Skip to content

Course 16 · Lesson 1.2

Criteria of authenticity and their limits

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 16 outline

Module 1: How Historians Reason

  1. Sources and evidence: primary, secondary, early and late
  2. Criteria of authenticity and their limits
  3. What historical probability means
  4. Where history stops and theology begins

Module 2: Jesus in the Ancient World

  1. The three quests for the historical Jesus
  2. Josephus and the Jewish sources
  3. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius on the Christians
  4. What outside sources can and cannot prove

Module 3: The Gospels as Historical Sources

  1. Dating the Gospels
  2. Authorship, anonymity and church tradition
  3. The Synoptic problem and John
  4. Eyewitness testimony, memory and reliability
  5. The Gospels as ancient biography

Module 4: The Death of Jesus

  1. How the Romans practiced crucifixion
  2. The evidence that Jesus died on a cross
  3. Burial and the empty tomb accounts

Module 5: The Earliest Testimony

  1. What the first Christians actually claimed
  2. Paul and the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15
  3. The appearance accounts in the Gospels and Acts
  4. Jewish and Greco-Roman expectations about resurrection

Module 6: Martyrdom and Its Limits

  1. Early persecution and the martyrdom traditions
  2. Late legends and early evidence about the apostles
  3. What martyrdom shows about sincerity and what it does not show about truth

Module 7: Alternative Explanations

  1. Hallucination and visionary experience
  2. Legend and the development of belief
  3. Conspiracy, the swoon theory and the wrong tomb
  4. Comparing explanations by explanatory power

Module 8: Building and Testing a Case

  1. Assembling the evidence into a case
  2. Background beliefs and the question of miracles
  3. Stating the limits of the case honestly

All courses

Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 1.2

What you will learn

  • Name the main criteria historians have used to judge whether a saying or deed of Jesus is authentic.
  • Explain what each criterion assumes and where it can mislead.
  • Describe why many scholars now question the criteria approach.
  • Use the criteria as aids to thought, not as machines that produce certainty.

The big idea

For about a century, scholars studying Jesus have used criteria of authenticity: tests meant to sort sayings and deeds that probably go back to Jesus from those that the early church may have shaped or invented. The criteria are useful but weaker than they look. Each rests on assumptions, and each can be turned in more than one direction. Many scholars today use them as rough guides alongside a wider judgment about what best explains all the evidence.

Key terms

Criteria of authenticity
Rules of thumb used to judge whether a report about Jesus is likely to be historically authentic.
Multiple attestation
The criterion that a saying or deed is more likely authentic if reported in several independent sources or literary forms.
Embarrassment
The criterion that a report is more likely authentic if it would have been awkward for the early church to invent, such as Jesus being baptized by John.
Dissimilarity
The older criterion that a saying is authentic if it differs from both Judaism of the time and the later church. Many scholars now regard it as too restrictive.
Coherence
The criterion that material fitting well with what is already established as authentic is more likely authentic.
Historical plausibility
A newer approach asking whether a report fits Jesus’ Jewish setting and also explains how the early church came to believe what it did.

Background

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries scholars became aware that the Gospels were written by believers and that early Christians sometimes shaped and adapted traditions about Jesus. The question then became how to recover the earliest layer. Scholars proposed criteria to handle the problem. The best known are multiple attestation, embarrassment, dissimilarity and coherence.

These criteria were designed to be neutral. In practice they are used by scholars of many convictions, and they have produced very different portraits of Jesus. That fact is itself a warning. If a method yields wildly different results in different hands, the method is not doing as much of the work as it seems.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Multiple attestation

If a saying appears in Mark, in the material shared by Matthew and Luke, and in John, it is less likely to be the invention of one writer. The same applies to a theme found in several forms, such as parables, sayings and stories. The strength of this test is that it targets independence.

Its weakness is that it can only confirm what is widely reported. A saying found in one source only may still be authentic, and ancient sources often depend on each other in ways that are hard to see. Absence of multiple witnesses does not show falsity.

Step 2: Embarrassment

Early Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. Yet the Gospels report that he was baptized by John, that his family doubted him, that he was executed as a criminal, and that his disciples fled. Scholars argue that believers would not invent such details. They are more likely to be remembered because they were true.

The criterion is persuasive in some cases, but not as a general rule. What counts as embarrassing depends on the audience, and writers sometimes turn an awkward fact into a theological point. A detail that seems awkward to a modern reader may not have been so to an ancient one.

Step 3: Dissimilarity and its decline

The criterion of dissimilarity says a saying is safely authentic if it matches neither contemporary Judaism nor later Christianity. It was meant to give a secure core. But it produces a Jesus detached from both his own people and his own followers, which is historically strange. A teacher who left no mark on the movement that followed him would be odd, and a Jewish teacher who said nothing familiar to other Jews would also be odd.

For this reason many scholars now say the criterion is useful only in a limited way. It may identify what is distinctive about Jesus. It cannot be used to throw out everything else.

Step 4: Coherence, plausibility and the wider case

Coherence extends results: once some material is held authentic, similar material gains support. But if the first core was chosen wrongly, coherence only spreads the error.

Recent scholarship often asks a broader question. What picture of Jesus makes sense in a first century Jewish setting and also explains why he was executed and why a movement arose after him? This asks for an overall best explanation and weighs the evidence together instead of ranking single verses.

Step 5: The criticism of the whole approach

Several scholars have argued that the criteria give a false sense of precision. They treat the Gospels as bags of separate sayings, when the Gospels are connected narratives. They also assume that tradition grows only by invention, while memory research suggests that traditions can be both shaped and faithful at once.

Defenders answer that historians still need some way to discuss which material is more or less secure, and that the criteria, used with care and not mechanically, remain helpful. The honest position is that they are tools with known limits.

  1. What does this criterion assume about how traditions develop?
  2. Could the same detail pass or fail the test depending on how it is used?
  3. Does the criterion confirm authenticity, or only raise or lower probability?
  4. Would a scholar with the opposite view of Jesus reach a different result with the same tool?
  5. What is lost if I accept only material that passes the test?
  6. Does the overall picture make sense of Jesus in his Jewish setting and of the movement after him?

Examples

Baptism by John

All four Gospels report that Jesus came to John to be baptized. John’s baptism was for repentance. Many scholars think a church that believed Jesus sinless would hardly invent this, and some Gospels visibly soften it. Others reply that the church could well have used the story to show Jesus identifying with his people.

A saying in one source

A saying found only in Luke fails multiple attestation. That does not make it false. Luke may have used a source now lost. The criterion tells the historian that confidence is lower. It does not tell the historian that the saying is invented.

Two scholars, one test

Two scholars apply the same criteria and reach different portraits, one of a prophet expecting the end of the age, the other of a wisdom teacher. The disagreement shows that conclusions depend on how the evidence is weighed, not only on which tests are used.

Different perspectives

Critical scholarship (consensus on the limits)

Many scholars across the spectrum now agree that the criteria cannot by themselves prove authenticity and should be used with other considerations. The extent of the doubt varies. Some propose dropping dissimilarity altogether.

Conservative Protestant scholars

Many argue that the Gospels deserve a presumption of general reliability, and that the criteria are overused to cast doubt. They often say that the burden of proof should not fall wholly on the Gospel writers.

Catholic scholarship

Catholic teaching affirms that the Gospels are historical in character and faithfully convey what Jesus did and taught, while allowing that the evangelists selected and arranged their material for their audiences. Catholic biblical scholars use historical criteria in academic work, with a range of conclusions.

Orthodox Christians

Orthodoxy receives the Gospels as part of the church’s living tradition. Orthodox scholars take part in historical study, but many stress that the church knows Christ through worship and tradition as well as through critical reconstruction.

Skeptical scholars

Some argue that the criteria are valuable precisely because they discipline the sources, and that without them the Gospels would be read as simple history. They think a historian must assume that a text written by believers has been shaped by belief.

Why it matters

Claims about what Jesus really said or did are everywhere, in books, documentaries and sermons. Knowing how scholars decide, and how shaky some of the decisions are, helps a student read these claims with proportion, neither swallowing a confident reconstruction nor throwing out the Gospels because a method has flaws.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The criteria give scholars a neutral, reliable way to find the real Jesus.

Correction: They are rough tools with built-in assumptions, and they have yielded very different portraits. Most scholars now treat them as aids to judgment.

Misunderstanding: If a saying fails the criteria, historians have shown it is false.

Correction: Failing a criterion means only that the evidence does not confirm it. Many authentic reports are attested once.

Misunderstanding: The criterion of embarrassment proves the Gospels are true.

Correction: It supports particular details. It cannot show that the whole account is accurate, and the judgment of what is embarrassing is itself debated.

Misunderstanding: Believing scholars cannot use the criteria honestly.

Correction: Scholars of every conviction use them. Honesty shows in how a scholar applies the tests and states the limits, not in what the scholar believes.

Knowledge check

What does multiple attestation test, and what is its limit?

It tests whether a report appears in several independent sources, which makes invention by a single writer less likely. Its limit is that a report found in only one source may still be authentic, and sources that look independent may in fact depend on each other.

Why do many scholars now distrust the criterion of dissimilarity?

It produces a Jesus who is unlike both his Jewish context and his later followers, which is historically unlikely. A teacher in first century Palestine would share much with other Jews, and a founder would influence his followers. The criterion can find what is distinctive, but not what is authentic as a whole.

What is the main criticism of the criteria approach in general?

Critics say it gives false precision, breaks the Gospels into isolated sayings, and assumes that tradition either preserves or invents, when memory can do both. Different scholars using the same criteria reach very different pictures of Jesus, which shows the tests are not doing all the work.

What does the newer plausibility approach ask?

It asks which overall picture of Jesus fits his first century Jewish setting and also explains his execution and the rise of the movement after him. It weighs the evidence as a whole instead of ranking individual sayings one by one.

Think it through

  1. Have you ever heard a confident claim about what Jesus really said? What method was it based on?
  2. Where do you tend to assume that a story is invented, or that it is accurate, before looking at the evidence?
  3. If the same tool can give opposite results, how should that affect your confidence?
  4. Which criterion do you find strongest, and what is its weakness?

Independent assignment

Testing a criterion

In your own notebook, write 300 to 500 words. Choose one criterion and one event from the Gospels, such as the baptism of Jesus. Explain how the criterion would be applied, then write the best objection to that use of it. Finish by stating how confident you are about the event and why. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study