Quest for the historical Jesus
The quest for the historical Jesus consists of academic efforts to determine what words and actions, if any, may be attributed to Jesus, and to use the findings to provide portraits of the historical Jesus.[1] Since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.[2][3][4] These quests are distinguished from earlier approaches because they rely on the historical method to study biblical narratives. 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.[5]
This article is about the history of academic Jesus research. For discussion of the historical evidence of his existence, see Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. For the book by Albert Schweitzer, see The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
The enthusiasm shown during the first quest diminished after Albert Schweitzer's critique of 1906 in which he pointed out various shortcomings in the approaches used at the time. The second quest began in 1953 and introduced a number of new techniques, but reached a plateau in the 1970s.[6] In the 1980s a number of scholars gradually began to introduce new research ideas,[2][7] initiating a third quest characterized by the latest research approaches.[6][8] Since the late 2000s, concerns have been growing about the usefulness of the criteria of authenticity[9] and proclamations of a more expansive and genuinely interdisciplinary Next Quest.[10]
While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus[a][11] and a basic consensus on the general outline of his life,[12] the portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[13][14] There are overlapping attributes among the portraits and, while pairs of scholars may agree on some attributes, those same scholars may differ on other attributes and there is no single portrait of the historical Jesus that satisfies most scholars.[15][16][17]
Methods[edit]
Textual, source and form-criticism[edit]
The first quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This took the form of textual and source criticism originally, which were supplemented with form criticism in 1919, and redaction criticism in 1948.[5] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material during the oral period before it was written in its current form, and may be seen as starting where textual criticism ends.[77] Form criticism views Gospel writers as editors, not authors. Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of source criticism and form criticism.[78] and views the Gospel writers as authors and early theologians and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has (have) molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[78]
Criteria of authenticity[edit]
When form criticism questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars began looking for other criteria. Taken from other areas of study such as source criticism, the "criteria of authenticity" emerged gradually, becoming a distinct branch of methodology associated with life of Jesus research.[79] The criteria are a variety of rules used to determine if some event or person is more or less likely to be historical. These criteria are primarily, though not exclusively, used to assess the sayings and actions of Jesus.[80][81] James Crossley has argued that "[e]merging from under the rubble of the criteria, we are left with an old fashioned view of interpretation, argument, and the combining of arguments for collective weight to make a general case."[82]
In view of the skepticism produced in the mid-twentieth century by form criticism concerning the historical reliability of the gospels, the burden shifted in historical Jesus studies from attempting to identify an authentic life of Jesus to attempting to prove authenticity. The criteria developed within this framework, therefore, are tools that provide arguments solely for authenticity, not inauthenticity.[83] By 1987, D.Polkow lists 25 separate criteria being used by scholars to test for historical authenticity including the criterion of "historical plausibility".[5][80] Following the prompt of Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, the criteria are no longer in fashion and James Crossley has argued that "[e]merging from under the rubble of the criteria, we are left with an old fashioned view of interpretation, argument, and the combining of arguments for collective weight to make a general case."[82]