Who was Jesus of Nazareth? For nearly two thousand years, Christians have confessed Him as Lord and God—the eternal Son who became flesh for our salvation. But beginning in the Enlightenment, scholars began asking a different question: Who was the "historical Jesus"—the man behind the faith, stripped of theological interpretation? This "quest for the historical Jesus" has profoundly shaped modern biblical scholarship and popular perceptions of Christianity. In this lesson, we examine this quest, assess its methods and conclusions, and consider what history can and cannot tell us about Jesus.
The Origin of the Quest
For most of church history, Christians read the Gospels as straightforward historical accounts of Jesus' life. The Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history were the same person. But the Enlightenment introduced a new approach: applying the methods of secular historical criticism to the Bible, treating it as any other ancient document.
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768)
The quest for the historical Jesus is often traced to Reimarus, a German professor whose writings were published posthumously. Reimarus argued that Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary whose mission failed when He was crucified. The disciples, unwilling to admit defeat, stole Jesus' body and invented the resurrection. The Christ of faith, Reimarus claimed, was a fabrication built on fraud.
Reimarus's conclusions were radical, but his method was influential: distinguish between what the sources say and what actually happened; assume natural explanations over supernatural ones; look for the "real" Jesus behind the theological portraits.
David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874)
Strauss's The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835) took a different approach. Rather than fraud, Strauss proposed myth. The early Christians, he argued, unconsciously clothed Jesus in mythological garb, projecting their religious ideas onto His memory. The miracles weren't lies but legends—sincere expressions of faith that should not be taken as historical fact.
Strauss's mythological interpretation became enormously influential, shaping how many scholars approached the Gospels for generations.
Insight
From its beginning, the quest for the historical Jesus operated with certain philosophical assumptions: naturalism (miracles don't happen), skepticism toward the Gospels (they're more theology than history), and the belief that the "real" Jesus must be different from the Christ of church confession. These assumptions shaped the quest's conclusions as much as the evidence itself.
The First Quest (1778-1906)
The period from Reimarus to Albert Schweitzer is often called the "First Quest" or the "Old Quest" for the historical Jesus. During this period, scholars produced numerous "lives of Jesus" attempting to reconstruct the historical figure behind the Gospels.
The Liberal Jesus
Many nineteenth-century scholars portrayed Jesus as a liberal ethical teacher—a kind of enlightened professor who taught universal moral truths about the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. This Jesus looked remarkably like a nineteenth-century German liberal Protestant. The supernatural elements were stripped away, leaving a moral exemplar suitable for modern sensibilities.
Albert Schweitzer's Critique
Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) devastated this liberal portrait. Schweitzer showed that scholars had created Jesus in their own image—each reconstruction revealed more about the scholar than about Jesus. The liberal Jesus was a mirror, not a window.
Schweitzer argued that Jesus was actually an apocalyptic prophet who expected the imminent end of the world. When the end didn't come, Jesus threw Himself on the wheel of history, dying to force God's hand. Jesus was wrong, Schweitzer concluded, but nobly wrong.
Schweitzer's critique effectively ended the First Quest. If scholars couldn't avoid projecting their assumptions onto Jesus, perhaps the historical Jesus was unrecoverable.
Schweitzer's Famous Critique
"Each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus... But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus."
Schweitzer's point remains relevant: we must be cautious about reconstructions of Jesus that conveniently match our preconceptions.
The "No Quest" Period (1906-1953)
After Schweitzer, many scholars abandoned the quest entirely. Rudolf Bultmann, the dominant New Testament scholar of the mid-twentieth century, argued that the historical Jesus was largely unknowable—and theologically irrelevant.
Bultmann's Skepticism
Bultmann believed the Gospels were so thoroughly shaped by early Christian faith that recovering the historical Jesus behind them was nearly impossible. The Gospels told us about the early church's beliefs, not about Jesus Himself.
Moreover, Bultmann argued, the historical Jesus doesn't matter for faith. What matters is the Christ proclaimed by the church—the kerygma (proclamation). Faith responds to the preached Christ, not to historical reconstruction. Whether Jesus actually said or did certain things is irrelevant to authentic Christian existence.
Form Criticism
Bultmann developed form criticism—a method of analyzing the Gospels by identifying the "forms" (miracle stories, pronouncement stories, parables, etc.) that circulated in the early church before being compiled into Gospels. Form criticism assumed that these units were shaped by the church's needs and interests, making historical reconstruction extremely difficult.
The "no quest" period reflected deep skepticism about accessing the historical Jesus. But this skepticism would eventually provoke a reaction.
The "New Quest" (1953-1980s)
In 1953, Ernst Käsemann, one of Bultmann's own students, launched what became known as the "New Quest." Käsemann argued that complete skepticism about the historical Jesus was untenable—and dangerous. If Jesus is entirely inaccessible, the church's proclamation floats free of history, and Christianity becomes a myth like any other.
Criteria of Authenticity
New Quest scholars developed criteria of authenticity—tools for identifying material that likely goes back to Jesus Himself:
The criterion of dissimilarity: Material that differs from both Judaism and early Christianity likely comes from Jesus, since the church wouldn't invent what contradicted their interests and Jewish tradition wouldn't generate Christian-distinctive material.
The criterion of multiple attestation: Material found in multiple independent sources (Mark, Q, Paul, John) is more likely authentic than material in only one source.
The criterion of embarrassment: Material that would embarrass the early church (Jesus' baptism by John, His ignorance of certain things, His cry of abandonment on the cross) is likely authentic—the church wouldn't invent embarrassing details.
The criterion of coherence: Material that coheres with already-authenticated material is more likely authentic.
These criteria allowed scholars to identify a core of "authentic" Jesus material, even while remaining skeptical about much of the Gospel tradition.
Insight
The criteria of authenticity have been criticized for being too skeptical. The criterion of dissimilarity, for instance, gives us a Jesus disconnected from His Jewish context and from the movement He founded—an implausible result. A teacher usually resembles both his tradition and his students. The criteria may screen out authentic material as readily as they identify it.
The "Third Quest" (1980s-Present)
Beginning in the 1980s, a new phase of Jesus research emerged, often called the "Third Quest." This phase is characterized by several distinctive features:
Jesus the Jew
Third Quest scholars emphasize Jesus' Jewish context. Earlier quests often de-Judaized Jesus, making Him a universal teacher who transcended His particular setting. The Third Quest insists that Jesus must be understood as a first-century Palestinian Jew—shaped by Jewish Scripture, participating in Jewish debates, operating within Jewish categories.
Scholars like E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, and James Dunn have produced richly contextualized portraits of Jesus rooted in Second Temple Judaism. This emphasis has largely replaced the old criterion of dissimilarity with a criterion of plausibility: authentic Jesus material should be plausible within a Jewish context and should plausibly lead to the early church.
Diverse Portraits
The Third Quest has produced diverse reconstructions of Jesus:
Jesus the eschatological prophet: (E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison) Jesus expected and announced God's imminent intervention in history.
Jesus the wisdom teacher: (Marcus Borg) Jesus taught an alternative wisdom challenging conventional values.
Jesus the social revolutionary: (John Dominic Crossan, Richard Horsley) Jesus challenged Roman imperial power and Jewish collaborators.
Jesus the Jewish Messiah: (N.T. Wright, Brant Pitre) Jesus saw Himself as Israel's Messiah bringing God's kingdom.
This diversity reminds us that historical reconstruction involves interpretation. Different scholars, examining the same evidence, reach different conclusions based on their methods, assumptions, and judgments.
Greater Historical Confidence
Many Third Quest scholars show greater confidence in the Gospels' historical value than their predecessors. Scholars like Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) have argued that the Gospels preserve eyewitness testimony and should be treated as serious historical sources. This doesn't mean uncritical acceptance, but it does mean the Gospels deserve a fair hearing.
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
— Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)
What History Can Establish
What can historical investigation tell us about Jesus? Scholars across the spectrum—including skeptics—agree on certain basic facts:
The Minimal Facts
Jesus existed. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, virtually all historians—Christian, Jewish, secular, and atheist—affirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. The evidence from Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources makes His existence as certain as almost any ancient figure.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew who lived in the early first century during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and the prefecture of Pontius Pilate.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and began His public ministry in connection with John's movement.
Jesus was known as a teacher and healer. He gathered disciples, taught in parables and aphorisms, and was reputed to perform miracles.
Jesus' teaching centered on the kingdom of God. He proclaimed God's reign and called for response.
Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, probably around AD 30-33, on charges related to His claims about Himself and the kingdom.
Jesus' followers claimed He rose from the dead and appeared to them after His crucifixion. This belief ignited the Christian movement.
These facts are established by standard historical criteria and are accepted by the vast majority of scholars regardless of their theological commitments.
Scholarly Consensus
Atheist historian Bart Ehrman writes: "The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet." Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen: "The death of Jesus of Nazareth by crucifixion is the most solid fact we have about his life." These statements from non-Christian scholars illustrate the broad historical consensus about Jesus' existence and basic biography.
What History Cannot Establish
Historical investigation has limits. Certain questions about Jesus exceed what historical method can determine:
Miracles
Historians working with naturalistic assumptions will not affirm that Jesus performed miracles, since they exclude supernatural causation a priori. But this is a philosophical assumption, not a historical conclusion. History can establish that Jesus was reputed to be a miracle-worker; whether He actually performed miracles depends on one's openness to supernatural explanation.
Jesus' Inner Life
History can describe Jesus' actions and words but cannot penetrate His consciousness with certainty. What did Jesus think about His identity and mission? We can infer from His words and deeds, but we cannot interview Him. Some historical reconstruction of Jesus' self-understanding is possible, but it involves interpretation.
Theological Truth
History can establish that Jesus claimed divine authority, but it cannot adjudicate whether those claims were true. That Jesus claimed to forgive sins is historical; whether He had the right to do so is theological. History brings us to the question; faith answers it.
Evaluating the Quest
What should Christians make of the quest for the historical Jesus?
Appreciating the Contributions
The quest has yielded genuine insights:
• Greater attention to Jesus' Jewish context
• More careful historical methodology
• Recognition of the Gospels' distinctive perspectives
• Establishment of a core of widely accepted historical facts
Christians need not fear historical investigation. If Christianity is true, honest inquiry will ultimately support it.
Recognizing the Limitations
The quest also has significant limitations:
Philosophical assumptions: Many reconstructions assume naturalism, ruling out the supernatural before examining the evidence. But this assumption isn't historically required—it's a philosophical choice.
Excessive skepticism: Some scholars treat the Gospels with more skepticism than other ancient sources. The Gospels deserve fair treatment, not prejudicial dismissal.
Subjectivity: As Schweitzer showed, scholars often create Jesus in their own image. Reconstructions must be held tentatively and tested against the evidence.
Reductionism: The "historical Jesus" is sometimes treated as the "real" Jesus, with the church's confession dismissed as later addition. But the Gospels are our primary sources; stripping away their theological interpretation may leave us with less of Jesus, not more.
Insight
The relationship between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" is often framed as opposition: the real human Jesus versus the mythologized divine Christ. But this dichotomy is false. The earliest Christian sources—including Paul's letters, written within decades of Jesus' death—already confess Jesus as divine Lord. The "Christ of faith" is not a later development but the earliest Christian response to encountering Jesus.
The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith
For Christians, the distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith" is ultimately misleading. We do not worship a Jesus reconstructed by scholars but the Jesus attested by Scripture—who is also truly historical.
The Gospels are both historical documents and faith confessions. They record real events and interpret their significance. The eyewitnesses who transmitted the tradition were believers, but being believers didn't make them liars. Indeed, their willingness to suffer and die for their testimony suggests profound conviction about its truth.
Christian faith claims that the Jesus who lived, taught, died, and rose in first-century Palestine is the eternal Son of God incarnate. Historical investigation can support this claim by establishing the reliability of our sources and the factual basis of Christian proclamation. But faith ultimately rests not on scholarly reconstruction but on the testimony of Scripture illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
The quest for the historical Jesus has been a complex, controversial, and ongoing project. From Reimarus to the present, scholars have attempted to reconstruct the "real" Jesus behind the Gospels, often with very different results.
Christians can engage this quest with confidence. Historical investigation confirms Jesus' existence, establishes a core of facts about His life, and increasingly recognizes the Gospels' historical value. While the quest has sometimes been driven by anti-supernatural assumptions, it has also yielded genuine insights into Jesus' Jewish context and the nature of our sources.
Ultimately, the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are one. The Galilean teacher who proclaimed God's kingdom, who healed the sick and confronted the powerful, who died on a Roman cross and was raised on the third day—this is the Jesus Christians worship as Lord and God. Historical investigation supports this faith; the Holy Spirit confirms it in our hearts.
"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
— John 20:30-31 (ESV)
Discussion Questions
- Albert Schweitzer argued that scholars often create Jesus in their own image. What assumptions and biases might modern people bring to their understanding of Jesus? How can we guard against projecting our preferences onto the biblical portrait?
- The lesson identifies "minimal facts" about Jesus accepted by virtually all scholars (existence, Jewish identity, baptism, teaching ministry, crucifixion, disciples' resurrection claims). Why are these facts significant for apologetics? How would you use them in conversation?
- Some scholars distinguish sharply between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith." Why does the lesson argue this distinction is ultimately misleading? How do the Gospels combine historical reporting with theological interpretation?