¹ This article is based on a lecture given at the university of Glasgow ¹ January 1990, at the University of Cambridge 8 June 1994 and the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 10 October 1994. I am grateful to my colleagues for many suggestions and constructive criticism in the discussions. The article is dedicated to Prof. Chr. Burchard, my colleague at our faculty in Heidelberg who wrote one of the most impressive essays about Jesus: ‘Jesus von Nazareth’, in J. Becker (et.al.). Die Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1987) 12–58.

² Cp. G.E. Lessing's ‘Über den Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft’ in K. Wölfel (cd.), Lessings Werke III, Schriften II (Frankfurt: Insel, 1967) 307–312 and the commentary by K. Beyschlag pp. 638–640. The following two distinctions overlap in Lessing's essay. The rationalistic distinction between the cogent truths of reason (‘notwendige Vernunftwahrheiten’) and contingent truths of history (‘zufällige Geschichtswahrheiten’) derives from Leibniz' distinction between vérités de fait and vérités de raison. The other distinction concerns only factual truth or ‘Tatsachenwahrheiten’ and corresponds to the empiricist tradition, i.e. the distinction between those facts which we experience immediately and those which we know only through mediation by other witnesses and sources. Lessing would have been satisfied if the facts of a source could be corroborated by analogies which he could experience directly. He would have relied on miracles in the Gospel tradition if he could have experienced miracles in his own time. The tension between the rationalistic and the empiricist paradigm is stressed by L-P. Wessel, G.E. Lessing's Theology. A reinterpretation (‘The Hague, Paris: Mottton 1977) 106ff 119ff. A short sketch of Lessing's theology can be found in A. Schilson, Lessings Christentum (KVR 14, 63; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1980).

³ G.E. Lessing, Das Testament Johannis (1977), in: Schriften II, 313–318.

⁴ I learnt much about axiomatic beliefs by reading Ritschl, D., ‘Die Erfahrung der Wahrheit. Die Steuerung von Denken und Handeln durch implizite Axiome’, in id., Konzepte. Ökumene, Medain, Ethik, Gesammelte Aufsätze (München: Kaiser 1986) 147–166Google Scholar. For a development of these ideas G. Theisscn, ‘L'herméneutique biblique et la recherche de lavérité religieuse’, RThP 122 (1990) 485–503.

⁵ The issue of appropriate criteria in Jesus research is very often discussed in passing. The following articles and books deal with the issue as a main topic: Borg, M.J., ‘What did Jesus really say?’ BiRe 5 (1989) 18–25Google Scholar; Boring, M.E., ‘Criteria of Authenticity: The Beatitudes as a Test Case’, Forum 1 (1985) 3–38Google Scholar; Crossan, J.D., ‘Materials and Methods in Historical Jesus Research’, Forum 4 (1988) 3–24Google Scholar; idem, ‘Divine Immediacy and Human Immediacy: Towards a New First Principle in Historical Jesus Research’, Semeia 44 (1988) 121–149Google Scholar; Downing, J.F., The Church and Jesus (SBT 2, 11; London: SCM 1968) 93–131Google Scholar; Evans, C.A., ‘Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Research’, CScR 19 (1989) 6–31Google Scholar; Galvert, D.G.A., ‘An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus’, NTS 18 (1972) 209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hahn, F., ‘Methodologische Überlegungen zur RÜckfrage nach Jesus’, in Kertelge, K. (ed.), Rückfrage nach Jesus (QD 63; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder 1974) 11–77Google Scholar; Hooker, M.D., ‘On Using the Wrong Tool’, Theology 75 (1972) 570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hooker, M.D., ‘Christology and Methodology’, NTS 17 (1971) 480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Lehmann, Synoptische Quellenanalyse und die Frage nach detn historischen Jesus. Kriterien der Jesusforschung untersucht in Auseinandersetzung mit Hirschs, EmanuelFrühgeschichte des Evangeliu ms (BZNW 38; Berlin: de Gruyter 1970)Google Scholar; Lentzen-Deis, F., ‘Kriterien für die historische Beurteilung der Jesusüberlieferung in den Evangelien’, in Kertelge, K. (ed.), Rückfrage nach Jesus (QD 63; Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder 1974) 78–117Google Scholar; Longenecker, R.N., ‘Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: an Evaluation and Proposal’, in Hawthorne, G.F. (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (M.C. Tenney Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns 1975) 217–229Google Scholar; Lührmann, D., ‘Die Frage nach Kriterien für ursprüngliche Jesusworteeine Problemskizze’, in Dupont, J. (ed.), Jésus aux origines de la christologie (BEThL 40, Leuven: University Press 1975) 59–72Google Scholar; McArthur, H.K., ‘Basic Issues, A Survey of Recent Gospel Research’, Interp. 18 (1964) 39–55 = McArthur, H.K. (ed.), In Search of the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday 1991)Google Scholar; Mussner, F. (und Mitarbeiter), ‘Methodologie der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus’, in Kertelge, K. (ed.), Rückfrage nach Jesus (QD 63, Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder 1974) 118–147Google Scholar; Perrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM; New York: Harper & Row 1967) 15–53Google Scholar; Polkow, D., ‘Methods and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research’, in Lull, D.J. (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (SBL.SP 28; Atlanta: Scholars 1989) 336–356Google Scholar; V.K. Robbins, ‘Pragmatic Relations as a Criterion for Authentic Sayings,’ Forum 1 (1985) 35–63; Sanders, E.P./Davies, M., Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM 1989) 301–344Google Scholar; Schille, G., ‘Prolegomena zur Jesusfrage,’ ThLZ 93 (1968) 481–488Google Scholar; idem, ‘Ein neuer Zugang zu Jesus? Das traditionsgeschichtliche Kriterium’, ZdZ 40 (1986) 247–253Google Scholar; Simonis, W.von Nazareth, Jesus, Seine Botschaft vom Reich Gottes und der Glaube. der Urgemeinde, (Düsseldorf: Patmos 1985) 11–32Google Scholar; Stein, R.H., ‘The “Criteria” for Authenticity’, in France, R.T., Wenham, D. (eds.), Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (Gospel Perspectives 1, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1980) 225–263Google Scholar; Strecker, G., ‘Die historische und die theologische Problematik der Jesusfrage’, EvTh 29 (1969) 453–476.Google Scholar

⁶ The classic formulation of this criterion is given by E. Käsemann, ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus’, ZThK 51 (1954) 125–153 = idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1970) 187–214: ‘Einigermaßen sicheren Boden haben wir nur in einem einzigen Fall unter dem Füßen, wenn nämlich Tradition aus irgendwelchen Gründen weder aus dem Judentum abgeleitet noch der Urchristenheitzugeschrieben werden kann. speziell dann. wenn die Judenchristenheit ihr überkommenes Gut als zu kühn gemildcrt oder umgebogen hat.’

⁷ D. Winter, ‘Das Differenzkriterium in der Jesusforschung’, Diss. theol., Heidelberg 1995.

⁸ Some of the following ideas are inspired by Bloch, M., Apologie pour l'historie oumétier d'historien (Paris: Armand Colin 1993; first edition 1949)Google Scholar; ET: The Historian's Craft (Manchester University Press 1954).

⁹ We should distinguish between ‘autonomy’ and ‘independence’. The Gospel of Thomas seems to be an autonomous tradition, whose shape can be explained without the canonical Gospels. But the canonical Gospels may have had a secondary influence on some traditions. Fora thorough treatment of the problem see Patterson, S.J., The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁰ ‘Coherence’ is a changing standard. What we think is coherent, may for others be incoherent and vice versa. The writings of Paul are full of incoherencies. Less systematic authors in the New Testament (and also Jesus) may even have more incoherencies in their utterances. We have to develop a historical sense for the degree coherence and incoherence which we may expect in a given epoch and in the writings of an individual author or in his orally transmitted words.

¹¹ Such a deviant element may also be a ‘relic’ of an older stage of the tradition and in this respect a hint at historical reality (see below). How we evaluate such an element depends on the interpretation of this element, of the whole text and of the tendencies at work in the historical context.

¹² Cp. Dahl, N.A., ‘Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem’, KuD 1 (1955) 104–132Google Scholar. He spoke of a ‘Querschniits-Betrachtung’ (a cross-section-perspective): ‘Worte und Berichte von verschiedener Form und Gattung, innerhalb verschiedener Schichten der Tradition uberliefert, beleuchten einander gegenseitig und ergeben ein Gesamibild, in dem etwas für Jesus Bezeichnendes hervortritt’ (p. 117). The term ‘Querschnittsbeweis’ is used by F. Mussner, ‘Methodologie’, (s.n.5) p. 134ff.

¹³ I know there is a tendency in contemporary American scholarship to deny the apocalyptic and cosmic aspects of Jesus’ eschatology cp. Borg, M. J.; ‘A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus’, idem, ‘Jesus and Eschatology. Current Reflections’, in Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International 1994) 47–68. 69–96.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The criterion of attestation by multiple forms was used above all by Dodd, Ch.H., History and Gospels (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons 1938) 91 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cp. Theissen, G., The Gospels in Context. Sorial and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1992) 97ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Crossan, J.D., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Jewish Mediterranean Peasant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1991)Google Scholar. Each complex of tradition is located in one of four layers of the Jesus tradition and evaluated according to the independent attestations in this layer. Two numbers indicate the historical value of such a complex of tradition: 1/4 means that it is found in the oldest layer (1) with four independent attestations (4). There is no doubt that mainstream exegesis will question many of the early dates which J.D. Crossan attributes to apocryphal traditions and whether they really are independent of each other. But with other dates and a different reconstruction of the literary dependencies we may use the same methodology as J.D. Crossan. Decisive is that this way of evaluating multiple attestation is independent of other criteria.

¹⁷ P.W. Schmiedel has given this criterion its classic shape; cp. his article: ‘Gospels’, Biblical Encyclopaedia 2 (1901) 1761–1898. He summarized his idea in Das vierte Evangelium gegenüber den drei ersten (Tübingen: Mohr 1906) 16f. Looking for ‘Grundsäulen eines wahrhaft wissenschaftlichen Lebens Jesus’, he said: ‘Jeder Geschichtsforscher nämlich befolgt den Grundsatz, in einem Bericht, dcr von Verehning für seinen Helden zeugt, in erster Linie das für wahr zu halten, was dieser Verehning zuwiderläuft, weil es nicht auf Erfindung beruhen kann.’ A new formulation of this criterion is the first test of E.P. Sanders/M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (cp. n.5) 304ff: ‘Strongly against the grain; too much with the grain.’

¹⁸ What we call ‘Tendenzwidrigkeit’ or ‘against the grain’ may be generalized. We all know a comparable argument from text criticism: lectio difficilior probabilior. In this way we distinguish between an earlier state of tradition and a later stage. We consider which form of a tradition can be derived from another. Therefore one may say that our criterion of ‘Tendenzwidrigkeit’ is a subtype of the more general criterion of ‘plausible Traditionsgeschichte’, which was suggested by E.M. Boring in ‘Criteria of Authenticity’ (n. 5) 3ff: Only the earliest form of the tradition has a claim to authenticity. But I think that the earliest form of a tradition only has a claim to authenticity if it either contradicts Christian tendencies or can explain the variety of traditions and forms, i.e. the coherence of the Jesus tradition.

¹⁹ ‘The criterion of contextual plausibility, sometimes called the ‘environmental criterion’, is very often connected with the linguistic criterion of Arainaisms and Semitisims, cf. D.G.A. Galvert, ‘An Examination of the criteria for distinguishing the authentic words of Jesus’ (n. 5); ‘A saying is authentic if it exhibits Aramaisms in various forms, and reflects—Palestinian conditions’ (p. 216). The linguistic criterion is not valid because not only Jesus but a great part of Early Christianity in Syria spoke Aramiac. And many of the supposed Aramaisms might be Septuagintisms, vulgarisms or even Latinisms cp. E.P. Sanders/M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (n. 5) 333f.

²⁰ Many have criticized the dissimilarity criterion in this way, e.g. Hooker, M.D., ‘Chrislology and Methodology’ (n. 5) p. 482Google Scholar: ‘Use of this criterion seems to assume that we are dealing with two known factors (Judaism and Early Christianity) and one unknown —Jesus; it would perhaps be a fairer statement of the situation to say that we arc dealing with three unknowns, and that our knowledge of the other two is quite as tenuous and indirect as our knowledge of Jesus himself.’

²¹ We should do justice to those who formulated the criterion of dissimilarity. They knew that it was one-sided. E. Käsemann, ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus’, (n.6) p. 205 continues his famous definition of the criterion with the following caveat: ‘Allerdings müsscn wir uns dabei von vornherein dessen bewußt sein, daß man von hier aus keine Klarheit über das erhält, was Jesus mit seiner palästinischcn Umwelt und seiner späteren Gemeinder verbunden hat. ‘But the criterion indeed functions in a biased way when he connects it with an evaluation: ‘Immerhin ist es für uns ja fast noch wichtiger, wenn wirzu Gesicht bekommen, was ihn von Gegnern und Freunden trennt’ (p. 206). What is remarkable is that he seems to identify ‘Gegner’ with Judaism and ‘Freunde’ with Christianity. F. Halm, ‘Methodologische Uberlegungcn zur Rückfrage nach Jesus’, (n. 5) gives a very balanced presentation of the criteria, but then he derives from the conflicts of Jesus with his environment the assertion. ‘daß er (sc. Jesus) nicht bereit war, als Jude jüdisch zu leben im Sinne des damaligen jüdischen Selbstverständnisses, gleich welcher Schattierung’ (p. 43).

²² Sanders, E.P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress 1985)Google Scholar criticized German scholarship for its antijudaic bias in Jesus research On p. 29–34 he also criticized Bornkamm, G., Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1956)Google Scholar, refering to the first editions of G. Bornkamm's book on Jesus. I would like to add that G. Bornkamm revised his judgement on Judaism. In the tenth edition of his book (1975) he corrected some passages on Judaism. The book was not revised consistently, but we should know that the tendency which led to E.P. Sander's necessary revision of Jesus research already started with the late G. Bornkamm. See Theissen, G., ‘Theologie und Exegese in den neutestamenllichen Arbeiten von Günther Bornkamm’ (EvTh 51 (1991) 308–332, p. 319ff.Google Scholar

²³ Meinecke, F., Werke III. Die Entstehung des Ilisturismus, hg. v. G. & L. Hinrichs, (München: R. Oldenburg, 1959) stresses that the idea of development and of historical individuality are the two central ideas of historicism.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cp. Collingwood, R.G., The Idea of History (Oxford University Press 1961 — first edition: Clarendon Press 1946) 246f.Google Scholar

²⁵ The sources are 1)John the Baptist:Jos ant 18, 116–119 Mt3, ff par; 2) Herod Antipas: Jos ant 18, 36–38.101–105 etc.; Mt 14, 1ff; Lk 13, 31f. 23, 6ff; indirectly without his name: Dio Cass 55, 27, 6; 59, 8, 2; two inscriptions are preserved cp. OGIS Nr. 416; 417; his coins are presented in Meshorer, Y., Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Chicago: Argonaut, he. 1967) pp. 72–75. 133–35.3)Google Scholar Pilate: Jos ant 18, 35.55–59.62.64. 87–89; bell 2, 169–177; one inscription is preserved, cf. Lemonon, J., Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: Textes et documents (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre 1981) 23–32Google Scholar; his coins are presented in Y. Meshorer, Jewish Coins, pp 102–6.

²⁶ Cf. the English translation: The Gospels in Context (n. 15). A comprehensive survey of the Galilean context of Jesus is given by Freyne, S., ‘The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’ in Chilton, B./Evans, C.A. (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus (NTTS 19, Leiden, New York, Köoln: Brill 1994) 75–121.Google Scholar

²⁷ E.P. Sanders/M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, (n. 5) label theirsecond test in Jesus-Research ‘uniqueness’. I prefer ‘contextual individuality’ because uniqueness is always a limited uniqueness.

²⁸ A case applying the saying to adherents of Jesus is made by G. Häfner in ‘Gewalt gegen die Basileia? Zum Problem der Auslegung des “Stürmerspruchs”. Mt 11, 12’, ZNW 83 (1992) 21–51. Cp. also G. Theissen, ‘Junger als Gewalttäter (Mt 11, 12f; Lk 16, 16).Der Stürmerspruch als Selbststigmatisierung einer Minorität’, StTh49 (1995) 183–200.

²⁹ Cadbury, H.J., The Peril of Modernizing Jesus (New York: The Macmillan company 1937 = London: S.P.C.K. 1962).Google Scholar

³⁰ I am referring to some thoughts which I have developed in ‘Biblical Faith. An Evolutionary Approach’ (London: SCM 1984 = Philadelphia: Fortress 1985).Google Scholar

³¹ F. Nietzsche, ‘Der Antichrist’ §7 (in: F. Nietzsche, Werke, hg. v. Giorgio Cocci und Mazzino Montinari; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. 1969) defines Christianity as a religion of compassion (des Mitleidens) and writes: ‘Das Mitleiden kreuzt im grossen ganzen das Gesetz der Entwicklung, welches dar Gesetz der Selektion ist. Es erhält, was zuin Untergange reif ist.’

³² Cp. Meisinger, H.: Lebesgebot und Altruismus. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Gespräch zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft. Diss. theol. Heidelberg 1994.Google Scholar