The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Abstract

The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals, by Stanley E. Porter. JSNTSup 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Pp. 304. $84.00. Stanley Porter briefly describes the development of five criteria for authenticity-- dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation, least distinctiveness, and Aramaic background-critiques the ways they are formulated and used, and then suggests three new criteria. He first objects to the notion that there is a for the historical Jesus and to the whole -first quest, quest, new quest, third scenario. The first quest, he finds, was not as uncritical or romanticized as is often purported to be; there was lack of scholarship on Jesus during the no period; and Porter sees a basic continuity of method throughout the twentieth century, linking quest/new quest/third quest into one multi-faceted quest of the historical Jesus, with various modifications and adjustments in approach (p. 56). In the second chapter, Porter traces the rise of the five criteria, and some of the criticisms lodged against them. He argues that the of dissimilarity can only be used to prove something is historical, can only deal with content and not wording, and requires exhaustive detailed knowledge of both Judaism and the early Church (p. 74). He argues that multiple attestation tells us about common motifs but not absolute wording, and speaks only to the independence of documents and not to their reliability (p. 86). Porter notes that coherence is very subjective, and that actually argues in the opposite direction from dissimilarity, producing a sort of paradox of methods that many interpreters do not address (pp. 81-82). His most trenchant critique is of attempted retroversions into Aramaic, which he demonstrates is a very chancy procedure. Porter then turns to the works of John P. Meier and Gerd Theissen, since both have produced extended discussions of the criteria. He describes the way each defines the criteria, and then looks at specific proposals by each to refine them. Meier's of embarrassment, notes Porter, turns out to be a variant of dissimilarity. His use of the crucifixion as a criterion-the historian must ask what words and deeds of Jesus can explain his being crucified-Porter takes as a more positive step, since it clearly enshrines a principle of similarity (p. 112). Theissen's contribution is his criterion of historical plausibility, which abandons the idea that the historian can recreate what actually happened for a process of testing plausible scenarios. Theissen also turns one half of the double dissimilarity test on its head, stating that goodness of fit with what we know of first-century Galilee makes a tradition more likely to be historical. Porter's overall criticism is that after decades of use and despite criticism from various quarters, scholars still mostly use the standard criteria without significant alteration. He deems this an impasse, and offers three new criteria as a way out. I disagree with impasse as the proper characterization for using the normal criteria. His critique of the of Aramaic background is convincing enough to dispense with that test, but his treatments of the dissimilarity, coherence, and multiple attestation are inconclusive. It is not true that in order to gain anything from dissimilarity, one must know everything about ancient Judaism and the early church. Once we admit that history is our best guess, based on available evidence, of the most plausible reconstruction of past events, then relieves us of needing to know everything. Do we know enough about life in firstcentury Galilee to make inferences about the relative plausibility of historical scenarios? We probably do, but if subsequent discoveries prove us wrong, then we should adjust our thinking. The of dissimilarity has also been offered in a form that eases the paradoxical relationship between and coherence: material that fits well within what we know of first-century Galilee and that appears to be at odds with the tendencies of the early church is likely to go back to Jesus (see, e. …