|
|
AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW
ISSN 0045-0308 |
BOOK REVIEW Published in Volume 50, 2002
S. E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus
Research: Previous Discussions and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), Pp. 299.
In this contribution to historical Jesus research, Stanley Porter confines
himself to the so-called ‘criteria of authenticity’ to which scholars appeal
when attempting verify what the historical Jesus said and did. The book
is divided into two distinct sections. The first deals with the traditional
criteria developed by scholars in the last century, while the second introduces
three new criteria proposed by Porter himself. In the first section (chapters
1–3), Porter documents the rise and development of the major traditional
criteria of authenticity — (double) dissimilarity, least distinctiveness,
coherence, multiple attestation, semitic language, embarrassment, rejection
and execution, and historical plausibility — and provides a critique of
these particular methods.
Porter’s dissatisfaction with the current criteria leads him in the
second section to advance a way forward in historical Jesus research. He
contends that three new criteria can and should be used in reconstructing
the teaching of the historical Jesus. Fundamental to these criteria is
Porter’s prior claim that Jesus was probably multilingual, speaking Aramaic
as his first language and Greek and perhaps Hebrew as acquired languages.
On the basis of this premise he then suggests a new criterion of authenticity,
the criterion of Greek language and its context. This means that in certain
Gospel passages the conversations Jesus had with others suggests that Greek
would have been the language of communication. Examples here include his
dialogues with the Herodians (Mk 12:13–17), the centurion of Capernaum
(Mt 8:1–10), Pilate (Mk 15:2–5), the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:26–30)
and the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:4–26). Porter notes that in these passages
the words of Jesus are short and to the point, a consistent pattern that
points to their authenticity. He claims as well that some of the other
traditional criteria lend support to this conclusion.
Porter’s second criterion is that of Greek textual variance. This criterion
is applicable to independent traditions with similar wording. The more
removed from the common source, the greater the level of variation, while
lesser variation indicates more stability in the tradition and closer proximity
to the authentic teaching of Jesus. Here Porton discusses some of the pericopes
authenticated by his first criterion — the Syrophoenician women, the dispute
with the Herodians, the conversation with the disciples at Caesarea Philippi
and the trial before Pilate — and uses this principle to authenticate certain
words of Jesus. The third criterion is that of discourse features. In simple
terms this involves isolating the language of any given evangelist and
comparing it with the words attributed to Jesus. Porter illustrates the
use of this method by analysing Mark 13, and concludes that this discourse
is decidedly different from the remainder of the Gospel and may perhaps
derive from Jesus.
The first half of Porter’s book is far better than the second. His critique
of historical Jesus research and the traditional criteria for authenticity
are in many cases justified. These criteria are problematic in one way
or another, and none of them provides the sure results proclaimed by their
advocates. But Porter’s three new criteria fare even worse. These criteria
work on the premise that Jesus knew and used Greek during his mission.
While this is certainly possible and should not be excluded out of hand,
Porter’s evidence is mostly circumstantial rather than definitive. Against
this proposal is the early evidence of Acts that the primitive church was
divided along linguistic and cultural lines. On one side were the Hebrews,
including the family and disciples of Jesus, who seemingly spoke Aramaic,
and on the other were the Greek-speaking Hellenists. If the kin and closest
associates of Jesus were defined by their inability to speak Greek, then
it follows that Jesus himself was probably more monolingual than Porter
allows. But even if we concede that Jesus knew Greek, Porter’s new criteria
do not establish the conclusions he desires.
The first of his criteria involves a rather large leap in the argument.
If Jesus spoke Greek, then we can accept as authentic those Gospel passages
that present Jesus in a conversation that presumes the use of Greek. This
argument is dubious in the extreme. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic, but no-one
accepts as historical a particular tradition simply because it presupposes
the use of that language. Historicity needs to be established on other
grounds. Many of the passages cited by Porter are, in my opinion, of questionable
authenticity. The most this argument demonstrates is that Jesus may have
spoken Greek, because it is multiply attested in a number sources, but
it proves nothing in terms of their individual claims to reliability. Porter’s
second criterion falls with the first, but it is worth noting that all
his examples of independent traditions would not be accepted as such by
most scholars; in the four cases in question, we are dealing with the later
evangelists using Mark. But again, even if we accept this argument, it
only demonstrates what the earliest tradition was like; it does not by
itself point to authentic Jesus tradition. The same can be said of his
third criterion, which demonstrates nothing more than the established point
that the evangelists used earlier source material. Whether this material
traces back to Jesus remains to be established.
Porter is to be congratulated for revealing the deficiencies in the
traditional criteria for authenticity and for trying to take the discussion
in new directions, but his new criteria are even less successful than those
he criticises. Even on the assumption that Jesus taught in Greek, we should
be less confident than is Porter that this material simply ended up in
the Gospels. There is a whole process of church creation and emendation
to consider, but which Porter’s three criteria largely ignore.
Review by
Dr. David C. Sim
Australian Catholic University
|
|
