The criterion of multiple attestation says that when a tradition (e.g. event, deed, teaching, saying, etc.) about Jesus is reported in two or more early, independent sources, such tradition is likely to be historical or authentic.
Like any other criterion of authenticity, the proper application of this criterion is the positive one, that is, the criterion is used to establish what is historical about Jesus. The negative application (that is, using the criterion to establish non-historicity when an event or saying don't pass the criterion) is improper, because it is possible that a given event or saying was produced or uttered by Jesus just once in a specific moment, and it is only recorded in one independent source. (In fact, the overwhelming majority of the events or sayings of Jesus, for example in his teen years, don't appear at all in the historical record. If the criteria of authenticity were used negatively, then we would have to conclude that such events or sayings never happened, what is clearly false and absurd). The improper, negative use of the criteria of authenticity is very common in the scholarly liberal literature about the historical Jesus (because it allows them, astutely and cleverly, to left out crucial evidence for the historical Jesus which supports the Christian-traditional view of Jesus, like traditions suggesting high Christology or Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception. This manipulation of the evidence by liberal scholars have to be exposed, carefully criticized and documented, and intellectually castigated as examples of atheistic deception, misdirection and charlatanism). Moreover, it is possible (and it is often the case), that a given tradition about Jesus doesn't pass one criterion, but passes others (e.g. the tradition doesn't pass the criterion of multiple attestation, but passes the criteria of disimilarity and/or embarassment).
See brief examples of liberal scholars' misuse of the criteria of authenticity here.
I've carefully collected in the past few months a very large documentation and references of examples of prominent liberal scholars abusing and misusing the criteria of authenticity in order to manipulate the sayings and teachings of Jesus. I'm going to publish this data either in this blog, or in another blog specifically created to address this massive scholarly deception (because a detailed and objective critical discussion of this could require another, independent blog, but I haven't decided yet. Just I can say that the pseudoskeptical manipulation of the parapsychological evidence pales in comparison with what liberal scholars are able to do regarding Jesus' person, sayings and teachings). Stay tuned.
The criterion of multiple attestation is one of the most important ones, because if one event or saying is recorded on two or more independent historical sources, then the event or saying is unlikely to be an invention or fabrication. As religious pluralist and liberal scholar Marcus Borg explains:
if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up (The Meaning of Jesus, p.12)
As Borg correctly notes, it is unlikely that two (or more) independent sources will record the same tradition about Jesus if such tradition is a pure invention. A more likely explanation is that the tradition actually comes from Jesus himself, and was recorded in several sources.
Example of a tradition about Jesus which passes positively the criterion of multiple attestation dismissed by some liberal scholars
To mention just one example of a tradition about Jesus which passes positively the criterion of multiple attestation is the BIRTH NARRATIVES about Jesus.
The only two Gospels which include explicit birth stories are consistent in saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (the birth narratives are independently attested in Matthew and Luke, in the sources used by each of them). And no evidence in the Gospels contradicts such view (i.e. the references to Nazareth never say that Jesus was born there).
So, on the positive, proper application of the criterion of multiple attestation, we have to conclude that it is likely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
But contrary to that evidence, many liberal scholars (including a serious ones like Antonio Piñero) have argued that Jesus probably was born in Nazareth, and that the reference to Bethlehem is a later addition, created when Jesus' figure was already exalted among Christians, and hence the Gospel writers had the necessity to create a Jesus which fits with the old Testament predictions about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem.
"Skeptic" Michael Shermer claims more or less the same point, arguing for a "tension" in the Gospels about where Jesus was born (which is clearly false, as Jesus scholar Ben Whiterington III points out):
Please, note very carefully and exactly how Piñero's anti-Christian assumption about "Jesus' exaltation by Christians" overrides the proper application of the criterion of multiple attestation! In the mind of liberal scholars, the assumption that Christians are fabricating the evidence has more weight (for purposes of historical conclusions regarding the reliability of such evidence) than the criterion of multiple attestation.
In other words, and for the shame of liberal scholarship, an anti-Christian prejudice becomes itself a kind of criterion of non-historicity, which we could formulate like this: If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctive, divine view of Jesus, then it is non-historical and was the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity. (Note that implicit in this liberal "criterion" is the a priori assumption that Christianity is false and cannot be true).
It is very hard to think of a more clear example of prejudice and bias against one given position.
Perhaps, we could find a parallel in the case of pseudoskepticism and parapsychology: If a given psychic or medium is caught on fraud, then he's a fraudulent charlatan and fake psychic. But if the psychic passes positively the tests, then it proves nothing because it is "possible" that the scientists were fooled by the psychic's clever tricks, or that the experimental design was flawed. This still will be the case if the positive evidence is found in tests designed by "professional skeptics and debunkers", like in the following case in which an vedic astrologer passed positively Michael Shermer's test:
Clearly, the atheistic, naturalist assumption that the paranormal doesn't exist overrides the empirical evidence for the paranormal. For "skeptics", the evidence is relevant and sufficient ONLY if it confirms their opinions. If the evidence is contrary to their views, it has not sufficient evidential value at all and may be dismissed.
Exaclty the same happens with many liberal scholars: Given their naturalism, the supernatural cannot exist. Therefore, even if the evidence for the historical Jesus passes positively the criteria of authenticity, it will be rejected if it supports a supernatural or divine view of Jesus (in the case of Jesus' birth, the evidence shows that it meets the Old Testament predictions about the place of the Messiah's birth, supporting the Christian view that Jesus was the Messiah). Given the liberal scholar's naturalism, the Old Testament "predictions" cannot be true. Therefore, the evidence about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem HAS to be the creation or fabrication of Christians given their exalted view of Jesus. Clearly this begs the question against the Christian view about Jesus, and precludes any historical evidence as being reliable and having strong weight to support the distinctive aspects of the traditional, Christian view of Jesus). Sheer atheistic deception.
The criteria of authenticity were created to discover which aspects of the historical Jesus could be justified on historical grounds. When you apply consistently such criteria, you find that many of the traditional, Christian aspects of Jesus can be justified historically (including his exclusivistic self-perception, resurrection and so forth).
As consequence, liberals are forced to misapply the criteria in order to avoid such Christian view. This is why some of the liberal reconstructions about the historical Jesus (e.g. suggesting that he was a mere teller of stories, a wise man mainly interested in changhing people's minds) are extremely incomplete and misleading. They're based on misuses of criteria of authenticity which create a partial, mutilated Jesus.
This kind of scholarly sophistry, deception and charlatanism on behalf of a priori atheistic and religious pluralistic assumptions has to be properly debunked.
Another scholar who is a seasoned expert in the misuses of the criteria of authenticity is Bart Ehrman. I'll write a whole post (or series of posts) with specific examples of Ehrman's egregious misuses and missapplications of these criteria, but in the following recent lecture by William Lane Craig about Ehrman's work on the historical Jesus, some examples are clearly mentioned and discussed:
0 comments:
Post a Comment