The Research history in the historical Jesus studies is typically represented as a Kuhnian process of paradigm shifts from the First Quest to the Third, or even Fourth, Quest. In this paper, a few challenges of this Kuhnian approach to the research history will be brought forth. a) During No Quest and New Quest -periods where significant contributors to the historical Jesus research were better suited to the category of the Third Quest. b) Much of the contemporary scholarship is similar to New Quest or even No Quest. c) There is a rather small but vocal and articulative contemporary No Quest, represented especially by Carrier, Price, Thomson and Wells, which might deserve more attention from the mainline scholarship than what they have received. However, it will be suggested that the idea of a Quest should not be buried. When understood more as a school of thought, in line with what N.T. Wright meant in 1986 when coining the term Third Quest, the concept of Quest may be a useful tool to categorize and analyze the field of study of the historical Jesus. In this paper, two theoretical approaches to define a Quest are introduced and critically analyzed. The first is a quantitative or inductive study of scholars who are entitled to be regarded as historical Jesus specialists. In this line of study, the scholars would be categorized to clusters by factor analysis according to their opinions and stands on given issues. While theoretical and arduous to carry out, it may contribute to the conceptual discourse even as a solely theoretical endeavor. The second option is a qualitative or deductive approach where Wright’s original intention is given a due heed and the Quests are defined by the nominators given or implied by him. Consequently, the main emphasis is laid on the question of historiography and the methods used when choosing and handling sources. It will also be argued that one reason for the simplified and forced Kuhnian presentation of the Quests is an attempt to construct a scholarly consensus, a minimal reconstruction of the historical Jesus on which the majority of serious scholars would agree. This has led to rather outspoken and fruitless questioning of the “seriousness” of nonagreeing scholars and unfortunate guessing of the possible motives behind differing viewpoints, as will be shortly demonstrated. Finally, by defining the Quest as a school of thought, a more objective description of methodological and isagogic solutions, as well as the points of separation in the process of reasoning between the schools might be accomplished. This may not provide a general audience with a figure of a scholarly consensus Jesus, but it might better communicate where and why the scholarly lines of thought behind different consensuses differ.