Jesus studies, historical critics test the validity of uncertain elements in the tradition by comparing
them with other elements that they have previously decided to be authentic.

Where is the Quest now? Continuing Issues and Concerns81

A summary of key issues and concerns in the present dabte regarding historical Jesus may be briefed
under the following sub heads
Method

Three issues are paramount when it comes to the method in historical Jesus research.

i. Sources: which sources are to seen as authentic

ii. Criteria: what are the criteria to be applied in the historical reconstructions of Jesus
iii. Approach: there are mainly two schools of thought here: are we to use maximum amount of
historical data possible and create the portrait of Jesus, or are we to use only the minimum
amount of data that seems reliable.

Jesus and Judaism

How are we to rightly place Jesus in first century Palestinian Judaism. At least three perspectives can
be discerned among historical scholars

i. A Hellenistic Jew: Many historians now see Jesus as a Jew deeply influenced by Roman
culture. Major scholars who think according to this line include John Dominic Crossan, The
Jesus Seminar, Gerard Downing etc.

79
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New
Proposals (London: T&T Clark International, 2004),
80
The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals, 79; Tom
Holmen and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 1, The Study of Jesus
(Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011) 103
81
Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 167 - 182
31
 ii. A Charismatic Jew: A highly spiritual Jew in the first century Palestine. This perspective is
supported by scholars including Geza Vermes and Marcus Borg.
iii. A Jewish Prophet: This view places historical Jesus in the line of prophets. Scholars
supporting this perspective include E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg etc.

Jesus and Eschatology

What was Jesus’ attitude on eschatology is a concern for modern scholars. There are mainly two
views here. First one proposes a Noneschatological Jesus, i.e. that Jesus did not expect or announce
any imminent divine intervention In history. This view is supported by many prominent scholars. The
second view proposes an eschatological Jesus, i.e. Jesus had a powerful future orientation and clear
thoughts about divine intervention. This view as well has the support of many modern scholars

Jesus and Politics

There seems to be increasing consensus among most scholars with regard to Jesus’ attitude towards
politics. The main contention here was that whether Jesus was a religious figure, or a political figure.
The current position depend on the inseparability of religion and politics in the West-Asian context,
which remains similar even today. However there are views which place Jesus exclusively in the
Social-Political Liberation realm, and those which see Jesus purely in the Spiritual realm

Jesus and the Supernatural

This is a very important theme in the historical Jesus quest today. Though supernatural does not have
any space in professional historiography, we can see three schools of thought in modern scholarship
on the hiostorical Jesus. (i) Objective neutrality: Maintain a position of official silence in encounter
with religious claims of ‘supernatural’, (ii) Denial: The denial of the supernatural, and provide
possible explanatiuons, (iii) In the middle of these two approaches we have ‘critique the paradigm’
approach, which suggests that evidences which do not fall into the post-enlightenment scientific
analysis categories, should be allowed to stand in critical disjuncture with historical description rather
than being simply dismissed or ignored.

The Self-Consciousness and Intention of Jesus

This is a concern which have got almost polarized opinions. What did Jesus think about
himself? What was he trying for? There is a wide spectrum of opinions in this regard placing Jesus
anywhere between someone who was aimless with no sense of mission (Burton Mack), and those
scholars who see continuity between life and mission of Jesus and that of his followers later (Meier,
Wright etc.) Somewhere between these perspectives are the views of most other scholars.

32
Conclusion

An analysis of the historical progression of Quests suggest that the enquiry into Histoical
Jesus is a perennial one, with new insights coming up in each new enquiry. It has moved fare ahead
of where it started in the first quest. This area of research is essential as it helps us see Jesus form
different dimensions and no one view is complete. Hence every attempt is special and significant in
its own way.

Bibliography

Bauckam, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Michigan: William B. Eerdmanns
Publishing Company, 2006.

Beilby, James K. and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views. London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 2010.

Bigalke Jr., Ron J. “The Historical Jesus Quests,” Journal Of Dispensational Theology. March, 2007.

Bond, Helen K. The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark International, 2012.

Boyd, Gregory A. Cynic, Sage, or Son of God?. Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1995.

Casey, Maurice. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching. London: T&T Clark
International, 2010.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers, 1992.

Csertháti, Márta (2000) Methods and models in the third quest of the historical Jesus, Durham theses, Durham University.
9. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4369/

Dawes, Gregory W. ed., The Historical Jesus Quest. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Michigan: William B. Eerdmanns Publishing
Company, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Harper Collins, 2012.

Gowler, David B. What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 2007.

Green, Joel B. Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Holmen Tom and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2011, vol. 2, The Study of Jesus
Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Inc., 2011.

33
McArthur, Harvey K. The Quest through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1996.

Perrin, Normann. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM, 1967.

Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals.
London: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Powell, Mark Allan. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

Robinson, James M. A New Quest of the Historical Jesus. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1963.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1911

Swales, Jon. Historical Jesus: Introduction, Chapter 1- Historical Jesus: Quest, Methods and Criteria. Bristol: Trinity
College, 2008.

"Tatian," The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross., and E. A. Livingstone. (London:
Oxford University Press, 2005.

Theissen Gerd and Annette Merz, eds., The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998.

Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995.

“13. The Historical Jesus” (video of the Yale Courses, Introduction to New Testament - RLST 152), YouTube post, 1
Sep, 2009, accessed 10 Dec 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0

34