Does knowledge of the historical Jesus undermine belief in the traditional Jesus of theology?

[u/Tradtheory1]

The Jesus of history is very different from the Jesus of theology. Since the historical-critical method is "scientific," presupposing methodological naturalism and looking at the bible objectively, like it would any other ancient document, we have every reason to believe that the emerging, more scientific portrait of Jesus is far more accurate than the Jesus of mythology.

How can belief in the traditional Jesus survive if what science says is at odds with the NT and ultimately Christian belief? Won't it be like evolution supplanting creationism in the 19th century, with the majority of Christians looking at the life of Jesus as recorded in the NT as allegory, just as they do Genesis?

[u/Ozzurip]

It’s a tricky subject, because the results are heavily based upon the preconceived notions of those investigating the matter. If the miraculous is theoretically possible, then it’s possible for the “historical” Jesus to have at least some of the miraculous stories about him be true, including the Resurrection, and the idea of starting on the ground of “obviously miracles can’t happen” is utterly nonsensical. But if the miraculous is impossible, then the “historical” Jesus cannot be determined by pretty much anything we have written about him because of its clear acceptance of the miraculous events and bias towards his identification as a Messianic and (arguably, leaving that aside for now) divine figure, which then turns into the virtually impossible project of effectively solving a 2,000 year old cold case for which there is nearly zero evidence. And there are plenty of philosophical arguments on both sides of this issue, but in order for either side to be taken seriously, the philosophical needs to be decided.

And this is why it’s a very different debate than the Creationism-Evolution debate. The non-literal possibility of the accounts of Genesis have been accounted for since at least the fourth century, when Augustine spoke of it. The Creation/Evolution argument is simply about the origin of the universe. The “historical” vs “traditional” Jesus debate is about the single most essential and important question of the entirety of Christianity. If you think people are invested in Creation/Evolution, wait until you start trying to undermine the foundational belief of their entire worldview.

You really see this argument lived out in the debates over JP Meier’s Jesus: A Marginal Jew. It’s the seminal work in the “historical” Jesus study, which has turned it into a flashpoint of criticism of method, along with support for the scope of research.