Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:39:05.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dissimilarity Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

David L. Mealand
David L. Mealand
Affiliation:
Faculty of DivinityUniversity of EdinburghEH1 2LX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dissimilarity test is one of the more important criteria used in the revived quest for the historical Jesus. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the dissimilarity test, and to reconsider some aspects of its use.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 1978 , pp. 41 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 41 note 1 cf. Perrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967), 39–47 with references to earlier literatureGoogle Scholar; Fuller, R. H., A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1966), 94–98Google Scholar; Downing, F. G., The Church and Jesus (London: SCM, 1968), ch. 6Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., ‘On Using the Wrong Tool’, Theology, 75, 1972, 570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barbour, R. S., Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1972), esp. 1–27Google Scholar; Calvert, D. G. A., ‘An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus’, N.T.S., 18 1971–1972, 209–219Google Scholar. See also Hooker, M. D., ‘Christology and Methodology’, New Testament Studies, 17, 1970–1971, 480–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 45 note 1 Hooker, ‘Tool’, 575–6; Calvert, ‘Criteria’, 214; cf. Downing, Church & Jesus, 104f and 115f. Further exploration of this issue lies beyond the scope of this paper.

page 46 note 1 Downing, Church & Jesus, 116; Hooker, ‘Tool’, 574; ‘Methodology’, 481; Barbour, Criticism, 14–16.

page 47 note 2 Downing, Church & Jesus, 116; cf. Barbour, Criticism, 16.

page 47 note 1 Hooker, ‘Tool’, 576; Calvert, ‘Criteria’, 212; cf. Bultmann, R., Jesus and the Word (London & Glasgow: Collins, r.p. 1958), 17.Google Scholar

page 47 note 2 Hooker, ‘Tool’, 574–5; Calvert, ‘Criteria’, 212; Barbour, Criticism, 6–7, 19.

page 47 note 3 Hooker, ‘Tool’, 577; ‘Methodology’, 483.

page 47 note 4 Hooker, ‘Tool’, 574; ‘Methodology’, 481. To be fair, Hooker only intended the analogy to illustrate the different meanings of the word ‘distinctive’.

page 48 note 1 Downing, Church & Jesus, 114–16; Barbour, Criticism, 7; Hooker, ‘Tool’, 575; ‘Methodology’, 482.

page 49 note 1 Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of N.T. Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1965), 102–108.Google Scholar

page 50 note 1 Because of this and other areas of debate it is difficult to dissent from Downing's conclusion that we need a variety of possible pictures of the transition from Judaism to Christianity via Jesus, and that the criteria have a place within these models, rather than as a means of excluding other models. But one needs to ask why the different models vary. It may well be that different interpretations of what is a parallel, and of what is consistent, will contribute to the variety. If so the causes of legitimate and welcome scholarly diversity are not inaccessible to rational debate.