The Criterion of Discontinuity

There are two major applications of discontinuity: (1) any saying or action of Jesus which is discontinuous with the attitudes, theology, or sayings of second-Temple Judaism^[7] show signs of historicity because Jesus had sufficient authority to break with that tradition; (2) any saying or action attributed to Jesus which may be viewed as undeveloped (because the early Church’s theology had developed in light of His resurrection and gift of the Spirit) also shows signs of historicity, because there is no reason why the early Church would have preserved an undeveloped theology except in deference to Jesus’ having uttered it.^[8] This may also be extended to actions or sayings which the early Church would have found embarrassing, apologetically unappealing, disrespectful to Jesus, or disrespectful to the apostles. This criterion works particularly well in combination with multiple attestation, because multiple attestation can help to identify high probability of an origin in the early Palestinian Church or the historical Jesus; so when there is both multiple attestation and discontinuity from early Judaism and/or the early Church, it is difficult to find another source besides Jesus having sufficient authority to explain their placement within the Gospels.

Note that the converse is once again fallacious. Just because a story or saying is continuous with early second-Temple Judaism and the theology of the early Church does not mean that it is non-historical (to conclude otherwise would again be the fallacy of negating the antecedent).

We may now explore the two kinds of discontinuity in greater detail, starting with discontinuity from second-Temple Judaism. Latourelle catalogues a series of examples from Jeremias’ comprehensive study of this criterion which entails discontinuity of form and/or content from second-Temple Judaism. With respect to discontinuity of form (i.e., where a multi-attested form of a saying differs from second-Temple Judaism and so points to an origin in Jesus), scholars can identify when the form of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is discontinuous with a form of that same saying in second-Temple Judaism. For example, the way in which multiple sources attribute the use of antithetical parallelism and “amen” to Jesus is discontinuous with second-Temple Judaism’s use of these forms, and so Jeremias concludes that this way of speaking probably had its origin in Jesus.^[9]

The same holds true for discontinuity of content, particularly attitudes, from second-Temple Judaism.^[10] The New Testament clearly attributes the address “Abba” to Jesus, which conveys such a deep intimacy with the Father that it is exceedingly rare in second-Temple Judaism. So also, this holds true for Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath and the Law, which is completely discontinuous with second-Temple Judaism.

The criterion of discontinuity may also be applied to the early Church. As noted above, it becomes relevant with respect to actions or sayings in the Gospels that the early Church would have found embarrassing, apologetically unappealing, disrespectful to Jesus, or disrespectful to the apostles. Dozens of examples can be found for this, including Jesus’ baptism (Mk 1:9-11 – which counts Him among sinners); the command not to preach to the Samaritans and the Gentiles (Mt 10:5 – which is incommensurate with the early Church’s mission to the Samaritans and the Gentiles); and all of the passages which show the apostles’ obtuseness, faults, and desertion (which is highly embarrassing to the leaders of the post-resurrection Church).^[11] We have already seen this above with respect to Jesus being accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. Why on earth would the Church have ever brought this accusation to the attention of converts and prospective converts unless the accusation were true and needed to be redressed? We also saw this with respect to Matthew’s reference to the soldiers being told to say that Jesus’ body was stolen (as an explanation of the empty tomb).^[12] This is also important in our historical assessment of the miracles of Jesus, given below.

The criterion of discontinuity also applies to New Testament sayings superceded by the theology of the post-resurrectional Church. This can be seen, for example, in the New Testament use of “Son of Man.” In light of the resurrection and gift of the Spirit, the early Church had progressed beyond this title to that of “the Son of God” and “the Lord,” which make Jesus’ divinity quite clear. In contrast to this, the title “Son of Man,”(see Unit II-G) only implies Jesus’ divinity by associating him with the divine Judge, the initiator of the parousia, and possessing the glory of God (see Daniel 7:13-14). Why would the early Church have used a far less theologically expressive title for Jesus than the ones that it had already used to express the divinity they recognized in the resurrection and gift of the Spirit? The matter becomes even more curious when we see the number of times that these titles are used. The more current and theologically expressive titles are used rather infrequently in the gospels, while the title “Son of Man” is placed on the lips of Jesus (comparatively) a very large number of times (80 times).^[13] There appears to be but one logical explanation – “Son of Man” was the title Jesus used to refer to Himself.

This leads to another question – why would the Evangelists have inserted the titles “Son of God” and “the Lord” into narratives of the ministry of Jesus, if those titles only came to light after the resurrection and gift of the Spirit? The direct answer is that they used the Gospels as a means of teaching the full truth about the identity and reality of Jesus. And so they gave post-resurrectional theological interpretation to the mission and actions of Jesus and His ministry. This intermingling of history and interpretation is not unusual in the ancient world, and should not be considered a cavalier attitude toward history on the part of the Evangelists. As will be seen below, the Evangelists were very concerned with history; yet they felt free to express the full significance of these events. These post-resurrection themes can be readily identified and distinguished from Jesus’ ordinary modes of expression and attitudes.

We should not infer from this that Jesus did not make reference to His divinity. As will be seen in Unit II-G, He did – but in an indirect way. For example, He spoke about bringing the kingdom of God (with its eternal significance) to the world in His own person; He claimed to vanquish evil by His own authority; His mission was precisely the one reserved for Yahweh alone; He referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” (with its eschatological significance within second-Temple Judaism’s interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14); and He implied, in three distinct ways, that He is the exclusive Son of the Father. These indirect references to His divinity were consistent with His desire to avoid self-aggrandizement and to induce His disciples to recognize His divine Sonship through His actions and in their hearts.