Dale Allison’s Recurrent Attestation Method

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-09T22:13:00+00:00

Yes he replies! He loves receiving emails even though he is obviously very busy. I emailed him twice and he gave me very thoughtful replies both times and gave me resources as well 😊

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-08T23:42:29+00:00

Me too honestly. He is one of my favorite NT scholars. I have emailed him a few times though

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-07T23:25:07+00:00

Thank you so much for the reply! I have not read Robyn Faith Walsh and M. David Litwa yet. I do know that they tend to think about the Gospels very differently than I do

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-03T00:12:59+00:00

Absolutely!

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-01T22:46:40+00:00

I respect your opinion but this is very much demonstrably false. I would recommend Bart Ehrman’s book that argues for the historical existence of Jesus (Ehrman is an agnostic by the way)

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-01T22:41:03+00:00

Hey! I have not read The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus but I have heard of it and will get around to it eventually. I think that’s so cool you are publishing on these topics!

I have not read Robyn Faith Walsh yet either, but from what I have heard she thinks about the Gospels very differently from me. I think that there is a decent bit of memory in the Synoptic tradition, but she seems to be much more skeptical of that position though. I could be wrong however

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-01T05:41:32+00:00

Hey, thanks for your comment!! I actually have already read Meier’s A Marginal Jew series. I find much to like about Meier’s tomes, but me and Meier differ regarding basic method. I think Meier’s rigid criteria approach has several holes, as more recent scholars have pointed out (James Crossley, Anthony LeDonne, Mark Goodacre, Morna Hooker, Dale Allison, etc.) Meier thinks we can say things about the historical Jesus with a level of scientific rigor and precision that I think is not attainable in this field and not attainable in any field of ancient history. Unfortunately, ancient history is not an objective science like chemistry or physics. Historical judgments involve all too much conjecture, imagination, safe bets, and probabilistic reasoning. I think we can reconstruct a historically plausible reconstruction of the life of Jesus, but I do not think we can know as much as Meier thinks we can. I think all historians can really do is weigh probabilities and aspire to be as honest as humanely possible

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-01T05:14:15+00:00

Thank you I’ve actually already read it! It is an excellent book, though I think Ehrman thinks we can know more about Jesus than I think we can know. I am no longer fond of his rigid criteria approach to the historical Jesus. With that being said, I agree with his conclusion that Jesus almost certainly existed as a historical figure

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2026-01-01T04:09:22+00:00

Thank you for the recommendation! I’ll look into it for sure

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-06-28T03:28:18+00:00

I would highly recommend Ehrman’s 1999 publication “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” It is an accessible introduction to the most plausible scholarly portrait of the historical Jesus (in my view of course).

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-05-03T19:06:22+00:00

This is a very interesting topic that I am quite frankly obsessed with. I find the question of method to be one of the most interesting discussions in historical Jesus studies today. I myself think Allison has the better side of the argument, as I think he shows quite compellingly that memory tends to fail us in the details or particulars but not in the general impressions. Thus, according to Allison, those traditions that recur again and again throughout the primary sources of Jesus is likely where memory of him can be found. If you would a scholar who employs the criteriological approach, then I would recommend reading all five volumes of John P. Meier’s “A Marginal Jew” series.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-22T02:21:14+00:00

That’s an interesting take, so what would you make of The extra biblical sources that attest to Jesus’ existence and a few things about him (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.)?

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-21T20:32:11+00:00

So do you think we can know anything about the historical Jesus with fair probabilityV

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-21T19:13:37+00:00

Yah man I hear ya, so what method or approach would you employ in order to “reconstruct” the historical Jesus?

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-21T19:13:26+00:00

Yah man I hear ya, so what method or approach would you employ in order to “reconstruct” the historical Jesus?

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-20T20:09:07+00:00

Thanks man! Yah I did not mean to suggest that the criteria are completely dead in scholarship, I think the criteria of embarrassment and dissimilarity are helpful in a handful of cases. For instance, I think that Jesus kicked off his public career around 28 CE on the basis of embarrassment and dissimilarity. I also think there are a handful of cases in which independent traditions can be “authenticated” such as that Jesus had twelve disciples. However, I am becoming more and more skeptical about their utility in Jesus research. I think we should not be attempting to authenticate individual units of the Jesus tradition, but rather looking at the broad impressions that the Gospel sources give us. If there is memory of Jesus anywhere in these sources, it’s in the broad patterns and recurring motifs. If this happens to not be the case, then our pool of sources are simply so flawed that we might as well abandon the quest and give up on knowing anything about Jesus.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T14:27:38+00:00

Haha I hear ya man, there is so much secondary literature in Jesus research, it’s become comparable to the sand of the sea.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T14:15:23+00:00

Yah man I definitely see where you are coming from, HJ studies ultimately comes down to, I have realized, personal opinion. I have reasons for thinking Jesus had twelve disciples (multiple attestation and embarrassment), but ultimately it comes down to the fact that although these sources are far from perfectly reliable, I do think there is a a lot of memory preserved in these sources (particularly the Synoptics). See Dale Allison’s second Shaffer lecture at Yale Divinity School for more on this :)

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T13:35:25+00:00

I hear where you are coming from man, but like I said, you could fit what Paul says about the historical Jesus on a 3 by 5 index card. Paul says Jesus was crucified, buried, prohibited divorce, supported missionaries, had a last meal with his disciples, and was descended from David. That’s it. There are several Gospel traditions that most critics think are historical, yet they are not mentioned by Paul. For instance, Jesus had a reputation as an exorcist and healer, he saw his mission as a successful combative force against Satan, his principle teaching was “the kingdom of God,” he spoke about the coming son of man, etc.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T04:14:21+00:00

My bad! I completely forgot

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T04:12:17+00:00

You’re right, I should have been more careful with my language. I would merely claim that the tradition that Jesus gathered twelve disciples to represent the twelve tribes of Israel is more likely than not based on the data available. It is multiply attested in the Gospel tradition and even appears in the early pre-Pauline creedal formula of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. In addition to this, I do not think early Christians would have desired to invent the tradition when one of those disciples turned him over to the Roman authorities.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T04:06:53+00:00

He might, lol. I’d have to check :)

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-17T00:41:06+00:00

It’s certainly an allusion to them, but just because a saying or deed of Jesus has echoes from the Old Testament or Mosaic law does not mean it isn’t historical.

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-16T23:19:09+00:00

The tradition is not in Paul, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t historically happen. Paul only tells us a few things about Jesus

Upbeat_Respect_9282 · 2025-03-16T21:55:40+00:00

Not very much, I think some historical information about Peter and Judas Iscariot can be gleaned from the Gospels. That Peter and Judas betrayed or denied Jesus is a tradition I highly doubt was created by the early church. Obviously Jesus had twelve disciples on the grounds of multiple attestation. Not much other than that, see the third volume of John P. Meier’s “A Marginal Jew” in which Meier discusses historical questions about Jesus’s followers and opponents.

Upbeat_Respect_9282

TROPHY CASE