Jesus and Authenticity Criteria

Especially since the 18th century, scholars have devoted much attention to separating out what they thought was “authentic” material about Jesus from subsequent interpretations that derived from circles of early Christians.  Particularly in the 20th century, this effort grew to a crescendo in the various putative criteria devised to identify “authentic” material.  The prolonged efforts of the Jesus Seminar are probably the largest organized project to apply this approach.

But for several decades other scholars have raised penetrating questions about these criteria.  A multi-author volume published several years ago now gathered up critiques of the use of these criteria:  Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (London: T&T Clark, 2012).  I emphasize that the critiques were directed against the assumptions that underlie these criteria, and their limitations for historical Jesus investigation.  The authors weren’t rubishing the historical Jesus enterprise itself.

That’s important to note, for a newly-published multi-author volume could give readers the impression that the Keith/Le Donne volume represents a “skepticism” about historical knowledge of Jesus altogether:  Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski, eds., Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History:  Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2019).  I was asked to give a response to the essays in this volume, and my response is included, pp. 341-50.

I found some of the essays more cogent and on target than others, but I didn’t have space to offer comments on them individually.  So, instead, I chose to make some broad points to bear in mind.  In particular, I emphasize that the Keith/Le Donne volume doesn’t reject the historical Jesus project, but redirects it.  The older criteria-based efforts that they criticize rested on the premise that the Gospels include some pretty well unaltered “authentic” material about Jesus, along with later and interpreted material stemming from early churches.  The task, on this premise, was to devise criteria to identify the unaltered material.

The authors in the Keith/Le Donne volume, however, point out cogently that the Gospels were wholly written to serve the needs of the early believers for whom they were composed, and so all the material is “interpreted”, at least in the sense that it is presented to inspire, shape, and inform believers.  To be sure, the Gospels do reflect a desire to emphasize that the exalted Lord of believers is the Jewish prophet and Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.  And their narratives are thick with historical context, relating Jewish disputes about Torah-observance, Galilean/Judean geography, housing construction, Jewish dress, Jewish religious parties, and still more topics.  But this historical context is related, not for antiquarian purposes, but to inform the intended readers about who this Jesus of Nazareth is.

Another point that I made in my response is that the older criteria approach tended to focus heavily on the sayings material, to the neglect of the events related.  One of the strong points in the study by E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, was his emphasis that the narrative of events is also important.  As the great Nils Dahl emphasized, any picture of the historical Jesus must give due attention to the fact that he was crucified as a result of collusion by the Jerusalem temple authorities and the Roman governor. A gentle, humane Jesus, whose greatest offence was a few wise-cracks just doesn’t fit with what happened to him.

We should also take due note of the emphasis in all four Gospels that Jesus was historically connected to John the Baptizer.  Indeed, the rather consistent view of John ascribed to Jesus is one of admiration and affirmation.  Jesus is presented as, in the eyes of some at least, as the successor to John, even though there are also differences in emphasis between John and Jesus.  Certainly, Jesus’ repeated affirmation of John as a true prophet means that in a sense Jesus’ ministry has to be seen as aligned with John’s.

Readers of both volumes will have to judge for themselves, and will have in these two books much food for thought.  I judge that in the end the two volumes aren’t at loggerheads.  Both groups of authors believe that we can make historical judgments about Jesus of Nazareth, and form at least a broad impression of his message and activities.  The “skepticism” about the historical Jesus objected to in the Bock/Komoszewski volume isn’t applicable to the Keith/Le Donne volume, even if the two books approach the task somewhat differently.