the_cave

Well then, that's fine, but the criterion of embarrassment is usually used in a context where the historicity of Jesus is not questioned. I agree that in a context where his historicity is called into question, then the criterion of embarrassment loses some force.

I understand that. Then think of the historicity of Jesus as a debate about prior probabilities

See above--if one assumes that Jesus was a historical figure, then the crucifixion is somewhat problematic, in a way that Attis' castration is not. Why? Because Attis is a mythological figure, invented to fill a specific role. He is castrated simply beacuse that's what happens to Attis. Carrier can't apply the same syllogism to both Jesus' crucifixion and Attis' castration unless he assumes that both Jesus and Attis were similar figures, i.e. primarily mythological.

If Jesus is a purely mythological figure, then yes, he can be crucified without a problem simply because that's what happens to Jesus (though of course this doesn't mean that the crucifixion is totally non-problematic). If he is a historical figure, then there is a problem (because historical crucifixions tended to be historical embarrassments).

the_cave

If you use it clumsily, yes. But I think it can be instructive here--it shows that Peter was viewed with skepticism by the early church. The fact that the Matthean redactor who composed this story has Peter sinking into the sea shows that Peter was seen as someone who lacked the faith, or power, or righteousness, that Jesus possessed. It's not the facts about the story that are embarrassing; it's the symbolism behind it.

aa5874

So please show how a story that was fiction, unknown to a reader, with embarrassing elements could be confirmed to be fiction using the criterion of embarrassment.

Are you now claiming that Jesus was walking on water during the storm and it was because of Peter's weakness that he could not walk on water like Jesus?

But Jesus could not have walked on water during a storm, the story must be fiction, yet when you use the criterion of embarrassment, all of a sudden, Peter is trying to become a water-walker just like Jesus.

The criterion of embarrassment is useless, it turns fiction into fact.

aa5874

You probably do not really know my theory about the Jesus story, but we are dealing with the criterion of embarrassment.

So far, you have been unable to demonstrate that it can resolve history from fiction if the veracity of a text is unknown.

If an event is described in an embarrassing way, and it is not known whether the event happened, the criterion of embarrassment is useless.

If a woman lied about being raped in a written statement, the criterion of embarrassment would make her statement become true without doubt.

All embarrassing undetected fiction becomes true when the criterion of embarrassment is applied.

ApostateAbe

It was agreed by all that the criterion of embarrassment can have exceptions, so it seems a little irrelevant to give exceptions. We have already established that the criterion is about probability, not about certainty. And I have repeatedly said that the criterion can be trumped by other evidence. This would mean that the criterion of embarrassment certainly does not remove all doubt from any claim of rape. If you don't go out of your way to comprehend what I am saying, then maybe you can understand my frustration.

aa5874

I am not frustrated at all.

How can you determine an exception for the criterion of embarrassment when you are dealing with text where the veracity is unknown?

You see an embarrassing story in a text and its veracity is uncertain what is the probability that it is fiction? 100%, 50%, 10% or any percentage you like?

And if the criterion of embarrassment does not remove doubt then you have confirmed its uselessness.

Solo

The focus here is formal logic, Toto. I am not quibbling but analyzing a proposition. The single interesting point in a rational debate here is whether the conclusion "Jacob owned a wheel" is sustained by valid logical operations.

You already admitted that a "working wagon" may operate with borrowed or mortgaged wheels. That's enough for me.

Jiri

patcleaver

The criterion of embarrassment

Mark may have been 1) a propagandist writing biased history or 2) someone writing fiction.

If Mark was a propagandist writing biased history, then he would have left out the Crucifixion because it would have been embarrassing to his cause.

Therefore it is much more likely that Mark was just someone writing fiction.

aa5874

The final nail in the criterion of embarrassment.


Most of the stories about Jesus are not embarrassing so they are likely to be false.

So, perhaps Peter almost drowned during a storm and was so embarrassed he simply lied claiming he was trying to walk to Jesus who was nowhere around.

ApostateAbe

The crucifixion would have been a fact already well-established among Christians. Any biographer of Jesus would look silly and unconvincing leaving it out. Does that sound reasonable to you, or does it sound ad hoc?