Criteria of Authenticity

[ficino]

Since there has been a bit of discussion of the so-called Criteria of Authenticity (e.g. among Andrew Criddle, Bernard Muller, myself, and others), I thought it useful to throw some of the pieces into a thread. These criteria have played a big role in many "scholarships" about the historical Jesus.

John Meier, author of the three-volume A Marginal Jew, was one of the foremost proponents of the Criteria of Authenticity. They are principles for trying to isolate historical material in the gospels. I think they go back to the Jesus Seminar as well - the group that voted pericope by pericope on what they thought was authentic in the gospels.

Here is a list of criteria, which I crib from Philip J. Long:

http://readingacts.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... henticity/

For some item in the gospels, one concludes by ____ that:
Dissimilarity - Jesus probably said it if it's not like anything in Judaism or the early church
Multiple Attestation - more than one source supports authenticity (e.g. Mark and "Q")
Coherence - it's backed up by other stuff that we know
Embarrassment - the early Church wouldn't have made this up
Rejection and Execution - Jesus probably did it because he got arrested and crucified
Semitic Flavor - Aramaic touches, etc.
Divergent Traditions - traditions may be authentic even if they contradict each other

On John Meier's use of them, this is the view of E.P. Sanders reviewing vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew (The Journal of Religion 84 [2004] p. 611):

"A main aspect of all of Meier’s work is demonstrating how sources are assessed as evidence and may or may not become facts. A principal question is whether a theme or idea is attested in multiple sources or forms. As indicated above, Meier is a true believer in the Mark‐Q hypothesis, and moreover he accepts M and L as separate sources as well. This enhances his ability to find cases of “multiple attestation.” Of the other criteria of authenticity, embarrassment (the Christian church would not have made this up) and discontinuity (this stands out as characteristic of Jesus in comparison with other Jewish and Christian sources) are especially important. These and other criteria establish what the historian can know."

Against Meier's view as represented by Sanders, I propose that these criteria do not establish what the historian can know. Each of them makes use of assumptions, often question-begging ones, and thus threatens to lead to circular reasoning.

Soon I'll offer an example, Pilate's supposed INRI titulus placed over Jesus' head on the cross.

Cordially, ficino

[outhouse]

I propose that these criteria do not establish what the historian can know. Each of them makes use of assumptions, often question-begging ones, and thus threatens to lead to circular reasoning.


Cordially, ficino

And there is nothing wrong per say with that view. I don't think there is a all purpose method of determining historicity, and due to uncertainty and different levels of plausibility.

These are just guides that help determine plausibility to some extent.

We don't throw them out because they are not perfect either. They should be used with a grain of salt.

[ficino]

OK, here's a test case: the Criterion of Embarrassment as support for the historicity of Pilate's inscription identifying Jesus on the cross as King of the Jews.

I cite this article: Paul L. Maier, "The Inscription on the Cross of Jesus of Nazareth," Hermes, 124. Bd., H. 1 (1996), pp. 58-75. (Sorry, I can't post a link.)

After describing the inscriptions that authenticate Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas, Maier begins by saying that " ... references regarding signs affixed to crosses are thus far non-existent outside the NT." Despite this lack of evidence, he dismisses skepticism as arguing from silence. Maier cites examples from literature where someone being punished was forced to wear a placard stating his crime. Only in one case is crucifixion the punishment: Dio Cassius 5.3.7, where a slave is led through the Forum with an inscription making clear the reason for being put to death, and then the slave is crucified by his owner. Maier says, surely the inscription would be used once the crucifixion begins, either put on the stake or around the slave's neck. He details a few other cases where placards stated the crime, but the punishment was not crucifixion.

After this, Maier piles up "probablies."
1. All four gospels cite the inscription
2. "it would seem improbable that such a detail could have been invented by the evangelists if this were not a common feature of crucifixion at this time."
3. Strong congruence between the NT and secular sources on other aspects of crucifixion: tie to rebellion, preliminary lashing, victim bearing cross or crossbeam, nails, military guard nearby, breaking of legs, consignment of body to relatives or friends. (n. 14 here he cites H.F. Hitzig's article on Crux in Pauly-Wissowa.)

4. On the Criterion of Embarrassment, it's unlikely that the Christians would have invented this detail. They were not trying to establish themselves as rebels against Rome. Other Jewish claimants to kingship, rebelling against Rome, were regularly crushed.

5. If the Christians had invented the titulus, it is likely they would have added some form of Christos and would have said "of Israel" not "of the Jews."
6. The crowd is portrayed in the Synoptics as yelling insults at Jesus, which mock his claim to be king.

Maier concludes, "The inscription is fully historical."

Maier notes the different wording of the inscription in the different gospels. It grows from Mark's "The King of the Jews" to expansions in Matthew and Luke to the longest form in John, who alone has Ναζωραῖος. Maier does not discuss this apparent growth of tradition but only quotes Ray Brown on how wonderful it is that the four evangelists each give his own version of the titulus.


I do not analyze Maier's whole article. I say only that it seems to me that his evidence boils down only to the NT. So he needs premises like those given by the Criterion of Embarrassment. I leave it to the group to judge the strength of his argument, especially his steps 4 and 5. I at any rate am not impressed by his slide from NT-based probabilities to the conclusion, "the inscription is fully historical."

[neilgodfrey]

The method we see here is a classic illustration of confirmation bias.

Every decent historian also seeks out and examines the arguments against, the contrary explanations.

Just looking for evidence and arguments to confirm our thesis is what people do when they want to "prove" astrotheology or astrology. It's not historical inquiry -- or if it is it is very lazy and sloppy historical inquiry.

(Simply saying "If the church invented..." is not dealing with an alternative hypothesis. To deal with the contradictory arguments one must actually delve into the reasons and arguments the other side uses to support their claim.

[maryhelena]

|snip|
4. On the Criterion of Embarrassment, it's unlikely that the Christians would have invented this detail. They were not trying to establish themselves as rebels against Rome. Other Jewish claimants to kingship, rebelling against Rome, were regularly crushed.

5. If the Christians had invented the titulus, it is likely they would have added some form of Christos and would have said "of Israel" not "of the Jews."


Maier concludes, "The inscription is fully historical."

The inscription is historical because it would have been embarrassing to the gospel writers? If Christian writers invented the titulus they would not have said "of the Jews", they would have used 'Israel' and added some form of 'Christos' - therefore - the titulus inscription is historical? Wonder upon wonder what the Jesus historicists come up with!

Since, I'm an ahistoricst, I'm able to try a different reading of the 'King of the Jews'. I would suggest that the gospel writers have re-worked the inscription found on Hasmonean coins.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalo ... om/Coins2/




SH55100. Bronze AE 22, Meshorer TJC 36d, Hendin 1162, F, Jerusalem mint, weight 12.936g, maximum diameter 22.4mm, die axis 180o, obverse Hebrew inscription, Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, around and between the horns of a double cornucopia; reverse BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), ivy wreath tied with ribbons;

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalo ... om/Coins2/



JD54973. Bronze prutah, Meshorer TJC Q, Hendin 1144, VF, Jerusalem mint, weight 2.572g, maximum diameter 16.2mm, die axis 0o, obverse Hebrew inscription, Yehonatan the High Priest and the Council of the Jews,

[outhouse]

I would suggest that the gospel writers have re-worked the inscription found on Hasmonean coins.

Do you have any other methodology then, hey! it looks semi similar, so it must be it?

[outhouse]

Wonder upon wonder what the Jesus historicists come up with!

Well if your looking at coins, you could run with the star at Jesus birth. Some scholars claim it is a comparison to Augustus star found on his coins.

More of using the celestial event Augustus used in proclaiming himself, first, "son of god"

[Leucius Charinus]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477118

I do not analyze Maier's whole article. I say only that it seems to me that his evidence boils down only to the NT. So he needs premises like those given by the Criterion of Embarrassment. I leave it to the group to judge the strength of his argument, especially his steps 4 and 5. I at any rate am not impressed by his slide from NT-based probabilities to the conclusion, "the inscription is fully historical."

The method we see here is a classic illustration of confirmation bias.

Precisely. These criteria are demonstrable shams.



LC

[maryhelena]

Wonder upon wonder what the Jesus historicists come up with!

Well if your looking at coins, you could run with the star at Jesus birth. Some scholars claim it is a comparison to Augustus star found on his coins.

Check out the other Hasmonean coins at the above site. The inscription 'of the Jews' is Hasmonean wording. Since it is this wording that is relevant to this thread - not *star* - I see no relevance to your post.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

After this, Maier piles up "probablies."
1. All four gospels cite the inscription
2. "it would seem improbable that such a detail could have been invented by the evangelists if this were not a common feature of crucifixion at this time."
3. Strong congruence between the NT and secular sources on other aspects of crucifixion: tie to rebellion, preliminary lashing, victim bearing cross or crossbeam, nails, military guard nearby, breaking of legs, consignment of body to relatives or friends. (n. 14 here he cites H.F. Hitzig's article on Crux in Pauly-Wissowa.)

4. On the Criterion of Embarrassment, it's unlikely that the Christians would have invented this detail. They were not trying to establish themselves as rebels against Rome. Other Jewish claimants to kingship, rebelling against Rome, were regularly crushed.

5. If the Christians had invented the titulus, it is likely they would have added some form of Christos and would have said "of Israel" not "of the Jews."
6. The crowd is portrayed in the Synoptics as yelling insults at Jesus, which mock his claim to be king.
...
I leave it to the group to judge the strength of his argument, especially his steps 4 and 5. I at any rate am not impressed by his slide from NT-based probabilities to the conclusion, "the inscription is fully historical."

I don't know whether Maier discusses the problem in this way (I do not know the article). If so, then I think that the most problematic point (“cherry picking“) is to ask the question about the inscription out of the narrative context. For a fair discussion it seems necessary to show in which way the inscription is related in our supposed first gospel to the mockery: Mark 15:9 (And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”), Mark 15:12 (And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?”), Mark 15:18 (And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”) and Jesus’ "triumphal march“ to crucifixion.

This raises the question of whether the inscription can be taken as a single detail out of context and to face the problem, that if Mark was able to invent the mockery, then he could have invent also the inscription. I think that it is not legitimate to ask the question about the inscription completely independent of the narrative context. Decades ago this might have been possible. Today, however, I think this seems rather unacceptable. I do not think it is totally impossible, but there is a need of a careful problematization.

What interests me is the question of whether others (particularly HJ advocates) would agree a little bit on this point?