Criterion Of Independent Attestation

The most problematic criterion for me would have to be the criterion of independent attestation. This criterion sets up the idea that if you have multiple individuals writing independent accounts of Jesus, then there is an increase in authenticity of certain. The biggest issue with this though is the types of sources we are using and how many we have. It was pointed out in the book that many of the religious texts outside of the New Testament do not really portray what the historical Jesus was like. Even if they do they are widely refuted (i.e. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas). Another issue I have with this criterion is the fact that it possibly sets up a motive for using the “Q” source. Calling something a source that does not actually exist seems paradoxical and using seems more like a guess or assumption than actual historical fact. Another issue that occurs with this is that you still cannot accurately discern from a piece if the historical Jesus was properly represent, or if the text contained information from an already established theology.
From what we currently know about the gospels that contain this narrative, the story was not written independently, or in other words they come from one large source (the Synoptic Gospels) or the “Q,” source. While this story may not have been written independently, it should not be discard as historical fact. Various other references that are contained in the Synoptic Gospels would be under scrutinity with this criterion as well (i.e. The Cleansing of the Temple and the Occasion of the Sermon on the Mount). Overall this criterion seems to be too