Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

From Porter, Stanley E. “Handbook 1.2: THE CRITERIA OF AUTHENTICITY.” In Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Volume 1: How to Study the Historical Jesus. Part Two, Various Aspects of Historical Jesus Methodology, edited by Tom HolmaN and Stanley E. Porter, 1:695–714. Leiden: Brill, 2011. -- pages 700-701 and 713-714
Without pretending to have made a complete study of ancient historiography and Its methods, I can say that It appears that one of the major observable facts regarding the criteria of authenticity and their use in historical Jesus research is that they are essentially confined to use within this dlscipline, rather than finding acceptance outside the field of New Testament studies. In his study of the philosophy of history, Wiiliam Dray does not Introduce the criteria as known in historical Jesus studies, even though they may have been supportive of his anti-positivist stance, and he does mention religious approaches to history." Two treatments of historical method also do not mention the criteria. David Bebbington's analysis of modern historiography, including presentation of five different historical methods, does not invoke the criteria, even though he purports to offer a Christian view of the dlsclpline. In contrast to Bebbington's more British approach to the subject, David Potier offers an American perspective on Roman history, including mention of the gospels."' However, he does not mention the criteria of authenticity. In fact, though he does not mention them, several of the criteria seem to violate the kinds of historians fallacies that David Fischer has brought to the attention of historians." These include (and some are discussed further below) the criterion of double dissimilarity possibly violating the fallacy of many questions (e.g. asking two questions at once, begging the question, or framing a complex question that requires a simple answer) or of contradictory questions (e.g. when the two distinctives create an anomaly of a human unsuited to any world);" the criterion of least distinctiveness violating the reductive fallacy in demanding a linear approach to the development of literary forms, or generalization;" and the Semitic language criterion having potential problems in question framing, including question begging or creating a false dichotomy.

As noted above, however, New Testament scholars have not been the only ones to study Jesus. There have also been secular historians who have undertaken to write about the life of Jesus. What ls noteworthy is that their criteria for discussing Jesus often vary significantly from those of the theologians.

. . . . .

The criteria of authenticity will probably continue to be widely used in historical Jesus research. In the light of what has been said above, whether this should be the case or not ls a highly debatable point. There are a number of factors that indicate that the criteria are not as firm as is sometimes indicated in reading various treatments of the historical Jesus. These factors include the observation that these criteria are particular and peculiar to historical Jesus study. This is not a problem in and of itself, except that it puts the discipline at odds with other historical disciplines with common goals and objectives. More attention perhaps ought to be given to developing historical methods that are at least on similar conceptual platforms with other ancient studies disciplines.
In another (older) work (included in Authenticating the Words of Jesus) I was intrigued to notice Tom Homén endeavour to claim that the use of criteria of authenticity was indeed in some sort of sync with the methods of other historians. The primary passage he quoted in support was a 1903 publication advocating the kind of naive reading of classical texts that has long since been rejected, especially since the efforts of Moses Finley. In further support of his claim Holmén referred to discussions of historical method by Hockett and Shafer (ed) but when one consults these works one finds that Holmén's references bypassed their earlier chapters on external corroboration and cited only the page on internal criticism -- seemingly oblivious to the fact that those historians were in fact saying that internal criticism is only valid for historical reconstruction AFTER the tests for external criticism have been applied. And in the case of the gospels we know not the who, when or where and hence any internal analysis to reconstruct history must inevitably be a circular exercise -- assuming that the narrative is what tradition purports it to be.
dbz
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by dbz »

The Quest for the Historical Jesus has had a long history beyond scholarship or that which is now classified as legitimate scholarship.
--Crossley, J. (2021). The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 19(3), 261-264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-19030003
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

dbz wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:40 pm
The Quest for the Historical Jesus has had a long history beyond scholarship or that which is now classified as legitimate scholarship.
--Crossley, J. (2021). The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 19(3), 261-264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-19030003
Crossley's article was, to express my entirely subjective opinion, a load of pretentious vacuity. It bore no relationship to the bedrock of how historians determine what is an actual fact as distinct from a hypothesis. It in fact blithely confused the two!

It is worth noting Theissen's point when addressing the attempts of theologians to hide behind the cover of more extreme postmodernism and falsely assert that all historical knowledge, especially of ancient times, is a matter of "probability":
No one doubts that Caesar or Luther lived and worked. No one doubts the existence of a man called Pontius Pilate. But whence comes this certainty, If all historical knowledge Is said to be relative and hypothetical?
Theissen, Gerd. “Handbook 1.1: HISTORICAL SKEPTICISM AND THE CRITERIA OF JESUS RESEARCH: MY ATTEMPT TO LEAP OVER LESSING’S UGLY WJDE DITCH’.” In Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Volume 1: How to Study the Historical Jesus. Part One, Contemporary Methodological Approaches, Vol. 1. BRILL, 2010. -- p.556
dbz
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by dbz »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:27 pm Crossley's article was, to express my entirely subjective opinion, a load of pretentious vacuity.
  • Perhaps in-group scholars doubt their own qualifications to declare "the bedrock of how historians determine what is an actual fact as distinct from a hypothesis" and will not go there.
New Testament scholars should concede that the kind of history that is deemed acceptable in their field is, at best, somewhat eccentric. (p. 458)
--Meggitt, Justin J. (2019). "‘More Ingenious than Learned’? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies 65 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213.
  • Perhaps it takes an outsider.
Historians cannot lower the standards by which they measure a source’s reliability, simply because they already know, due to the time period in question or for other reasons, that the source is relatively less reliable; even if this is what Biblical scholars actually do. (p. 137)
--Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934.
[It] is all assumption.

There are nothing but assumptions all the way down.

There is no evidence.

There are no controls.

It is all belief. Faith. Tradition. Assumption.
--Godfrey, Neil (25 March 2012). "Historical Jesus Studies As Pseudo-History -- Bart Ehrman's Jesus As a Case-Study". Vridar.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

The original quotation I gave here from Porter said all the right words but even Porter failed to grasp the full meaning behind the ideas he was expressing. He gave as a footnote "one of the best examples" of how to apply historical methods to the study of Jesus a reference to an article by Cross -- which I think is one of the worst examples, or at least Cross perpetuates the most fundamental error at the heart of historical Jesus studies. He continues to assume that the gospels are documents whose narrative originated in oral tradition. Hence the gospels can qualify as at least somewhat reliable-ish sources. But that's the kind of assumption of authority of a source that every work on historical methods that I have read by a historian (as distinct from a theologian or biblical scholar) eschews. The reliability of a claim to oral sources needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by ABuddhist »

I have encountered the criterion of embarrassment in Buddhist studies, actually; Jan Nattier in the book "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)" [University of Hawaii Press; New edition (May 31 2005)] uses it; but Nattier learned about it from a scholar specializing in the Gospels. Would a clearer citation be useful?

Furthermore, Nattier does not assume that the criterion of embarrassment, when applied to the Ugraparipṛcchā, reveals anything about Shakyamuni Buddha, because she recognizes that the Ugraparipṛcchā was a later teaching falsely attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

Always when I speak of "unique" and "only" I do have in the back of my mind the expectation that someone will alert me to instances outside the Western (Judeo-Christian) academic tradition, and quite rightly, too -- but my experience and awareness is primarily in that tradition and I assume that is the case for most people interested in the study of the historical Jesus -- though I know I should make more effort to qualify my statements.

I imagine that the criterion you speak of was borrowed in order to try to get "probable facts" from sources of questionable provenance with uncertain links to the core events described, yes?

I don't have access to the 2005 edition. Is the instance you mention in the last paragraph the only use of the criterion?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:26 am I imagine that the criterion you speak of was borrowed in order to try to get "probable facts" from sources of questionable provenance with uncertain links to the core events described, yes?
Nattier assumed, as do I as a non-Mahayana Buddhist, that the events in the Ugraparipṛcchā had not happened but were inventions by Mahayana Buddhists. But Nattier, if I recall correctly, used the criterion of embarrassment to try to reconstruct the situation which the author(s) of the Ugraparipṛcchā were dealing with - related to tensions between Mahayana and non-Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by John T »

Without pretending to have made a complete study of ancient historiography and Its methods, I can say that It appears that one of the major observable facts regarding the criteria of authenticity and their use in historical Jesus research is that they are essentially confined to use within this dlscipline, rather than finding acceptance outside the field of New Testament studies.

. . . . .
The source of the above quote according to Neil is from: "The Criteria of Authenticity " by Porter.


However, Craig uses the standard 6 point test that historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. Even Carrier accepts this criteria except when it is used to discredit his crack-pot theories or used to prove that Jesus did exist.

1. It has great explanatory scope.
2. It has great explanatory power.
3. It is plausible.
4. It is not ad-hoc.
5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
6. It out strips rival theories of 1-5.

I dare say for a mythicist/atheist, the only criteria for proving the existence of Jesus is that it is not allowed. Hence, Jesus did not exist.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:14 am However, Craig uses the standard 6 point test that historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts.
Hoo boy oh boy. You just listed points that can be used to assess the relative values of hypotheses to explain "given historical facts". It is those "historical facts" that are the point of question here. How do we know what is a "historical fact"? I suppose we could say a historical fact is something given in the revelation of the Bible. You know, like the resurrection. How do you explain the resurrection, that given historical fact, huh?

(But do give the sources for your quotations and claims. Like the source of the quote, and which Craig you are quoting, and the source for your assertion that I am "a mythicist", whatever that's supposed to mean......)
Post Reply