ApostateAbe

Right. patcleaver seemed to be making an argument based on the premise that Jesus may or may not have existed and was crucified. I think this is what the criteria are about. Early Christian authors can be somewhat limited in the history they can put on paper. They have to make it at least approximate public knowledge.

ApostateAbe

I wouldn't give weight to the consensus of astrologers, but I would give weight to the consensus of those who have studied and analyzed the subject critically. The field of Biblical scholarship is in disrepute only because the well-qualified scholars in the field don't get their needed share of attention, because most people prefer the scholars who advance their own conclusions, and qualified Biblical scholars are less likely to reach out to the popular public. But they exist, and if you investigate you will see that they actually have good evidence and strong reasoning behind them. Some good examples of reputable critical scholars who have written to the popular public are Bart Ehrman (wrote many books on the New Testament, my favorite being Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium) and Richard E. Friedman (author of Who Wrote the Bible? on the Old Testament). I imagine that you can find some of those books in the catalog at your local library.

Analyst

Perhaps. But I also give a warning not to hang too much on the 'crucifixion' legend; any more than on King Arthur's 'round table'.

aa5874

You appear to be completely contradicted. Please look at the OP.


Make any premise with embarrassing elements, apply the criterion of embarrassment, the conclusion would obviously be not credible, or the conclusion would be fallacious in some manner.

The final nail in the criterion of embarrassment.

the_cave

? I don't understand the question--the criterion of embarrassment isn't really helpful in determining fictional elements.

In reality, no. But in the story, yes. His weakness in the story reflects his (perceived) weakness in reality.

Only if you're reading it literally. If you read it symbolically, then you learn something--you learn that the early church viewed Peter's faith/authority with skepticism. (Though this is different from the "embarrassment" of the crucifixion. The author of Matthew is mocking Peter deliberately, whereas the author of the Passion Narrative probably didn't have that intent.)

Amaleq13

Your lack of familiarity with logic is showing again.

Per jjramsey, Carrier is arguing that the absurd conclusion is the logical result of applying the criterion to Attus. Accepting his premises as stated, that appears to be correct. The logic is sound but the conclusion is absurd.

When an absurd conclusion is derived from the logical application of a criterion, there must be something wrong with the criterion.

You and jjramsey's interpretation of Carrier agree that the criterion is not reliable.

jjramsey

That's not quite true. I'm arguing that when Carrier's premises are refined, i.e. by identifying the Cybeleans in Carrier's syllogism as being those in Tacitus' day of late classical Italy, then his logic falls apart, and so his attempt at an reductio ad absurdum fails.

Toto

This is not a correct "refinement."

If you completely refine it as Andrew did, you have:

Major Premise 1: Cybeleans in late classical Italy would not invent a report that would embarrass them.
Minor Premise 1: The castration of Attis would embarrass Cybeleans in late classical Italy.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, Cybeleans in late classical Italy did not invent the report of the castration of Attis.

But you can't elimate some of the bolded parts and not others.

And if you want to be consistent, then the same limitations and refinements need to be added to all of the uses of the criterion of embarrassment by NT scholars, at which point it becomes totally useless as a tool for separating out history from myth.

And, in case you think that no one ever uses the criterion that way, check out the orignal debate on these boards between Nomad and Earl Doherty. Nomad started by confidently asserting that, since the baptism of Jesus by a lesser mortal would have been embarrasing to Christians, that it could not have been invented, and must be historially true. At that point Earl packed up and left because the inanity of this argument led him to believe that he would be wasting his time.

aa5874

I will try to simplify.

If a story is considered embarrassing, and is actually fiction but unknown to the reader of the story, can the criterion of embarrassment detemine that the story was indeed fiction?



You must mean mean Peter was a symbolic character, and the water was figurative, too. You read everything symbolic.

aa5874

Well prove my logic is wrong and stop wasting time.

Make any premise with embarrassing elements and apply the criterion of embarrassment and you will see the results are not credible or fallacious in some manner.

This is the final nail in the criterion of embarrassment.