When the historian wishes to learn about the ministry of the historical Jesus Christ, he needs to evaluate the earliest primary sources using what is known as the criterion of authenticity.

This is a method that has developed greatly within what is known as the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. Here, historians have developed a critical-historical method that all scholars from different backgrounds and ideologies can share and use to objectively test the claims and events concerning the historical Jesus, as well as many other figures of ancient history.

This is not a method or criteria invented by the faithful or the church; it is one developed by scholars operating within the secular disciplines of history generally and biblical studies. This method is debated because scholars across these disciples, no matter what their private beliefs are, need to make a historical, evidence-based case for an event or statement that they wish to assert is historical. Events and sayings are not merely assumed.

If successfully argued in light of the critical views of academic peers, these criteria will assist the historian in arriving at a conclusion regarding the historical probability, or lack thereof, of the purported activities and statements of the figure described in the sources.

There are several criteria that scholars have shown apply to a saying or event of the historical Jesus, which provides them with greater confidence in the historicity of that saying or event.

This historical method is geared toward affirming sufficient conditions of historicity. In other words, it is not necessary for a saying or an event of a historical figure to pass a specific criterion within this historical-critical method for it to be considered historical. The historicity of a saying or an event is independent of the criteria. However, if a criterion can be shown to apply to a saying or an event, then it helps to provide confidence in that saying or event.

Further, the criteria are not infallible, as they can be mistaken. For example, independent attestation, which says that an event is more likely historical if it appears in multiple sources, produced by authors who did not receive their information from each other, could be fallible in light of a story being based on gossip or hearsay, which the independent authors each heard rather than on an actual historical event. But despite its fallibility, the criteria of authenticity seem strong and therefore remain the generally accepted method that most scholars trust well enough to use (1).

These criteria do not presuppose the divine inspiration of the New Testament texts or any ancient texts generally. Rather, the method is applied with neutrality and objectivity as the ideals. It is not factored into the historian’s work that these texts are important to religious groups, communities, and figures.

Scholar William Lane Craig outlines several criteria that have been used by historians to establish the likelihood of a specific event [S] ascribed to the historical Jesus (2):

[1] Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.

[2] Independent attestation: S appears in multiple sources that date near the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.

New Testament scholar Dale Martin suggests that most scholars consider events historical if they come from two independent sources (3). The late scholar Marcus Borg (1942–2015) refers to this logic as “straightforward,” and this is that “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” (4). For historians of any specialization, the more independent sources they have, the better.

[3] Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S. In terms of the historical Jesus, the writers of the gospels and epistles would not have created a story that would embarrass Jesus, themselves, and other important figures in the early Jesus movement or create problems for themselves that they otherwise would not need to experience. Therefore, the inclusion of embarrassing and problematic details shows that the author is likely narrating and conveying a genuine historical event that would not have been fabricated.

[4] Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms. Scholar Bart Ehrman explains that this,

“criterion says that if there are stories about what Jesus said or did that do not fit what the Christians would have wanted to say about him, those stories are more likely authentic than ones that could easily be imagined as something a Christian would have wanted to make up about him” (5).

[5] Semitisms: Traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.

[6] Coherence: S is consistent with already established details about the figure obtained via an application of the critical-historical method, which suggests those details are likely historical on the basis of these other criteria.

In terms of the historical Jesus, if an event or statement can pass one or more of these criteria, then the historian can be more confident to affirm its historicity.

There is consensus among historians that, through this critical method, several events in the ministry of Jesus can be said to be historical. These would include, but are not limited to, his baptism, unique personal claims (such as the “Son of Man“), several miracle stories and exorcisms, the crucifixion under Roman governor Pontius Pilate (d. 36), the burial of Jesus in the tomb, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the resurrection appearances to several people and groups. New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders (6) provides the following facts:

[1] Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great
[2] he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village
[3] he was baptized by John the Baptist
[4] he called disciples
[5] he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities)
[6] he preached ‘the kingdom of God’
[7] about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover
[8] he created a disturbance in the Temple area
[9] he had a final meal with the disciples
[10] he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest
[11] he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate
[12] his disciples at first fled
[13] they saw him after his death
[14] as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom
[15] they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah.

Another version with some difference has been put forward by historian Gary Habermas (7):

[1] Jesus died by crucifixion
[2] He was buried
[3] His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope
[4] The tomb was empty (the most contested).
[5] The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus
[6] The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers
[7] The resurrection was the central message.
[8] They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem
[9] The Church was born and grew
[10] Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship
[11] James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic)
[12] Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic and enemy of the church).

References

1. Ehrman, Bart. 2012. Jesus and the Historical Criteria. Available; Stein, Robert. 1980. “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity.” In Gospel Perspectives I, edited by R. T. France and David Wenham, 225-263. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press; Yale Courses. 2009. 13. The Historical Jesus. Available.

2. Craig, Willian Lane. 2007. Establishing the Gospels’ Reliability. Available.

3. Yale Courses. 2009. The Historical Jesus. Available. [00:30:45]

4. Borg, Marcus., and Wright, N. T. 1999. The Meaning of Jesus. HarperCollings. p. 12.

5. Ehrman, Bart. 2012. Ibid.

6. Sanders, E. P. 1993. The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Allen Lane. p. 10-11.

7. Habermas, Gary. 2012. “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity.” Faculty Publications and Presentations 14.