home

 The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Each gospel tells the story of Jesus in a different way. For example, Jesus speaks differently in John than in the Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's date for the crucifixion is also different. Matthew and Luke have somewhat different versions of the temptations or the sermon on the mount. These differences, and many many more, have led biblical scholars to the conclusion that the story of Jesus was changed prior to its being written down in the gospels. If this is true, what was added, deleted, and changed in the oral transmission of the tradition prior to its being written down? Or, what were the original words and deeds of Jesus? These questions led to what has been called "the quest for the historical Jesus." This was the attempt to determine the original words and deeds of Jesus prior to the changes and additions created by the early church as it adapted his message to their situation in life.

As a result of the "quest," a number of influential scholars came to the conclusion that a goodly portion of the gospel stories were a creation of the early church. In their view, there was an original core of Jesus' words and deeds, and to this core the early church added his miracles and much of his teaching. These additions, changes, and amplifications occurred as the church expressed in concrete terms the meaning of his life. For example, the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand did not really occur as narrated in the gospels. Rather, the alleged miracle was a way of concretely describing how Jesus can come to a congregation of people in the one loaf of the Holy Communion. What are we to make of this?

First, it needs to be said that the quest was carried out within the limits of a "scientific" methodology. In other words, it was assumed that Jesus Christ did no miracles. As a result, Jesus' significance had to be found in some other realm such as Jesus a teacher of wisdom, Jesus the highest form of consciousness, Jesus the evolutionary apex of humanity, or Jesus the founder of a universal social order. The effect, however, was to gut the gospels of their essential content. The gospels do have implications for Christian consciousness, for social life, for wisdom and understanding. But their primary aim is to proclaim that Jesus is the one who brings people to a living, loving God. This God, in the person of Jesus, healed the sick, delivered those oppressed by demons, forgave the sinful, confronted the unrighteous, and lifted up the lowly. These acts are miraculous acts, the physical healings no more than the "spiritual" events in which Jesus spoke with authority to forgive, console, and confront. Once the miraculous was eliminated, there was essentially nothing left. As a result, the "questers" came up with little more than an abstract philosophy of life, a form of higher consciousness, a social order of "love."(1)

There is another way to approach the matter. Consider the miracles. Rather than trying to explain away the healings as did Schleiermacher, Tillich, Bultmann, Macquarrie, Robinson, et. al., why not lay hands on people in the name of Jesus Christ and ask God to heal them? Rather than ignore the exorcisms, why not cast out demons in Jesus name? Rather than assuming that Jesus never miraculously fed the 5,000, why not look into the matter and see if that has ever happened today? Rather than believing that Jesus never spoke miraculous divine words, why not ask him to speak to us with authority?(2)

Once that approach is taken, a whole new world emerges. It will readily be seen that the gospel accounts are telling us what Jesus once did as descriptions of what he can do now.(3) And when he does these things now, we will believe he did them then. In both cases, then and now, it will be seen that Jesus does the same saving acts over and over again for people who need God. Since these actions differed from person to person, how they first occurred and how they are remembered will differ as well. Scripture reflects that variety. For example, Jesus doubtless spoke beatitudes on more than one occasion, and the differences in Matthew and Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount reflect different summaries of these various occasions. Furthermore, under the inspiration of the Spirit, the gospel writers did remember the work of Jesus in different ways, and this memory was transformed in particular ways. But all those ways were rooted in Jesus as a historical person. They were rooted in the historical Jesus because each one proclaimed him as one who saved and saves, and that is exactly what he did, then and now.

Comment

In this essay, I describe one aspect of an approach to interpreting Scripture. How one interprets Scripture is called a "hermeneutics," and I first became aware of the need for such a different hermeneutic in seminary.

One afternoon, one of my professors made a few comments on speaking in tongues. The professor had apparently done some research on the matter. I had been using the gift in various ways for some years, and could tell at once that he knew very little about it. Although I thought an academic study of this gift and any other gift could be helpful, it did not replace the need to receive the gift. I pointed out that the Pentecostals simply asked God to give them the gift. Why not do that, especially since the apostle Paul thought it so useful? I was rather surprised when the professor replied by saying that an academic investigation and a personal encounter would lead to the same knowledge of the gift. That cannot be true.

I was raised in a fundamentalist church. They thought they were right because they had the Bible and believed it literally. They were also dispensationalists. They didn't believe that God could act now to save as Scripture proclaims he acted then. I've also carefully examined the liberal biblical scholarship. In regard to a present saving Lord, I see little difference between the liberals and the dispensationalists. At bottom, both are building on sand. To conceal that fact, they need each other, each targeting the other as mistaken in some obvious way. The fundamentalists point out that the liberals do not read the Bible as the Word of a supernatural God. The liberals attack the fundamentalists for failing to see that the Bible is a human document. But both fail to proclaim a risen Lord Jesus who does today what Scripture proclaims he did then. Without that, we are dead.

Endnotes

1. There is a new quest, which promotes some very helpful ideas. Its best proponent is N.T. Wright, but he does not bring to the fore the essential ideas presented here, that Jesus is active today, doing now what he did then. I will discuss him in greater detail in another essay.
2. It is not easy for anyone to suddenly go forth to proclaim the gospel, to heal, and to cast out demons. As is obvious, however, Jesus sent his disciples out to do those very things, and the church should do so today. I would recommend, by way of entering into the miraculous supernatural life, that one seek out solid persons who can heal and ask for the laying on of hands for healing and deliverance. All of us have something wrong with us. Once we have encountered a living, healing God, it is easier to proclaim that God by word and deed.
3. Certain of the events of Jesus' life, his virgin birth and glorious resurrection, for example, are not repeated in present experience. It would seem true, however, that a belief in the Christ's resurrection would be strengthened by examples of God's mighty acts today. That is the way Athanasius and Augustine approached the matter. Both claimed to have witnessed miracles done in the name of Jesus. Both saw this as evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead and alive in the world. The fact of miracles done in the name of Jesus, however, does not logically imply his resurrection, although it does lend some credence to such a belief. Faith is required, and that applies to the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection, and a general resurrection at the end of time.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
May, 2002

home