FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2013, 04:41 PM   #111
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
Quote:
Now as far as criterion of embarrassment.

Different professionals have different opinions about this, and I have not stated otherwise. I have also expressed the need for caution. This expresses the current state of scholarships use of the criterion.

Throwing out the criterion comepletely is that of fringe scholarships <unsupported abuse...>.
No outhouse, you said:

Quote:
Why is it only those following fringe positions find issue with this criterion?
After I pointed out, contrary to your claim, it is mainstream to find issue with this criterion, suddenly you're taking this new line.


Vorkosigan

In context, mythicist have issues with this criterion. Do a search those complaining about it the loudest are mythicist.


I posted this long before your entrance


Quote:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...-authenticity/

There is much of value in these essays, particularly those (the majority) that do not call for a wholesale end of the criteria’s use.

Quote:
http://factlookup.com/article/Criter..._embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment is an analytical tool that some Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts Jesus' actions and words are historically probable. John P. Meier, in his book A Marginal Jew, describes the purpose behind this criterion (p. 168):

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels.

This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation, along with the historical method.

The Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church. The Crucifixion of Jesus is another example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and therefore it is the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.

Quote:
No one takes you seriously because you waste our time with this crap.

YOu may not take me serious because I dont follow all that mythicist bullcrap, and brother it is not a problem at all. Is this for the most part a known mythcist forum, or not?

REAL scholars dont hang here because they get fed up with the double standards and non scholarly methods that dont bother me.

I have no problem shining a light on the mythicist bias and standing up for real scholarships many here claim as biased apologetics.
outhouse is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 05:18 PM   #112
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default outhouse's vacuous ranting against mythicism instead of responsible argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
In context, mythicist have issues with this criterion. Do a search those complaining about it the loudest are mythicist.
As has been pointed out to you many times, anyone but religious scholars have issues with this nonsense criterion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I posted this long before your entrance

Quote:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...-authenticity/

There is much of value in these essays, particularly those (the majority) that do not call for a wholesale end of the criteria’s use.
Quote:
http://factlookup.com/article/Criter..._embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment is an analytical tool that some Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts Jesus' actions and words are historically probable. John P. Meier, in his book A Marginal Jew, describes the purpose behind this criterion (p. 168):

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels.

This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation, along with the historical method.

The Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church. The Crucifixion of Jesus is another example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and therefore it is the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.
This stuff falls over its own presuppositions. The writer hasn't got a clue whether the story of Jesus's baptism was available to the writer of Jn. If Mt's JtB says to Jesus "I should be baptized by you", what does that say to you about any modern-imputed sin of Jesus?

It is idiotic to argue that the crucifixion of Jesus was some sort of embarrassment, when Cybelean acolytes had no trouble with Attis being castrated, and when followers of Adonis believed their savior was torn to pieces by dogs. For Jesus to be a redeemer of people he had to pay for them by dying in their place. To take away the curse of the law he had to take it on, for cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree. The death of Jesus is such an embarrassment that Paul reveled in it.

What they don't say about multiple attestation is that it needs to be multiple independent attestation. It doesn't matter if many texts say the same thing if they all copied from the one source. When they can demonstrate multiple independent attestation, they can start using it.

These arguments that you cling to are religious. They have nothing to do with history. They are attempting to turn stories into reality without any way to connect them to the real world. This embarrassment nonsense is something out of the dark ages and only advocated seriously by believers and people who once believed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
No one takes you seriously because you waste our time with this crap.
You may not take me serious because I dont follow all that mythicist bullcrap, and brother it is not a problem at all. Is this for the most part a known mythcist forum, or not?
How many times must you be beaten down for this blunder? You are not talking only to people who believe in mythicism. You must stop this childish nonsense. If you want to bleed about mythicism, do so to mythicists and not to people who have no commitment on the issue.

The issue regards evidence for the existence of Jesus. Changing the topic and talking about mythicists does not deal with the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
REAL scholars...
You wouldn't know a real scholar if one bit you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
...dont hang here because they get fed up with the double standards and non scholarly methods that dont bother me.
If you were correct, I'd prefer double standards to your no standards any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I have no problem shining a light on the mythicist bias and standing up for real scholarships many here claim as biased apologetics.
How can you fit both your head and a torch?
spin is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 06:30 PM   #113
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This stuff falls over its own presuppositions. The writer hasn't got a clue whether the story of Jesus's baptism was available to the writer of Jn.
I'll jump in. It is absurd to think that the story of Jesus' baptism wasn't available to John, who has JTB repeat many of the same things found in the other gospels, and has Jesus going to JTB, but not being baptized by him. Whether it was from Mark originally or not isn't important.

Quote:
If Mt's JtB says to Jesus "I should be baptized by you", what does that say to you about any modern-imputed sin of Jesus?
??


Quote:
It is idiotic to argue that the crucifixion of Jesus was some sort of embarrassment, when Cybelean acolytes had no trouble with Attis being castrated, and when followers of Adonis believed their savior was torn to pieces by dogs. For Jesus to be a redeemer of people he had to pay for them by dying in their place. To take away the curse of the law he had to take it on, for cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree. The death of Jesus is such an embarrassment that Paul reveled in it.
You are just parroting Paul's awkward attempt to explain it by saying that to take a way a curse one has to become cursed! Of course there would be attempts by believers to explain something so 'awkward' by making it seem to be part of God's plan -- what else would you expect? Christians weren't embarrassed by it -- but some of the unbelieving Jews were REPULSED by the idea of a crucified Messiah. Paul referred to it as a 'stumbling block' to the Jews -- it clearly didn't fit their pre-conceptions. In doing so, Paul has revealed that it was opposed because it was UNEXPECTED for the Jewish Messiah to be crucified! Paul himself didn't believe it until he had message/insight from God. It was bizarre to any Jew, and yet the message originated among the Jews.

Was the idea a based on bizarre new interpretation of Scripture? If so, what prompted that? Attis and other non-Jewish stories? Why should they? How in the world can the Jews suddenly think that their Messiah who was expected to save Israel and usher in the kingdom had already come if they had no record of his existence and no evidence that the kingdom had really arrived, while becoming more and more demoralized by the Romans? What evidence was there? That's idiotic!
TedM is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 06:40 PM   #114
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
You are not talking only to people who believe in mythicism.




So far only people that are mythicist or agnostic have been proud and mouthy.


There are times I should be corrected, but I know a biased or unorthodox view when I see it.



Because you take a mininal view with your agnostic stance, doesnt make you right or correct or mirroring that staus quo of modern scholarships.

I follow certain professors of which you are not.
outhouse is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:15 PM   #115
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post


You don't seem to realize that you've just argued that if something is embarassing, we leave it out.

So had the embarassed Matthew been the author of Mark, it would not have been included in Mark. Except that it was. So by your reasoning it is not an embarassment.

This is the schizophrenic world of apologia where you get to argue both for and against the same position, but retain the one that supports faith.
Matthew left out entirely some passages in Mark that he apparently found problematic. However he left in the baptism while clearly finding it problematic. This may indicate that Matthew had access to non-Markan sources/traditions confirming the baptism of Jesus by John.

(Some scholars think that Q contained an account of Jesus' baptism.)

Andrew Criddle
Hi Andrew,

FWIW, Matthew also found Mark's account of Peter's confession-Transfiguration highly problematic and did not expunge it. I would venture that in either story, the recension could have been motivated by different community values and theological imperatives rather than preference for a different pre-existing tradition.

Best,
Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:23 PM   #116
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
.... Paul himself didn't believe it until he had message/insight from God. It was bizarre to any Jew, and yet the message originated among the Jews.
You statement is a fallacy. The Pauline writers claimed that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day ACCORDING to the Scriptures.

Paul got his crucifixion story of Jesus, NOT from God, but from Jesus cult Scriptures.

The blasphemy that Jesus died for the Sin of Jews is NOT found anywhere in Hebrew Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:38 PM   #117
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
.... Paul himself didn't believe it until he had message/insight from God. It was bizarre to any Jew, and yet the message originated among the Jews.
You statement is a fallacy. The Pauline writers claimed that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day ACCORDING to the Scriptures.

Paul got his crucifixion story of Jesus, NOT from God, but from Jesus cult Scriptures.
sigh..Please stop being so contrary when there is no need to be, aa.

re-read what Paul says about it in Galatians. He says GOD revealed Jesus to him. That's what made him convert. Whether he did it THROUGH scripture or not is something else. It doesn't make my statement wrong.
TedM is offline  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:52 PM   #118
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
.... Paul himself didn't believe it until he had message/insight from God. It was bizarre to any Jew, and yet the message originated among the Jews.
You statement is a fallacy. The Pauline writers claimed that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day ACCORDING to the Scriptures.

Paul got his crucifixion story of Jesus, NOT from God, but from Jesus cult Scriptures.
sigh..re-read what Paul says about it in Galatians. You are wrong.
I just posted what Paul wrote.

Did NOT Paul write 1 Corinthians?

You seem to be now admitting that the Pauline writers either lied or did not know what they were really talking about.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Quote:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..
Now, what did Paul say in Galatians? Please, be specific--chapter and verse.

I want to see where Paul MODIFIED his claims.

Paul was embarrassed that he used the Jesus cult Scriptures??

It must be true??
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:17 AM   #119
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This stuff falls over its own presuppositions. The writer hasn't got a clue whether the story of Jesus's baptism was available to the writer of Jn.
I'll jump in.
You needn't bother. You've already made your contribution when you accepted the conjecture without serious question. You've added nothing to change that or give this nonsense any more credibility. Just the usual crapping on from ignorance of the era without any attempt at showing how you could possibly know what would be embarrassing to the writers concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It is absurd to think that the story of Jesus' baptism wasn't available to John, who has JTB repeat many of the same things found in the other gospels, and has Jesus going to JTB, but not being baptized by him. Whether it was from Mark originally or not isn't important.

Quote:
If Mt's JtB says to Jesus "I should be baptized by you", what does that say to you about any modern-imputed sin of Jesus?
??
What exactly was the significance of John saying what he did? Does he give any indication that he thinks Jesus is a sinner???

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
It is idiotic to argue that the crucifixion of Jesus was some sort of embarrassment, when Cybelean acolytes had no trouble with Attis being castrated, and when followers of Adonis believed their savior was torn to pieces by dogs. For Jesus to be a redeemer of people he had to pay for them by dying in their place. To take away the curse of the law he had to take it on, for cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree. The death of Jesus is such an embarrassment that Paul reveled in it.
You are just parroting Paul's awkward attempt to explain it by saying that to take a way a curse one has to become cursed!
I certainly am "parrotting Paul". That's because I like to base my thoughts on fucking evidence. If you don't like Paul's gospel, well, you don't have to believe it. You shouldn't pervert what he says because of your prior commitments. The notion of redemption is well presented by Paul. His gospel has it as its foundation. Jesus redeemed believers by dying for them. In Gal 3 he details those under the law suffer and are cursed. That is his belief, just as the notion that, to redeem, Jesus had to suffer and die in their place. How else could the curse be bought off, as the Greek verb "redeem" (exagorazw--with "agora" in it) indicated? Crucifixion had a long history before the Romans arrived. Paul has no problem whatsoever accepting that Jesus was crucified. It followed from the curse, just as his Passover death followed from his role as a sacrifice. Paul has no problem with the crucifixion and the fact that others did just showed that they were still cursed. The cross was redemption. Why shouldn't Paul have been happy about that? There is nothing awkward to him. In fact he preached Christ crucified and nothing but. So there! It was a stumbling block for the unsaved. Awkward? You're off your nut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Of course there would be attempts by believers to explain something so 'awkward' by making it seem to be part of God's plan -- what else would you expect? Christians weren't embarrassed by it -- but some of the unbelieving Jews were REPULSED by the idea of a crucified Messiah. Paul referred to it as a 'stumbling block' to the Jews -- it clearly didn't fit their pre-conceptions. In doing so, Paul has revealed that it was opposed because it was UNEXPECTED for the Jewish Messiah to be crucified! Paul himself didn't believe it until he had message/insight from God. It was bizarre to any Jew, and yet the message originated among the Jews.

Was the idea a based on bizarre new interpretation of Scripture? If so, what prompted that? Attis and other non-Jewish stories? Why should they? How in the world can the Jews suddenly think that their Messiah who was expected to save Israel and usher in the kingdom had already come if they had no record of his existence and no evidence that the kingdom had really arrived, while becoming more and more demoralized by the Romans? What evidence was there? That's idiotic!
Paul plainly repudiated the beliefs of the Jerusalemite Jews who still followed the torah. He is so explicit in Gal 5:2, either Christ or circumcision, not both. Being Jewish was not significant to him. So, fuck off Jerusalem morons, who were still worrying about eating practices. His beliefs obviously did not come from them. There is no way back to a Jesus belief passed to Paul from that direction. The implied trajectory that you cling to for Paul's beliefs is simply wrongheaded.

Paul's non-messianic messiah was actually a dying savior. Redemption is guaranteed by the substitution death and subsequent belief. Paul explains why his savior/messiah died as he did. If you want to try to explain it away, take that up with Paul. He might be more swayable.
spin is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 06:49 AM   #120
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
You are not talking only to people who believe in mythicism.
So far only people that are mythicist or agnostic have been proud and mouthy.
But you beat that hands down! You're both proud and mouthy, plus slavish and lacking in discernment in the topic of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
There are times I should be corrected, but I know a biased or unorthodox view when I see it.
Sorry, you've proven a bust when it comes to bias. Slavish adherence to status quo beliefs makes you incapable of approaching a neutral analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Because you take a mininal view with your agnostic stance, doesnt make you right or correct or mirroring that staus quo of modern scholarships.
My minimalist approach, if you want to call it that, makes me less prone to blunders that committed people make. I work from what we can know, not from what we believe.

Now remember that people without training in history who make pronouncements about history, be they professors or not, are just amateurs. When they do so in fields that they have commitments in, they are biased amateurs and they make it extremely difficult for themselves to say anything of historical significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I follow certain professors of which you are not.
And when you do so, the blind leading the blind, you wonder what you're doing in the ditch you're floundering around in at the moment.

Biblical studies, or theological studies as it has been known for much of its existence, has been around since before universities were created. It has practically always been around and has not earned its place in the halls of academia. It inherited that place. Its need to exist has never been tested, because, well, it's always been there. It's original place was to provide new clerics, so it had the full backing of the church.

Humanism hit it badly, letting the learned world know that there were christian forgeries, that there were other ways to look at the cosmos. The church fought back, burning people at the stake or forcing them to recant their humanist ways, though Humanism took its toll on christian scholars.

Then Humanism paved the way for the Enlightenment, which gave us organized thought and put us on the road to scientific critical analysis. To stay up with changes this time the church was forced to adapt and as historiography became more secularized, christian scholars, because of the ethos, took on aspects of Enlightenment thought. It was hard not to and christian historiography readjusted to the changing high cultural developments and theological studies started to look at history more coherently, though still through the distorting lens of belief, so we get a century of well Jesus is difficult to justify historically, but there is enough to say that the resurrection happened, because it was multiply attested. A whole set of looney tune reasons were developed to confirm the religion's narrative in this new age, turning text into the real world. (At the same time the intellectual tools of the Enlightenment set the stage for the development of freethought and rational atheism.)

But biblical studies is still a medieval field tarted up over the centuries. It has been recontextualized in continuation because of cultural developments basically external to the field, while all the time those developments took place in an otherwise christian culture!

Biblical studies because it has always been in tertiary education has inherited an air of scholarship that has never been tested. It's proponents are predominantly religious believers and those who are not were trained by believers. These are the people making pronouncements about the historicity of Jesus, people with an obviously tendentious approach to their field. Any sensitive issue is likely to be filtered through their prior commitment to the religion. At many institutions there are protocols for teaching staff to follow regarding what they can say and do regarding the religion they study and teach.

I work on the notion that I can trust the studies of the scholars in the field to analyse text with skill and precision, but outside that, caveat lector or, to quote a sixties icon, "Danger, danger, Will Robinson, danger".
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:54 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.