Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung

Abstract

Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitatskriterium, by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter. NTOA 34. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Pp. xii + 348. S.Fr. 98.00. Years ago Rudolf Bultmann averred that we can only count on possessing a genuine similitude of Jesus where, on the one hand, expression is given to the contrast between Jewish morality and piety and the distinctive eschatological temper which characterized the preaching of Jesus; and where on the other hand we find no specifically Christian features (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [New York: Harper & Row, 1963] 205). Bultmann's student, Ernst Kasemann, broadened the application and formalized the that came to be known as the of dissimilarity, or distinctiveness: [Material is authentic] when there are no grounds either for deriving [it] from Judaism or for ascribing it to primitive Christianity (Essays on New Testament Themes [SBT 41; London: SCM Press, 1964] 37). The logic assumed by this is akin to that of the process of elimination: if the saying did not come from Judaism, and it did not come from early Christianity, then it must have come from Jesus. Scholars of the New Quest and their heirs have applied this double-dissimilarity to the Jesus tradition, despite important criticisms that have been raised against it, especially when it is applied negatively (e.g., M. D. Hooker, Theology 75 [1972] 570-81; D. L. Mealand, SJT 31 [1978] 41-50). Theissen and Winter recommend a major revision of the of dissimilarity (Differenzkriterium), transforming it into what they propose calling the Plausibilitatskriterium (see also Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998] 116-18). They criticize the criterion of difference as dogmatic theology in disguise, for this assumes that Jesus' teaching was unique. Such an assumption leads to a serious distortion of the portrait of Jesus and tends to underscore the unusual, as well as that which is often interpreted as criticism of Judaism. The first two chapters provide the necessary background to the investigation. In the first chapter (pp. 1-27) Theissen and Winter review the place of the of dissimilarity in connection to the other criteria and the factors that led to their articulation. No other treatment as comprehensive is available. The second, much longer chapter (pp. 28-174) reviews the role that the of dissimilarity has played in biblical scholarship in general and eventually in the quest of the historical Jesus in particular. This chapter is uneven and only partially successful. As one would expect, Theissen and Winter discuss the work of Bultmann, Kasemann, and G. Bornkamm. But the final part of the chapter, which is devoted to the Third Quest, is in places uneven, especially with regard to English-language literature (e.g., note the inordinate amount of attention given to a semi-popular work by James Charlesworth). Theissen and Winter review criteria that in recent work have played prominent roles: e.g., multiple attestation (J. D. Crossan), coherence (T. …