![\"Gospel](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/vangelo_giovanni.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Review of the latest book by biblical scholar Craig Blomberg<\/b> on the Gospel of John<\/b><\/mark> and its historical reliability, advocating for its central role in academic discussions during a new phase of research on the historical Jesus.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The latest book by the eminent scholar Craig Blomberg<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado, is highly engaging.<\/p>\n We would like to share his conclusions<\/strong> here and provide a review of the work<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This monumental book by one of the finest evangelical scholars is titled Jesus the Purifier: John’s Gospel and the Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus<\/a><\/i><\/strong> (Baker Academic 2023). It provides a comprehensive and updated overview<\/strong> of historical Jesus research.<\/p>\n After an initial section analyzing the three phases of research<\/strong> on the historical Jesus, the author underscores the need to focus academic attention on the Gospel of John<\/strong><\/mark>, now recognized by the scholarly community as an independent source and, in some cases, even more reliable on specific details than the other three gospels.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n In the first part of the book, Blomberg reviews various methodological approaches to the historical reconstruction<\/strong> of Jesus of Nazareth<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The so-called “first quest”<\/strong> for the historical Jesus began in the late 19th century within the framework of Enlightenment rationalism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Scholars like Albert Schweitzer<\/strong> focused on “demythologizing” Jesus, reducing miracles and supernatural events to natural or symbolic explanations. The primary aim was to render Jesus acceptable to rationalist perspectives, portraying him as a great moral teacher and social reformer while dismissing miracles and his divine nature as superstitious myths<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In the 20th century, the “second quest”<\/strong> emerged, characterized by a return to theological inquiry.<\/p>\n Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann<\/strong> emphasized faith and the kerygmatic interpretation of the Christ of faith rather than the historical Jesus, asserting that it was impossible<\/strong> to truly uncover the historical Jesus without the mediation of Christian faith.<\/p>\n During this phase, New Testament texts were erroneously presented as mere documents of faith<\/strong> rather than historical sources.<\/p>\n From the 1980s and 1990s onward, the “third quest”<\/strong> for the historical Jesus gained traction, led by scholars such as N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, Dale Allison, G\u00fcnther Bornkamm, Joachim Jeremias, and Ernst K\u00e4semann, a student of Bultmann who seriously challenged his teachings (now largely discredited).<\/p>\n Using modern historical methods, this phase witnessed a reconciliation of the historical Jesus with Christian tradition<\/strong>, avoiding a priori exclusion of either the historical or theological dimensions. Jesus is understood as a historical figure rooted in first-century Judaism and, simultaneously, as the originator of Christian faith.<\/p>\n This approach treats the entirety of the gospels not only as documents of faith but also as valid historical sources<\/strong>, subjected to rigorous historical and literary analyses.<\/p>\n In his book, Blomberg<\/strong> evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the various phases of historical inquiry, referencing and commenting on the theses of many key figures.<\/p>\n The author highlights that many scholars remain heavily influenced by a naturalistic and Enlightenment worldview<\/strong>, typical of the first quest. As a result, miracle accounts and any references to the supernatural are often prejudicially dismissed, ignored, or poorly interpreted in naturalistic terms.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n Chapter 4 of the book is dedicated to the Jesus Seminar<\/strong>, a group virtually unknown to the broader Italian public.<\/p>\n The Jesus Seminar<\/em> was an academic research project founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk<\/strong>, John Dominic Crossan<\/strong>, and Marcus Borg<\/strong>, along with a group of approximately 50 biblical scholars and theologians. Its aim was to examine the sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels to determine which were authentic<\/strong> and which were likely added later by early Christian communities.<\/p>\n The members of the Jesus Seminar<\/em> were mostly secular, meaning they did not adhere<\/strong> to the divine inspiration or authority of the Bible. They placed significant emphasis on the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas<\/strong>, much like the Italian theologian<\/a><\/strong> Vito Mancuso does today.<\/p>\n The method used to determine what Jesus of Nazareth<\/strong> actually said was also highly controversial<\/strong>. As expected, the resulting portrayal of Jesus was stripped of supernatural assumptions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n The most compelling part of Blomberg\u2019s new work is his analysis of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus<\/strong>.<\/p>\n According to many scholars (Scot McKnight, Luke Timothy Johnson, and others), the third phase may have reached a dead end<\/strong>.<\/p>\n At this juncture (chapters 6\u201310), Craig Blomberg argues for the necessity of a Fourth Quest<\/strong>, which he believes has already begun. This new phase draws upon (or should draw upon) a source that has so far been widely overlooked, often deliberately: the Gospel of John<\/mark><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Until a few decades ago, the academic community tended to dismiss<\/strong> the Fourth Evangelist, considering his writing to be later than the Synoptics and overly theological.<\/p>\n However, in recent years, an increasing number of researchers have been reassessing it as a valuable source<\/strong> for studying the historical Jesus.<\/p>\n The majority of scholars believe that the Johannine tradition originates from one of Jesus\u2019 disciples<\/strong>, although there is no consensus on the identity of this disciple.<\/p>\n For instance, theologian Michael Bird<\/strong> acknowledges that the Fourth Gospel has a unique structure, distinct from the Synoptics, and suggests that the disciple serving as its source founded a church or group of churches in the vicinity of Ephesus<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>Bird M.<\/b>, Evans C.A.<\/b>, Gathercole S.<\/b>, How God Became Jesus. The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus\u2019 Divine Nature. A Response to Bart D. Ehrman<\/i>, Zondervan 2014, p. 72<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n Today, it is generally regarded as an independent source<\/strong> from the other evangelists. Despite its numerous narratives rich in theological symbolism, in many cases, John has proven to be more historically reliable<\/strong> than Mark, Matthew, and Luke.<\/p>\n This has been demonstrated most notably by the eminent American biblical scholar J.P. Meier<\/b>, who analyzed all passages where John preserves a more primitive form compared to the Synoptics2<\/a><\/sup>Meier J.P.<\/b>, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Mentor, Message, and Miracles<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2002, pp. 831\u2013900<\/span>.<\/p>\n The most notable cases include the older and more reliable material expressed by the fourth evangelist on John the Baptist<\/strong>3<\/a><\/sup>Meier J.P.<\/b>, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Mentor, Message, and Miracles<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2002, pp. 19, 158<\/span>, the dating of the Last Supper<\/strong>, the dating of Jesus’ death, and the account of Him walking on water4<\/a><\/sup>Meier J.P.<\/b>, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Mentor, Message, and Miracles<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2002, pp. 1108, 1109<\/span>.<\/p>\n Even the agnostic scholar Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong> acknowledges:<\/p>\n \u201cSome sources predating the Gospel of John originate from the early years<\/strong> of the Christian movement, as evidenced by their roots in Palestinian Aramaic-speaking<\/strong> contexts. This places them in the early days<\/strong> of the movement, several decades before the composition of the Gospel of Mark.\u201d<\/i>5<\/a><\/sup>Ehrman B.D.<\/b>, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth<\/i>, HarperOne 2013, p. 265<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In earlier works, however, Ehrman<\/strong> denied its historical value6<\/a><\/sup>Ehrman B.D.<\/b>, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1999<\/span>, a stance that reflects the ambiguity<\/strong> of the American scholar, who alternately credits or discredits the reliability of the Gospels depending on his objectives.<\/p>\n
\nThe Three Phases of Historical Jesus Research<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Jesus Seminar (1985)<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Gospel of John at the Heart of the Fourth Quest<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n