3. Multiple Attestation of Sources

1. Greidanus:A second criterion is that of multiple attestation. Latourelle employs a broader definition of this criterion than does Perrin. Latourelle states that multiple attestation accepts as “authentic an evangelical datum solidly attested to in all the sources (or most of them) of the Gospels … and in other writings of the New Testament.” This criterion applies particularly to “establishing the essential characteristics of … the preaching and the activity of Jesus.”62 Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 44.

1.1. McGrew: They need to be able to argue at least probabilistically that varied details indicate varied access to the events. Independent attestation must be established by way of a process that, at the same time, tends to support the thesis that the individual documents come from those who were knowledgeable about the facts. Lydia McGrew, “Finessing Independent Attestation: A Study in Interdisciplinary Biblical Criticism,” Themelios 44, no. 1 (2019): 103.

1.1.1. EYE-WITNESSES (αὐτόπται, Lk 1:2; cf. ἐπόπται in 2 P 1:16).—We have the assurance of the Third Evangelist that the Gospels are founded not upon second-hand reports, but upon the direct testimony of those who were present. T. Gregory, “Eye-Witnesses,” ed. James Hastings, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Aaron–Zion (Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 561.

1.1.1.1. Keener: Because the majority of specifically Jewish sources addressing the issue are later, but the sources that we do have reflect patterns more widely distributed in Mediterranean antiquity, we cast the net for information on ancient Mediterranean memory as widely as possible. Such information suggests that issues of memory were relevant for historiography in antiquity as they are for historiography today. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 145.

1.2. Definition:the criterion of multiple attestation or cross-section is more optimistic and maximalist in its orientation. This criterion has two different conceptualizations: the first is reliant upon independently attested traditions in which authentic material is found in a cross-section of these sources, and the second, later form is dependent upon multiple literary forms even within the same sources. S. E. Porter, “Criteria of Authenticity,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 156.

2. In the Patriarchs: Which elements one counts makes the exact count subjective, but speaking roughly, in Suetonius’s brief biography, I found 31 points with close correspondence to Tacitus and 18 additional points of significant correspondence. I found 30 points of close contact between Suetonius and Plutarch, with 18 further points of significant correspondence; besides these, I found 28 further points of close correspondence between Plutarch and Tacitus. Keep in mind again that Suetonius’s biography of Otho is brief, the equivalent of roughly only 28 paragraphs, with a total of fewer than 2,000 words. One would not expect anything like this level of correspondence in a novel of comparable length, even in the rarer historical novels where some correspondences are possible. At least two of our three sources, and probably all three of them, are closely bound to their own sources. An observation such as this need not surprise us; ancient historians and biographers do sometimes name their sources.43 They were particularly apt to identify their sources when alternate stories came to circulate over time.44 What our comparison of some sample sources indicates is just how closely bound to their sources they could be. This appears particularly evident for Otho’s final hours; as in the gospel passion narratives, the chief character’s end was a matter of interest inviting detailed comment. Craig S. Keener, “Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius’s Biography and Tacitus’s History, with Implications for the Gospels’ Historical Reliability,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 1–4 (2011): 352.

3. Dissent: The use of criteria in historical Jesus research gives the enterprise an appearance of scientific objectivity that may be deceptive. A case in point is the use of multiple attestation to establish the near certainty that the historical Jesus was a healer and exorcist (as, for example, J.P. Meier argues). Logically, there is little reason why multiple attestation alone should indicate historical reliability, and there may not be as many useful independent sources for Jesus’ miracles as Meier supposes. Jesus may well have been a healer and exorcist, but if so, this needs to be established on other grounds. Eve, Eric. “Meier, Miracle and Multiple Attestation.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2005, Vol. 3 (1), pp: 23–45.

4. Dissimilarity: Philosophers of science have known for a long time that varied evidence is more valuable to confirmation than evidence that is identical. This is why witnesses who show some variation in their reports are preferable to those that are too similar. Lydia McGrew, “Finessing Independent Attestation: A Study in Interdisciplinary Biblical Criticism,” Themelios 44, no. 1 (2019): 91.

5. Dissimilarity:The Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, in contrast, do provide such varying details. They mention different names of women present, which Richard Bauckham has argued may indicate differing human sources used by the authors.9 They give somewhat different accounts of the words of the angels. John’s account gives the perspective of Mary Magdalene very particularly, whereas Matthew seems to follow some others who were with her. Only Luke mentions Joanna (Luke 24:10). These are the kinds of details that help us to make an argument that the authors of the accounts had independent lines of access to the facts attested, not merely to the existence of apostolic teaching that included the affirmation of an empty tomb.10 Lydia McGrew, “Finessing Independent Attestation: A Study in Interdisciplinary Biblical Criticism,” Themelios 44, no. 1 (2019): 93.