MSJ 23/1 (SPRING 2012) 7–42
THREE SEARCHES FOR THE “HISTORICAL JESUS”
BUT NO BIBLICAL CHRIST:
THE RISE OF THE SEARCHES (PART 1)
搜尋『歷史的基督』，但不是聖經的基督：搜尋的開始（第一部分）
F. DAVID FARNELL, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY
======================================================
（1）
This is a two-part series. Part One covers the rise of three periods of
activity known as “searching for the ‘historical Jesus.’” Its overarching
purpose is a deliberate attempt to destroy the influence of the gospels and
the church upon society. While this purpose is openly and honestly admitted
by theological liberals, evangelicals who participate now in the “third”
quest are far less candid as to its design. Part Two will cover this growing
evangelical participation in searching. These searches started with the rise
in dominance of the ideology of historical criticism over two hundred years
ago and are a natural consequence of the innate historical skepticism replete
in them. The first two searches ended as declared failures by those who
engaged in them. Now some of the same scholars who have inspired the New
Perspective on Paul have also been largely influential in stimulating the “
third search for ‘the historical Jesus’” (e.g. Sanders, Wright, Dunn).
When the evidence is examined, only one overall “search for the ‘historical
’ Jesus” actually has existed. All three are unified by sharing, to some
degree, the unifying characteristics of significant degrees of suspicion
regarding the gospels, similar ideological approaches in utilizing historical
criticism, a refusal to accept the biblical accounts as truly depicting Jesus
as He actually was in history, and a marked preference for developing a view
of Jesus that is acceptable to scholarship.
這是一個分成兩篇的系列。第一篇涵蓋了三個被稱之為『搜尋‘歷史的耶穌’』的三個時
期。它的目標乃是要刻意嘗試摧毀福音和教會對於社會的影響。這個目標也被如今參加更
為遠離其設計目的的『第三個』搜尋（The Third Search）的自由主義派，福音派的學者
公開並誠實的承認。第二部分將會涵蓋福音派更深入參與的搜素。那些搜尋開始於200年
前，由歷史批判主義主宰的意識形態，也是充滿那種意識形態中的，與生俱來的歷史懷疑
主義的自然產物。頭兩個搜尋結束於那些參與人士宣告失敗。如今，同一批學者中的某些
受到保羅新觀啟發的人士已經深深的受到了『‘歷史的耶穌’的第三個搜尋』所激勵（例
如：Sander，Wight，Dunn）。在證據被檢視的同時，只有一種綜合性的『搜索‘歷史的
耶穌’』真正存在。所有三個搜尋都共有，在某種程度上，共有的對於福音的懷疑的特徵
，也都具有類似的使用歷史批判主義的進路的思維模式，拒絕接受聖經的記載乃是真正對
於耶穌在歷史中真正的描述，並且一個被貼上標籤的，發展出一種能夠被學術所接受的耶
穌觀點的偏好。
*****
Introduction: Searching for the “Historical Jesus”
介言：搜索『歷史的耶穌』
For the past several hundred years, scholars have conducted what is known as
“the search for the historical Jesus” or as it is also called today, “
historical Jesus research.” Such a search operates under the a priori
assumption that the four canonical gospels, the only documents written
concerning the life of Jesus, are in some significant ways deficient,
incorrect, or inadequate in their presentation of how Jesus actually was in
history. This search posits a sharp cleavage between the gospel portraits of
Jesus and His actual existence in first-century Palestine and seeks to
establish a scholarly consensus view of Jesus that would be considered a more
accurate representation of His life than what is contained in the gospels.
在過去的兩百年中，學者們一直在進行一種被稱作『搜索歷史的耶穌（the search for
the historical Jesus）』，或今天所謂『歷史耶穌的研究（historical Jesus
research）』的活動。那是一種在預設四本正典的福音書，唯一關於耶穌生平的文獻具有
重大的缺失，是不正確的，或無法展現耶穌在歷史中的真貌。這個搜尋假設了一種尖銳的
，在福音書對於耶穌的描述和祂在第一世紀巴勒斯坦中的存在間的區別，並嘗試建立一種
學術上對於耶穌的共識，這個共識可以被視為一種對於祂生平，比福音書更為準確的描述
。
The “Historical Jesus” Research Is Searching for a Definition of the Term
搜尋『歷史的耶穌（Historical Jesus）』正在搜尋對於這個詞彙的定義
The term, “historical Jesus,” cannot truly be defined with any degree of
satisfaction or consensus among those who advocate such research. The irony
of this state of affairs in its definition has resulted from the fact that no
consensus has occurred as to what the “historical Jesus” is or was. Hagner
incisively comments,
參與搜尋的學者們並不能產生任何程度上的共識來定義『歷史的耶穌』這個詞。這種對於
定義的諷刺現象乃是源自於『歷史的耶穌』不論在現今或過去，都沒有任何的共識。
Hagner尖銳的評論說，
It deserves to be emphasized that in both the nineteenth-century writing on
Jesus and that of today, what seems to be wanting is not so much a truer view
of Jesus as an alternative view. The traditional view of Jesus, the view held
by the early church, is old-fashioned, uninteresting, and thought to be
unconvincing. What the world craves is a debunking of the traditional Jesus,
a Jesus rescued from the dogma of the church for twenty-first century human
beings. What will sell books and bring fame or notoriety and new explanations
of Jesus—explanations acceptable to the proclivities and sensitivities of
the modern world.[1]
我們必須強調十九世紀並今日對於耶穌的著作所缺少的不過就是另一個觀點的，更為真實
的耶穌視角。傳統對於耶穌的觀點，這個觀點被早期教會所堅守，是古老的，了無新意的
，並被認為是不能說服人的。世界渴望重新定義傳統的耶穌，一個從教會教義中被拯救出
來，為了二十一世紀人類的耶穌。這可以賣書，出名或毀謗耶穌，並提出新的解釋——一
些能夠被現代世界所接受並感觸到的解釋。
After two hundred-plus years of questing for whatever the “historical Jesus
” might be, involving possibly three perceived “quests” (whether three
exist is debated, as will be discussed), no general agreement exists among
biblical scholars who pursue this discipline as to what the term means.
Renown British theologian, N. T. Wright, himself a strategic impetus for a “
third” quest of the “historical Jesus,” now known officially as the “Life
of Jesus Research” laments, “The current wave of books about Jesus offers a
bewildering range of competing hypotheses. There is no unifying theological
agenda; no final agreement about method; certainly no common set of results.”
[2] An acute subjectivity reigns in every presentation of whatever the “
historical Jesus” is/was.
在兩百多年的探索到底『歷史的耶穌』可能是什麼後，這個探索可以被分為三個『探索（
quests）』（是否真的存在三個探索仍然是具有爭議的，我們隨後將會討論），聖經學者
間對於這個詞的意義也沒有共識。聲譽卓著的英國學者，N. T. Wright，本身鼓吹一種戰
略性的對於『歷史的耶穌』的『第三個』探索，這個探索如今被正式認定為『耶穌生平研
究』的哀歌，『如今眾多關於耶穌的著作提供了五花八門，令人困惑的假設。不存在任何
共同的神學議程；也沒有被最終認可的方法；當然也沒有被公認的結果。』一種尖銳的主
觀性主宰了所有『歷史的耶穌』是/曾是什麼的展示。
Whatever the “Historical Jesus” Is, It Must NOT Be the Christ of the Gospels
不管『歷史的耶穌』是什麼，它必然不是福音書的基督
In 1959, James M. Robinson, a leader of what is now known as the “second
quest” period, did, however, stress what the term could not mean:
James M. Robinson，如今被成為為『第二個探索』時期的領袖，在1959年強調這個詞的
意義不能是：
The term “historical Jesus” is not simply identical with “Jesus” or “
Jesus of Nazareth,” as if the adjective “historical” were a meaningless
addition. Rather the adjective is used in a technical sense, and makes a
specific contribution to the total meaning of the expression. “Historical”
is used in the sense of “things in the past which have been established by
objective scholarship.” Consequently the expression “historical Jesus”
comes to mean: “What can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of
scientific methods of the historian.” Thus we have to do with a technical
expression which must be recognized as such, and not automatically identified
with the simple term “Jesus.”[3]
『歷史的耶穌』不能被簡單的視為『耶穌』或『拿撒勒人耶穌』，就好像『歷史的（
historical）』這個形容詞是個無意義的附加物一樣。反而，那個形容詞具有技術的意義
，為整句話的完整意義提供了特殊的貢獻。『歷史的』被用於『藉著客觀的學術研究所建
立的過去事物』的意義上。這就造成，『歷史的耶穌』這個說法的意義變成：『藉著歷史
學者的科學方法為手段，讓我們知道關於拿撒勒人耶穌的事蹟。』故此，我們應該以這種
方式對待一個技術性的說法，而不能自動的將其等同於簡單的『耶穌』。
Robinson continues regarding the first alleged quest that “[t]his was in
fact the assumption of the nineteenth century quest of the historical Jesus.
For this quest was initiated by the enlightenment in its effort to escape the
limitations of dogma . . . . unrestricted by the doctrinal presentations of
him in the Bible, creed and Church.”[4] Since no perceived agreement or
consensus exists as to who or what the “historical Jesus” is or even if
such a definition can even be determined, the consequence appears to be that
it is to be defined negatively since a general agreement exists among
questers that whatever the “historical Jesus” is or was, He is not, indeed
cannot be, equated fully with the Jesus who is presented in the gospels.
Since historiography, i.e. hypotheses of what can take place in a time-space
continuum in reference to historical-critical ideology, cannot encompass the
supernatural, indeed, rules it out from the very beginning, whatever the “
historical Jesus” is, He cannot be equated with the Jesus as He is presented
in the gospels.[5]
Robinson繼續論到所謂的第一個探索，說『事實上，這乃是對於十九世紀的歷史的耶穌的
探索的假設。因為這個探索乃是從啟蒙運動中，對於嘗試脫離教義捆鎖的嘗試所發起的。
。。。脫離他在聖經、信經和教會的教條中的描述。』因為，對於『歷史的耶穌』到底是
誰或什麼，甚至這個詞的定義當如何被確立根本沒有任何共識，這就導致這個詞被負面的
定義，因為在參與搜尋的人士間有一種共識，就是不過『歷史的耶穌』現今/曾經是什麼
，祂不是，也不能是福音書所展現的耶穌。因為，根據歷史編纂（historiography），例
如：根據歷史批判的觀念，在時間—空間的延續性中能夠發生的事件，不能包含超自然的
事件，就是，從一開始就排除了超自然的事件，不管『歷史的耶穌』是什麼，祂不能被視
為福音書展示的耶穌。
The Existential Jesus or What Does the “Historical Jesus” Mean to You?
存在主義的耶穌，或『歷史的耶穌』對你的意義是什麼？
As a result, the term “historical Jesus” is perhaps best termed the “
existential Jesus,” for, as will be seen, a close examination of the
questing reveals that the “historical Jesus” is whatever the quester a
priori determines Jesus to be or wants Him as somehow significantly in
distinction from the biblical documents. This subjectivity is highlighted in
reviewing terms used today in the “third search” to define the “historical
Jesus”: an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occult magician,
an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a
political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an
historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a
Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious
eschatological agent, and the list would go on and on.[6] No one embraces all
of these images, but they are presented by their advocates as the most
reasonable reconstruction of “the historical Jesus.” After an arbitrary a
priori decision has been made on a preconceived concept of Jesus, criteria of
authenticity, stemming from tradition criticism, can be applied to the
gospels and that concept of Jesus affirmed. Since the criteria are subjective
and conflicting, other criteria can be invented and applied to ensure the
desired outcome. The critical weakness, as well as subjectivity, of these
criteria lies in the fact that the same criteria can be applied or countered
with different criteria to ensure whatever view has already been assumed.[7]
The current situation of widely conflicting views on who the “historical
Jesus” was has prompted Jesus Seminar participant John Dominic Crossan to
comment, “Historical Jesus research today is becoming something of a
scholarly bad joke” and “an academic embarrassment” as well as giving the
“impression of acute scholarly subjectivity in historical research.”[8]
這就造成，『歷史的耶穌』這個詞或許最好被稱之為『存在主義的耶穌（existential
Jesus）』，因為，正如同我們將會看見的，對於搜尋更為仔細的檢視揭示『歷史的耶穌
』就是搜尋者預設的耶穌，或希望在某種意義上與聖經文獻間產生巨大差異的耶穌。這個
主觀性愛今日的『第三個搜尋』中所使用定義『歷史的耶穌』的名詞中被凸顯出來：一位
末世的先知，一位加利利的聖人，一位神秘的魔術師，一位啟迪人的拉比，一位讓人精神
恍惚的心理治療師，一位猶太人的智者，一位政治革命家，艾賽尼派的陰謀家，四處遊蕩
的驅魔人，一個歷史的神秘人物，解放神學家的原型，一位農奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法
利賽人，一位類似犬儒派的哲學家，一位自我啟發的末世代理人，這個清單還沒完。沒有
人接受這所有的描述，但是它們代表了它們的提倡者的觀念，他們用最為理性的方式重建
了『歷史的耶穌』。在針對一個預設的耶穌觀念做出一種隨心所欲的預設立場手，可靠性
的準則就從傳統的批判主義遠遠而出，被應用在福音書並耶穌的觀念上。因為標準是主觀
的，並自相矛盾的，其他的標準也能夠被發明，並用於保證產生合乎個人理想的結果。那
些標準批判主義弱點，以及主觀性都是建立在同一個標準能夠被用於，或被視為其他的標
準之上的事實，這樣做是為了保證已經被假設的觀點。目前這種廣泛的，對於『歷史的耶
穌』具有相互衝突觀點的情況，都是由John Dominic Crossan所參加的耶穌學會（Jesus
Seninar）所鼓吹的，他評論到，『今日歷史的耶穌的研究已經成為某種學術上的醜惡笑
話』並且『一種學術上尷尬結果』還造成『一直對於在歷史研究領域中的學術具有尖銳主
觀主義的印象』。
Philosophical Context of Searching
搜尋的哲學背景
The Rise of Hostile, Alien Philosophies Creates a Chasm
Between Gospels and the Jesus in History
產生的具有敵意的、異類的哲學
在福音與歷史中的耶穌間創造了一條裂縫
One cannot overstress that the rise of modern philosophical ideologies
inherent in historical criticism generates such distinctions between Jesus as
He is presented in the canonical gospels and any conceptualizations of how He
is alleged to have been actually in history. Hostile philosophical
underpinnings of the ideology in terms of a virulent anti-supernaturalism
create these hypothetical distinctions.[9] The overarching intent in these
searches is the destruction of the influence of the gospels, as well as the
church, over society.
我們不能過分強調現代哲學思想所承襲的歷史批判主義造成了耶穌和正典福音書所描述的
祂，並任何關於祂在歷史中如何被描述的觀念間的差異。具有敵意的哲學加固了致命的反
差自然主義（anti-supernaturalism）之觀念的基礎，創造了那些假設性的差異。那些搜
尋的整體動機就是要摧毀福音並教會對於社會的影響。
Searching Defined
搜尋定義
The “questing” or searching for the historical Jesus may be defined as a
philosophically-motivated historical-critical construct that the Jesus as
presented in the gospels is not the same or not to be identified fully with
the Jesus who actually lived in history. Underlying the questing is the
assumption that “scientific” research showed that the Jesus of history was
different from the Christ of Scripture, the creeds, orthodox theology, and
Christian piety.[10] To some degree or another, such an activity has an
underlying operating assumption that the gospels cannot be taken as wholly
trustworthy in their presentation of Jesus’ life since belief or faith has
mediated their presentation. In other words, faith and history are perceived
as in opposition in reference to proper or legitimate historical methods, due
to their standard pronouncement of a closed-continuum of cause and effect.
This idea of historiography means that the phrase “historical Jesus” is
oxymoronic. If Jesus is to be understood historically, according to the
standards of accepted historiography replete in the ideology of historical
criticism, then He cannot be the Jesus presented in the gospels. If one
accepts the Jesus in the gospels, then such a Jesus is not historical. One
must default to a departure from the New Testament presentation of Jesus out
of perceived necessity so that the “historical Jesus” must be something
other than exactly the Jesus of the gospels.[11]
歷史的耶穌的搜尋或許也可以被定義為被哲學所推動的歷史批判架構，就是福音書描述的
耶穌並不是，或不能完全被視為真正生活在歷史裡的耶穌。在搜索之下有一種假設，就是
『科學的』研究表明歷史的耶穌與經文、信經、正統神學和基督教敬虔中的基督是不同的
。在某種程度上，這種研究假設福音書對於耶穌生平的描述不能被視為完全可靠的 ，因
為信仰介入了那些描述。換句話說，在正確或合法的歷史方法面前，信仰和歷史被視為對
立的，因為歷史方法的標準在因果間宣告了一種封閉的延續性。這個歷史編纂的觀念意味
著『歷史的耶穌』這句話乃是一種矛盾的說法（oxymoronic）。如果耶穌當以歷史的方法
理解之，根據充滿歷史批判主義觀念的歷史編纂被公認的標準，那麼祂就不能是福音書所
描述的耶穌。如果，你接受福音書的耶穌，那麼那個耶穌就不是歷史的。你必須在一開始
就因著所察覺到需要性而脫離新約對於耶穌的描述，以至於『歷史的耶穌』必須是某種與
福音書描述的耶穌不同的東西。
Presuppositional philosophical underpinnings of historical criticism have
driven a qualitative as well as quantitative wedge between how Jesus is
presented in the gospels and current hypothesizing as to how Jesus actually
was alleged to be in history in ALL quests for the “historical Jesus.” This
philosophical, presuppositional basis for the “historical Jesus” or the “
Jesus of history” results in a Jesus removed from the supernatural as well
as much of the uniqueness of Jesus as He is presented in the gospels. The
degree of separation is, admittedly, somewhat one of degree, depending on the
philosophical underpinnings arbitrarily accepted by the individual “searcher,
” but usually, it is a very sharp separation, especially in terms of any
violation of a closed-continuum of cause and effect. As a result, biblical
scholars who follow this mode of thought are forced a priori to “search”
for the historical Jesus to find how He actually was in reality. Importantly,
the idea of a “historical Jesus” distinct from the gospel presentations, as
well as practice of “questing” or “searching” for this presumed
historical Jesus, is an axiomatic consequence foundational to the tenets of
historical criticism. The more one is consistent with the application of
historical-critical ideology, the further the concept of a “historical Jesus
” is removed from the gospel presentation of Him. To put it bluntly, the “
historical Jesus” is a chimera of historical criticism that has at its basis
philosophical motivations. The great irony is that the true “myth” of
historical criticism is its idea of the “historical Jesus.”
以具有前設性的哲學建構的歷史批判主義已經建構了在福音書所描述的耶穌，和現今所有
搜尋『歷史的耶穌』中所假設的，耶穌如何在歷史中被描述間的質與量的範疇。這個『歷
史的耶穌』哲學性，並具有預設的懷疑立場的基礎造成了一種從超自然中，並在福音書中
以獨一無二的方式描述中被排除出來的耶穌。眾所公認的，這種分別的程度乃是取決於個
別『搜索者』所採用的模糊不清的哲學建構，但是，它往往是一種非常尖銳的差距，特別
是任何觸犯封閉的因果延續性。這就造成採取這種思維模式的聖經學者被迫採取一種先驗
的『搜尋』來找出歷史的耶穌在現實中到底是怎麼樣的一位。重要的是，『歷史的耶穌』
的觀念與聖經的描述不同，並且『搜尋』這個預設的歷史耶穌的做法不證自明的就是建立
在歷史批判主義教條上的結果。越是與歷史批判觀念一致，『歷史的耶穌』的觀念就越與
福音書描述的祂背道而馳。我們可以概括的說，『歷史的耶穌』乃是一種歷史批判主義假
想出來的怪物，它的基礎是哲學性的動機。最大的諷刺是，歷史批判主義真正的『奧秘』
就是『歷史的耶穌』的觀念。
[1] Donald A. Hagner, “An Analysis of Recent ‘Historical Jesus’ Studies,”
in Religious Diversity in the Graeco–Roman World, eds. Dan Cohn–Sherbok and
John M. Court (Sheffield: T & T Clark, 2001), 82.
[2] N. T. Wright, “Jesus, Quest for the Historical,” ABD, III, 800.
[3] James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM,
1959), 26–27.
[4] Ibid., 27–28.
[5] For further discussion of the operating agenda of historical criticism,
see F. David Farnell, “The Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical
Criticism,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert Thomas (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1998), 85–131; Edgar Krentz, The Historical–Critical Method, ed. Gene M.
Tucker (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975); Ernest Troeltsch, “Historical and
Dogmatic Method in Theology” (1898), in Religion in History. Essays
translated by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense with an Introduction by
James Luther Adams (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11–32.
[6] For these various portraits of what or whom the “historical Jesus” has
been in the search since its beginnings to the present day, consult Albert
Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. W. Montgomery from the
first German edition, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (1906). Introduction by James M.
Robinson (New York: MacMillan, 1968); Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus
in the Twentieth Century 1900–1950 (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International,
1999); John K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity International, 1993); James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The
Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009).
[7] For discussion of these criteria of authenticity as conflicting, see F.
David Farnell, “Form Criticism and Tradition Criticism,” in The Jesus
Crisis, 199–207. As will be shown in this article, the“Third” quest has
developed additional criteria of authenticity.
[8] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean
Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), xxvii—xxviii and xviii.
[9] For a much more detailed discussion, see “The Philosophical and
Theological Bent of Historical Criticism, in The Jesus Crisis.
[10] See Colin Brown, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” in Dictionary of Jesus
and the Gospels, eds., Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 326.
[11] Hagner, “An Analysis of Recent ‘Historical Jesus’ Studies,” 83.