Criterion of dissimilarity¶
Assesses a reported Jesus tradition against contemporary Jewish and primitive Christian contexts, yielding defeasible attribution support when neither adequately explains its derivation.
Core Idea¶
The criterion of dissimilarity, in its double-comparison form, assesses a reported Jesus tradition against contemporary Jewish and primitive Christian contexts.[^ref-b073739c6591] A finding that neither adequately explains its derivation supplies positive but defeasible attribution support under the comparison assumptions. Both branches matter; awkwardness for transmitters alone is not the whole method. Failure to pass does not prove inauthenticity, and passing does not logically exhaust every possible origin or establish exact wording.[^ref-b073739c6591]
Scope of Application¶
Use both independently grounded comparison branches in these original-source types of historical attribution work:
- Formula assessments: Stein’s prefatory Amen example retains debate over the antecedent comparison.[^ref-b073739c6591]
- Title/motif assessments: his Son-of-man argument retains chronology disputes and an Acts 7:56 exception.[^ref-b073739c6591]
- Nonpassing assessments: plausible contextual derivation withholds support through this filter without proving fabrication.[^ref-b073739c6591]
- Comparative reassessment: new context evidence leads both branches to be reconsidered, rather than freezing an absence claim.[^ref-b073739c6591]
Clarity¶
Historical attribution is distinct from religious authority, truth of a teaching and verbatim wording. A claim of uniqueness can also concern a limited comparative record rather than demonstrated impossibility. Finally, distinctive is not necessarily characteristic: shared material may be authentic and central even though this criterion cannot establish it.[^ref-b073739c6591] A portrait assembled only from its successes would therefore answer a narrower question than a representative historical account.
Manages Complexity¶
Track the target, two contextual evidence records, their alignment and the bounded attribution result. This locates disagreements about meaning, source chronology, possible derivation and the weight of a contrast instead of treating them as one unexplained authenticity verdict. The reduction does not replace the larger historical inquiry or make the communities homogeneous. Their records and alternative derivations remain questions that need evidence, rather than assumptions supplied by the criterion’s label.
Abstract Reasoning¶
Check comparator independence, distinguish withheld support from negative proof, and revise when context knowledge changes. Defining early-Christian theology solely from the Gospel motif under test and then rejecting that motif as a church creation makes the comparison circular.[^ref-b073739c6591] Similarly, a supported antecedent prevents this filter from supplying its positive argument without ruling out attribution through other evidence.[^ref-b073739c6591] Apply both branches again when new records or chronology change the comparison, rather than turning an earlier gap into permanent absence.
Knowledge Transfer¶
The source’s prefatory formula and apocalyptic motif replace content while preserving the two comparisons and asymmetric inference.[^ref-b073739c6591] Comparison supplies the portable constituent: coframe comparands, choose dimensions, align their meaning and read off a relation. The historical method adds its specified context pair and attribution assumptions, so another founder’s story needs its own warranted comparisons and evidence. The cases remain source-worked assessments with disputed premises, rather than independent validation that the instrument always recovers historical truth.
Relationships to Other Abstractions¶
Current abstraction Criterion of dissimilarity Domain-specific
Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on
-
Criterion of dissimilarity is part of Comparison Prime
The double criterion contains two necessary Comparison operations between a target tradition and independently grounded historical-context records.
Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root
- Criterion of dissimilarity → Comparison
Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶
Criterion of dissimilarity sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (97th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.
Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (2721 abstractions)
Nearest neighbors
- Parable — 0.78
- Mytheme — 0.77
- Queer theology — 0.77
- Unverified Personal Gnosis — 0.76
- Tropological reading — 0.76
Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-17
References¶
[^ref-b073739c6591]: Robert H. Stein. (1980). The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity. In R. T. France and David Wenham, editors, Gospel Perspectives, Volume 1: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, JSOT Press, Sheffield. Consulted the complete available reformatted chapter; relevant section 6 on PDF pages 14–18 (reproduced markers 240–245), footnotes 54, 58 and 59, nearby distinctions and conclusion on PDF pages 24–25. The online reproduction’s running chapter range and terminal reproduced page markers differ, so its original printed end pagination is not independently confirmed. The worked examples express the source author’s qualified historical arguments, not present consensus or new empirical validation.