I figured. No worries.

No Earl, as I told you the first time, they begin agnostic about Jesus' existence and use the events that they have confidence actually happened to establish the historicity of Jesus. Please read what I write.

What is this obsession about "Satan's work Philip? Are they having a red herring special at the market, and you bought as much as you could?

If you can demonstrate that I treat every non-Christian on these boards the same way that I treat Doherty, then you might have a case. I have contempt for his ideas because they are so pathetic. I have the same kind of contempt for ANY pathetic ideas. If, on the other hand, the person wishes to talk about something I find interesting, or makes a reasonable case for their position, or asks serious questions, then I am more than happy to talk with them.

That is, after all, why I come to discussion boards. Beating up weak ideas is more of a passtime for me. Personally, I would rather be spending my time talking with someone who seriously wants to know about my beliefs, and who would like to share their own ideas as well.

I will take that as an apology. Thank you.

Peace,

Nomad

This is what I meant when I said on another thread that you're much worse than ED about manipulating the tools to reach a conclusion. Who do you think you're fooling?

You're the one who asserted the baptism was an embarrassment. Your burden of proof. Nor does it have to be all Christians. Just the ones responsible for the development of Mark's gospel. All of which you must know, so why pretend otherwise?

And, just so we're all on the same page. The fragment under discussion is from a lost gospel. It was preserved by quotation (or paraphrase) in Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah 4 [on Isaiah 11:2]), written as I recall circa late fourth century.

Since I will not ask you to take my word for it, I would simply encourage you to contact (or look up, or however you wish to conduct your research) as many scholars from as many fields of study as are relevant to the discussion. If you can find any that think that the criterion of embarrassment is completely useless, then check their arguments against those that argue in its favour and decide for yourself. If you do not find one side or the other convincing, then such is your right.

I suspect my biggest difficulty will be finding a good number of scholars who talk about it at all, but it's a worthwhile suggestion in any case. Until I can do that kind of research however, I would have to remain ambivalent in regards to its usefulness, since, on the surface of it, it doesn't appear to be a strong critical tool. As I said before, its seems very "ify". (Not to imply that this equates with "completely useless")

History is not about the determination of certainty, but, probabilities. On that basis, using the arguments and opinions of experts in numerous fields takes on special significance, as they do posess the years of training and expertise that hopefully gives them a clearer view of the truth.

Appeals to authority can indeed have merit, but even so they are not strong arguments in and of themselves. I wouldn't even consider appeals to authority in the hard sciences all that strong. If it weren't for the fact that I verify much of those disciplines everyday as a I start my car, turn on my TV, take a shower, microwave my dinner, or post messages on the internet, I wouldn't consider even those appeals as very helpful.

When we step in the relatively weak field of history, appeals to authority become more problematic. Certainly it helps if we find a "concensus" or an "overwhelming majority" opinion among the experts on some particular point. Still not a real strong argument, but better than the opinions of just two three at least. Verifying that there is this concensus is a problem however.

Allow me to offer an example:
Very few people speak or read Koine Greek or Aramaic, the original languages used in composing the NT Canons. Since it would be useless for me to claim any kind of right to interpret these languages, I am required to depend on the expertise of scholars in these languages, and do my best to compare what various scholars say about given "controversial" passages. I do not rely only on Christian scholars, but also on classical historians (hopefully some of whom will be sceptics or even atheists), and if they all agree on the translation, then I consider it to be probably reliable. I do not know how else I could formulate an informed opinion on the matter.

This is a good example and approach, but suppose a person is attempting to be novel about some particular word or phrase. (There's nothing wrong with attempting to come up with new ideas. Its often been a good thing even.) Most of the experts have been interpreting it one way, but this person believes it should be interpreted slightly different. Now when/if they offer their opinion as to the possibility of interpreting it differently, if none of the experts is able to say "No - you can't do that" without any difinitive reasoning as to why they can't interpret it that way, this makes the appeals to authority far less convincing. Perhaps, just perhaps, the only reason is that "well… that's just not the way we have ever done it."

As I have said, if you can find any that consider the criterion to be useless, compare their arguments against those that do use it, and decide for yourself who makes the better case. What I can assure you is that you will have to look long and hard to find even one that considers it to be completely useless, and those that do are deconstructionists that will tell us that we cannot know anything about anything in history. I consider such a view to be quite pessimistic.

Oops. Then I guess you'll have to call me a pessimist. I don't believe we can "know" anything in history, particularly ancient history. We "believe" things about history and we believe things in varying degrees based upon the available evidence. Some things we can believe with very strong confidence. (The Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, WWI and WWII) Some things we believe with a "so so" attitude. (Was it really 6 million Jews that died or 4.5 million? Maybe it was 8 million? Did some specific detail really happen in the battle of Gettysburg? The battle of the Bulge?) Some things we believe tentatively. (When did humans make it over to North and South America? Is Robin Hood based on a real figure? King Arthur? Merlin? )

This was the point of the thread I started "How much would you bet?". I believe Jesus existed. How much I believe it is just as relevant to me as the belief itself. This is why I viewed the main point of the debate between yourself and Earl Doherty as not being all that major a point. Doherty takes the extreme position that Jesus didn't exist. I'd be curious to know how confident he is in his own suggestion. How much would he bet on it?

Layman replied to my thread and said he'd bet his whole million dollars and give 10 to 1 odds to all comers. To me this is also a very extreme position that is not in any way warranted by the available evidence. I can only assume its his faith talking here since historical evidence doesn't warrant such fanatical belief. (sorry, but fanatical is how it appears to me)

And I guess I just don't see the embarassment angle. Why is the baptism supposed to be embarrasing? Why isn't it just an example of the writer showing the humble nature of his hero in the effort to point out the good character of the hero and to serve as a lesson for others. (They should be humble as well.)

The reason that the event is so embarrassing is that the Jews (who happened to be the first Christians, as well as the authors of virtually all of the Bible) had clearly laid out criteria that the Messiah was expected to meet. He was not seen as being subject to anyone on earth, and was literally God's annointed. Further, the authors of the NT argued that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but that He was God Himself,…

Well some of them did - but did Mark?

the admission that Jesus was baptized (and by implication was also sinful) would have been incomprehesible to the first Christians.

But why couldn't it just be viewed it as an example for others to follow? I don't see this episode as necessarily embarrassing at all. And of course this is all based upon the assumption that we're not dealing with fiction. I would think embarrassment can exist in a fictional story just as much as it can in real life and it wouldn't make the story any more real. Legendary development can be quite an amazing thing.

On this basis, the most reasonable explanation that we can give for the evangelists recording this story (plus the very heavy use of apologetics employed by them to make it appear more "acceptable") was that it really happened. To the sceptical historian in particular, this event is enormously embarrassing to the evangelists, and helps them to rationalize that Jesus could not possibly have been God.

There are way to many assumptions rolled up in here for me to readily see any embarassment. This was close to 2 thousand years ago. I don't know what these people would be "embarrased" about when it comes to certain beliefs or expectations. I don't know what relevance John the Baptist really had to their ideological positions. There could be any number of reasons for creating this incident that we haven't (or can't) even think of because of our ignorance on so many matters. Of course I'm not a mythicist so I don't really need to see the embarrassment in this episode I suppose.

Since it is literally impossible for any of us to be experts in all of these fields, then this is why it is reasonable to build upon the work of others, and to evaluate the strength of their arguments to the best of our ability. If, at the end of the day, you do not find them convincing, then so be it. I can only present what I believe to be true, and why I believe it. I cannot compel anyone to accept my arguments.

That's cool. I on the other hand need compelling arguments to accept certain historical claims. <joke> (Just a little play on words )


If I may ask a favour here: I do not mind that you are sceptical on this point, but I would ask that if you do intend to do any research on this point, that you try and find any scholars that reject it as a tool. Finally, I would appreciate it if you would address my original examples from the first post and tell me if you think that they are more or less credible. In other words, do they look embarrassing to you, and therefore more likely to be true.

Sure. In regards to John Dean, THAT sounds embarassing. I can relate to it, even though I suspect if there wasn't other evidence sufficient to convict him he most probably wouldn't have confessed. And of course people have confessed to many crimes even though they didn't commit them. For some people, embarrassment isn't all that big a deal.

In regards to Tacitus and Nero, this sounds mildly plausible. It may also be that Tacitus just happened to record things as he saw them. I might or might not be embarrassed about an "enemy" doing some good things. For instance, I didn't much care for Bill Clinton as President, yet I am sure he did some good things for the country. I'm not embarrassed to admit this though, since I realize there's some good in everyone. (Even Bill Clinton )

In regards to Juilian, this does sound embarrassing. But it may also have been a bit self - serving. Julian apparently wants to compete with Christianty here and appealing to the things people want to see is a good way to do that.

When a politician, or a general admits to a dismal personal failing in a diary (especially if this person never made such an admission in public), this too is treated as being more probably true than not.

It could be, depending on the circumstances. But its the circumstances that make it very tricky.

Quite simply, when a person is testifying against their own interests, and reporting an event that is embarrassing to them personally, or especially to their agenda (be it political, ideological, theological, or what have you), then historians, like lawyers in a court case, consider this "witness" testimony to be more credible. To be candid, I do not see why anyone would misunderstand this criteria, since we all use it in our everyday lives. If my son admits to breaking a rule, then it is probably true that he actually did this. If one of my staff tells me that they screwed up, then it is very probable that they screwed up. By the same token, if someone who dispises me says something about me, then I would hope that most people that know both of us would take this report with at least a grain of salt. This is pure common sense.

This makes sense as well. But notice that the decision of whether a thing is embarassing is a subjective one. And I also notice in the examples you gave that the "embarrassment" criteria doesn't stand alone. With John Dean there was evidence against him which prompted him to confess in the first place. With Tacitus I can't really determine how embarassing Nero's actions might or might not be to him. With Julian, he was involved in a competition with Christianity which adds to any embarrassment. With regards to a general's journal, I don't typically have reason to have high doubts about it unless it contains elements of a fanciful or even delusional nature.

These are all in contrast to anonomously written religious documents, full of fanciful tales of virgin births, miracle healings and resurrections. Now I understand you wish to divorce these things from the mundane events - Jesus getting baptized, but I question whether this is possible or warranted. For instance, Hercules was tricked by Hera into killing his children and almost his adopted father. It took an intervention by Athena to prevent him from doing so. Hercules was so embarrassed and ashamed by this incident he sought to kill himself. (But was talked out of it)

We also have the the Lady of the Lake who gave Arthur the sword Excalibur. Merlin was her teacher and she became more powerful in magic than Merlin was. She imprisoned Merlin in a glass Tower and stepped into Merlin's role at King Arthur's side. Unfortunately the removal of Merlin as advisor eventually contributed to the downfall of Camelot. I see this as extremely embarrassing for Merlin, Arthur and the Lady of the Lake as well.

And we shouldn't forget the embarrassment of Lancelot and Gwenevere's betrayal of Arthur either. This would be extremely embarrassing for a person who was supposed to be of such character and honor as Lancelot was.

The story of Betty and Barney Hill represents one of the first modern UFO abduction incidents. This couple claimed to have spotted a UFO in 1961 and subsequent investigation "discovered" they had been abducted by aliens. Betty Hill to this day rather resents the embarrassment this episode has caused her. From the unrelenting skeptics to the over zealous fans (and copycats) she doesn't exactly have favoring words to say about them.

Shirley McClaine (among many others) holds to her claims of being reincarnted. This despite the embarrassment and ridicule that has come her way because of it. I personally remember when she first "came out" about her reincarnation and remember people making fun of her. (And not in a nice way)

I'm pretty sure I could go on to find numerous other examples of "embarrassment". Regardless of the embarrassment involved I still don't accept many claims that are made. Perhaps there must be other parameters involved in order for it to really mean something, as it apparently (to me anyway) cannot stand on its own.

Toto

Those first century Jews expected the Messiah to be anointed. They did not expect him to be sinless from birth, so there was no reason for him not to be baptized. (The earliest versions of Mark do not have the virgin birth.) The Baptism by John filled in the need for an anointing. If the entire story is fictional, it fills the need for a divine sign recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. It only becomes embarrassing after later Christians decide that Jesus was the pre-existing Logos, born sinless, etc. But then they are stuck with the story, and have to work with it.

Since Matthew, Luke, and John show so little compunction about reworking the details, it seems that they are not so sure that the original story in Mark is so true that they cannot tamper with it. So why should we assume it is true?

My reading skills are just fine.

You obviously are believing something about the Gospel of the Hebrews. You are accepting that it represents the view of the "earliest Christians," which, although it is probably useless to point this out since you uncritically accept information from a website for no other apparrent reason than you think it supports your argument, is not a majority viewpoint.

And if it were true, I might add, it would completely destroy Doherty's thesis that the earliest Christians didn't believe in a real Jesus at all. So, I guess you will have to choose. Doherty's thesis is destroyed or the Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't represent what some of the earliest Christians believed.

Regardless, it does not matter what the Ebionites thought about the baptism because the Ebionites did not write Mark, Matthew, Luke, or Q.

Layman, do you ever express any ideas or do you just get your jollies pissing on other people's? For example, what's your theory for an apologetic about the baptism that wouldn't work for Mark? And how do you know what Mark thought?

Of those, the middle question is the one that's not rhetorical.

Yes they did Toto. And if you ask a Jew if a baptism equals an annointing, they will tell you the answer is no.

How do you know this?

Can you offer a 1st Century or earlier Jewish source that says this please?

Why? Luke and Matt left out material from Mark, so why not leave this part out as well? Better still, why not just burn Mark and go with the other three Gospels? Sceptics here argue that the early Christians did this kind of thing all the time, so why not here?

Given your premise, that they felt little compunction about reworking the details, why should they report it at all? And worse yet, why should they (and Q) add the bit that shows that John the Baptist was not even convinced that Jesus really IS the Messiah? Mark didn't bother reporting it.

Nomad

You will have no problem finding plenty of scholars of any stripe talking about this criterion of embarrassment. Some will call it "suprises", or arguments against interest, or something similar, but the method will be essentially the same.

At the same time, I am not basing my argument on such appeals to authority. While I do show that all scholars use this criteria to some degree, I give my reasons for accepting it as a valid tool. I have never claimed that it should be used in isolation, nor that it should be respected if other stronger evidence contradicts it, but when studying history, the historian should use testimony that runs counter to the interests of his sources.

I would not ask you to read every book on the subject of the historical Jesus (my understanding is that there are well over 60,000 written in the 19th Century alone, and thousands more in the last one), but if you choose from reputable scholars in a wide variety of fields and religious backgrounds, you should be able to establish a good cross section. A number of lists of solid scholars have been given before, if you would like another please let me know.

The idiosyncratic interpretation is discarded if it has no supporting examples from other literature written in the same language, and is further discounted if that unique translation is required in order to make a novel theory work.

I have tried in various ways to help demonstrate why historians consider the event to be embarrassing. I think that the fact that the majority of Jews from the beginning have rejected Jesus as the Messiah is a very good argument for saying that the case made by the evangelists and early Christians was somehow "embarrassing" or insufficient. Their story is just not seen as lining up with what Jews expected their Messiah to look like. If they were going to make Jesus up out of fiction, they could and should have done a much better job, since no real life Jesus was there to get in the way.

Yes he did.

You are not thinking like a 1st Century Jew (or even a modern one), and I think that this is what is making this such a difficult thing for you to understand. Understanding how people think in another culture is extremely difficult, and requires us to set aside our own biases.

Of course this is true. At the same time, if the objective is to convince as many people as possible that a fictitious Jesus is THE Messiah, the evangelists and Paul would have been much better off just taking their story straight out of Hebrew Scripture and making their man fit the mold.

The fact that they did not do this, and instead reported events that were not forseen in Hebrew Scriptures (at least so far as the Jews were concerned) is extremely hard to explain if we are going to argue that the evangelists were just making this guy up.

Let me ask you this max:

Do you trust anthropologists when they talk about other cultures? Do you trust people that come from those cultures directly? Do you trust historians that spend their professional lives studying these cultures? If all of these sources tell you the same thing about what these people would think is embarrassing, would this carry any weight with you?
Well, unless you hate Bill with a passion, and report every vile thing you can dream up every time you get a chance, then I am not sure your analogy would work. If you would like a modern example that may work better, imagine Newt Gingrich saying something nice about any one of his enemies.

Also, remember that Tacitus was writing at a time when beating up Nero was a favorite national sport. The emporers that Tacitus worked for hated Nero at least as much as he did.

Since all of ancient history includes fantastic and miraculous stories as a matter of course, if we discount the NT Books for such stories, then we must do the same for all ancient documents, leaving us knowing nothing about ancient history. I know you are a pessimist max, but hopefully you are not THAT pessimistic.

There is no evidence that these reports are contrary to the interests of the authors. In many cases, the ancients (especially the Greeks) liked to make fun of their gods, and as a rule, pagans (to this day) do not see the need for their gods to be perfect. Jews are quite different in this regard.

This is a very good example max, and I believe very strongly that McLean thinks that she is reincarnated. I certainly do not think that she would make it up.

I believe the same thing with the evangelists story about the baptism of Jesus. They reported it because they believed that it happened. Otherwise they would never have mentioned it.

Thanks for your reply max.

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
My reading skills are just fine.

You obviously are believing something about the Gospel of the Hebrews.

No, I am not. I read the commentary. I said "gospel of hebrews" because that is the link that is needed to be clicked on in order to find the commentary!

And if it were true, I might add, it would completely destroy Doherty's thesis that the earliest Christians didn't believe in a real Jesus at all.

Hogwash. Doherty's thesis is just fine whether or not it is true. Obviously, if some early Christians expected the savior to be baptized, they'd either invent or find a story that supplied that nugget of info.

So, I guess you will have to choose. Doherty's thesis is destroyed or the Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't represent what some of the earliest Christians believed.

Once again, I am not discussing Hebrews, but comments in a commentary on Hebrews.

Regardless, it does not matter what the Ebionites thought about the baptism because the Ebionites did not write Mark, Matthew, Luke, or Q.

Thanks for your non-thoughts on a non-point.

Michael

(Withdrawn in favor of Sauce for the goose ...)

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 27, 2001).]