The Burden of Proof

Abstract

Three main positions on the burden of proof compete for acceptance in current gospel research. The reasons generally given for assuming the burden of proof to be on the person affirming authenticity for any gospel portion cannot withstand close scrutiny. A Kantian argument, as well as analogy from secular historiography, suggest that the burden of proof is rather on the one who would deny authenticity. A mediating position which sees this debate as not profitable is well- intended but unhelpful. The criteria for authenticity and inauthenticity that one uses in detailed tradition-critical exegesis vary in important ways depending on the stance adopted on the burden of proof issue.