Recent discussions of method in historical Jesus research have called into question the use of criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Gospel material. The present article lays out the reasons why a number of scholars call for an abandonment of the so-called criteria approach and then criticizes the allegation that this approach is genetically and logically dependent on form criticism. By analysis of how the question of authenticity is handled with regard to Jesus’ baptism, his action in the temple and his crucifixion, it is then argued that criteria are necessary for assessing the historicity of major events in the life of Jesus. Finally, three suggestions as to how the future use of authenticity criteria may take into account the recent challenges are made.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Morna D. Hooker, ‘On Using the Wrong Tool’, Theology 75 (1972), pp. 570–581 (580–581).
John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pp. 143–146. Cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, I, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (abrl; New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 167–195.
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), pp. 427–450.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), pp. 127–133.
Keith, ‘Memory and Authenticity’, p. 165 (original emphasis removed).
Keith, ‘Memory and Authenticity’, p. 171 (original emphasis removed).
See also Fernando Bermejo Rubio, ‘La figura histórica de Jesús y los patrones de recurrencia. Por qué los limites de los criterios de autenticidad no abocan al escepticismo’, Estudios Bíblicos 70 (2012), pp. 371–401, for an overview and evaluation of this tendency.
Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009); idem, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011); idem, ‘Memory, Commemoration and History in John 2.19–22: A Critique and Application of Social Memory’, in A. Le Donne and T. Thatcher (ed.), The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011), pp. 186–204.
Allison, ‘How to Marginalize’, p. 12; Schröter, ‘The Criteria’, p. 63.
Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921); Ernst Käsemann, ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus’, ztk 51 (1954), pp. 125–53; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: scm, 1967); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; a[y]brl; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009); Tom Holmén, ‘Authenticity Criteria’, in C. A. Evans (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 43–54.
David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tübingen: Ossiander, 4th edn [reprint of 1st edn], 1840), pp. 100–105.
F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906), pp. 147–168; Heinrich Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Die Religion Jesu und des Urchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd edn, 1913), p. 45.
Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892); Schmiedel, ‘Gospels’, cols. 1872–1873. See Anthony Le Donne, ‘The Criterion of Coherence: Its Development, Inevitability, and Historiographical Limitations’, in Keith and Le Donne (ed.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise, pp. 95–114 (97–99).
Seeley, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act’, pp. 273–282; idem, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act Revisited’, pp. 60–62.
Seeley, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act’, pp. 264–271; idem, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act Revisited’, pp. 59–60.
Rodríguez, ‘The Embarrassing Truth’, pp. 146–147. It is Rodríguez’s logic that falters here. The idea that a tradition that suits the transmitters’ agenda must have been invented by those transmitters is unfounded, but the idea that a tradition that works against the agenda of the transmitters can hardly have been invented by them is very well founded. Moreover, Rodríguez’s assertion that ‘[e]very word from or about Jesus made sense within and served post-crucifixion theological and ideological perspectives’ (p. 147) is gratuitous. As an ironical matter of fact, such a sweeping statement could only be accepted by someone who subscribes exactly to early form criticism’s ‘presentist’ approach to memory. See further Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Changing Methods, Unpalatable Truths: Should the Criterion of Embarrassment Be Dismissed in Jesus Research?’ rej 175 (2016), forthcoming, for a more thorough critique of Rodríguez’s reasoning.
Le Donne, ‘The Criterion of Coherence’, p. 96. I find this nomenclature to be a significant improvement over against Le Donne’s previous dichotomizing of ‘memory’ and ‘invention’ (idem, The Historiographical Jesus, p. 86).
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 466 | 91 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 282 | 13 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 129 | 45 | 0 |
Recent discussions of method in historical Jesus research have called into question the use of criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Gospel material. The present article lays out the reasons why a number of scholars call for an abandonment of the so-called criteria approach and then criticizes the allegation that this approach is genetically and logically dependent on form criticism. By analysis of how the question of authenticity is handled with regard to Jesus’ baptism, his action in the temple and his crucifixion, it is then argued that criteria are necessary for assessing the historicity of major events in the life of Jesus. Finally, three suggestions as to how the future use of authenticity criteria may take into account the recent challenges are made.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 466 | 91 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 282 | 13 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 129 | 45 | 0 |