6 Historical Criteria

In the introduction, I framed this project as analogous to Google Maps in some ways. The previous chapters gave us primarily zoomed-out perspectives and helped us know which country we were examining. Now I will zoom in and observe some of the various states, cities, and streets. In other words, the textual evidence, genre, dating, creeds, and authorship of the various New Testament books provide reasonable grounds for thinking these texts are generally reliable as well as some specifics (e.g., the creedal information in 1 Cor 15). I will continue to zoom in on some more particulars. There are historical criteria that historians use in order to better determine the probability of various events reported in the New Testament.

AN OVERVIEW

What are these criteria, and how are they applied? Consider for a moment the following story. Imagine that you are a detective and have encountered a scene where two teenage drivers were in a car accident. One drives a silver car and the other a blue car. How would you go about finding out who was at fault in the accident if there are no video recordings? What are the sorts of things you would want to know?

Initially, getting statements from each driver would be a good place to start. Because of their biases and self-interest, you might expect that each driver will say that they were innocent and that the other person was guilty. Of course, they cannot both be right.

Next, you will want to try to see whether there were any witnesses to the incident. Perhaps there were people nearby who observed the crash. You can ask these witnesses what happened and see what they report. If these witnesses report that the “light,” “gray,” or “silver” car did not stop and crashed into the “dark” or “blue” car, then you begin to have some positive reasons to believe that this was in fact the case.

I should note here that these witnesses need to be independent witnesses. If one person tells five others, then there is only one witness, not six. Repeats and retweets do not count. The more independent witnesses you have, the higher the probability that the silver car crashed into the blue car because it failed to stop.

In addition to these witnesses, a passenger was in the silver car and gives their statement. This passenger also happens to be the father of the driver. You think that his testimony is also important and ask him what happened. He responds, “My son was not paying attention and drove through the stop sign without stopping.” This would be strong evidence for the guilt of the driver of the silver car because his own father is providing embarrassing information. Specifically, that his son was the guilty driver.

Last, you find out that one of the earlier witnesses is currently involved in a court case against the driver of the blue car. However, this witness testified that it was not the blue car that caused the accident but the silver car. This witness acknowledged the innocence of their otherwise legal opponent.

Each of these different factors adds to the probability that, in fact, the silver car was at fault. This is because there are multiple independent witnesses, embarrassing testimony, and enemy attestation. While these criteria do not give us certainty (nothing in history is 100 percent certain), they help to move us from the merely possible to the more (and more) probable.

While this is just an introductory example, we can begin to see the ways we usually think about the past presented more explicitly. The different criteria reflect various intuitions and differences that are often taken for granted. With this in mind, it is important to note that these criteria are not like mathematical laws. We cannot simply expect to plug the criteria into a formula and then simply get the conclusion. Instead, the criteria are more like proverbs to be applied at the proper time. Knowing when to apply “Look before you leap” and “He who hesitates is lost” will depend on various factors. In our context, they will be considered part of a larger historical argument. Moreover, we need to note that these criteria typically only add to the probability of a past event. The more criteria are met, the more likely an event has occurred, but their absence does not argue against an event.

When it comes to the New Testament, some standard criteria are frequently used. Here are some of the more common examples:

■ Reported early: Events that are reported shortly after an event are preferred over those that are reported later. As we saw in previous chapters, not only are the dates for various New Testament writings considered to be within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, but within Paul’s own early writings are Christian creeds that are dated very early.

■ Multiple independent attestation: This criterion obtains when an event is reported by multiple sources that are not dependent on one another. This is perhaps the most popular criterion used by scholars, especially because many reports in ancient history are found in only one literary source. It is important to remember that the New Testament is not just one book but a collection of writings from different authors. Note that if an account is found in the Synoptic Gospels, then it is typically deemed one source because most scholars believe Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Thus, if Matthew and Luke report something found in Mark, it is usually considered to be one source: Mark.

■ Multiple forms: Reports found in different forms, such as narratives, parables, creedal statements, and so on, are likely to be earlier and thus more reliable. An example of an event meeting this criterion would be Jesus’ burial, as it is found in both the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:4 and the narratives of the Gospels and elsewhere (e.g., Rom 6:4).

■ Embarrassing testimony: When a source admits to an event understood as an embarrassing admission, it adds to the probability that the event occurred. A notable example of embarrassing testimony in the New Testament is found in Jesus’ reference to Peter’s denial of him, which is undoubtedly not something one would invent about the leader of the early church. Further, the embarrassing nature of Jesus’ death by crucifixion is hard to overstate (as even Paul notes in 1 Cor 1:23).

■ Enemy/disinterested attestation: If a rival source concedes some information favorable to their opponent, it adds to the likeliness of this information being accurate. Enemies or disinterested sources are not likely to offer up positive data unless they agree it is accurate, and they may nevertheless describe it in a negative light.

■ Consistency/coherence: This is one of the few criteria with a negative function in that if it is not met, the event in question is deemed less likely. This criterion requires that an event coheres with what we know of the historical context in which it is situated. When it comes to the New Testament, if a text were to report the disciples riding motorcycles to get from one town to the next, then it would fail to cohere with what we know about the first century.

Now that I have given a brief overview of these criteria, how can they be applied to questions of the historical reliability of the New Testament? They can be used in establishing both various themes, such as Jesus as a miracle worker, and specific claims, such as Jesus predicting his death and resurrection. Below I will briefly examine these claims and show how historical criteria help to establish them.

JESUS AS A MIRACLE WORKER

As I noted above, historical criteria can add probability that a reported event occurred but are only part of an overall argument. The goal here is to illustrate how various historical criteria can be applied to New Testament claims. There are several other arguments for Jesus as a miracle worker, and what is presented below should not be considered exhaustive. The aim here is to highlight how these criteria apply to the New Testament claims.

■ Multiple attestation: Reports about Jesus’ miracles are found in a significant number of texts. They are found not only throughout the New Testament writings (Gospels, Acts, epistles, Revelation) but also in non-Christian sources (Josephus, rabbinic traditions, Celsus). Each of these sources, from varying perspectives, acknowledges that Jesus performed wondrous works.

■ Enemy attestation: Not all of the reports are charitable toward Jesus. For example, in the Gospels, the Pharisees do not attempt to explain away the event but rather state that Jesus’ works are done by the power of “Beelzebul the ruler of the demons” (Mt 12:24; see also Mt 9:34; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). Though the rabbinic traditions found in the Talmud are later, they are consistent with Pharisaic claims found the Gospels that attribute the actions of Jesus to “sorcery” (Sanhedrin 43a). The third-century theologian Origen reports that a critic of Christianity named Celsus raised similar accusations against Jesus (Origen, Contra Celsus 2.49-50). Around the end of the first century, Jewish historian Josephus reports that Jesus was a “doer of wonderful works” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3). These sources provide data that others in the ancient world believed Jesus did something but try to explain this something in terms of wickedness rather than beneficence.

■ Embarrassing testimony: There is also embarrassing testimony regarding the miracles of Jesus. In Mark 6:1-6 (and Mt 13:57-58) Jesus performs fewer miracles because of the unbelief that was present. This is hardly something one would expect Mark to invent! We also see in Matthew 11:20; 21:32 that Jesus rebukes those who saw the miracles but did not repent afterward (see Lk 10:13-16). These are not the types of things one would want to include unless they were known.

■ Reported early: A final consideration here is the early nature of these miracle reports. They are found throughout the Gospels, including the Gospel of Mark. They are also located in the early material of the Acts sermon summaries (which likely predate the Gospels). Peter, for example, in Acts 2:22 refers to the miracles performed by Jesus, as he does again in Acts 10:37-39. The material in these sermon summaries is often dated very early and likely predates the Gospels.

Recall the example above regarding a car accident. The same principles apply here. Each of these criteria adds to the historical weight that Jesus was in fact a miracle worker. The case is so strong that the late Marcus Borg argues, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” We ought to remember, however, that we were not trying to make the entire historical case here, nor should we think these criteria are all we need. There are other historical considerations. Nevertheless, the criteria provide important factors regarding the historicity of all reported events, and this includes Jesus’ being a miracle worker or our example of a car accident. The words of Graham Twelftree are significant in this regard when he writes, “We have seen that it is not a matter of so-called blind faith that enables us to say this.” Indeed!

JESUS’ PREDICTING HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION

While Jesus’ predictions are discussed in detail elsewhere, I will briefly summarize four criteria and how they apply to the claim that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection. Again, this should not be considered an exhaustive list but a sample of how the criteria are applied to the claims of the New Testament.

■ Multiple attestation: Jesus’ predictions are multiply attested in different sources. For example, Jesus tells the disciples about his impending death and resurrection, leading Peter to rebuke Jesus. Jesus’ response to this is to rebuke Peter by saying, “Get behind Me, Satan.” This account is found in Mark 8:31-33 and Matthew 16:21-23, while Luke 9:22 has the prediction only. When an event is found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the Synoptics), it is typically considered to be only one source. However, this appears to be one of those few instances where Matthew and Luke do not appear to be dependent on Mark, and thus it satisfies multiple attestation. Another relevant example here is the establishing of the Lord’s Supper as reported in Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:19-20; and, importantly, in a pre-Pauline creed found in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Regarding the Lord’s Supper, the creedal material is the earliest, and additional corroboration of this event is found in Mark.

■ Multiple forms: We have already alluded to the fact that Jesus’ impending death and resurrection were predicted in multiple forms, since they are mentioned in the Gospel narratives and in the creedal material of 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. While there are narrative accounts of Jesus making these predictions, there are also parables, such as the parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-12). The sign of Jonah (Mt 12:38-40) is another example. We thus find reports of these predictions in a multitude of forms (narratives, creeds, parables, etc.).

■ Reported early: Events found in multiple forms, such as those mentioned, are considered to be early. In addition, we find the creedal material in Paul referencing the Last Supper. Of course, it is also found in the earliest Gospel, Mark.

■ Embarrassing testimony: While Peter’s rebuke of Jesus may be considered embarrassing (Mk 8:32), Jesus’ referring to Peter as Satan certainly is (Mk 8:33)! This is all the more embarrassing since Peter became one of the “pillars” of the early church (Gal 2:9) and this account is included in Mark, who is often believed to have been Peter’s interpreter. It is not something he would have been likely to make up. Additionally, the manner of Jesus’ death is highly embarrassing (1 Cor 1:23), and some find Jesus’ prayer in the garden before the crucifixion disconcerting (Mk 14:32-41).

As with our previous example, these four criteria illustrate how historians can assess the reports we have. Each of these criteria, and others, contributes to the case that Jesus’ death and resurrection were likely predicted ahead of time. The criteria used here parallel the analysis we would use regarding other claims about the past.

CONCLUSION

We must remember that the Bible is a collection of writings from different authors. Significantly, even those who think the Bible is unreliable will use these historical criteria to ferret out what they believe to be reliable information. Historians do not depend on reports to be wholly accurate in order to make accurate judgments about the past. There are a number of historically unreliable texts—past and present—from which we can still discern reliable historical data by using these criteria. They thus provide unique and helpful tools in showing specific (zoomed-in) reports of the New Testament to be reliable, such as the two examples I briefly highlighted (see

for another example regarding Jesus’ death).

KEY TAKEAWAYS

■The historical criteria discussed here are intuitive and used today regarding current events. Historical criteria are typically used to add probability to the historicity of an event. These criteria can be applied to reports to better discern whether an event occurred.

■The criteria can be effectively applied to sources that are considered reliable or unreliable.

■These criteria can be applied to the New Testament, and when they are, they yield strong weight to the historicity of various reported events (e.g., Jesus’ predictions).

6 Historical Criteria