Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 08-12-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

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.

So the Martian Invasion of 1842 is true because no history books mention it?

Interesting concept.

ficino · 08-13-2013, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

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 ....'

I don't agree with Witmer's methods or conclusions. Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting her method. She sets out her criterion of embarrassment so: "This criterion asserts that if something mentioned in the gospels would be potentially embarrassing to the early Christian community, but has nevertheless been retained, it is likely to be historical." Her Criterion applies only to something mentioned "in the gospels" (again, I think she should have said, "in at least one gospel"), not to something mentioned in no gospel. She uses the silence of other gospels to try to prove that the "something" was embarrassing to "the early christian community" (I think she should have said, "to at least some in the early Christian community"). So the silence of Luke and John about Jesus' baptism is used by her to prove that the baptism account embarrassed some early Christians; she doesn't reason directly from "Luke and John avoid mentioning" to "therefore it is likely to be historical." You've elided some steps in her weak argument.

Steven Carr · 08-13-2013, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

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.'

I don't agree with Witmer's methods or conclusions. Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting her method. She sets out her criterion of embarrassment so: "This criterion asserts that if something mentioned in the gospels would be potentially embarrassing to the early Christian community, but has nevertheless been retained, it is likely to be historical."

Her Criterion applies only to something mentioned "in the gospels" (again, I think she should have said, "in at least one gospel"), not to something mentioned in no gospel. She uses the silence of other gospels to try to prove that the "something" was embarrassing to "the early christian community"

I see.

So something has 'nevertheless been retained' if the sources don't retain it....

Where does John's Gospel 'retain' this baptism?

Her proof that something is embarrassing is if some Gospels don't mention it.

Her proof that something is historical is if some Gospels mention it (sorry, 'nevertheless retain' it)

So if they mention it, it is historical, because it is retained.

And if they don't mention it, it is historical, because it was not retained, therefore it was embarrassing, therefore it was historical.

hjalti · 08-13-2013, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

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 ....'

I don't agree with Witmer's methods or conclusions. Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting her method. She sets out her criterion of embarrassment so: "This criterion asserts that if something mentioned in the gospels would be potentially embarrassing to the early Christian community, but has nevertheless been retained, it is likely to be historical." Her Criterion applies only to something mentioned "in the gospels" (again, I think she should have said, "in at least one gospel"), not to something mentioned in no gospel. She uses the silence of other gospels to try to prove that the "something" was embarrassing to "the early christian community" (I think she should have said, "to at least some in the early Christian community"). So the silence of Luke and John about Jesus' baptism is used by her to prove that the baptism account embarrassed some early Christians; she doesn't reason directly from "Luke and John avoid mentioning" to "therefore it is likely to be historical." You've elided some steps in her weak argument.

Yes. A better example would be the two stories in MK about Jesus healing people with his spittle. Both Mk and Lk, so embarassed by the magical healing technique, delete those stories. Has anyone seen a scholar use the criterion for these stories?

ficino · 08-13-2013, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

I don't agree with Witmer's methods or conclusions. Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting her method. She sets out her criterion of embarrassment so: "This criterion asserts that if something mentioned in the gospels would be potentially embarrassing to the early Christian community, but has nevertheless been retained, it is likely to be historical."

Her Criterion applies only to something mentioned "in the gospels" (again, I think she should have said, "in at least one gospel"), not to something mentioned in no gospel. She uses the silence of other gospels to try to prove that the "something" was embarrassing to "the early christian community"

I see.

So something has 'nevertheless been retained' if the sources don't retain it....

Where does John's Gospel 'retain' this baptism?

Her proof that something is embarrassing is if some Gospels don't mention it.

Her proof that something is historical is if some Gospels mention it (sorry, 'nevertheless retain' it)

So if they mention it, it is historical, because it is retained.

And if they don't mention it, it is historical, because it was not retained, therefore it was embarrassing, therefore it was historical.

Yeah, her argument sucks. I think that's a different and posterior conclusion to establishing, wtf is her argument? Maybe we're agreed on the steps in her argument after all.

I think a problem with Witmer, and a reason why her analysis is so superficial, is that she lumps the four gospels together and makes the big assumption that what she calls "the early christian community" was identifiable and unitary. She makes other ones, too, which have been noted by people earlier in this thread. Then there's the selective application of her criterion. E.g. Mark has Jesus and followers travel from Jericho to Bethphage and Bethany and the Mt. of Olives. But the location of those towns would lead travelers to go from Jericho to Bethphage; Bethany was out of the way. Matthew drops Bethany. An embarrassment for the early christian community that Mark gets his geography wrong, so the detail is not retained in Matthew? By the "criterion of embarrassment," Jesus must have traveled out of the way to Bethany. But it's just dumb to conclude this. Or, was Mark correct, that in an earlier time, the locations of the two B-towns were reversed? Bwa ha ha.

aa5874 · 08-13-2013, 08:41 AM

The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to fiction. There is hardly any account of Jesus that is repeated by all the authors of the Gospels except the feeding of the 5000, the crucifixion and the Resurrection.

It is hopelessly illogical that all the accounts that are not repeated by all authors are historical accounts.

If we apply the criterion of embarrassment to accounts of Jesus in the Gospels then all the events which were Not reported by every author must be historically accurate.

1. The author of gMark did NOT claim Jesus was born after his mother was made Pregnant by a Holy Ghost. He was embarrassed so the story must be true

2. The author of gLuke did not mention that Jesus walked on the sea. He was embarrassed so the story must be true.

3. The author of gMark did NOT mention the post-Resurrection visits of Jesus. He was embarrassed so the story must be true.

4. The author of gJohn did NOT mention at least 12 miracles in the Synoptics. He was embarrassed by those miracle stories so the miracles must have happened.

It can clearly be seen that the criterion of embarrassment is totally useless to determine historical accounts in the Gospels.

andrewcriddle · 08-14-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Yes. A better example would be the two stories in MK about Jesus healing people with his spittle. Both Mk and Lk, so embarassed by the magical healing technique, delete those stories. Has anyone seen a scholar use the criterion for these stories?

Meier Marginal Jew Volume 2 argues that the criterion of embarrassment provides (weak) evidence that these stories go back to the ministry of Jesus. IMO they are at least pre-Marcan.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 08-14-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

A better example would be the two stories in MK about Jesus healing people with his spittle. Both Mk and Lk, so embarassed by the magical healing technique, delete those stories. Has anyone seen a scholar use the criterion for these stories?

I have not seen any scholars expressing the view the spitting itself was embarrassing in the cures. FWIW, I believe the deaf man's story at Decapolis (Mk 7:32) was dropped because it was transparently not a cure but a comment on pneumatic excitement and glossolalia in which Jesus is defied by the onlookers. He cannot stop the praise of himself (36) because the vision of him is formed by the spirit, against which the recipients are powerless. In the Bethsaida blindness cure (8:22-26), Jesus is embarrassed by requiring a second step to complete the healing procedure. This appears to be a comment on "the other Jesus" (of the Petrines) being ineffectual without the power of the gospel (of Paul). Matthew's Jesus on the Mount (Mt 7:3-5)brilliantly demolishes Mark for the Bethsaida story's crass self-righteousness. He fashions a brilliant riposte in the Jesus' saying about the mote in one's brothers eye that can be removed in a two step cure, the first part of which consists removing a log from one's own eye. The spitting in these two stories seems to have been a collateral casualty to bigger issues.

Best,
Jiri

hjalti · 08-15-2013, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Yes. A better example would be the two stories in MK about Jesus healing people with his spittle. Both Mk and Lk, so embarassed by the magical healing technique, delete those stories. Has anyone seen a scholar use the criterion for these stories?

Meier Marginal Jew Volume 2 argues that the criterion of embarrassment provides (weak) evidence that these stories go back to the ministry of Jesus. IMO they are at least pre-Marcan.

Andrew Criddle

Does Meier think that the author of Mark was embarassed by these stories?

ficino · 08-15-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Meier Marginal Jew Volume 2 argues that the criterion of embarrassment provides (weak) evidence that these stories go back to the ministry of Jesus. IMO they are at least pre-Marcan.

Andrew Criddle

Does Meier think that the author of Mark was embarassed by these stories?

Meier thinks that Jesus' baptism, and his very crucifixion, are paradeigmatic instances where the criterion of embarrassment can be applied. In reading him yesterday I didn't see a place where he opined that the author of Mark was embarrassed by the story of J's baptism. He concluded that it was embarrassing for "the Church" (Meier continually capitalizes that noun) because it could suggest that Jesus was not sinless, and he thinks that its successive suppression is evidence that the Church was more and more embarrassed by it over time - Matthew adds the rather lame expl. "for it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness," Luke only mentions it in passing out of chronological order, and John omits entirely.

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

08-13-2013, 08:41 AM	#36
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to fiction. There is hardly any account of Jesus that is repeated by all the authors of the Gospels except the feeding of the 5000, the crucifixion and the Resurrection. It is hopelessly illogical that all the accounts that are not repeated by all authors are historical accounts. If we apply the criterion of embarrassment to accounts of Jesus in the Gospels then all the events which were Not reported by every author must be historically accurate. 1. The author of gMark did NOT claim Jesus was born after his mother was made Pregnant by a Holy Ghost. He was embarrassed so the story must be true 2. The author of gLuke did not mention that Jesus walked on the sea. He was embarrassed so the story must be true. 3. The author of gMark did NOT mention the post-Resurrection visits of Jesus. He was embarrassed so the story must be true. 4. The author of gJohn did NOT mention at least 12 miracles in the Synoptics. He was embarrassed by those miracle stories so the miracles must have happened. It can clearly be seen that the criterion of embarrassment is totally useless to determine historical accounts in the Gospels.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.