Book Review: Jesus the Purifier: John’s Gospel and the Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus

The doctrine of the Incarnation contains the historical existence of Jesus as a central tenet of Christian faith. On this basis and to mitigate against faith becoming mere ideology and a projection of the self, the Christian tradition has always welcomed the questions of history. Since the German enlightenment, the relationship between the ‘Christ of faith’ and the ‘Jesus of history’ has been explored particularly amongst Protestant scholars through discernible ‘quests’ for evidence in the gospels of the ‘historical Jesus’. In so doing, the concerns of either faith or history have variously achieved pre-eminence. Craig Blomberg, distinguished emeritus professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, is no stranger to the quest. In recent years, he has become a veteran defender of the historical reliability of all four gospels having previously published extensively on the subject, claiming in the process to lay aside his conservative, evangelical theological perspective. In his latest monograph, Blomberg makes the case for a ‘fourth quest’ in historical Jesus research that rejects the particular distinctiveness of the gospel of John as grounds against its use as a historically reliable source.

In the first half of his book, Blomberg aims for a wide audience in his highly accessible five-chapter historical overview to the current state of historical Jesus research. Beginning with Albert Schweitzer’s survey of late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century studies on the historical Jesus and ending with eight selected works at the start of the millennium, the author critically reappraises the agreed narrative to the traditional paradigm of the three ‘quests’ (most count three, others recognise seven!) of historical Jesus research for gaps and corrections. No prior knowledge is required from the reader and the author italicises key points and provides helpful summaries of the positions of the various ‘questors’ studied. A history of scholarship can become dry-reading; but Blomberg includes a few absorbing vignettes on some of the heated debates amongst scholars (e.g. between N.T. Wright and J.D. Crossan). The author also reaches beyond his own faith tradition to include three Catholic scholars (Armand Puig i Tàrrech, José Pagola and Joseph Ratzinger) in his analysis of recent historical Jesus research. The purpose of the overview, however, is to observe the minimal attention given by ‘questors’ to the fourth gospel as a reliable historical source. For earliest scholars of the historical Jesus, Blomberg argues, the distinctiveness including the higher Christology of the gospel of John calls its historical reliability into question (p. 32). The author observes, however, that since J.A.T. Robinson’s essay ‘The New Look on the Fourth Gospel’ (1959), there were outliers holding greater optimism on the historical value of John (pp. 63-65). That sentiment, however, eluded most exegetes. Blomberg likens the situation to two trains running on parallel tracks: historical Jesus research and Johannine studies progressing blissfully apart from each other (p. 177).

Blomberg’s own contribution is premised on a perceived recent decline in new historical Jesus books and an extensive critique of its criteria of authenticity leading to the question: Has the current quest for the historical Jesus played itself out? On the basis of his study of the current state of historical Jesus research, Blomberg joins Paul Anderson in the call for a ‘fourth quest’ that gives parity to the gospel of John with the Synoptics as an historical source. In the second half of the book, the author follows up on one of Anderson’s revised criteria of authenticity: the ‘corroborative impressions’ of John the Baptist and Jesus ‘challenging ritual means of purity’ (p. 227). Blomberg admits to a lack of competence to apply Anderson’s comparatively new criteria to his own study. Blomberg opts, therefore, for a four-step methodology ‘not as fashionable today’ to identify the core historical material, which fits the criterion of authenticity in ‘cutting against the grain’ of the major redactional emphases of the gospel (ibid.). The author eschews on the grounds of limited space giving an example of his method to a particular pericope, preferring instead to summarise the key findings of the process. However, one wonders whether an opportunity is missed to exemplify for a new reader a methodology lost to the vagaries of fashion. When the recurring themes are stripped away, he contends, the pattern of the bedrock material is consistent with the treatment in the Synoptics: namely, purity was more important to the historical Jesus than previous quests have indicated. The motif of purity including ritual purity is most explicit, Blomberg argues, in the first four chapters of the gospel, which includes the only reference in the gospels to possible rival ministries between John the Baptist and Jesus (John 4.1). Following the imprisonment of John the Baptist, however, the trajectory of the text moves away from ritual purity through water towards moral purity through the Spirit.

Many will find Blomberg’s effort to rehabilitate the fourth gospel as a source for future historical Jesus research appealing. Clearly, Anderson’s call for the parity of the gospel of John with the Synoptic gospels in a ‘fourth quest’ and Blomberg’s response to his critics motivate the contribution of this book. Whilst most scholars regard the unique style and vocabulary of the fourth gospel as grounds for caution in terms of the text’s historical value, Blomberg interprets this as part of the gospel’s idiolect. At a conceptual level and through recurring motifs, he argues, much of what is found in John parallels the Synoptics (p. 220). Aside from the author’s reference to some interesting textual issues and corroborative archaeological evidence, however, the absence of a detailed study of the text may leave some readers finding Blomberg’s definition of historiography somewhat unclear and the precision of the criterion of multiple attestation blunted. It would seem that the tension felt by some scholars in the endeavour of historiography between documentary accuracy and interpretative truth does not figure in Blomberg’s use of John as an historical source. To this end, therefore, the image of Jesus as ‘the Purifier’ allows the Synoptic notion of ‘contagious holiness’ in Jesus’ table fellowship to be applied to other aspects of interpersonal purity (p. 378). For contemporary Christian living, Jesus and purity has relevance (perhaps particularly for an evangelical audience). Even if the quest for the historical Jesus does not continue unabated, Blomberg has certainly fanned the flame. Whether the two trains of historical Jesus research and Johannine studies will come any closer, however, we will have to wait and see.