The Quests for Historical
Jesus: Then and Now
From the beginning to the modern
period, most scholars did not distinguish between the historical Jesus and
the Christ of faith. Most
interpreters combined the biblical narratives in a chronological sequence. However, since modern science advanced throughout the
eighteenth-century Enlightenment and as the religious wars were perceived
negatively, scholars attempted to reconstruct religious beliefs and social
life. Science and faith were attempted to be reconciled. This created
fundamental questions about the
history of Jesus and the Christ of faith to distort Jesus and his teachings
(basically the Gospel of Christ). So, in a
nutshell, this article examines “The Three Quests of the Historical Jesus” and
how this scholarship affects us today.
The First Quest
The First Quest, which began in the
seventeenth century, intended to distinguish between “The Christ of Faith” and
“The Jesus of History.” It was associated with classical German
liberals, notably Reimarus, David Friedrich Strauss, and Wrede. Among them,
Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a German deist, was the first to challenge the
historical Jesus. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s publication of Reimarus’ argument
papers in “Fragments” sparked the “First Quest” for the historical Jesus.
Reimarus argued that Jesus and his
disciples had distinct objectives. Jesus did not seek to establish a new
religion; rather, he intended to present himself as a political Messiah who
would liberate the Jewish people from Roman tyranny and restore an independent,
earthly kingdom of Israel. He preached repentance (Synoptic Gospels) and
anticipated the arrival of God's kingdom among the Jews of his time.
Unfortunately, Jesus died and failed. He was unable to delve into the meaning
of the Kingdom of God. Because he failed to accomplish his mission, God
abandoned him. Therefore, he
cried out on the Cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt
27:46). Reimarus further asserted that when
Jesus was executed on the Cross, the disciples were disappointed and invented
the concept of atonement. They seized his body and falsely claimed that
Jesus had risen from the dead. He died for the
sins of mankind. He ascended to heaven and will return in power and glory to
judge the righteous and wicked.
Reimarus was skeptical that the historical accounts of
Jesus recorded in the Gospels were true. He denied that
the resurrection was historically accurate because the accounts in the Gospels
varied. His primary emphasis was on Jesus’ moral teachings, while dogmas and
miracles were overlooked or even rejected. While rejecting Jesus’ divinity, he
believed that Jesus was only a political liberator of the Jews. Reimarus even considered the evidence from Scripture to
be a circular argument (an argument
that returns to its starting point without proving anything). Most of these
scholars were hostile to orthodox Christianity. N.T. Wright rightly pointed out “The Quest began as an explicitly
anti-theological, anti-Christian, anti-dogmatic movement” (N.T. Wright, Jesus
and the Victory of God, 17).
Reimarus’ arguments against the historical Jesus became
a significant tool for non-Christians, particularly Muslim critics. Many
Christians started to doubt the history of Jesus and his miraculous works. Today,
skepticism concerning the Bible’s
authenticity and the divinity of Jesus, as well as a negative attitude toward
Christianity among some elite Christian youths who have been exposed to diverse
worldviews, have strong roots in this Quest.
The “No Quest” Period
The first quest ended with the
emergence of Schweitzer, who successfully provided an alternate scholarship of
Jesus’ history. He contended that portraying Jesus as a Jewish reformer would
be inaccurate; instead, Jesus should be understood within the historical
context, and he was an apocalyptic prophet (N.T.
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 17).
With the end of the first Quest, there was a "No
Quest" period that lasted the first five decades of the twentieth century.
However, throughout those years, there were a lot of writings concerning the
historical Jesus. However, throughout this time, there was a lack of a unified
method and methodical approach to engaging the historical Jesus. All of the
authors persisted in describing Jesus in their own words, constructing his
image according to what suited them most. During this period, Rudolf Bultmann
argued that we knew almost nothing about the historical Jesus.
Some call this period the "no
quest" period because of his influence (Darrell
L. Bock, “Quests for the Historical Jesus). He contended
that the majority of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life emerged within the
early church’s mythos. Only a few
scattered facts were known about Jesus. Bultmann
was also skeptical about the history of Jesus.
The Second
Quest
Ernst Käsemann, a New Testament
professor at Tubingen in Germany and a former Rudolf Bultmann student,
delivered a programmatic lecture at Marburg in 1953 entitled “The Problem of
the Historical Jesus” that called for a new quest for the historical
Jesus. In this lecture, Käsemann proposed a
fresh look at Jesus’ study by using new archaeological findings at Qumran (i.e.
The Dead Sea Scrolls 1947 & 1956 and scrolls-Letter Q) [Darrell L. Bock, “Quests for the Historical Jesus”]. He advocated
for the adoption of novel methods such as historical-critical
scholarship/source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.
Scholars such as Günther Bornkamm,
Ernst Füchs, and Gerhard Ebeling opposed Bultmann’s teaching about Jesus,
claiming that the Jesus of history and “the Christ of Faith” are entirely
different. The Gospels are not historical nor theological documents, nor were
the authors of the Gospels eyewitnesses. They rejected the supernatural. The New Quest discovered the kerygma—the Christ of
preaching. The Christ who came to you in preaching is required, not the
historical Jesus. Faith in Christ is sufficient for our existence, as Christ
dwells in us. As a result, the historical Jesus is not necessary, and the
Christian faith is separate from the history of Jesus.
The Second/New Quest
employed Romanticism and Existentialism to counter the First Quest’s
attack. Nevertheless, there was a huge division made by the Second Quest
scholars between Jesus’ divinity and humanity. These scholars typically denied
Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, as well as his death and resurrection. It challenged the authenticity of the
Gospel. As a result, Christian liberalism,
Christendom’s never-ending virus, emerged during the second quest.
The Third Quest
From the early 1980s until the
present, various scholars, independently and as members of the Jesus Seminar,
have started the Third Quest. Though E.P. Sanders has begun the Third Quest, N.T. Wright and J.P. Meier were the most well-known Third Quest scholars. Indeed,
the term “Third Quest” was coined by N.T. Wright because he played a significant
part in bridging the gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of
faith. This quest was launched to challenge the Second Quest
approach.
Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar in 1985. John Dominic Crossan and Funk were notable Jesus
Seminar scholars. Ever since it began, the seminar has convened twice a year to
deliberate and ascertain the authenticity of sayings ascribed to Jesus in every
known piece of literature from the first three centuries. Jesus Seminar
scholars often uncover “The Real Jesus” concealed behind the Church’s dogma and
the Gospel. Crossan contended that Jesus was executed by Romans, not Jewish
leaders. His body was most likely devoured by dogs and crows. This indicated
that he denied the authority and inerrancy of Scripture for he argued that the
Gospel of Mark is the sole independent source. After re-examining the synoptic
traditions, Jesus Seminar scholars added the gospel of Thomas as a credible
source for Jesus’ sayings. This is
unacceptable for Protestants.
Furthermore, the Third Quest scholars
relocate Jesus within the Hebrew Bible to the Second Temple’s Judaism Hebrew
Scriptures to better understand Jesus in his own context as a
first-century Palestinian Jew. The Third Quest emphasizes on the historical
Jesus and moves beyond modern modernity’s narrow rationalist framework. For these
scholars consult additional sources, including Josephus’ writings, Qumran
texts, apocalyptic writings, and Pseudepigrapha writings. They employ not only
the literary source in scriptural exegesis, but also the true historical
method, sociological, and anthropological approaches. These scholars
uphold Jesus of history and Christ of faith in a more cohesive manner than
other scholars. The historical Jesus cannot be subordinated to the Christ of
faith, and vice versa. Christianity must maintain both. There are Catholic,
Protestant, and Jewish scholars among the Third Quest scholars.
Jesus the Risen Lord
The Gospel has been put to numerous
tests and investigated carefully, but nobody has explicitly disapproved of
its authenticity. Numerous questions have been raised about Jesus’ history and
miraculous works by people with various worldviews. However, scholars have
failed to prove the illegitimacy of Jesus’ history. Indeed, the real Jesus
cannot be discovered through historical research. It cannot provide a complete
picture of who Jesus was. This does not imply that historical research is
invalid or wrong, even if it is partial or incomplete. It is still useful.
Scholars may have investigated the
historical Jesus through Gospel accounts and other writings, particularly from
the Second Judaism Temple period or the post-exilic period. Its evidence is
unambiguous. The death of Jesus the Messiah was predetermined and part of the
divine plan (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). Prophets Isaiah
(53) and Psalm 22 prophesied his coming and crucifixion. The foreshadowing of
Jesus’ resurrection from the grave after three days was found in Jonah
1:17 (Jesus quoted in Matt 12:39-40). Furthermore, historical evidence affirming the
authenticity of the Scripture was recently discovered (Scrolls in Qumran). Consequently,
notwithstanding skepticism about the historical Jesus and the
Gospel, the canonical Bible is sufficient to disclose to us that
Jesus was crucified, died, and rose on the third day in accordance with Old
Testament prophecies.
Written by
Kapsuanmung
youngreformed@2024
0 Comments