neilgodfrey wrote:outhouse wrote:This is the current state of study on this topic.
Nonetheless, despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Exactly. Notice that the grounds for this "considered" view is "almost all modern scholars consider" it so. Not all. "Almost all" -- whatever that assertion means or however it is determined. That is, the authority opinion of the guild decides what is "historical fact".
If pushed, I presume most scholars who hold this view would say the criterion of embarrassment is the primary reason for their conclusion. If pushed slightly further many would even admit that that criterion is logically flawed -- as has been the point of several in depth scholarly publications.
In other words, there are no grounds for, say, the baptism of Jesus by John being historical apart from logically flawed criteria.
On the contrary, a number of scholars have published the evidence that the baptism of Jesus story has its origins in the literary and theological creativity of the author of the first gospel. I know of no publications that have exposed how these arguments are invalid or erroneous. I might be wrong but I suspect they are ignored as curiosities. If they were taken seriously, and if the fallacious nature of the criteriology approach is also taken seriously, there would be no grounds at all for the claim that Jesus was historically baptized by John.
Ditto for the crucifixion. The first time this datum appears in the record it is not presented as a historical detail but as a theological "fact". A theological claim that must be accepted by faith. That's not how one argues for a historical reality. Then again in the gospel narratives the depiction is entirely of a theological nature padded out with theologically interpreted scriptures inspired by beliefs in the atoning power of the blood of the Maccabean martyrs (
Williams 2010) and Isaac (
Levenson 1993).
The earliest evidence of which I am aware of a claim that Jesus was crucified is in the Philippian hymn. The line referencing the crucifixion in that hymn has been identified by several commentators as something added (by Paul?) to the original since it breaks the rhythm of the other lines. Q is another gospel (if we accept Q) that was devoid of a Christ Crucified theology. (Other gospels
here.)
Paul opposed other gospels that appear to have taught a Christ of power, not weakness -- e.g. the Christ we find in Revelation. If the Gospel of Mark is dramatizing the theology of Paul he is likewise protesting against this pre-Pauline gospel of a Christ of Power as opposed from a Christ of weakness via crucifixion.
On the other hand Paul declares that his gospel was not dissimilar from that of the Jerusalem Pillars so this leads us to conclude that those Pillars likewise taught a gospel of Christ crucified. Unfortunately the evidence is not bedrock stable.
Warner (1951) and
Parvus (2014) have argued that an examination of Galatians leads us to suspect that this claim of unanimity was the work of a proto-orthodox redactor. Such claims cannot be lightly dismissed given all we know of interpolations in ancient (Classical) literature generally and in early Christian writings in particular.
Couchoud (1939) and others(?) have also argued that the basis of Paul's gospel was his own personal experience of suffering.
On the other hand, we do have indications that there were strands of Second Temple Judaism that did believe in a future messiah (not necessarily a sole messiah) to die, probably by means of piercing somehow. If so, then we probably have to think of Paul being influenced by such beliefs.