Whose Historical Jesus?

A series of questions worth pondering:

...the historical Jesus enterprise is of no use to the church because (as Kähler said long ago) historical Jesus studies shift and change from generation to generation, and that means the Jesus offered chances, and that means the church, if that Jesus is of value to the church, would be asked to re-do its Christology every generation. Whose Jesus will we trust of follow or worship? Reimarus’s? Strauss’s? Weiss’s? Schweitzer’s? Bultmann’ss? Käsemann’s? Bornkamm’s? Jeremias’s? Dodd’s? Montefiore’s? Cadoux’s? Ladd’s? Meier’s? Borg’s? Crossan’s? Levine’s? Hengel’s? Allison’s? Bock’s? Wright’s? These are not the same Jesuses and that means we have to choose. Who will do the choosing? The local pastor? If so, do you realize how many more Jesuses we have? The denomination? Can you imagine that happening on a denominational floor? Nicea happened once. Or should we vote on it, a thoroughly Wester approach to knowledge if ever there was one?
— Scot McKnight, “Why the Authentic Jesus is of No Use for the Church” in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2013), 173-185 (here, 184).

While McKnight may overuse the unified, catholic image of "the church" the point remains worth considering. This isn't the say that we should discourage people from thinking about the person of Jesus of Nazareth as he is "accessed" through historical-critical research, but we may want to temper any language that suggests that this will lead us to the "real" or "actual" Jesus. The historian's Jesus is just that: a Jesus re-constructed using modern historiography in all it's strengths and weaknesses. And historiography isn't static.