Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 06:4 (Fall 1963)
Article: Basis For The Historical Jesus
Author: Lewis A. Foster

BETS 6:3 (Summer 1963) p. 105

Basis For The Historical Jesus

Lewis A. Foster

“To see Jesus” expresses in an ancient phrase the yearning of man in every age, the focal point of Biblical study, and a current subject heading the list of New Testament problems. The purpose of this study is to review briefly the modern attempts to interpret the life of Jesus and to consider the basis upon which one can come to know Jesus, as He actually was and is.

The very term “historical Jesus” awakens different concepts in different minds. (1) “Historical” is commonly used in the sense of “things in the past which have been established by objective scholarship.” Consequently the expression ‘historical Jesus’ came to mean,: “what can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian.”1 Therefore this can be a technical expression which should not be automatically identified with the simple term “Jesus”. Since, however, the conclusions of each historian depends greatly upon his starting points, interests, and selection of material, it would seem more descriptive to call the results of this approach the “historian’s Jesus” rather than the “historical Jesus”. (2) The Germans have two words for history and Martin Kahler as early as 1892 denned historisch as the bare facts of the past about Jesus of Nazareth and geschichlich as the things of permanent significance about the Biblical Christ as the apostles had proclaimed Him.2 Thus the single English term historical could cover both these fields, but the usage “historical Jesus” points to the significance of the German historisch. (3) The trail of studies in the life of Jesus has led to an acute feeling of difference between history and dogma, that which actually happened and that which is theologically held. The present usage of the term “historical Jesus” is often given in contrast to the “Kerygmatic Christ”.3 The significance of this comparison is the common insistence that the Jesus who really lived and is described in the Gospel narrative must be distinguished from the glorified Christ who is proclaimed in the early church. This differentiation is related to the German contrast between historisch and geschichlich. (4) To the philosopher the “historical Jesus” stops short of the ultimate reality, the metaphysical Jesus. We are separated from the ding und sich by the records of the life of Jesus and variant interpretations of his words and deeds; but the ultimate truth lies somewhere beyond.4 (5) Regardless of the present shift from acceptance of objectiv...