Toto

That's a completely different thing, perhaps worth another thread if anyone wants to pursue it.

Honor and Shame are cultural anthropology concepts that some Biblical scholars, in particular those part of The_Context_Group, have tried to use to understand the society of Biblical times. The idea is that the Biblical society was collectivist and operated under rules that defined one's status. Our modern society is individualistic, and uses personal guilt for social control.

eta: some Christian apologists have grabbed on to a few concepts from cultural anthropology and try to use them to bash skeptics. JP Holding does this. I am not sure why they think that this works.

edited again to add: I seem to have cross posted with Abe. I think Abe is mistaken. I don't think that the standard criterion of embarrassment could ever be used to explain a silence.

mountainman

Silence can also be golden, such as when Bilbo Baggins slipped the magical ring on his finger and disappeared in the midst of his dinner guests at the very begiining of his epic journey through MiddleEarth.

Steven Carr

So 'Mark' can't be a later stage of the Gospels, when this oral tradition has gone through 30 years of suppression and softening.

Mark must be a very early stage of this suppression and softening - perhaps only 3 or 4 years worth of suppression and softening.

TedM

I'm all for thinking outside of one's own person box, and outside one's culture box too. I don't equate thinking only inside the box with using common sense though. Common sense typically implies logic that generally applies to all people in all situations. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, and I think it is appropriate to question things like whether Mark, or whoever else, was embarrassed by the JTB baptism or not. I don't think it is appropriate to simply reject the inquiry on the grounds that we can't know their culture or them personally well enough to make such a judgment because I think one could probably use that argument against all kinds of things that are considered 'appropriate methodology'. Nothing in history is scientific fact because it isn't reproducalbe in real time. Therefore, ALL of historical analysis is based on assumptions which may or may not be true. That's why people like mountainman can convince themselves that their completely out-of-the-box theories are in fact reasonable and probably true.

All historical knowledge is subjective. Might as well throw in the 'criteria of embarrassment' with any other methodology that people find convincing..

aa5874

Well, well!!!

What you claim is certainly erroneous. You seem not to remember that there are SCIENTIFIC methods to verify HISTORICAL data.

The very medium on which a text is written has historical data INHERENTLY embedded in it.

The massive amount of information about Jesus of the NT make the Jesus character REMARKABLY easy to reconstruct.

Jesus was MADE from WORDS.

The "criterion of embarrassment" predictably produces BOGUS results and is even more disastrous when the sources are ADMITTED to be UNRELIABLE.

For example, when the "criterion of embarrassment" is applied to the scene where Peter EMBARRASSINGLY began to sink when he attempted to walk on the sea towards Jesus, all of a sudden, the story becomes history.

It is just NOT logical that a story is likely to be true if it is embarrassing.

TedM

Your 'scientific methods' are bogus. You can't repeat them, can you? But, I'll bite: give me a few examples


Nah, it just seems that way. You think Gutenberg was the FIRST person to invent the printing press? Prove it. You can't reproduce history without a time machine. Got one?

What are you even talking about? You can't reproduce history.


All sources could be unreliable. It is simply a subjective issue because you can't reproduce your sources.

aa5874

Well, if that is your view then you need to stop arguing about the "historical Jesus". You will never be able to resolve the HJ/MJ argument if all sources could be unreliable.

This is PRECISELY why non-subjective Scientific methods are employed to UNRAVEL the history of mankind.

The history of the UNIVERSE as stated in the BIBLE have been DEBUNKED by Science.

You seem to have an incredible MYOPIC view of history. History does not only deal with myth fables of Jesus.

mountainman

Hi TedM,

The C14 results obtained on gJudas and gThomas are probably reproduceable and indicate late evidence for the physical manufacture of gnostic gospels. Items which can be securely dated such as coins, dated correspondence, dated inscriptions are able to be securely dated time and time again.


I disagree that ALL of historical analysis is based upon assumptions, and cite the above counter examples.

All I have done is to reject the historical jesus postulate on the basis of the available evidence, and then asked the question when did Jesus first get represented to the general public, and why, and by whom, and when do we start to get multiple sided public opinion about the jesus story. The evidence itself indicates a 4th century Jesus controversy, which was deliberately "buried" to enhance the perceived legitimacy and authenticity of the 4th and 5th century church of heresiologists.


I disagree. What is subjective about this coin of Julian's?





Unless there is a consensus that the 'criteria of embarrassment' is a logical fallacy, and if you read between the lines in this forum, there are many who would support such a view. This 'criteria of embarrassment' is a relic from the age when the new testament was treated as an historical document. Times have changed for many.

TedM

While I would rely on C14 for the most part, it is not always reliable (that's why they give date ranges, and it uses assumptions that cannot be proven. Coins, while seemingly a good way to date something, can be faked.

Don't get me wrong, I would usually rely on these things, but nothing is guaranteed.


The above two rely on assumptions too.

None of that makes it 'in-the-box'. You rely on tremendously unreasonable assumptions about forgery/coverups/conspiracy, etc..


The degree to which it is believed to be authentic, and dateable to the time period.


consensus, by definition implies subjectivity.

spin

You haven't understood the fact that common sense is dictated by one's cultural milieu. For example, your common sense language skills based on English is more likely to be a hindrance when applied in the context of other languages. You need to bypass your common sense if you want to use another language successfully.

You can question what brand of water he gargled with, if you so desire. When talking with other people you need to show the relevance and applicability of your discourse. "Hmm, I think Marky would have been embarrassed about the baptism." "And how would you test your hypothesis about the writer's feelings, seeing as your source is dead?" "It's just common sense."

Let us assume for the moment that you could show some hint of embarrassment somewhere along the gospel production food chain: how would you know where and what would it say regarding those prior producers? You have no way of knowing when in the production process this alleged embarrassment was felt, but you'd know that it wasn't relevant prior.

Embarrassment faces at least two insuperable problems: 1) it cannot be tested; and 2) it cannot be related to anything outside some phase within gospel production.

That's pretty ironic coming from you. He's just using common sense... and manipulating the data.

That's downright silly. Was George Washington the first president of the USA? Did Augustus become the first emperor of Rome? Did the Hittites conquer Mitanni? Lot's of history is based on solid fact about the past, but your comment is polemical rather than rational. You're looking to clean up the sullied CoE without anything better than your desires.

You may as well throw in any piece of christian hermeneutic that serves your desires, if you find it "convincing" to your common sense. There is no attempt to be objective in doing so, but objectivity is not a goal when using the tools of apologetics such as the CoE, is it?