I am simply asking if you are aware of the simple reason why "almost all modern scholars" consider two particular events in the life of Jesus to be historical facts.
I stand corrected then. I guess if Meier says there is a "slight possibility" of an argument from multiple attestation while Crossan and Webb point to multiple attestation of Mark, Gospel of Hebrews and Q then the field of biblical scholarship is so small that we cannot say that "almost all modern scholars" rely upon the criterion of embarrassment to assert the historicity of the baptism of Jesus.
(Ehrmann repeats the standard "who would make it up?" line and to my mind that merges into the criterion of embarrassment line.)
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
"The Gospel of Mark introduces John as a fulfilment of a prophecy from the Book of Isaiah (in fact, a conflation of texts from Isaiah, Micah and Exodus)[30] about a messenger being sent ahead and a voice crying out in the wilderness. He is described as wearing clothes of camel's hair, living on locusts and wild honey. Mark describes John's proclamation of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, and says that another will come after him who baptizes, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit."
30 Carl R. Kazmierski, John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist (Liturgical Press, 1996) page 31.
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
Antiquities of the Jews 18. 5. 2
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark i. 8; John i. 27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based upon Isa. xii. 3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. The expression that the person baptized is illuminated (φωτισθείς, Justin, "Apologiæ," i. 65) has the same significance as is implied in telling a proselyte to Judaism, after his bath, that he now belongs to Israel, the people beloved of God (Yeb. 47a; Gerim i.).
