The criteria of authenticity are critical-historical tools that are applied to the Gospel and New Testament texts to critically reconstruct the historical Jesus (6-4 BCE–c. 30 CE) (Boring 1988; Porter 2000; Theissen and Winter 2002; Holmén 2008, 138).

There is history behind the criteria, as they gradually emerged to form a distinct branch of methodology on the basis of historians considering it necessary to develop methods specifically designed for analyzing the authenticity of the Jesus tradition. There are several criteria, although this article limits itself to the criterion of dissimilarity.

What is the Criterion of Dissimilarity?

The CoD, also sometimes called “the criterion of discontinuity” (Meier 1991, 171) or “the dissimilarity test” (Mealand 1978), claims that a saying or event in the Gospels or New Testament is historically authentic if it is dissimilar to what the early followers of Jesus or the early church would have wanted to say about Jesus.

“If an individual tradition or a motif can be seen to be dissimilar to early Christian interests, views, practices and/or theological tendencies, etc., it can be regarded as having a claim to authenticity” (Holmén 2008, 149).

By “authentic,” the idea is that the tradition or a motif mostly likely originated from Jesus (Holmén 1998, 48).

Some scholars have looked for a double dissimilarity (Kaésemann 1954; Perrin 1967), whereby a tradition is authentic when it is dissimilar to both Judaism and to the early church,

“The earliest form of a saying we can reach may be regarded as authentic if it can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of ancient Judaism and of the early Church” (Perrin 1967, 39).

In terms of single dissimilarity, the logic is that those behind the earliest sources for Jesus (i.e., the early Christians) would not have created traditions about Jesus disadvantageous or with no particular (positive) value to themselves.

Criticisms and Limitations

The CoD is arguably the most controversial of the criteria (Holmén 2008, 138) and has come under critique (Bird 2014, 54–55).

The CoD controversially affirms that a story about Jesus or a saying attributed to him is only historical if it does not sound anything like what the church was saying about Jesus. But as New Testament scholar Michael F. Bird skeptically asks,

“What historian would say that the historical Plato is different from what the platonic school said about Plato? Who would say that reliable information about the Teacher of Righteousness who founded a community by the shores of the Dead Sea can only be found when material attributed to him in the Dead Sea Scrolls sounds nothing like the Dead Sea Scrolls? Who thinks that the real John Wesley can only be retrieved by searching for un-Wesleyan things that Wesleyans said about John Wesley?” (2014, 54-55).

As such, the CoD risks producing a chasm between a movement’s founder and his or her subsequent movement. In terms of Jesus, one discovers a founder “who said, thought, and did nothing that his earliest followers believed that he said, thought, and did. Jesus becomes a free-floating iconoclast artificially insulated from the movement that took its name from him, claimed to follow his teachings, and memorialized his deeds and actions” (Bird 2014, 55).

Historians have come to appreciate Jesus’ Jewish historical context and background, in which he was firmly rooted culturally and socially (Sanders 1985; Crossan 1991; Meier 1991; Fredriksen 2000).

If Jesus was truly rooted as such, then the criterion of double dissimilarity as it is applied to Jewish thinking is problematized, hence the scholarly “revision of the criterion’s double dissimilarity to a singular dissimilarity with developments in the early Church” (Porter 2000, 75). It is odd, one might think, “that Jesus, himself a Jew, should be said to be speaking authentically only when he does not reflect his genuine and authentic background” (Porter 2000, 75).

Bird finds the criterion of “historical plausibility” more appealing. According to this, the historian can regard a unit in the Gospels as claiming a high degree of historical authenticity when a saying or event attributed to Jesus makes sense within Judaism (i.e., plausible context) and also represents a starting point for the early church (i.e., a plausible consequence) (Evans 1995, 13-15; Theissen 1996; Theissen and Merz 1998, 116-118; Wright 1999, 131-133; Theissen and Winter 2002).

The Usability of the CoD

But Bird’s dismissal of the CoD would be considered by many to be too skeptical, even by historians who acknowledge the CoD’s limitations and reject double dissimilarity.

When correctly used, the CoD is useful (Holmén 2008), although this usefulness “is restricted to a very particular kind of material and consequently, what it inevitably produces is a particular selection of authentic traditions” (Holmén 1998, 50). Theissen and Winter do not discard the entire criterion but only the double dissimilarity version (2002, 179). N. T. Wright believes the criterion can be applied, but with caution (1996,  86). According to Stanley E. Porter, “the criterion of dissimilarity from developments in the early Church remains essentially intact” (2000, 76).

The CoD must not be used negatively by supposing that traditions or motifs that do not display dissimilarity to Judaism and/or Christianity are inauthentic (Holmén 1998, 49). Perrin commits this error when he states that “material may be ascribed to Jesus only if it can be shown to be distinctive of him, which usually will mean dissimilar to known tendencies in Judaism before him or the church after him” (1969, 71; emphasis added). One can respond that “mere similarity to early Christian thinking does not justify doubting the authenticity of a tradition or a motif…  It cannot rule it out” (Holmén 2008, 150).

Holmén, who rejects the double criterion of dissimilarity (1998), contends that the single version “can also from time to time induce rather efficacious arguments for authenticity” (2008, 151).

Mark 3:21 is one such case. This passage depicts Jesus’ own relatives, who were highly respected in early Christianity, as doubting him and thinking he had lost his mind because of his startling claims. 

This has a strong claim to authenticity since it seems unlikely that the early Christians or Christian theologian and historian who wrote the Gospel of Mark would have made up such a tradition given how unfavorably it depicts Jesus as well as his relatives.

Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist (died c. 28–36 CE) described in the gospels also boasts a strong case, which accounts for why the majority of historians accept the baptism as historical (Powell 1998, 47; Crossan 1999, 31–32; Dunn 2003, 339; Jonas and Lopez 2010, 95–96).

A baptism is a ritual for sinners who have committed sin. Those who sin stand condemned in the sight of a holy, just, and righteous God and wish to repent. But if Jesus was sinless, considered necessary for his death on the cross for human sin to be effective, as the earliest Jesus tradition teaches (Hebrews 4:14–16; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5), why would a Christian invent a story about Jesus being baptized, since this is how baptism was understood? 

It is best, Holmén contends, that, to gather together authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus, the CoD should not be the only tool of authenticity applied (1998, 50). Several criteria for evaluating the authenticity of the traditions must be used, which must also take into account Jesus’ teaching that accords with the views of the early Church (and Judaism) (Meier 1991, 173).

References

Boring, M. E. 1988. “The Historical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case.” Semeia 44:9–44.

Crossan, John Dominic. 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco, California, U.S.: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, John Dominic. 1999. Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus. Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, James. 2003. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Evans, Craig A. 1995. Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Fredriksen, Paula. 2000. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York, U.S.: knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Hengel, Martin. 1968. Nachfolge und Charisma. Berlin, Germany: W. de Gruyter.

Holmén, Tom. 1998. “Doubts about Double Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Criterion of Jesus-of-History Research.” In Authenticating the Words of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, 47–80. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Jonas JR, W. Glenn., Penny, Donald N., English, Adams., and Lopez, Kathryn Muller. 2010. Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide. Macon, Georgia, U.S.: Mercer University Press.

Kaésemann, E. 1954. “Das Problem des historischen Jesus.” ZTK 51:125-153. 

Mealand, D. L. 1978. “The Dissimilarity Test.” Scottish Journal of Theology 31(1):41-50. 

Meier, John. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume one: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York, U.S.: Doubleday.

Perrin, N. 1967. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York, U.S.: Harper & Row.

Perrin, N. 1968. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia, U.S.: Fortress Press.

Porter, Stanley E. 2000. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical Jesus Research. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.

Powell, Mark Allan. 1998. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. Louisville, U.S.: Westminster John Knox Press.

Theissen, Gerd. 1996. “Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap Across Lessing’s Yawning Gulf.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49:152–170.

Theissen, Gerd., and Merz, Annette. 1998. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis, U.S.: Fortress Press.

Theissen, Gerd., and Winter, Dagmar. 2002. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Louisville, U.S.: Westminster John Knox Press.

Sanders, E. P. 1985. Jesus and Judaism. London, England: SCM Press.

Wright, N. T. 1996. Jesus and the Victory of God. London, England: SPCK.