Do We Need a Fourth Quest?

From 90,000 feet, the quests for the authentic, real Jesus -- the one with sandals who lived in Galilee and who preached kingdom, did astounding things, confronted the temple authorities, and was crucified -- has gone through, according to many reporters of the history, three major phases or quests.

The first quest points to the astounding book by Albert Schweitzer. The English title was The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The original German title, and the book went through a few editions, was Von Reimarus zu Wrede, the two bookend scholars to Schweitzer’s own tale. Schweitzer believed the original Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was not only mistaken but left a trail of courage and passion and activism that others could follow.

Following Albert Schweitzer, Jesus studies took a deep dive into what is called form criticism. This period as much less interested in the historical Jesus and reconstructing his life than it was in discovering the original forms at work in the Gospels and how those forms reflected the earliest Christian theologies (Gemeindetheologien). At times this period called the no quest, but that title is a little too cute for the reality.

In the wake of the turn to form criticism, students of Rudolf Bultmann turned away from the so-called no quest to the second quest, commonly called the New Quest. More or less using the insights and conclusions form criticism, the new quest developed criteria for determining authenticity. We not only point to Günther Bornkamm as a really good example of the new quest, but in many ways the new quest came to its high point in Norman Perrin.

With the angular approach to Jesus in the second quest, and in particular with its leanings into anti-Semitism and posing Jesus over against Judaism, there arose the Third Quest of the historical Jesus. The distinctiveness of this quest, whether one turns to Geza Vermes, to E.P. Sanders, or to N.T. Wright, is an attempt to diminish the potency and necessity of the criteria for authenticity and instead to locate the Gospel records about Jesus in their historical context, especially in the context of 1st century Judaism.

Enter the claim for the Fourth Quest.

An engaging new study of the fourth quest can now be found in the book of Craig Blomberg. The title of his new book is Jesus the Purifier: John's Gospel and the Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus. The sketch of the quests of the historical Jesus I gave above was triggered by this new book’s lengthy sketch of the quest for the historical Jesus. The distinctive contribution of the book is its articulation of the absence of the Gospel of John in most of the quests for Jesus, an articulation of where the fourth quest studies actually are today, and a full-scale attempt to show the value of the fourth quest in examining Jesus as the purifier.

Blomberg details more than thirty specific events or themes found in the Fourth Gospel that the fourth questers contend are historical and authentic records about the historical Jesus. Instead of listing out these numerous examples which can be found in the book starting on page 203, I want instead to quote and summarize what Blomberg contends are the major contributions of this new approach to the historical Jesus.

For those of you who have followed my own writings about the historical Jesus, you will know that I contend that the historical Jesus is a construct of historians based upon historical methods that distinguishes the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of the creeds and the Jesus of the church from that Jesus who actually lived. So it is wise in my opinion to distinguish the historical Jesus from the Jesus of history. A nuance with a huge difference. Craig, a friend of mine and a seminary peer of mine way back in the old days, does not make this distinction, and I forgive him for it, because I know he knows what he's talking about and he simply disagrees.

Some of what follows is insider talk, and I will ask you as readers simply to accept the language for what it is. What follows is quotation from his sketch of factors giving rise to the uniquenesses of the Gospel of John.

First, we cannot underestimate the power of the triple tradition to reinforce the impression of difference. [Put differently, the power of the triple tradition in the synoptic gospels has completely framed how we understand Jesus, to such a degree that the gospel of John at times doesn't fit the image.]

Second, critics tend to underestimate the power of a Gospel's overall outline to dictate what was included and what was excluded.

Third, the examples of interlocking (John inadvertently explaining the Synoptics or vice versa) reminds us of how much must necessarily be left out of anything, modern or ancient.

Fourth, the unique circumstances of a late first century Christian community in and around Ephesus, bedeviled by the twin challenges of hostility from local Jewish leaders and the growth of Gnostic or Gnostic-like false teaching in the vicinity, certainly would have dictated the choices of material to include or leave out, to emphasize or to play down.

Fifth, historical trustworthiness in antiquity simply was not defined by the standards of precision to which we are so accustomed in today's world.

Sixth, John includes so many more details of time, place, custom, and landscape than the Synoptics do, and these have been proven right many times over.

Seventh, despite the largely Johannine style of Christ’s words in the Fourth Gospel, there are at least 145 words used only by Jesus in John that suggests that Jesus’s style was not consistently identical with John's.

Eighth, the numerous misunderstandings of Jesus by others in the Fourth Gospel that are corrected only with the passage of time (usually after the resurrection) belie the claim that post-paschal understanding was being read back into Jesus's original speech so that the two are no longer distinguishable.

Ninth, many of the details in John more accurately fit pre-70 conditions in Palestine than anywhere at the end of the first century and would not likely have been invented in the form we have them at that later date.

Tenth, several of Jesus's longer discourses in John appear to be crafted after the form of Jewish midrash and or utilize extended chiasmus.

Eleventh, even as John contains more details of time and place than do the Synoptics, a number of them seem to have little or no theological motivation.

Twelfth, the Fourth Evangelist is contextualizing the gospel for a somewhat Jewish but largely Hellenistic audience.

Thirteenth, we must acknowledge that statements that form part of a typical list of the clearest statements of high Christology in John, from the vantage point of 20/20 hindsight, typically utilize metaphors that were not always grasped that clearly when they were first spoken.

And fourteenth, despite numerous scholarly reminders that themes like bearing testimony and telling the truth need not refer solely or even primarily to historical truth, it is still difficult to square their frequency in John with theories that the Fourth Gospel was largely invented as pious fiction.

The adoption of the fourth quest by some scholars, most notably Paul Anderson, will take time to adjudicate by other historical Jesus scholars. One can easily predict that the jury is not only still out but has already decided that the Fourth Gospel will not factor into most future studies of the historical Jesus. Honesty, however, and awareness of the scholarship in the fourth quest, should make an impact on historical Jesus studies.