Thecriterion of multiple attestation, also called thecriterion of independent attestation or thecross-section method,[1] is a tool used byBiblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings byJesus in theNew Testament are from theHistorical Jesus. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better. This criterion was first developed byF. C. Burkitt in 1906,[2] at the end of the firstquest for the historical Jesus.[3]
The gospels are not always independent of each other. Matthew and Luke, for example, are likely dependent on Mark.[5] Thecriterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such asMark,Paul,Q,M,L,John,Josephus, orThomas.[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
For example, the "Kingdom of God"motif appears in "Mark, Q, special Matthean tradition, special Lucan tradition, and John, with echoes in Paul, despite the fact that 'Kingdom of God' is not Paul's preferred way of speaking."[8]: 175 It also appears in an array of literary genres.[8]: 175
Thewords attributed to Jesus on the bread and wine during theLast Supper (found inMark 14:22–25 and1 Corinthians 11:23–26 (Paul), compare toJohn 6:51–58) and his prohibition on divorce (found inMark 10:11–12,Luke 16:18 (attributed to Q), and1 Corinthians 7:10–11 (Paul)) are examples of sayings that are multiply attested.[8]: 175 [10]: 183 However, theLord's Prayer, although found in both Matthew and Luke, evidently derives from their common source Q, and therefore cannot pass the criterion.[9]: 22:33
Perhaps the most widely independently attestedevent is thecrucifixion of Jesus during the governorship ofPontius Pilate (and the emperorship ofTiberius), namely by Paul (the only one not to mention Pilate), all four canonical Gospels, theGospel of Peter (its independence from the canonical Gospels is debated),Josephus, and evenTacitus.[9]: 25:01 Another example of an event that is multiply attested is Jesus's meeting withJohn the Baptist (found in Mark, Q, and John).[4][11][10] However, John does not explicitly mention thebaptism 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 ofJesus 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
This criterion cannot be used for sources that are not independent.[4] For example, a saying that occurs in all threeSynoptic Gospels may only represent one source. Under thetwo-source hypothesis, both the authors of theGospel of Matthew and theGospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark in their writings; therefore, triple-tradition material represents only a single source, Mark.[5] The same problem exists under thefour-source hypothesis, unlessQ can be demonstrated to attest the same tradition independently from Mark.[4] (TheAugustinian hypothesis posits that Mark and Luke used Matthew, so once again triple-tradition material would have originated in a single source). Another limitation is that some sayings or deeds attributed to Jesus could have originated in the first Christian communities early enough in the tradition to be attested to by a number of independent sources, thus not representing thehistorical Jesus.[4] Finally, there are some sayings or deeds of Jesus that only appear in one form or source that scholars still consider historically probable.[4]
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given theindependence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of early Christians.[2] Multiple attestation is not always a requisite for historicity, nor is it enough to determine accuracy by itself.[4] However useful, it is typically one of a number of criteria that have been developed by scholars to assess whether a tradition is likely to be historical; the widely-recognized criteria were distinguished byStanley E. Porter asdissimilarity,coherence, multiple attestation, least distinctiveness andAramaic linguistic background.[12] Porter suggests three new criteria in the search for the words of thehistorical Jesus (Porter 2000), which have not yet found broad acceptance: a criterion of Greek language, of Greek textual variance and of "discourse features" at variance with the text's usual style. Of the criterion of multiple attestations, Porter makes the point, which has been expressed before, that multiple attestations identify common motifs rather than absolute wording, and speak only to the independence of documents and not their reliability.[13]
| Methodology |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topics |
| ||||||
| Related | |||||||
