Methods of Historical Criticism
What are the methods of historical criticism?
The methods of historical criticism are strategies used by historians and textual critics to gauge the likelihood that a particular passage is veridical.
The criteria for methods of historical criticism are the following:
- Multiple Attestation
- Congruity
- Coherence
- Dissimilarity
- Embarrassing Testimony
There are many more criteria than just those listed, but these are some of the most commonly used and are applied broadly. Often specific texts have arguments particular to them for judging plausibility, however, for the sake of brevity those instances will not be addressed here. There are also other categories of historical criticism, such as manuscript criticism, where objectives and methods differ significantly from what is outlined here. This article is meant to serve as a general guide for tools that can be used in critically examining claims in ancient documents.
It should also be noted that a text does not need to pass all criteria to be firmly historical. In fact, there are many passages from various writers in antiquity that fail most of the criteria, but nevertheless are virtually certain. The criteria simply give additional reason for believing claims to be factual.
Multiple Attestation
The criterion of multiple attestation is the number of early independent accounts confirming a claim. The more numerous the independent sources and the earlier they were authored, the stronger a claim is supported by multiple attestation. Multiple attestation is among the more compelling testaments to the veracity of a claim, as it significantly decreases the probability that the claim originated as a fabrication from a single individual.
Example of Multiple Attestation
A claim that has strong multiple attestation would be that Jesus of Nazareth was a Palestinian Jew who lived as a spiritual leader in the first century. Various authors in a variety of regions for a multitude of purposes all corroborated this fact within a few years of the events occurring. Some of the sources include the gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, Q document, and letters from the apostle Paul.
These sources all included material unique from the others, affirming the claim that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew living as a spiritual leader in the first century. All the sources listed above date to within the first century, placing them very close to the time period the claim is said to have taken place.
There are numerous other documents that were written early, corroborating that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew living as a spiritual leader in the first century, such as the Gospel of Peter and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Although these documents are considered far less reliable than the aforementioned sources, containing little to no truth in their particular claims, the fact remains that they were written close enough to the events to have reliably been narrating an actual figure, even if the particular details are all wrong.
Congruity
The criterion of congruity is whether a claim is congruent with our current understanding of reality. That is to say, a claim passes the criterion of congruity if the claim does not conflict with our understanding of scientific facts or philosophical possibility. Congruity is the most critical of the methods of historical criticism because if a claim is not scientifically or philosophically possible to our current understanding, then it is extremely improbable that the claim is factual.
An example of a claim that fails the test of congruity would be the claim that a man lifted a skyscraper with his bare hands. That statement fails the test of congruity because from what we know about humans, it is not possible for a person to have the strength to lift a building like that. Additionally, it is questionable how much such an act would compromise the structural stability of a building.
If a claim passes the criterion of congruity and is multiply attested, then the claim is strongly supported. Those two criteria alone can make for a compelling case.
Example of Congruity
In the first century, there lived a man by the name of Josephus. He was a Jewish-Roman historian and war veteran, who authored numerous works containing detailed accounts of Jewish and Roman history. One of his works was an autobiography. To take a random passage as an example of congruity, at the beginning of the third paragraph of his autobiography, Josephus states, “…when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome…” This statement passes the criterion of congruity because it is within our current scientific and philosophical understanding of the world for a first-century man to travel to Rome.
It must be noted, that a claim can be considered congruent, even if it is highly contentious. For example, the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead passes the criterion of congruity, because the claim does not contradict our current scientific understanding of dead organisms. Our current scientific understanding is that dead organisms do not naturally rise from the dead, but the claim “God raised Jesus from the dead” does not claim that Jesus naturally rose from the dead, but rather rose through an intervention by God. If a theistic god exists, then such a claim is philosophically possible. Nonetheless, such a claim will be rejected by many under the conditions that they reject the premise that a theistic god exists. However, strictly speaking, the claim itself still passes the criterion of congruity.
Coherence
The criterion of coherence is the degree to which a claim adheres to the context and practices of the time period it is attributed to. In other words, coherence is how much a claim fits into the setting we would expect from what historians know about the time and place.
Example of Coherence
Matthew 4:18 states, “Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.”
This passage contains much material, all of which passes the criterion of coherence. The following are some of the ways in which the passage contains material that corresponds with our understanding of that time and setting:
- The Sea of Galilee is a real place.
- There were many individuals who were fisherman by trade in first-century Galilee.
- It was
commonpractice for members of a family to work in the same industry. - The names Jesus, Simon, and Andrew were all common names of the time period and region.
- Nets were a tool used in the first-century to catch fish.
When we compare all the components of the verse in Matthew, we find that on every account it fits perfectly into its historical and geographical context.
Dissimilarity
The criterion of dissimilarity, also often referred to as discontinuity, is the degree to which a saying attributed to Jesus differs from the early church writings. If a saying is attributed to Jesus which differs from what the early church would want him to say then it is unlikely to be a fabrication.
This criterion has been the subject of much criticism because almost all the early church traditions and writings developed as a result of sayings and actions by Jesus, and so if it were to be the case that dissimilarity from early church traditions and writings was required to trust a claim, we would need to throw out most of the content otherwise seen as historical bedrock.
The reason this criterion is still being included is that even though failure to pass dissimilarity does nothing to diminish the likelihood of a claim, if a claim passes the criterion of dissimilarity, it tremendously boosts the confidence we can have in a claim’s authenticity.
Further, often included in the definition of dissimilarity is the need to differ from first-century Jewish traditions, however, this portion of dissimilarity is being excluded here because it is only necessary for a saying to differ from early church biases for it to consequently be highly probable.
Example of Dissimilarity
In the gospels, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man 82 times. The preferred title for Jesus by the early church was Son of God, and so Jesus’s title for himself is dissimilar to what the early church would like to attribute to him. It is unlikely therefore, to be a fabrication produced by early Christians.
Embarrassing Testimony
The criterion of embarrassing testimony states that if a claim would have been embarrassing material to report, it is likely to be factual. The reasons this criterion makes a compelling case for the veracity of a claim should be readily obvious; early Christian writers would not want to report material that contradicted what they wanted to be true. They would only report such material under the conditions that it actually happened.
This is among the most compelling reasons for trusting a claim as historically accurate. Later, non-canonical works are littered with material that embellishes, emboldens, and exalts Jesus and the disciples, yet are devoid of content that reflects poorly on characters they narrate. They lack material which passes embarrassing testimony because it is not in one’s self-interest to report information that seems to work against their objectives.
Example of Embarrassing Testimony
The classic example of embarrassing testimony would be Jesus’s baptism. It is reported that John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the Jordan River. In the first century, the individual being baptized was seen as inferior to the one performing the baptism. Furthermore, baptism was associated with the cleansing of sins, for which Christianity teaches Jesus is not guilty of. In light of this, the fact that it was still reported means that we can know without a reasonable doubt that Jesus really was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river
If you’re curious as to what Christians have to say about this, websites all over the internet address why Jesus was baptized.
Important Considerations
It is important to remember that most of history does not pass all the criteria in this article, and these criteria are not comprehensive. Every text should be looked at and judged using criteria and reasons appropriate for its content and background.
The criteria found in this article should serve as a supplement to give additional insight into a particular document, text, or claim. These criteria also do not necessarily need to apply strictly to biblical accounts. Documents such as the Quran can equally be examined using the aforementioned methods of historical criticism.
Finally, be sure to look at a variety of arguments when making a judgement as to the veracity of a historical claim. Exposing yourself to a myriad of perspectives will help shed light on what points seem to be strong, and where evidence is lacking. Keep an open and discerning mind.