I have been doing some reading around the Criteria of Authenticity for sayings of the Historical Jesus and find that I am now confused. It appears that, despite the fact that scholars talk about The Criteria of Authenticity as though they were an agreed list, they aren’t.
A quick search of the web came up with:
Robert H. Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 1, Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. pp.225-263.
- The criterion of multiple attestation on the cross-section approach
- The criterion of multiple forms
- The criterion of Aramaic linguistic phenomena
- The criterion of Palestinian environmental phenomena
- The criteria of the tendencies of the developing tradition
- The criterion of dissimilarity on discontinuity
- The criterion of modification by Jewish Christianity
- The criterion of divergent patterns from the redaction
- The criterion of environmental contradiction
- The criterion of contradiction of authentic sayings
- The criterion of coherence (or consistency)
Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals. JSNTSup 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
If Richard Vinson’s review of this for JBL is accurate (and it seems to be from what I can see of the book on Google books), Porter suggests that there have been five criteria but thinks there should be three more.
- multiple attestation
- least distinctiveness
- Aramaic background plus
- Greek language
- Greek textual variance
- discourse features
John Kloppenborg has an article on his website where he lists one preliminary criterion, five primary criteria and three secondary ones.
The preliminary one is being very suspicious of anything that lines up too closely with the evangelist’s particular theological leanings. This is followed by:
- multiple attestation
- historical plausibility plus
- Palestinian environmental phenomena or Aramaism
- stylistic criterion
- plausible tradition history
Michael Kok has gone with Kloppenborg’s first five criteria.
All this rather surprised me, because I was expecting to find the criteria used by the Jesus Seminar in voting on the gospel sayings. The book that outlines the process and presents the findings is Funk, Robert Walter, Roy W. Hoover, and Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus: New Translation and Commentary. New York, Toronto: Macmillan; Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International, 1993 and it doesn’t have a neat list of criteria. When you look at pp 16-34, they looked at and for:
The rules of written evidence
- Clustering and contexting
- Revision and commentary
- False attribution
- Difficult sayings
- Christianizing Jesus
The rules of oral evidence
- Orality and memory
- The storyteller’s license
- Distinctive discourse
- The laconic sage
FWIW, my summary of the Funk etal criteria can be found at Jesus_semnar_criteria (because I can’t type accurately and changing the file name now is just too hard). It seems, however, that there is no official set of criteria – or have I missed something?
7 thoughts on “Criteria of Authenticity”
Also worth noting the discussion in vol 1 of John Meier’s series of books on the historical Jesus. You’re right, though, that there is no agreed list…and my colleague Chris Keith doesn’t think there is any future in the criteria of authenticity anyway!
Yes, Steve. I know Meier did some significant work on it – I was just grabbing what I could quickly from the net. 🙂 And Chris isn’t the only one. Zeba Cook and Rafael Rodríguez are also dubious about it, but for different reasons – and FWIW, I agree with them. 🙂
Judy, not only are there differences in scholarly listings of criteria of authenticity, but there are differences in application of the same criterion by various scholars. This first became impressed on my mind reading Crossan’s ‘The Historical Jesus’ (1993), seeing how differently he applied criteria in comparison to Bultmann, Bornkamm or Conzelmann. I eventually figured out the logic of Crossan’s use of the criteria and thought it to be practical and defensible, but it laid to rest any idea in my head of these criteria being objective.
Yes, Paul. A number of authors make the same observation.
Pingback: Recommended Reading (01.10.2013) | NEAR EMMAUS
Pingback: What the Criteria of Authenticity Can and Cannot Do | Euangelion Kata Markon
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.