Book Review: The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Craig L. Blomberg

The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Pp. 346. Hardback.

Abstract of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Craig Blomberg seeks to restore confidence in the historical reliability of the gospel of John after years of skepticism have eroded trust in John’s historicity. The initial skepticism of 19th century scholarship took Clement of Alexandria’s quote very seriously, believing that John’s “spiritual gospel” focused on theological matters at the expense of historical accuracy. The more recent “quest” for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar have likewise discredited John along with the other gospels. Though manuscript discoveries in the 19th century restored a good measure of confidence in John’s reliability, the author seeks to offer an updated discussion on the matter.
     Blomberg’s methodology is seen in the two parts of the book. Part one deals with introductory considerations such as authorship, date and provenance, sources, John’s relationship to the Synoptics (omissions, interlocking accounts, outlines), audience and purpose, and a discussion of literary genre. Part two of the book is a commentary on the text, focusing on matters of historical reliability. Naturally, this part of the book is quite longer than the introductory section because it examines each passage in the book of John in light of historicity, which is where the bulk of the arguments arise and, thus, the author spends more time with more details than an introduction could afford. Part two, then, asks two questions: what evidence exists that shows the actions and words of John’s characters to be authentic; and, is there anything in the given text that would be implausible within its historical context? 

Strengths of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Early in his book, Blomberg cites several scholarly movements and works that suggest a considerable number of scholars do not doubt John’s credibility (p. 20). That is, after mentioning Robinson’s “new look” and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ witness to the early composition of John, the author lists several articles and commentaries that defend the historicity of the gospel of John. This is not a vital argument in the book but is helpful because it reveals that Johannine skepticism is not as widely spread as some may believe and it provides a list of reputable works, something always helpful to information-hungry readers.
     Another credit to make in Blomberg’s favor is his attempt to be fair in his analysis of various positions. He does not sacrifice critical analysis for the sake of fairness or “courtesy,” but he presents both sides of an argument before analyzing them and offering his suggestions. For instance, the “signs-source” set forth by Bultmann has been accepted by many scholars so Blomberg cites Van Belle’s summary of its strengths and weaknesses, noting that John’s numbering of the first two signs and the possibility that 20:31 could have been the conclusion of the supposed signs-source may give the hypothesis some credit, but the subjectivity of numbering the first two signs, the possibility that chapter 21 is an epilogue, and the fact that the signs in John have more similarities to the text than differences all indicate that the “signs-source” hypothesis has too little evidence to be credible.
     Also, the author is not reluctant to discuss the distinctions and apparent discrepancies in the gospel of John that have led many to doubt its historical reliability. For example, he notes John’s selection of material (which omits Jesus baptism, the calling of twelve, exorcisms, etc.), the absence of the disciples’ slow understanding of who Jesus is (which is common in the Synoptics), and, even more unique, John’s chronology, which is vastly different from the Synoptics (Jesus’ ministry in the former is marked by the passing of at least two Passovers while His ministry as depicted in the latter could have started and ended within a few months.
     The author defends traditional Johannine authorship, wisely noting that the unanimous external evidence for Johannine authorship cannot be dismissed easily. He also argues that the silence of the second century witnesses is not as telling as those who deny Johannine authorship make it because the style and purpose of an individual like Ignatius writing to Ephesus would not necessarily demand he include words about John’s gospel (p. 23). Charlesworth’s strange theory that the author of this gospel could be Thomas is striking in light of the aforementioned external evidence but Blomberg’s critique was detailed and quite enjoyable to read.
     Blomberg makes an insightful argument regarding the uniqueness of John’s style and thought compared to the Synoptics. While some who are anxious to discredit John’s gospel would immediately see inauthenticity in passages that clearly reveal John’s style and thought, Blomberg reminds his readers that even Josephus felt free to paraphrase himself in The Antiquities of the Jews, a work that relied on his previous work, The Jewish War. This is said because modern scholarship’s intense desire to know every word that Jesus uttered ignores the style and purpose of the individual gospel writers. As Blomberg said, there is no way to know that John intended to translate Jesus’ Aramaic words as literally as possible (p. 65).
     This reader appreciated Blomberg’s jab at the circular reasoning of the Jesus Seminar on page 66. He does not subscribe to the view that only a fragment of what Jesus said in the Synoptics is authentic, in part because it creates a “vicious cycle” of not trusting portions of the Synoptics which rely on John’s gospel, which is held to be unreliable because it is so different from the authentic sections of the Synoptics! Blomberg is professional and controlled here and elsewhere, but the subtly snide remark did not go unappreciated.
     Blomberg’s treatment of the seemingly suspicious exchange between Jesus and His brethren (7:1-10) reveals a more natural interpretation that does not make Jesus suspect of contradiction or, at least, fickleness. At first glance, it may seem that Jesus was being deceitful about His intentions because when His brethren told Him to go to the feast, He replied that His hour had not yet come. But, surprisingly, He did the very thing it seems He denied! The author here reasons that readers should not assume Jesus went back on His word but that His intention was never not to go. Instead, Blomberg says, it is more natural to see Jesus telling His brothers that His going to Judea would not be as they requested but, as always, would be in subjection to the Father and no one else, not even family. Indeed, this account is reminiscent of the Lord’s gentle rebuke of His mother regarding the wine that was followed by Jesus turning water to wine(John 2:4-6). Jesus operates by the direction of His Father and no one else.
A puzzling verse in the final discourse of Jesus is the seemingly out-of-place phrase, “Arise, let us go hence” (14:31). Blomberg handles this quite well, admitting that this is “the single biggest problem for supporters of the unity and authenticity of this discourse” because Jesus continues His speech until 18:1 (p. 204). The author opts for the view that Jesus began to lead the disciples out of the upper room but continued His speech as they walked. To bolster this argument, Blomberg notes that Jesus may have used the “vine and branches” imagery in chapter 15 as He and the disciples passed the vineyards near the temple, a location that they would have passed on their way to the Gethsemane. Further, the statement in 18:1 that He went over the brook Kidron with His disciples could simply indicate the moment when they actually crossed and not the moment they left the Upper Room.
     Likewise, the author’s treatment of John 18:28 is detailed and done well. Instead of this comment about the Jews avoiding Pilate’s palace in order to “eat the Passover” meaning that what Jesus had done with the disciples in chapter 13 was not the Passover, Blomberg suggests, along with others, that the Jews in this verse were likely referring to later festival meals during the Passover festival, perhaps specifically the lunchtime meal on Friday. Because their uncleanness would have only lasted until sundown, they would have been able to eat the Friday evening supper anyway. Thus, Blomberg correctly argues that the more natural interpretation is to see this as a reference to a later festival meal and not “the” Passover meal.

Weaknesses of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     While the purpose of his book was not to write a detailed, exegetical commentary on the gospel of John, one can not help but be disappointed in the lack of exegetical comments that explore more themes and theological issues in the second section of the book. Such expectations are likely not fair for a work that restricts itself to matters of historical trustworthiness (p. 22), yet the itch to dig deeper into a text is not quite satisfied in some of the comments in part two. Blomberg makes a valid point, however, by stating that historicity does have great implications for biblical authority and correct interpretation, even if it is not the most important area of focus.
     Blomberg’s openness to redaction should not be overstated, given that he clearly defends the authenticity of John, yet his belief that a separate editor “touched up the document throughout” is still disheartening. One cannot prove that redaction is not possible in John (the “beloved disciple” passages sound at first like someone other than or in addition to John is at work), but if there is an argument that is just as plausible and that does not sacrifice traditional Johannine authorship, it seems more reasonable that one should accept it instead of resorting to source theories. It is granted that highly conservative scholars are not completely closed to the idea of an editor or even amanuensis but one might expect that Blomberg’s aversion to subjectivity in other areas of the book would be present in this area, as well.
     Along this line, the author does not provide evidence of redaction but an appeal that it causes no harm to the idea of inspiration (p. 39, footnote 29). Truly, Paul wrote with an amanuensis (Rom. 16:22) and Luke apparently “followed all things closely” (Luke 1:3), but one cannot help but to think Blomberg’s reasoning sounds more like a concession than a conviction.