MSJ 23/1 (SPRING 2012) 7–42
THREE SEARCHES FOR THE “HISTORICAL JESUS”
BUT NO BIBLICAL CHRIST:
THE RISE OF THE SEARCHES (PART 1)
搜寻‘历史的基督’，但不是圣经的基督：搜寻的开始（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.
这是一个分成两篇的系列。第一篇涵盖了三个被称之为‘搜寻‘历史的耶稣’’的三个时
期。它的目标乃是要刻意尝试摧毁福音和教会对于社会的影响。这个目标也被如今参加更
为远离其设计目的的‘第三个’搜寻（The Third Search）的自由主义派，福音派的学者
公开并诚实的承认。第二部分将会涵盖福音派更深入参与的搜素。那些搜寻开始于200年
前，由历史批判主义主宰的意识形态，也是充满那种意识形态中的，与生俱来的历史怀疑
主义的自然产物。头两个搜寻结束于那些参与人士宣告失败。如今，同一批学者中的某些
受到保罗新观启发的人士已经深深的受到了‘‘历史的耶稣’的第三个搜寻’所激励（例
如：Sander，Wight，Dunn）。在证据被检视的同时，只有一种综合性的‘搜索‘历史的
耶稣’’真正存在。所有三个搜寻都共有，在某种程度上，共有的对于福音的怀疑的特征
，也都具有类似的使用历史批判主义的进路的思维模式，拒绝接受圣经的记载乃是真正对
于耶稣在历史中真正的描述，并且一个被贴上标签的，发展出一种能够被学术所接受的耶
稣观点的偏好。
*****
Introduction: Searching for the “Historical Jesus”
介言：搜索‘历史的耶稣’
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.
在过去的两百年中，学者们一直在进行一种被称作‘搜索历史的耶稣（the search for
the historical Jesus）’，或今天所谓‘历史耶稣的研究（historical Jesus
research）’的活动。那是一种在默认四本正典的福音书，唯一关于耶稣生平的文献具有
重大的缺失，是不正确的，或无法展现耶稣在历史中的真貌。这个搜寻假设了一种尖锐的
，在福音书对于耶稣的描述和祂在第一世纪巴勒斯坦中的存在间的区别，并尝试建立一种
学术上对于耶稣的共识，这个共识可以被视为一种对于祂生平，比福音书更为准确的描述
。
The “Historical Jesus” Research Is Searching for a Definition of the Term
搜寻‘历史的耶稣（Historical Jesus）’正在搜寻对于这个词汇的定义
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,
参与搜寻的学者们并不能产生任何程度上的共识来定义‘历史的耶稣’这个词。这种对于
定义的讽刺现象乃是源自于‘历史的耶稣’不论在现今或过去，都没有任何的共识。
Hagner尖锐的评论说，
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]
我们必须强调十九世纪并今日对于耶稣的著作所缺少的不过就是另一个观点的，更为真实
的耶稣视角。传统对于耶稣的观点，这个观点被早期教会所坚守，是古老的，了无新意的
，并被认为是不能说服人的。世界渴望重新定义传统的耶稣，一个从教会教义中被拯救出
来，为了二十一世纪人类的耶稣。这可以卖书，出名或毁谤耶稣，并提出新的解释——一
些能够被现代世界所接受并感触到的解释。
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.
在两百多年的探索到底‘历史的耶稣’可能是什么后，这个探索可以被分为三个‘探索（
quests）’（是否真的存在三个探索仍然是具有争议的，我们随后将会讨论），圣经学者
间对于这个词的意义也没有共识。声誉卓著的英国学者，N. T. Wright，本身鼓吹一种战
略性的对于‘历史的耶稣’的‘第三个’探索，这个探索如今被正式认定为‘耶稣生平研
究’的哀歌，‘如今众多关于耶稣的著作提供了五花八门，令人困惑的假设。不存在任何
共同的神学议程；也没有被最终认可的方法；当然也没有被公认的结果。’一种尖锐的主
观性主宰了所有‘历史的耶稣’是/曾是什么的展示。
Whatever the “Historical Jesus” Is, It Must NOT Be the Christ of the Gospels
不管‘历史的耶稣’是什么，它必然不是福音书的基督
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，如今被成为为‘第二个探索’时期的领袖，在1959年强调这个词的
意义不能是：
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]
‘历史的耶稣’不能被简单的视为‘耶稣’或‘拿撒勒人耶稣’，就好像‘历史的（
historical）’这个形容词是个无意义的附加物一样。反而，那个形容词具有技术的意义
，为整句话的完整意义提供了特殊的贡献。‘历史的’被用于‘藉著客观的学术研究所建
立的过去事物’的意义上。这就造成，‘历史的耶稣’这个说法的意义变成：‘藉著历史
学者的科学方法为手段，让我们知道关于拿撒勒人耶稣的事蹟。’故此，我们应该以这种
方式对待一个技术性的说法，而不能自动的将其等同于简单的‘耶稣’。
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继续论到所谓的第一个探索，说‘事实上，这乃是对于十九世纪的历史的耶稣的
探索的假设。因为这个探索乃是从启蒙运动中，对于尝试脱离教义捆锁的尝试所发起的。
。。。脱离他在圣经、信经和教会的教条中的描述。’因为，对于‘历史的耶稣’到底是
谁或什么，甚至这个词的定义当如何被确立根本没有任何共识，这就导致这个词被负面的
定义，因为在参与搜寻的人士间有一种共识，就是不过‘历史的耶稣’现今/曾经是什么
，祂不是，也不能是福音书所展现的耶稣。因为，根据历史编纂（historiography），例
如：根据历史批判的观念，在时间—空间的延续性中能够发生的事件，不能包含超自然的
事件，就是，从一开始就排除了超自然的事件，不管‘历史的耶稣’是什么，祂不能被视
为福音书展示的耶稣。
The Existential Jesus or What Does the “Historical Jesus” Mean to You?
存在主义的耶稣，或‘历史的耶稣’对你的意义是什么？
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]
这就造成，‘历史的耶稣’这个词或许最好被称之为‘存在主义的耶稣（existential
Jesus）’，因为，正如同我们将会看见的，对于搜寻更为仔细的检视揭示‘历史的耶稣
’就是搜寻者默认的耶稣，或希望在某种意义上与圣经文献间产生巨大差异的耶稣。这个
主观性爱今日的‘第三个搜寻’中所使用定义‘历史的耶稣’的名词中被凸显出来：一位
末世的先知，一位加利利的圣人，一位神秘的魔术师，一位启迪人的拉比，一位让人精神
恍惚的心理治疗师，一位犹太人的智者，一位政治革命家，艾赛尼派的阴谋家，四处游荡
的驱魔人，一个历史的神秘人物，解放神学家的原型，一位农奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法
利赛人，一位类似犬儒派的哲学家，一位自我启发的末世代理人，这个清单还没完。没有
人接受这所有的描述，但是它们代表了它们的提倡者的观念，他们用最为理性的方式重建
了‘历史的耶稣’。在针对一个默认的耶稣观念做出一种随心所欲的默认立场手，可靠性
的准则就从传统的批判主义远远而出，被应用在福音书并耶稣的观念上。因为标准是主观
的，并自相矛盾的，其他的标准也能够被发明，并用于保证产生合乎个人理想的结果。那
些标准批判主义弱点，以及主观性都是建立在同一个标准能够被用于，或被视为其他的标
准之上的事实，这样做是为了保证已经被假设的观点。目前这种广泛的，对于‘历史的耶
稣’具有相互冲突观点的情况，都是由John Dominic Crossan所参加的耶稣学会（Jesus
Seninar）所鼓吹的，他评论到，‘今日历史的耶稣的研究已经成为某种学术上的丑恶笑
话’并且‘一种学术上尴尬结果’还造成‘一直对于在历史研究领域中的学术具有尖锐主
观主义的印象’。
Philosophical Context of Searching
搜寻的哲学背景
The Rise of Hostile, Alien Philosophies Creates a Chasm
Between Gospels and the Jesus in History
产生的具有敌意的、异类的哲学
在福音与历史中的耶稣间创造了一条裂缝
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.
我们不能过分强调现代哲学思想所承袭的历史批判主义造成了耶稣和正典福音书所描述的
祂，并任何关于祂在历史中如何被描述的观念间的差异。具有敌意的哲学加固了致命的反
差自然主义（anti-supernaturalism）之观念的基础，创造了那些假设性的差异。那些搜
寻的整体动机就是要摧毁福音并教会对于社会的影响。
Searching Defined
搜寻定义
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]
历史的耶稣的搜寻或许也可以被定义为被哲学所推动的历史批判架构，就是福音书描述的
耶稣并不是，或不能完全被视为真正生活在历史里的耶稣。在搜索之下有一种假设，就是
‘科学的’研究表明历史的耶稣与经文、信经、正统神学和基督教敬虔中的基督是不同的
。在某种程度上，这种研究假设福音书对于耶稣生平的描述不能被视为完全可靠的 ，因
为信仰介入了那些描述。换句话说，在正确或合法的历史方法面前，信仰和历史被视为对
立的，因为历史方法的标准在因果间宣告了一种封闭的延续性。这个历史编纂的观念意味
著‘历史的耶稣’这句话乃是一种矛盾的说法（oxymoronic）。如果耶稣当以历史的方法
理解之，根据充满历史批判主义观念的历史编纂被公认的标准，那么祂就不能是福音书所
描述的耶稣。如果，你接受福音书的耶稣，那么那个耶稣就不是历史的。你必须在一开始
就因着所察觉到需要性而脱离新约对于耶稣的描述，以至于‘历史的耶稣’必须是某种与
福音书描述的耶稣不同的东西。
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.”
以具有前设性的哲学建构的历史批判主义已经建构了在福音书所描述的耶稣，和现今所有
搜寻‘历史的耶稣’中所假设的，耶稣如何在历史中被描述间的质与量的范畴。这个‘历
史的耶稣’哲学性，并具有默认的怀疑立场的基础造成了一种从超自然中，并在福音书中
以独一无二的方式描述中被排除出来的耶稣。众所公认的，这种分别的程度乃是取决于个
别‘搜索者’所采用的模糊不清的哲学建构，但是，它往往是一种非常尖锐的差距，特别
是任何触犯封闭的因果延续性。这就造成采取这种思维模式的圣经学者被迫采取一种先验
的‘搜寻’来找出历史的耶稣在现实中到底是怎么样的一位。重要的是，‘历史的耶稣’
的观念与圣经的描述不同，并且‘搜寻’这个默认的历史耶稣的做法不证自明的就是建立
在历史批判主义教条上的结果。越是与历史批判观念一致，‘历史的耶稣’的观念就越与
福音书描述的祂背道而驰。我们可以概括的说，‘历史的耶稣’乃是一种历史批判主义假
想出来的怪物，它的基础是哲学性的动机。最大的讽刺是，历史批判主义真正的‘奥秘’
就是‘历史的耶稣’的观念。
[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.