Criterion of dissimilarity

The criterion of dissimilarity (also called criterion of discontinuity)[1] is used in Biblical criticism to determine if a statement attributed to Jesus may be authentic. It is often used as a shorthand for the criterion of double dissimilarity.[2] The criterion states that if a saying attributed to Jesus is different from the Jewish traditions of his time and also from the early Church that followed him, it is likely to be authentic.[2]

Description

The criterion of dissimilarity was introduced by Ernst Käsemann, who in 1953 started the second quest for the historical Jesus.[3] Käsemann writes:

[T]here is an almost complete lack of satisfactory and water-tight criteria for this material. In only one case do we have more or less safe ground under our feet: when there are no grounds either for deriving a tradition from Judaism or for ascribing it to primitive Christianity, and especially when Jewish Christianity has mitigated or modified the received tradition, as having been too bold for its taste. (Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes, p. 37)[4]

In other words, the criterion postulates that traditions about Jesus derive from (only) three sources: extrapolation from earlier Jewish traditions, revisionism by the early Christian Church, and true historical accounts of Jesus's ministry. If some tradition cannot be adequately explained by extrapolation nor by revisionism, then it must necessarily be a trace of the historical Jesus.

Limitations

The criterion has received criticism for leading to reconstructions of Jesus as being in implausible discontinuity with the early Jewish traditions that preceded him and the early Christian traditions that followed from him. One such critic writes: "The problem of the Criterion of Double Dissimilarity is that the more we know about early Jewish traditions and the more we know about early Christian post-Easter traditions, the less space there is for a reconstruction of the authentic sayings of Jesus, as by definition they have to differ from early Jewish and early Christian traditions. Therefore, in the end, no trace of a historical Jesus remains."[5]

gollark: I'm not really sure what to do about this or if it's much of a problem, but the sentence structure seems kind of simplistic.
gollark: Sure? I'm also not sure about `of the less fortunate`, that's weird grammar.
gollark: For one thing, the intro is a bit confusing and it could be read as "Mark" and "the man" being different.
gollark: Er, can you rotate it so I can read it?
gollark: Not all of them support that, and probably not all devices do.

See also

References
  1. Who Is Jesus? by Thomas P. Rausch (Jul 1, 2003) ISBN 0814650783 page 36
  2. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) by Brian Han Gregg (Jun 30, 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
  3. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 122
  4. Quoted in Tim Widowfield, "Defending the criterion of dissimilarity" (Vridar blog post), 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2017-10-05.
  5. Oegema, Gerbern S. Apocalyptic Interpretation of the Bible. 2012. pg. 79.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.