Criterion of multiple attestation
The criterion of multiple attestation, also called the criterion of independent attestation or the cross-section method,[1] is a tool used by Biblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings by Jesus in the New Testament are from the Historical Jesus. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better. This criterion was first developed by F. C. Burkitt in 1906,[2] at the end of the first quest for the historical Jesus.[3]
Description
The gospels are not always independent of each other. Matthew and Luke, for example, are likely dependent on Mark.[5] The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as Mark, Paul, Q, M, L, John, Josephus, or Thomas.[4][6]: 15 [7] The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[6]: 15
Potentially reliable sources that scholars have considered to be independent of one another for the purposes of this criterion include:[4][8][9]: 9:12
- Paul's 7 undisputed epistles
- Q source
- Gospel of Mark
- M source (special Matthean tradition)
- L source (special Lukan tradition)
- Gospel of John
- Josephus
- (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas[4] (disputed by some[8]: 175 )
- Gospel of Peter (possibly;[4] its independence from the canonical Gospels is debated[9]: 25:01 )
- Tacitus[9]: 25:01
Examples of its use
For example, the "
The words attributed to Jesus on the bread and wine during the
Perhaps the most widely independently attested event is the crucifixion of Jesus during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (and the emperorship of Tiberius), namely by Paul (the only one not to mention Pilate), all four canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Peter (its independence from the canonical Gospels is debated), Josephus, and even Tacitus.[9]: 25:01 Another example of an event that is multiply attested is Jesus's meeting with John the Baptist (found in Mark, Q, and John).[4][11][10] However, John does not explicitly mention the baptism of Jesus (merely having the Baptist saying he 'witnessed the spirit descending on [Jesus] like a dove', John 1:32) that is attested in Mark, although Theissen (2002) claimed that the Gospel of the Hebrews 2 did corroborate the baptism.[10]: 239–240 The episode of Jesus and the rich young man is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, but is evidently dependent on Mark, and not mentioned outside the Synoptics, and therefore does not pass the criterion.[9]: 21:12
Limitations
This criterion cannot be used for sources that are not independent.
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of early Christians.
See also
- Criterion of contextual credibility
- Criterion of dissimilarity
- Criterion of embarrassment
- Independent sources
- Josephus on Jesus
- Mutawatir, an analogous concept in Islam
References
- ^ Porter 2004, p. 82.
- ^ a b Porter 2004, p. 83.
- ^ Porter 2004, p. 102.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
- ^ a b "Two-Source Hypothesis". hypotyposeis.org. Archived from the original on 2004-11-19. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
- ^ a b John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume IV: Law and Love, Yale University Press, 2009.
- ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77
- ^ a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
- ^ a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman (2000). "9: Historical Criteria – Getting Back to Jesus". Historical Jesus. The Great Courses. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
- ^ a b c Gerd Theissen, & Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
- ^ Porter 2004, p. 111.
- ^ Porter 2004, p. 100–120.
- ^ Porter (2000), p. 86.
Literature
- ISBN 978-0-56704-360-3.