Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[neilgodfrey]

I have attempted to confirm the Wikipedia claim

Another argument used in favour of the historicity of the baptism is that multiple accounts refer to it, usually called the criterion of multiple attestation Technically, multiple attestation does not guarantee authenticity, but only determines antiquity.[54] However, for most scholars, together with the criterion of embarrassment it lends credibility to the baptism of Jesus by John being a historical event.[52][55][56][57]

Citations :

[52] John the Baptist: prophet of purity for a new age by Catherine M. Murphy 2003 ISBN 0-8146-5933-0 pages 29–30

As pointed out above, Murphy uses Josephus to support the historicity of the baptism of Jesus on the basis of the criterion of embarrassment -- not multiple attestation.

[55] An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity by Delbert Royce Burkett 2002 ISBN 0-521-00720-8 pages 247–248

Burkett on these pages merely repeats the conventional wisdom that the criterion of embarrassment supports the historicity of Jesus' baptism. No reference to Josephus or multiple attestation as support.

[56] Who is Jesus? by Thomas P. Rausch 2003 ISBN 978-0-8146-5078-3 page 36

Ditto: Rausch on this page merely repeats the conventional wisdom that the criterion of embarrassment supports the historicity of Jesus' baptism. No reference to Josephus or multiple attestation as support.

[57] The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth: A Critical Study by Daniel S. Dapaah 2005 ISBN 0-7618-3109-6 page 91

Unable to access this page online. But a word search in Google books seems to indicate the word "Josephus" does not appear in the chapter discussing the baptism of Jesus or multiple attestation as support.

People here have been following McGrath too closely. They have been misled into thinking a quick glance at a Wikipedia claim is a substitute for argument and the hard work of locating sources for claims made, etc.

Outhouse, would you like to check my results and look up the citations yourself?

[Peter Kirby]

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 103



Robert Webb, "Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Significance," and John Dominic Crossan (The Historical Jesus, p. 234). Cited in Le Donne and Keith, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, p. 160.



(this is from using Google books)

[toejam]

^Yep again, Peter. I would also add Ehrman:

"That Jesus associated with John the Baptist is multiply attested in a number of our early sources. It is found in both Mark and John, independently of one another; there are also traditions of Jesus's early association with John in Q and a distinctive story from M. Why would all these sources independently link Jesus to John? Probably because there was in fact a link.

Moreover, the baptism of Jesus appears to pass the criterion of dissimilarity. The early Christians who told stories about Jesus believed that a person who was baptized was spiritually inferior to the person who was doing the baptizing, a view most Christians still hold today. And so who would make up a story about Jesus being baptized by someone else? That story would suggest that John was Jesus's superior. Moreover, why was John baptizing? According to our early traditions, it was after people repented, for "the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4). Did Jesus have sins that needed to be forgiven? Would would make up such a tale? The reason we have stories in which Jesus was baptized by John is that it is a historically reliable datum. He really was baptized by John, as attested in multiple independent sources."

Did Jesus Exist?, p.302 (emphasis added)

We can see here from Meier, Crossan and Ehrman that for them it is a combination of Multiple Attestation and Dissimilarity / Embarrassment that advances the argument. Not a "full-stop" on Embarrassment only as Neil painted.

[Stephan Huller]

I am not sure the synoptics and John represent separate witnesses

[Peter Kirby]

I am not sure the synoptics and John represent separate witnesses

We have a winner! What's his prize?

Seriously though, I agree.

Canonical Luke may know John, and John may know Mark (etc.).

[MrMacSon]

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 103

It'd be interesting to know what the rest of the sentence "- though such an argument must .." says

There are several editions of this book. I briefly looked at the 2014 one

[Peter Kirby]

As I recall, the general context is that Meier refers to 1 John and the Gospel of John to get to the multiple attestation.

This was one of the books I sold in my moving between the US and Europe, so I don't have it anymore to check.

[Bernard Muller]

Canonical Luke may know John, and John may know Mark (etc.).

I would greatly prefer that:
Canonical John may know Luke & Mark (http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html), and Luke may know Mark.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Canonical Luke may know John

Canonical John may know Luke

So, how can we decide between these two alternative hypotheses?

[toejam]

I am not sure the synoptics and John represent separate witnesses

Nor am I. But Multiple Attestation gives us good reason to suspect that a claim isn't just a one-off bogeyman, and that it may well represent wider and earlier Christian beliefs about Jesus. The association between Jesus and John the Baptist is strong in this regard, with multiple stories turning up in multiple sources. That - in combination with the Criterion of Dissimilarity / Embarrassment - in combination also with the attestation of Josephus for the existence of John the Baptist - in combination with further traditions in Acts that tell us of the existence of Christian communities who know only of the Baptism of John, etc. give us good reason (not proof though, in my judgement) to suspect historicity of their association. Contrast this with, say, the story of the 12yr old Jesus schooling the temple elites only found in Luke, which fails both criteria, and is rightfully doubted as historical by most critical scholars.