Criteria of Authenticity are Unique to the Study of Jesus
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:19 pm
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
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.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.