• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The fact remains that 'not impossible' is not at all the same as 'plausible'.

It seems plausible to you only because it aligns with your religious beliefs. Beyond that, there is zero reason to think it reasonable, much less probable. And to presume that a non-eyewitness speaking decades later accurately conveyed John's proclamation demonstrates little beyond the ability of blind faith to trump informed reason.

Believe it if you wish. Just please don't that this belief is in any way reinforced by critical scholarship.

The narrative in Mark concerning John the Baptist is supported by all four canonical Gospels.and the non-canonical Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) describe John baptising Jesus; in the Gospel of John this is implied in John 1:32–1:34.

Josephus documents:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's [Antipas'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. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[64]


So.Wikipedia records:

Most scholars agree that John baptized Jesus,[32][33] and several New Testament accounts report that some of Jesus' early followers had previously been followers of John.[34]

John the Baptist - Wikipedia

Being ‘blind’ isn’t the exclusive domain of the faithful.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, he and the others cited are raising arguments against the utility of the criteria of authenticity for historical Jesus scholarship. Correct. I don't necessarily concur entirely but I do welcome their revisionism of the method / their critiques of the established methodology.

In contrast, Allison is proposing to discern not whether individual sayings are to be judged "historical" or "nonhistorical" (for instance on the basis of criterion of embarrassment or multiple attestation, say) but instead to look for large "patterns" in the Jesus tradition we find in our extant NT sources.

An illustrative example might be, say, if there are a plethora of sayings which describe Jesus as entering into conflict with the Jewish religious authorities, we should then conclude that the historical Jesus likely came into conflict with such religious authorities.

Here is how Allison explains his approach in the book:

"With regard to the sources for Jesus, the traditional criteria of authenticity privilege the parts over the whole. It seems more prudent to privilege generalizations drawn from the whole than to concentrate upon one individual item after another. As a demonstration of how this works in practice, consider the following traditions:

• Jesus prohibited divorce: 1 Cor. 7:10; Mark 10:2-9; Luke 16:18.

• Jesus sent forth missionaries without staff, food, or money: Matt. 10:9-10; Mark 6:8-9; Luke 10:4.

• Jesus instructed missionaries to get their living by the gospel: 1 Cor. 9:14; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7.

• Jesus commanded loving and doing good to enemies: Matt. 5:38-48; Luke 6:27-36.

• Jesus forbade judging others: Matt. 7:1-2; Luke 6:37-38.

• Jesus asked a prospective follower not to bury his father: Matt. 8:21-22; Luke 59-60.

• Jesus spoke of hating one's father and mother: Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26; Gospel of Thomas 55, 101.

• Jesus enjoined disciples to take up a cross: Matt. 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 14:27.

• Jesus enjoined unlimited forgiveness: Matt. 18:21-22; Luke 17:3-4.

• Jesus exhorted hearers to lose their lives in order to save them: Matt. 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 17:33.

• Jesus called people away from their livelihoods: Mark 1:16-20; 2:14.

• Jesus figuratively demanded violent removal of hand, foot, and eye: Mark 9:42-48.

• Jesus asked a wealthy man to relinquish his money: Mark 10:17-27.

• Jesus forbade taking oaths: Matt. 5:33-37.

• Jesus commanded money to be lent without interest: Matt. 5:42; Gospel of Thomas 95.

• Jesus called some to a life without marriage: Matt. 19:11-12.

• Jesus asked a prospective follower not to say farewell to his parents: Luke 9:61-62.

• Jesus asked his disciples to renounce all of their possessions: Luke 14:33.

I infer from this collection of materials that Jesus made uncommonly difficult demands on at least some people. Whatever he may have taught about compassion, and whether or not his motivation owed something to eschatological expectation, he insisted on self-sacrifice, to the point of demanding that some individuals follow him immediately and unconditionally.

This historical verdict holds whatever tradition histories one draws up for the various units. What matters is not whether we can establish the authenticity of any of the relevant traditions or what the criteria of authenticity may say about them, but rather the pattern that they, in concert, create. It is like running into students who enjoy telling tales about their absent-minded professor. A number of those tales may be too tall to earn our belief; but if there are several of them, they are good evidence that the professor is indeed absent-minded
."



On his criticisms of the criteria of authenticity, which he formerly advanced, from the book:


"Scholars have, since the 1960s, often discussed the so-called criteria of authenticity, the sieves by which we supposedly enable ourselves to pan for original nuggets from Jesus.

The names of the chief criteria are now well known: multiple attestation, dissimilarity, embarrassment, coherence. While they all at first glance appeal to common sense, further scrutiny reveals that they are fatally flawed. Dissimilarity, which allows us to hold as authentic items that are dissimilar to characteristic emphases of Judaism and of the church, presupposes that we know far more about the church and Judaism than we do.

Multiple attestation overlooks the obvious problem that the more something is attested, the more the early church must have liked it, so the more suspicious we may well be about it. I do not, however, wish to review here the defects of the traditional criteria. Those failings have become increasingly apparent over the last two decades, and much of the discussion is becoming tedious because repetitious: we have entered an echo chamber.

I also wish to say little about recent suggestions for revising our criteria – a trick I was still trying to perform ten years ago – or about replacing them with new and improved criteria. My question is not Which criteria are good and which bad? or How should we employ the good ones? but rather Should we be using criteria at all?

My answer is No. In taking this position, I am setting myself against the dominant academic tradition, which has sought to find which bits of our texts represent Jesus' own views. Some may well wonder whether we are good for anything if we cannot sandblast the ecclesiastical soot from the tradition and restore the original. Others, perhaps suffering from a bit of physics envy, may insist that rigorously applying criteria is our only hope for keeping our discipline scientific and avoiding wholesale subjectivity. I am of a different mind
."

Very similar to bultmans view. Brother, I understood his rejection from your initial statement itself, I am asking about what he is proposing.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Very similar to bultmans view. Brother, I understood his rejection from your initial statement itself, I am asking about what he is proposing.

I explained in the foregoing. Patterns - looking to the general patterns rather than the segmented "parts". Please see the first quotation from Allison's book in my last post (and my illustrative example before it about Jesus's feuds with religious authorities) where he discusses in some depth his preferred methodology.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I explained in the foregoing. Patterns - looking to the general patterns rather than the segmented "parts".

So reject form criticism and look at context. I thought we already went through this and I made this same sentence once before. Haha. It seems like we took a complete circle.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But what is strange is, why would you bring kithab I iqan into this discussion which is completely irrelevant! Are you targeting something? Please do explain for clarity.
I was answering the OP. "How useful are the gospels in regard to historical information?" It relates not just to Gospels but to all religious literature. For example, the language of Gita shows that it was written somewhere around the beginning of the Christian era. The Avesta mentions sixteen Aryan homelands, also a deluge by snow, Vedas mention existence of a long night extending for two months. Iliad mentions lands where there is six month of day and six months of night. Now these are not just imaginations. Somewhere enveloped in myths are kernels of historicity. I mentioned the 'Kitab' to illustrate this. Scriptures illustrate many things, for example, what was believable by people in that place at that time. What was believable at that time and place, may not be believable at that place in this age. I believe the study of scriptures can be very useful.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I was answering the OP. "How useful are the gospels in regard to historical information?" It relates not just to Gospels but to all religious literature. For example, the language of Gita shows that it was written somewhere around the beginning of the Christian era. The Avesta mentions sixteen Aryan homelands, also a deluge by snow, Vedas mention existence of a long night extending for two months. Iliad mentions lands where there is six month of day and six months of night. Now these are not just imaginations. Somewhere enveloped in myths are kernels of historicity. I mentioned the 'Kitab' to illustrate this. Scriptures illustrate many things, for example, what was believable by people in that place at that time. What was believable at that time and place, may not be believable at that place in this age. I believe the study of scriptures can be very useful.

True and all good. But brother, I think its unfair to not understand the subject and stick to the topic of the post. Its about the Gospels.

Normally people who make general remarks or blanket statements like you have done here are people like Hitchens, who are thinkers, but don't have any education or have not even made a little bit of effort to study these scriptures individually before making this kind of general comments about them. Each of these scriptures is so vastly different you can never make general comments. Unless of course you are a skeptic and simply aim to dismiss everything but never study anything deeply and actually make some honest research based analysis.

Seen that many times on TV. Its useless to discuss with that kind of rhetorical statements. And Its honestly unfair to the creator of this post.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I explained in the foregoing. Patterns - looking to the general patterns rather than the segmented "parts". Please see the first quotation from Allison's book in my last post (and my illustrative example before it about Jesus's feuds with religious authorities) where he discusses in some depth his preferred methodology.

I don't know whether you would think I am being bias here. Ill just say it. I have not read Dale Allisons book to understand where he is going exactly so maybe I will in the future. But this as far as I have seen so far from you is not a new endeavor and has been the view of even some of the scholars who basically fathered form criticism. And generally it ends up in the apocalyptic Jesus vs another Jesus. Well actually sometimes it ends there, and some other times the scholar has begun from there and worked backward to reject the criteria of authenticity. Both are valid approaches in my opinion, Im just stating the history. It has always always been the case. Yet, maybe I am bias based on the history so lets see where this ends. Cheers brother. Thanks for the engagement.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The thread asks:
"How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?"

The question is unclear. and one can only assume that one of two questions is being asked:
  1. How useful are the Gospels in confirming historical claims?
  2. How useful are historical claims in confirming Gospel theology?
The answers are, respectively, not very and not at all.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Folks. Let's crack open a Bible and read the first chapter of the first Gospel, Mark:

"The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” And immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him.

They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.

As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once. He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.

That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered around the door. And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed. And Simon and his companions hunted for him. When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.” He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.

A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."


Now folks, please ask yourself seriously - if it weren't for your pre-existing religious convictions, if this story had different characters and you read it some other book of some other culture/religion - would you really take this story seriously as any kind of accurate historical record? It is completely historically implausible, start to finish. Where is the history here, and how would you ever disaggregate it from the mythology?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The narrative in Mark concerning John the Baptist is supported by all four canonical Gospels.and the non-canonical Gospel of the Nazarenes.

^ There, we've both said it but, sadly, me copying you does not pass for double attestation.:rolleyes:

True, inasmuch as if one accepts the hypothesis of Marcan priority then Matthew and Luke can be presumed to have relied upon his account of the baptism as their source material (with some of their own theological emendations and editorial hand, of course).

However, the question arises whether or not Q was also a source for Matthew and Luke. Several lines of evidence support a Q source for Jesus’ baptism in addition to Mark and this has persuaded a number of scholars that it is multiply attested by different sources. Matthew and Luke agree with each other’s texts in certain important points against Mark, which if one adheres to the two-source hypothesis suggests that they likely derived these close parallels from their usage of Q, which also likely referred to Jesus's baptism by John independently of Mark.

Also, we still have the question of John. Did he use Mark/other synoptics or not?


Scarcely is there a subject in Johannine studies that is fraught with more mines in the field than the relationship between John and the Synoptics. G. L. Borchert, John 1-11 (NAC 25a Nashville: Broadman & Holman), 37.


If you follow the "independence", hypothesis of C.H. Dodd, then you could register John as another witness to an independent tradition regarding Jesus's baptism (he refers it using an oral declaration by John the Baptist rather than actually describing it but that's just literary artifice) and thus argue that it's multiply attested, albeit in different forms in Mark, Q and John.

Aside from that, however, the points I made earlier in relation to the use of the criterion of embarrassment with regards the baptism as depicted in Mark still stand and @adrian009 also raised this criterion. Many scholars have found the baptism a plausibly historical event in the life of Jesus by using that criterion.

Indeed, James D.G. Dunn stated in his Jesus Remembered (2003) that most biblical scholars view the baptism by John as one of the most historically certain narratives about Jesus, and often use it as one of the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. i.e.


Baptism of Jesus - Wikipedia


Most modern scholars believe that John the Baptist performed a baptism on Jesus, and view it as a historical event to which a high degree of certainty can be assigned.[1][2][3][4] James Dunn states that the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus "command almost universal assent".[6] Dunn states that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[6] John Dominic Crossan states that it is historically certain that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan.[5]

One of the arguments in favour of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[4][5][52]

The gospels are not the only references to the baptisms performed by John and in Acts 10:37–38, the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached".[55] 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.[54]
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Now folks, please ask yourself seriously - if it weren't for your pre-existing religious convictions, if this story had different characters and you read it some other book of some other culture/religion - would you really take this story seriously as any kind of accurate historical record?

In terms of Jesus's baptism by John, yes I think it contains a likely historical kernel but in terms of the miraculous claims and fulfilment of prophecy, no it is a theological document trying to frame Jesus as a divinely appointed agent of eschatological judgment (the Son of God) ostensibly presaged / prophesied in the Tanakh.

The idea that a man, John the Baptist, whom we know about independently from Josephus as having baptised many people and had a considerable following in Palestine at this time, baptised Jesus is plausible and convincing.

The criterion of embaressment would lead one to presume that once you pare back the layers of theological accretion to try and make this event say about Jesus what Mark wants it to say - that Jesus is God's Son - the idea of Jesus undergoing the remission water rite of another figure, thus appearing to submit himself to the greater authority of John and moreover for forgiveness of sin (Jesus needs sin forgiveness/confession?) does not arguably cohere all that well with Mark's broader christology and theology.

Mark appears to be intent on skirting around this fact through his reliance on God's Spirit descending and John claiming that he is only the forerunner of a much greater personage. The evangelist doth protest too much.

The end result is that Mark does make it cohere with his theology of Jesus being proclaimed God's Son but there appears to be some considerable effort involved in getting there (involving an attempt to lessen John's statute and make him subordinate to Jesus despite the former being the one actually performing the water ritual on the latter).
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Well, a quick reading does indicate the possibility of Nazreth and Capernaum to be existing in Galilee at that time. Probably it was summer as shown by what John ate, Locusts and Honey. I hear locust pickle is tasty and you can even have Locust Biryani in Pakistan. Perhaps in some regions of India too. Scriptures are useful.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?
It's occasionally useful to confirm details from other sources. That's about it.

In cases where the Gospels conflict with other sources (e.g. when Quirinius was governor of Syria) or when something ought to have been in other records but isn't (e.g. the "zombie invasion" of Jerusalem), we don't take the Gospel version as reliable.

In other regards, the Gospels are generally unreliable, IMO. I think the miracle claims can be safely set aside. Jesus's sermons almost certainly didn't happen as described; at best, they might be compilations of sayings that Jesus actually said at various times, but at worst, they're just collections of things that people thought Jesus ought to have said, IMO.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
In other regards, the Gospels are generally unreliable, IMO. I think the miracle claims can be safely set aside.
All? Treating the blind, the lame and the leprous, raising the dead, walking on water, sending the swine off the cliff, making two fish and a piece of bread enough to feed 5,000, Immaculate conception, resurrection, All?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Most modern scholars believe that John the Baptist performed a baptism on Jesus, and view it as a historical event to which a high degree of certainty can be assigned.[1][2][3][4] James Dunn states that the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus "command almost universal assent".[6] Dunn states that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[6] John Dominic Crossan states that it is historically certain that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan.[5]

One of the arguments in favour of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[4][5][52]

The gospels are not the only references to the baptisms performed by John and in Acts 10:37–38, the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached".[55] 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.[54]

Thanks.

I rather like Crossan and I am more than willing to share Crossan's view noted above. The issue for me is not the historicity of the baptism but the historicity of John's proclamation.

While I like Crossan, I tend to like Q a bit less. In any event, on what grounds can you claim Q as an independent source of the baptism pericope.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I rather like Crossan and I am more than willing to share Crossan's view noted above. The issue for me is not the historicity of the baptism but the historicity of John's proclamation.

For the record, I don't regard the proclamation as passing the bar for historicity either.

Its evidently a theological construction to me, as we have no evidence from Josephus that John referred to a figure coming after him anyway (so, I take that entire angle with a heavy pinch of salt).

We do know that he baptised other Jews, however, who became his devoted disciples and both Mark and Q (if you accept it, I'm working on that assumption here for the purposes of this discussion - since its still the preferred / majority position - even though its a rebuttable one) then Q associates Jesus with the Baptist's ministry as well in numerous sayings, making it plausible, in tandem with Mark and Luke's Acts, to view Jesus as having been a "baptised" follower of John the Baptist originally.

While I like Crossan, I tend to like Q a bit less. In any event, on what grounds can you claim Q as an independent source of the baptism pericope.

The existence of a Q baptism story is inferred on the basis of several concurrences between Matthew and Luke against Mark, for example the "heaven's opening" (the Greek phrasing used in both) rather than being "torn apart".

For Q sceptics, these kind of parallels are more likely construed as a case of Luke preferring Matthew over Mark but if one adheres to Marcan priority + Q then the common assessment is that they stem from the original shared source that Matthew/Luke relied upon, which apparently describes the theophany at the baptism of Jesus differently from Mark (but similarly trying to "buck" up Jesus at the expense of the Baptist, as John also does later in a different way, by bringing in the miraculous verification of Jesus being greater than John. This tendency is shared by all the sources and hints at discomfort with the whole baptism scenario in that one has to explain why Jesus is submitting himself to John's baptism in the first place).

There are other lines of evidence often cited but I'll need to get back to you later on it (once I've read the scholarship again) if you're interested (as I'm working off memory here).
 
Top