What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria
Should the dissimilarity between Jesus and early Christianity or between Jesus and Judaism be the central criteria for the historical Jesus? Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter argue that the criterion of dissimilarity does not do justice to the single most important result of more than two-hundred years of Jesus that the historical Jesus belongs to both Judaism and Christianity. The two authors propose a criterion of historical plausibility so that historical phenomenon under question can be considered authentic so long as it can be plausibly understood in its Jewish context and also facilitates a plausible explanation for its later effects in Christian history. This book is a cooperative project between Dagmar Winter and Gerd Theissen and represents the fruit of many years of their research on the historical Jesus.
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
About the author
Gerd Theißen
128 books17 followersGerd Theißen (or Theissen; born 24 April 1943) is a German Protestant theologian and New Testament scholar. He is Professor of New Testament Theology at the University of Heidelberg.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 21, 2013
Foundational to all historical research is methodology. Proper history is achieved through proper historiography. This naturally evokes the question of criteria. How is the historian to judge what ought to be included in her reconstruction of the past?
It is this important question that Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter address in The Quest for the Plausible Jesus - The Question of Criteria. Though the title suggests that it deals comprehensively with historical Jesus criteria, it is directed solely toward the criterion of dissimilarity.
Theissen and Winter make clear that their contribution is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive, noting that, "With the advent of the 'Third Quest,' however, the criterion of dissimilarity basically fell by the wayside. Once it is programmatically asserted that Jesus belongs within Judaism, one can no longer use "dissimilar from Judaism" as a fundamental methodological principle" (pp. 6). This volume is a response and justification for the trends that are already present in current research. As such, they engage in a fairly modest project, yet, as will be seen, with great tact and skill.
In Chapter I, 'The Quest for Criteria in Jesus Research', Theissen and Winter briefly map out the criteria that have been most prominently utilized in past Jesus' research and then set forth the subsequent content of their publication.
Chapter II, 'The Criterion of Dissimilarity in the History of Jesus Research', constitutes the majority of the volume (pages 27 to 171). This portion is derived from Winter's doctoral dissertation, supervised by Theissen. She skillfully weaves her way through the whole of Jesus research, beginning with scholastics and traversing all the way to the 'Third Questers', tracing the creation and development of the criterion of dissimilarity. She distinguishes between the two forms of the criterion, as well as its two application. The two sides include the criterion of dissimilarity to Judaism (CDJ) and the criterion of dissimilarity to early Christianity (CDC). Along with these two forms, the two applications are either positive (the criterion determines what is authentic) or negative (the criterion determines what is inauthentic).
Being that I am nerd for history of ideas and history of research, I ate this chapter up. Her analysis of Thomas Carlyle's "great man" theory was pointed and insightful. I especially appreciated the care with which she addressed Anti-Judaism (not to be confused with Anti-Semitism) in early 20th century German scholarship. In order to represent the several epochs of Jesus research, Winter selects four Jesus historians who serve as exemplars: (1) Bousset, (2) Bultmann, (3) Bornkamm, and (4) James Charlesworth. This approach provided a rich paradigm for understanding the role of the criterion in the history of research. I cannot overstate how well written and lucid Winter's contribution is. I heartily recommend the book for this chapter alone. The history of the criterion alone proves enough to cast serious doubt on its worth.
Chapter III, 'The Criterion of Historical Plausibility', is Theissen and Winter's attempt to fill the now vacant "criteria vacuum". They've deemed their replacement criteria, "the criterion of historical plausibility". This new criteria is composed of three aspects. First, "The Plausibility of Historical Effects". This is essentially a reworked version of the CDC, which Theissen and Winter do not find nearly as problematic as the CDJ. This aspect consists of two subcriteria, (1) Opposition to Traditional Bias and (2) Coherence of Sources. The first states that whatever is adverse or disadvantageous to early Christianity in the gospels is likely authentic (criteria of embarrassment), and the second, again basically a reworking of an old criteria, states that material which is present in multiple sources and forms is likely authentic. Next, Theissen and Winter propose, "The Plausibility of Historical Context". This is their most significant contribution in this chapter, however, many will recognize it as a basic presupposition of current Jesus research. It states that, (1) the material must be appropriate within the context of 1st century Palestine, and (2) it must take account for distinctiveness in the historical Jesus - however this should not be confused for the search of the "underivable". Lastly, the third aspect of their grand criteria, which serves essentially as a canon or regulator for the first two, is "Comprehensive Historical Plausibility". This maybe the most vague and ambiguous aspect forwarded. Essentially, Theissen and Winter are arguing that the composite picture of Jesus that is formed from the combination of the preceding criteria must itself be historically plausible.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness and secular (ie: not exclusive to historical Jesus research) nature of their criteria, Theissen and Winter venture off on an excursus dealing with the Montanist prophets. The excursus was very helpful in fleshing out their proposal and removing some of the ambiguity felt above.
They conclude in Chapter IV, 'Criteria in Jesus Research and the "Wide Ugly Ditch" of History', with a hermeneutical consideration. They attempt, not so much to solve, but to wrestle with "Lessing's Ditch". How shall certainty-seeking faith be reconciled with plausibility-seeking history? While I appreciate their attempt to overtly address theological concerns, a rare thing in historical Jesus publications, I was unconvinced of their proposal. However, this in no way takes away from the previous three chapters of the book, which are functionally disconnected. They address the issue as rather committed modernists, stating the three modernist presuppositions with which we must address the gospels. Perhaps it is because I live in the postmodern age, or, more likely, because I have evangelical sentiments, I was unpersuaded by their proposals.
In summary, I cheerfully recommend this book to those interested in historical Jesus research, specifically with regards to issues of criteria. Ultimately, I think Theissen and Winter have made a tremendously valuable contribution in their deconstruction of the criterion of dissimilarity, yet they are lacking in their replacement criteria. They have opened up a vacant lodge in historical Jesus criteria that they were unable to fill. That is no major mark against the volume - only an acknowledgement of its limitations. For those seeking justification for the criterion's absence in the 'Third Quest', this is the book for you.
I'd like to thank Westminster John Knox Press for providing this review copy free of charge in exchange for an honest revie
It is this important question that Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter address in The Quest for the Plausible Jesus - The Question of Criteria. Though the title suggests that it deals comprehensively with historical Jesus criteria, it is directed solely toward the criterion of dissimilarity.
Theissen and Winter make clear that their contribution is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive, noting that, "With the advent of the 'Third Quest,' however, the criterion of dissimilarity basically fell by the wayside. Once it is programmatically asserted that Jesus belongs within Judaism, one can no longer use "dissimilar from Judaism" as a fundamental methodological principle" (pp. 6). This volume is a response and justification for the trends that are already present in current research. As such, they engage in a fairly modest project, yet, as will be seen, with great tact and skill.
In Chapter I, 'The Quest for Criteria in Jesus Research', Theissen and Winter briefly map out the criteria that have been most prominently utilized in past Jesus' research and then set forth the subsequent content of their publication.
Chapter II, 'The Criterion of Dissimilarity in the History of Jesus Research', constitutes the majority of the volume (pages 27 to 171). This portion is derived from Winter's doctoral dissertation, supervised by Theissen. She skillfully weaves her way through the whole of Jesus research, beginning with scholastics and traversing all the way to the 'Third Questers', tracing the creation and development of the criterion of dissimilarity. She distinguishes between the two forms of the criterion, as well as its two application. The two sides include the criterion of dissimilarity to Judaism (CDJ) and the criterion of dissimilarity to early Christianity (CDC). Along with these two forms, the two applications are either positive (the criterion determines what is authentic) or negative (the criterion determines what is inauthentic).
Being that I am nerd for history of ideas and history of research, I ate this chapter up. Her analysis of Thomas Carlyle's "great man" theory was pointed and insightful. I especially appreciated the care with which she addressed Anti-Judaism (not to be confused with Anti-Semitism) in early 20th century German scholarship. In order to represent the several epochs of Jesus research, Winter selects four Jesus historians who serve as exemplars: (1) Bousset, (2) Bultmann, (3) Bornkamm, and (4) James Charlesworth. This approach provided a rich paradigm for understanding the role of the criterion in the history of research. I cannot overstate how well written and lucid Winter's contribution is. I heartily recommend the book for this chapter alone. The history of the criterion alone proves enough to cast serious doubt on its worth.
Chapter III, 'The Criterion of Historical Plausibility', is Theissen and Winter's attempt to fill the now vacant "criteria vacuum". They've deemed their replacement criteria, "the criterion of historical plausibility". This new criteria is composed of three aspects. First, "The Plausibility of Historical Effects". This is essentially a reworked version of the CDC, which Theissen and Winter do not find nearly as problematic as the CDJ. This aspect consists of two subcriteria, (1) Opposition to Traditional Bias and (2) Coherence of Sources. The first states that whatever is adverse or disadvantageous to early Christianity in the gospels is likely authentic (criteria of embarrassment), and the second, again basically a reworking of an old criteria, states that material which is present in multiple sources and forms is likely authentic. Next, Theissen and Winter propose, "The Plausibility of Historical Context". This is their most significant contribution in this chapter, however, many will recognize it as a basic presupposition of current Jesus research. It states that, (1) the material must be appropriate within the context of 1st century Palestine, and (2) it must take account for distinctiveness in the historical Jesus - however this should not be confused for the search of the "underivable". Lastly, the third aspect of their grand criteria, which serves essentially as a canon or regulator for the first two, is "Comprehensive Historical Plausibility". This maybe the most vague and ambiguous aspect forwarded. Essentially, Theissen and Winter are arguing that the composite picture of Jesus that is formed from the combination of the preceding criteria must itself be historically plausible.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness and secular (ie: not exclusive to historical Jesus research) nature of their criteria, Theissen and Winter venture off on an excursus dealing with the Montanist prophets. The excursus was very helpful in fleshing out their proposal and removing some of the ambiguity felt above.
They conclude in Chapter IV, 'Criteria in Jesus Research and the "Wide Ugly Ditch" of History', with a hermeneutical consideration. They attempt, not so much to solve, but to wrestle with "Lessing's Ditch". How shall certainty-seeking faith be reconciled with plausibility-seeking history? While I appreciate their attempt to overtly address theological concerns, a rare thing in historical Jesus publications, I was unconvinced of their proposal. However, this in no way takes away from the previous three chapters of the book, which are functionally disconnected. They address the issue as rather committed modernists, stating the three modernist presuppositions with which we must address the gospels. Perhaps it is because I live in the postmodern age, or, more likely, because I have evangelical sentiments, I was unpersuaded by their proposals.
In summary, I cheerfully recommend this book to those interested in historical Jesus research, specifically with regards to issues of criteria. Ultimately, I think Theissen and Winter have made a tremendously valuable contribution in their deconstruction of the criterion of dissimilarity, yet they are lacking in their replacement criteria. They have opened up a vacant lodge in historical Jesus criteria that they were unable to fill. That is no major mark against the volume - only an acknowledgement of its limitations. For those seeking justification for the criterion's absence in the 'Third Quest', this is the book for you.
I'd like to thank Westminster John Knox Press for providing this review copy free of charge in exchange for an honest revie
October 25, 2024
The highlights: Theissen and Winter provide an excellent summary of the history of the quests for the historical Jesus. Not only that, but they offer better criteria of "plausibility" as opposed to the more traditional criteria of "dissimilarity." If you want to get into the weeds of historical Jesus research, this isn't a bad place to start. Additionally, they have a response to Lessing's "wide ugly ditch" that is lackluster, but at least on the right path.
What's not so good: Theissen and Winter are still too comfortable with the criteria of dissimilarity from Christianity (CDC). They want to retain these criteria (with alterations) as well as those categorized as criteria of dissimilarity from Judaism (CDJ). However, on the whole, they are much more favorably disposed to the CDC than the CDJ. But the CDC, and the authors, don't pay enough attention to the actual effects of the life of Jesus in the Roman world and especially the Palestinian Jewish context. Maybe we're all so desensitized to the post-Easter narrative that we forget how strange it is, given the cultural context, that a Jewish eschatological prophet/preacher/rabbi would be executed by Rome and in so doing kick off a movement whose dominant stream is represented by rural uneducated manual laborers. When looking for a "plausible" Jesus, very few confront how implausible the basic narrative already is.
What's not so good: Theissen and Winter are still too comfortable with the criteria of dissimilarity from Christianity (CDC). They want to retain these criteria (with alterations) as well as those categorized as criteria of dissimilarity from Judaism (CDJ). However, on the whole, they are much more favorably disposed to the CDC than the CDJ. But the CDC, and the authors, don't pay enough attention to the actual effects of the life of Jesus in the Roman world and especially the Palestinian Jewish context. Maybe we're all so desensitized to the post-Easter narrative that we forget how strange it is, given the cultural context, that a Jewish eschatological prophet/preacher/rabbi would be executed by Rome and in so doing kick off a movement whose dominant stream is represented by rural uneducated manual laborers. When looking for a "plausible" Jesus, very few confront how implausible the basic narrative already is.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews