The Criteria of Multiple Attestation and Coherence
The Criteria of Multiple Attestation and Coherence
Negative uses of the form-critical criteria resemble arguments from silence. Given the dearth of two-millennia-old sources remaining extant, we have silence in abundance; nevertheless, we have what seem to be representative samples of enough kinds of sayings to reconstruct a great deal about Jesus with a high degree of historical probability.
Form critics pointed out that when multiple, early and independent sources attest a saying, that saying holds a greater claim to authenticity. This observation does not mean that sayings attested only once must be inauthentic; in fact, we can be quite sure that most things Jesus said during his lifetime are attested nowhere in our tradition. Apparently enough traditions remained by the late first century that we cannot expect any Gospel writer to feel obligated to include them all (cf. Jn 20:30; 21:25). But the principle does provide a guideline useful to those who want to find the most secure elements in the tradition, and for that purpose it seems a matter of common sense. Thus we can use the criterion positively (to support the likelihood of particular sayings) but not negatively (to screen them out). Ancients, too, used this criterion to support portraits of, say, Socrates.214 Moreover, although many of Jesus’ individual sayings are not repeated in all our sources, particular themes and emphases, many of them distinctive to Jesus, are.215
The criterion of coherence asks whether the sayings in question fit with other sayings or behavior that we regard as authentic. Again, this criterion was used even in antiquity.216 Recent scholars, more critical of the negative use of all the form-critical criteria, have critiqued even the negative use of the criterion of coherence, since the same person need not always speak the same way.217 Although less warranted than criticism of the dissimilarity criterion (below), the critique is at least somewhat deserved, given the unsystematic and sage-like character of Jesus’ teaching. Moreover, as we have noted, we surely have only a fraction of Jesus’ teaching, teaching that if available more fully might also provide context for assimilating a more diverse range of thoughts.
Writers’ preferences also affect which diverse aspects of Jesus’ personality appear. For example, one may compare two ancient collections of tradition about the philosopher Musonius Rufus, each of which portrays him quite differently. 218 Moreover, most who have used the criterion of coherence have traditionally based it on the criterion of dissimilarity: anything Jesus truly said must cohere with whatever was unique to Jesus.219 If one doubts the criterion of dissimilarity (which is quite easy to doubt; see our discussion below), any criteria based on it will also collapse. Used positively, though, the criterion can be helpful; this includes coherence with broader themes in Jesus’ teachings (such as the kingdom), and teachings or actions consistent with Jesus’ “rejection and execution.”220 In fact, the Synoptic portrait of Jesus is probably more generally internally coherent than many modern scholarly reconstructions of Jesus are.221