Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-11-2013, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why not?

Because many still find it a useful tool, provided they pay attention to it's limitations.

If you wanted to argue we should extend these limitations, I would not be opposed or argue that at all.

MrMacSon · 08-11-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Two gospels were too embarrassed to mention his birth

Completely false.

What evidence do you have the authors were embarrassed? None?

the "criterion of embarrassment" is an all powerful force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

These authors were interested in creating accurate history while creating theology through mythology.

so what you think is history is really theology & mythology?? :constern02:

doesn't sound as if it can be 'accurate'

mountainman · 08-11-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why not?

Because many still find it a useful tool, provided they pay attention to it's limitations.

Many "Biblical Historians" find it a useful tool because they do not have much (if any) evidence to work with.

Has this "Criterion of Embarrassment" been used by an ancient (non biblical) historian on issues outside of biblical history?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

DCHindley · 08-11-2013, 07:39 PM

Are you really going to argue that explaining away something because it is socially embarrassing is no more quantifiable than making something up that is socially embarrassing because it fills a socio-psychological need?

Greco-Roman official or social leader: "Why should we not seek you out for punishment? Are you not followers of an executed rebel leader?"

"No! We are not political rebels like the Jews were, because we believe that the man, Jesus, who was tragically misidentified as a rebel by Pilate, was actually the savior of mankind sent by the very God the Jews venerate. God has rightfully punished the Jews for their inability to perceive the true role of the anointed one predicted in their scriptures. We gentile followers of Jesus had correctly interpreted this God given truth to our credit, and separated ourselves from the kind of thinking that caused the destruction of the Jewish rebels. Please, accept us for what we have become, not reject us for what we are no longer!"

"Yes! We are followers of a mystery which makes us feel better about our marginalized and debased place in selfish and cruel Greco-Roman society. This myth, we decided perhaps consciously or perhaps unconsciously, could best be achieved by inventing a disgraced pretender to the right to be called king of the Judeans, which we knew would justly incite you justly to wrath against us, whether he really existed or not, because such a one would rightfully deserve death. This man, "Jesus," we have placed in a plausible historical framework, plucked from thin air, and even then just to taunt you, because we are gluttons for martyrdom, and believe that we cannot fully be unified with God unless we are executed for our hatred of mankind. Please, accept us for the weird-ass oddballs which we must certainly be if we believe such a load of crap!"

How could someone possibly quantify one over the other? :huh:

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[T]he scholars who claim to use it [the criterion of embarrassment] have hedged it with so many qualification[s] and so many hesitations that it's not clear that they actually use it other than to confirm their own preexisting guesswork.
....
It has been pointed out that if a fact were truly embarrassing, it would just have been omitted.

There is no historicist who has given a coherent account of this criterion or why it is useful. They say it makes a claim more likely to be historical, but they have no way of quantifying exactly how much more likely

outhouse · 08-11-2013, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Completely false.

What evidence do you have the authors were embarrassed? None?

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

These authors were interested in creating accurate history while creating theology through mythology.

so what you think is history is really theology & mythology?? :constern02:

doesn't sound as if it can be 'accurate'

Hey you caught me! thanks. I was typing fast and made a error.

I ment to say "they were not interested in creating accurate history while creating theology through mythology"

aa5874 · 08-11-2013, 10:18 PM

When, Where and Who in the Jesus cult was embarrassed by the Baptism story of Jesus? There is no Jesus cult writer who claimed that the story of the baptism was embarrassing. None.

The HJ argument is itself embarrassingly loaded with fallacies.

1. Ignatius was NOT embarrassed.

Ignatius' Ephesians

Quote:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

2. Justin was NOT embarrassed.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 88

Quote:

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote. ...

3. Irenaeus was NOT embarrassed.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies

Quote:

Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master.

4. Tertullian was NOT Embarrassed.

Tertullian's Against Marcion 3.7

Quote:

Christ Jesus, the true High Priest of the Father, in the person of Joshua, nay, in the very mystery of His name, is portrayed in a twofold dress with reference to both His advents. At first He is clad in sordid garments, that is to say, in the lowliness of suffering and mortal flesh: then the devil resisted Him, as the instigator of the traitor Judas, not to mention his tempting Him after His baptism...

5. Origen was NOT embarrassed.

Origen's Against Celsus 1.46

Quote:

For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the voice from heaven.

6. Eusebius was NOT embarrassed.

Eusebius' Church History 1.10.1

Quote:

It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea, that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

Steven Carr · 08-11-2013, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical.

This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened.

The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

Mr. Carr, I presume you're joking. I saw your comment to Witmer's article, in which you say largely the same as the above. As you read in her article, Witmer invokes "the criterion of embarrassment," not a criterion of multiple silence.

No, she invokes the criterion of multiple silence, as you can tell by the quotes that you gave.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

Now, 'avoid any description', and 'avoids directly mentioning' mean that they are silent.

The criterion of embarrassment means that every time somebody says something so silly that even his friends are embarrassed by it, then what was said has to be true.

This is so embarrassingly bad logic that it must be true!

Of course, if you could produce the names of three Christians who are embarrassed by the idea of Jesus being baptised and deny it happened...

Please feel free to cut and paste and fill in the following :-

'These Christians deny that Jesus was ever baptised. Their names are .... and .... and ....'

Toto · 08-11-2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why not?

Because many still find it a useful tool, provided they pay attention to it's limitations.

If you wanted to argue we should extend these limitations, I would not be opposed or argue that at all.

Why did you ignore the rest of what I wrote??

It is clear that the "limitations" have swallowed the usefulness of the criteria. There is no way this criteria can show that it is more likely than not that Jesus was baptized by John.

Scholars who claim that the criterion of embarrassment is a useful tool are just fudging, because they don't have any other arguments. Their toolbox is empty. And if they admitted this, they might have to admit that they have nothing to say about historicity.

mountainman · 08-11-2013, 11:31 PM

Can anyone cite an instance in which an historian outside of "Biblical Scholarship" has made use of the criterion of embarrassment?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Clivedurdle · 08-12-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

And, of course, we must conclude that Jesus was married, because that is nowhere attested in the Gospels.

I thought the Wedding at Cana showed he was married - because the groom worried about the wine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2013, 11:31 PM	#29
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Can anyone cite an instance in which an historian outside of "Biblical Scholarship" has made use of the criterion of embarrassment? εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.