The First Search for the Historical Jesus (1778-1906)
- Distinction between Christ of faith and Jesus of History
- Accepted Gospel stories in general but rationalized or rejected miracle stories and claims to divinity
- Jesus as moral example
- Source criticism; Two document theory
- Ends with claim we can know nothing of historical Jesus
The Period of No Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906-1953)
- Nothing can be known of historical Jesus and not ultimately important; Living Christ of Faith is what matters
- Form Criticism
- Mark Displaced
- Bultmann: Need to demythologize Gospels and get to kerygma; Authentic existence
The Second Search for the Historical Jesus (1953-present day)
- Christ of Faith needs to be rooted in history
- Attempt to unify Christ/Jesus: Stripped of divinity
- Concentrate on sayings/teachings; criteria for authenticity; acceptance of non-canonical sources
- Redaction criticism
The Third Search for the Historical Jesus (late 1970s-present day)
- Many divergent lines of thought
- Attempt to do history without theological baggage or assumptions
- Concentrate on understanding historical Jesus in light of Jewish theology and culture.
- Openness to the supernatural: no a priori rejection of miracles
- High view of accuracy of oral tradition
- Rejection of strict attachment to “criteria”
May 13, 2012 at 04:05
And then maybe comes the fourth Quest with Johannine as a tool.
May 13, 2012 at 11:47
If they used John it’d be over lol
May 18, 2013 at 13:07
“..Ends with claim we can know nothing of historical Jesus..”
All this is why Jesus (an attribute and NOT a name) was a ‘multiform’ character, remarkably eclectic and ‘multifaceted’, able to easily immerse themselves in various roles and identities. In Rome, for example, he was known by a name other than its original (YESHAY, in Hebraic, Jesse in Inglese) and with the Chrestos attribute (see Svetonius). Today, through the various pseudonyms that he used, you can get a lot of reliable data from the ancient texts.
Jesus and his mother would have had to be of interest only for historians and novelists and not for counterfeiter theologians, who, to achieve fraudulently their goals, they profoundly mystified and distorted his true historical profile and his real human story