What Drives the Search for the “Historical Jesus,” and Does Scripture Already Provide the Answer?

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Assessing the Roots of the Modern Quest

For more than two centuries, theologians and historians have attempted to distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Their premise has often been that the Gospels contain later interpretations layered onto a barebones historical figure. In other words, they propose a fundamental disparity between the Jesus depicted in the New Testament and the “real” Jesus who once lived in first-century Judea. This controversy, known as the “Quest for the Historical Jesus,” has profoundly influenced academic circles—and, in many cases, has cast doubt on the authenticity and historical reliability of the Gospel records.

Why did this quest arise? Scholars in the late eighteenth century, influenced by deism and antisupernatural rationalism, found themselves uneasy with the miraculous and supernatural events described in Scripture. Such bias led them to adopt a sharp distinction between mere historical fact and what they deemed “myth” or “legend.” Immanuel Kant, whose philosophy underscored a fact/value dichotomy, further encouraged separation of moral ideals (religion as values) from the historical underpinnings of faith. Eventually, a string of biblical critics, including Hermann Reimarus, David Strauss, and others, posited that the Gospels obscured the real man Jesus beneath layers of theology.

While some modern researchers remain convinced that Jesus’ identity in the Gospels is largely a theological construct, conservative evangelicals affirm that the New Testament is both historically trustworthy and theologically coherent. Scripture itself, when read using the objective historical-grammatical method, portrays a figure whose words and deeds are inseparable from the faith He inaugurated (Luke 1:1-4). The apostles never treated Jesus as a mystical symbol or allegory, but as the incarnate Son of God who actually taught, suffered, died, and rose in space-time history (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Thus, from a biblical standpoint, dividing the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith” poses a false dichotomy. Still, to understand how the modern quest took shape, and why it persists, one must investigate the four main periods of the quest.

The First or “Old” Quest (1778–1906)

Many date the beginning of the historical Jesus quest to the posthumous publication of Hermann Reimarus’s Fragments by Gotthold Lessing in the late eighteenth century. Reimarus argued that the apostles misconstrued or deliberately transformed the real teachings of Jesus into doctrines of a divine Christ, culminating in an unwarranted emphasis on His death and resurrection. This conceptual schism between the “historical Jesus” (a moral teacher in Reimarus’s view) and the “Christ of apostolic faith” (a supernatural figure, center of Christian worship) remains foundational to most liberal-critical approaches.

David Strauss’s The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835) fueled this skepticism, removing all supernatural elements from the Gospels as “myth.” Influenced by David Hume’s antisupernatural arguments, Strauss insisted that miraculous accounts were not historically reliable. This approach reduced the biblical narrative to moral sayings and historical fragments considered “plausible.” In effect, the Gospels were recast as a religious myth meant to communicate values rather than factual history.

Culminating this era, Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) posited that many so-called “objective” reconstructions of Jesus ended up mirroring the personal biases of the researchers themselves. Schweitzer’s verdict was sobering: critics had built a Jesus in their own liberal or rationalist image, ignoring the eschatological dimension pervasive in the Synoptic Gospels. He exposed the methodological weaknesses inherent in trying to strip away faith-based claims to reveal a purely “human” Jesus. As a result, many scholars grew skeptical toward this endeavor, ushering in a period where the quest fell into disfavor.

The “No Quest” Era (1906–1953)

After Schweitzer unmasked the subjectivity in the first quest, many retreated from historical inquiry about Jesus. Influential theologians, especially Rudolph Bultmann, declared that searching for the “historical Jesus” was impossible and theologically irrelevant. Bultmann insisted that the Gospels were theological proclamations with minimal interest in historical detail. In Jesus and the Word, he wrote that almost nothing certain could be known about Jesus’ life and personality because the sources were allegedly fragmented, legendary, and lacking objective confirmation.

Bultmann’s existential approach demythologized the Gospels, focusing on the “kerygma” (proclamation) and urging believers to respond in faith to God’s call. Historical fact, in his view, was secondary or inaccessible. This stance, though widely influential, treated large portions of the Gospels—particularly miracles and resurrection accounts—as mythological husks overlaying an existential message. Consequently, from Bultmann’s vantage point, attempts to reconstruct Jesus’ biography were doomed to failure or irrelevance, prompting a general hiatus in questing for a purely historical Jesus.

The “New Quest” (1953–1970)

Ernst Käsemann, a pupil of Bultmann, sparked a fresh inquiry in 1953 by delivering a lecture challenging the total division of history from faith. While he accepted much of Bultmann’s theology, Käsemann argued that ignoring historical questions verged on docetism by depicting Jesus only as a spiritual or existential reality rather than a flesh-and-blood person. He believed that some continuity must exist between Jesus as He lived and the Christ the apostles proclaimed.

This “new quest” did not revert to the naive optimism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It still operated under many critical presuppositions: the Gospels were shaped by early church theology, miraculous elements were largely dismissed, and only a few genuine sayings of Jesus could be ascertained. Gunther Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth (1960) exemplified this approach. The focus remained on Christ’s message—particularly the “word of God” He proclaimed—and how that resonated with the early church’s theology. Though more historically conscious than Bultmann’s method, the new quest still presumed a significant gap between Jesus’ actual deeds and the canonical accounts. It sought, at best, to glean a minimal set of historically probable statements or events behind the Gospels.

The “Third Quest” (From About 1970 to Present)

Since the early 1970s, a new phase has unfolded, often referred to as the “third quest.” It is more diverse, including radical skeptics, moderate-critical voices, and some more conservative scholars who challenge the older, purely critical models. Several characteristics mark this era:

Many third-quest scholars emphasize situating Jesus firmly in His first-century Jewish environment. E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and James H. Charlesworth highlight how Jesus fits into Second Temple Judaism—sharing the same covenant hopes, apocalyptic expectations, and interpretive traditions. They often see Jesus as a Jewish teacher or prophet, though they remain uncertain about or dismissive of the New Testament’s miraculous narratives.
Another branch of the third quest is represented by the Jesus Seminar, a radical group using colored beads to vote on whether each Gospel saying is authentic, possibly authentic, or inauthentic. Their published results drastically reduce the words traceable to Jesus. They also posit sources like Q or The Gospel of Thomas, often elevating these hypothetical or later-gnostic texts above the canonical Gospels.
Conservative New Testament scholars who remain faithful to the historical reliability of the Gospels are also active in the third quest. They utilize rigorous historical and archaeological data to defend the early authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, confirming that these were eyewitness or near-eyewitness records. Scholars like Richard Bauckham, I. Howard Marshall, and others argue that the Gospels meet or exceed criteria used to judge ancient biography. They challenge claims that the early church fabricated Christ’s miracles or taught doctrines foreign to Jesus’ self-understanding.

Core Presuppositions Undermining the Quests

While the first three quests often question the Gospels’ historicity, their assumptions suffer from multiple methodological flaws:

One is antisupernaturalism. Many questers begin by ruling out miracles, raising the bar of skepticism whenever any supernatural event is reported (Luke 5:17-26, for example). This a priori stance is not a neutral historical approach. Instead, it reflects a philosophical bias inherited from Hume and Spinoza.

Another is the fact/value dichotomy, largely traceable to Kant. By separating empirical facts from spiritual meaning, critics effectively assign the miraculous to the realm of personal values or myths, concluding that such elements cannot be historically factual. Yet the Scripture consistently treats moral or spiritual truths as integrally linked to historical events (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Still another problematic assumption is a forced disjunction between Jesus’ own identity and how the apostles viewed Him. The Gospels, however, present a coherent narrative in which Jesus self-identifies as more than a mere prophet (Matthew 16:16-17; Mark 14:61-62). The earliest apostolic preaching in Acts 2:32-36 likewise testifies that they saw the risen Lord as fulfilling Jesus’ own claims.

Moreover, the repeated denial of the Gospels’ historical genre stands in tension with abundant textual and archaeological data that confirm many of Luke’s or John’s references to real places, events, and political conditions. If the Gospels were purely theological treatises indifferent to historical detail, they would not align with such specificity about first-century Judea. Instead, Luke 3:1-2 precisely dates John the Baptist’s ministry by referencing Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and other local rulers. This detail speaks to the authors’ interest in verifiable history.

The Speculative Extra-Biblical Sources: Q and Thomas

In the second wave of the third quest, some have placed undue emphasis on hypothetical or later documents such as Q (the so-called “sayings source” behind Matthew and Luke) and The Gospel of Thomas (a second-century gnostic text). Critics often relegate the canonical Gospels to late dates, then suggest that Q or Thomas might represent older, more authentic traditions. But these theories face serious hurdles:

First, Q is purely hypothetical. There is no manuscript, no early church father quoting it, no archaeological mention of it. The assumption that Matthew and Luke independently used Q for the material they share is not proven. Additionally, Mark Goodacre and others have challenged Q’s existence, arguing that Luke might have used Matthew directly.

Gospels, the Synoptic Problem and What is the Hypothetical So-Called Q Document?

Second, The Gospel of Thomas is a mid-second-century text combining Christian-sounding statements with gnostic interpretive frameworks. It lacks the historical narrative structure of the canonical Gospels, offering 114 “secret sayings” rather than a coherent biography of Jesus. Its references to Jesus are heavily influenced by gnostic dualism, quite foreign to the Jewish cultural context of the early church. The earliest canonical Gospels—Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John—exhibit a style consistent with first-century biography, not second-century speculation.

These attempts to displace the canonical texts ignore strong historical reasons to date Mark’s Gospel in 60-65 C.E. before 70 C.E. (Mark 13’s prophecy about Jerusalem’s fall is typically set before that event occurred), and possibly Matthew and Luke not long thereafter, while eyewitnesses like the apostles John and others were still living. As such, the canonical Gospels remain the prime sources, overshadowing the hypothetical or tangentially relevant texts championed by some third-quest proponents.

Why the Quests Struggle to Replace the New Testament

A thorough biblical apologetic points out that each major quest attempts to find a lesser historical foundation outside or behind the Gospels, but repeatedly falls short. John 20:31 states that the Gospels were written so readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and that function is intertwined with an accurate record of His life, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection. John 19:35 claims the author was an eyewitness. Luke claims to use eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2). Such emphasis on real events is crucial to the Christian faith, as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:17: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless.” The New Testament stands or falls on the historical reality of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

What Is the Synoptic Problem of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and What is the Hypothetical So-Called Q Document?

In that light, the repeated attempts to discount the Gospels’ reliability rely on assumptions outside Scripture—namely antisupernaturalism and a reductive approach to the text. The biblical narrative is thoroughly historical in character, mentioning actual rulers (Tiberius, Pilate), real geographical locations (Bethany, Capernaum, Jerusalem), and events that align with the known cultural setting of first-century Judea. Meanwhile, the impetus for the old quest was a rationalist worldview uncomfortable with miracles; the impetus for the new quest and subsequent ones was skepticism about how the early church shaped the Gospels. Yet deeper reflection on how ancient biographies and eyewitness accounts function reveals that the Gospels fit well in the genre of historical biography. Their authors used standard techniques of that era: referencing genealogies (Matthew 1, Luke 3), situating events in the context of known political leaders (Luke 2:1-2), and naming eyewitnesses (Mark 15:21).

The Conservative Response: Scripture Is Historically and Theologically Trustworthy

Modern conservative scholarship defends the proposition that the canonical Gospels can be read as accurate records of Jesus’ words and deeds. Archaeology repeatedly corroborates details, such as the existence of the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2) or the Pavement (Gabbatha) near the fortress of Antonia (John 19:13). Additionally, the earliest patristic writers—Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp in the late first and early second centuries—confirm knowledge of the Gospels and respect for their authority. Their citations show continuity with the canonical tradition and acceptance of its central events, including Jesus’ miracles and resurrection.

Furthermore, the notion that the apostles reworked Jesus into a “Christ of faith” absent from real history fails to account for how the disciples endured persecution and martyrdom for proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:18-21; 12:1-2). If they fabricated the message, why would they stand firm under threat of death? Paul, once a fierce opponent, converted after encountering the risen Christ (Galatians 1:11-17). Such phenomena underscore that the faith was rooted in tangible events, not mythic expansions.

Romans 1:3-4 unites the human lineage of Jesus (“descendant of David according to the flesh”) with the divine affirmation via resurrection. There is no room in Scripture for a purely “historical” Jesus divorced from His identity as Son of God and Messiah. The Gospels consistently depict an individual who both claimed and demonstrated divine authority (Mark 2:5-7; Matthew 28:18). The earliest church creeds similarly confess one integrated Jesus Christ, fully historical and fully divine. As a result, the dividing line many questers try to draw between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith is not found in the biblical text or earliest Christian writings.

Ongoing Influence of the Jesus Seminar and Radicals

Despite the substantial evidence for the Gospels’ authenticity, radical groups such as the Jesus Seminar remain active. They produce lists of Jesus’ sayings color-coded to indicate what they consider authentic, possible, or inauthentic. Their method typically dismisses miracles and presupposes that the early church wrote these narratives decades later, heavily editing or inventing them. Since they approach the text with assumptions that discount supernatural occurrences, they end up with a Jesus stripped of the most extraordinary claims—particularly those about His divinity, atoning death, and resurrection.

Yet their approach does not reflect a neutral stance; it reveals a philosophical position rejecting the possibility of the supernatural from the outset. This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy: the final “historical Jesus” emerges as a purely human teacher, lacking the supernatural dimension. In short, it is not the text or historical data that exclude miracles, but the presuppositions of the scholars. By contrast, the Gospels highlight that Jesus performed signs to manifest His identity (John 2:11), meaning the documents themselves cannot be properly interpreted if we remove the miraculous dimension.

Why Historical Inquiry Still Matters

Some Christians might wonder why the historical quest for Jesus matters if Scripture is self-authenticating. While believers trust the Bible as God’s inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:16), historical investigations can serve as an apologetic tool to confirm that biblical faith rests on actual events. Luke 3:1-2, for instance, carefully situates John the Baptist’s ministry in world history, inviting readers to see that the message is not a timeless myth but a record of God acting in real time and space. The apostle Paul, in Acts 26:26, told King Agrippa that the events concerning Jesus were “not done in a corner.” They were public, verifiable, and open to investigation.

Historical study can thus provide external corroboration for Christians in conversation with skeptics. Paul himself appealed to eyewitness testimonies of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, noting that Jesus appeared to over five hundred people at once. This statement challenged contemporaries to check the facts. Similarly, modern research can confirm that the Gospels match archaeological and textual findings, reinforcing confidence in the biblical record.

At the same time, mere historical data cannot replace faith. Even if one accepts that Jesus existed, performed wonders, and was crucified, the significance of His life—His divinity, the salvific power of His death—requires submission to God’s revelation. As Jesus indicated in John 20:29, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Historical scholarship can remove barriers of doubt, but acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God depends on a heart open to the Spirit-inspired Word.

Conclusion: Scripture Stands as the Best Guide to the Real Jesus

The repeated attempts to find a different “historical Jesus” behind the Gospel accounts typically arise from philosophical skepticism toward miracles and revelation. Whether in the old quest, the no-quest hiatus, the new quest, or the third quest, the starting premise has usually been to discount the supernatural elements. Yet the thorough historical-grammatical reading of Scripture finds no such dichotomy. The Gospels themselves bear the hallmark of careful historical reporting, and the apostolic circle consistently testifies that Jesus truly rose from the dead. Any approach that brackets out or rejects the resurrection—the central sign of Jesus’ divine identity (Romans 1:4)—misrepresents the biblical narrative from the outset.

A balanced view recognizes that the Jesus we see in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is inseparable from the Christ who was worshiped by the early believers. The apostolic preaching recorded in Acts and the Epistles underscores continuity: the one crucified under Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13) is the same one exalted as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Paul’s letters written within decades of the crucifixion reflect doctrines—Christ’s deity, atoning sacrifice, resurrection—consistent with the Synoptics and John. There is no sign that a purely human Jesus was later divinized. Instead, the earliest confessions already identified Him as “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

Thus, from a conservative evangelical vantage point, the quest for the historical Jesus, in its various stages, demonstrates that critical scholars often approach the text with flawed premises. By contrast, the biblical documents read as historically grounded accounts, featuring eyewitness memory, corroboration from outside sources, and internal theological consistency. The best conclusion is that the Gospels portray the authentic Jesus of history—who is also the Christ of faith. As Luke 1:3-4 puts it, “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account … that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” In receiving Scripture’s portrayal of Jesus, one discovers no divide between the historical man and the divine Messiah, but a unified figure who embodies the fulfillment of prophecy, the redeemer of sinners, and the resurrected Lord.

You May Also Enjoy

The Historical Reality of Jesus

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).