spamandham

I don't see anything implausible with the reasons the gospels state for John's beheading. Herod was a royal dick who wouldn't think twice about executing someone who annoyed him for any reason. I get the fealing you're just making it up as you go along.

spamandham

...Abe is claiming that the baptism of Jesus by John was embarassing to Mark and therfor historical.

If we saw later gospel writers omit it altogether (such as later superman rewrites that omit the bloody nose), or water it down (superman is rendered powerless, but even without his superpowers, his innate virtue compels others to carry out his will), then that might be evidence that those later writers found it embarassing (or a more apt description would be 'incongruent'), but it says nothing about what the original author felt, and provides no weight whatsoever to any claims of historicity for the event in question.

The fact that Superman's weakness was rewritten later on does not in any way indicate that the original author was embarrased by it, nor does it in any way support claims of the historicity of Superman.

...probably because those promoting it keep abusing it.

GakuseiDon

It does not refute the criterion, it shows its limitations. The criterion itself is common sense. Finding an example of where the criterion should not be applied (like the Superman example given earlier) does not refute the logic behind the criterion.

Why the change in the later Gospels? Any use for the criterion there?

GakuseiDon

Of course it tells us something about what the original author felt. If we find later authors changing the details of an event, then this tells us something about what we would expect Mark to have felt.

In the case of the baptism, we find Mark happy to have Jesus baptised by John, with only a nod by John recognising that Jesus will be greater than he. But then, the Jesus in Mark is least 'exalted'. As we go through each Gospel and as we find the emphasis on Jesus as sinless and perfect, the story changes; until we get to GJohn, whereby Jesus is associated with God and the story disappears altogether.

Let's put it this way: If Mark had portrayed Jesus in the same way as GJohn, would we expect Mark to have had no problems with portraying Jesus as coming to John for the remission of sins?

There are any number of scenarios in which the criterion does not apply. I'm sure you can easily whip up a few more, though I don't know why you think this helps say anything about the criterion.

I don't doubt that that happens too. But the people attacking it abuse it also.

Toto

This is not a mere limitation on the criterion, or at least it limits its use to cases that do not include the gospels or any text of interest to historians. That's why it is not used by real historians.

The Superman example is exactly comparable to the way the criterion has been used by the Jesus Seminar and others.

GDon, there is enough misinformation and confusion floating around on the internet. Why are you trying to add to it? You have redefined the criterion of embarrassment so it has nothing to do with the way that criterion is used anywhere else. Do you think you are Humpty Dumpty?

The criterion has nothing to do with later textual changes. It has only been used by the historical Jesus industry to try to separate out what Jesus actually said or did from later invention.

You may have been confused because the scholars who do use it go on to talk about how the later gospels try to soften or cover up the embarrassment of having Jesus baptized for the remission of sin. But this is just an illustration of why the baptism is embarrassing. It is not the use of the criterion itself, which is completely refuted by the observation that the baptism was not embarrassing to Mark.

So, no, it has no use. None. Nada. Zilch.

spamandham

...for the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming gMark is the earliest version of the gospel, but this need not be the case for the argument to follow.

Of course it does not. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows anything at all about the author of Mark asside from what we can glean from the text of Mark. We don't even know the genre, in spite of weakly supported claims that it's a period biography.

But assuming it is a hero biography, it's assinine to think that Mark would have included something that undermined his hero. He was not a court reporter. Even within the synoptics, we see omissions. Matthew and Luke are not simply Mark+, they are Mark+/-, freely modified however the author saw fit.

Right. The story is changing as we go through the gospels, and we can see the theology evolving before our very eyes. Therefor, attempts to retroject Matthew, Luke, John, or any other later writer back onto Mark is an epic fail.

I'll vote "no". Yet that is what Mark does, and so obviously the theology is different between Mark and John, and therefor we can't use John to try to help us understand Mark.

If we conclude that John was embarrassed by the baptism, it simply doesn't follow that Mark was as well.

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

The Criterion of Embarrassment can explain the evolution of a narrative character, but can not be used to determine the relationship of that character to history. In fact, it may not even be able to explain the evolution very well. This is because embarrassing material may increase with evolution as well as decrease.

Note this from the current Superman Wikipedia article:

Jesus appears to undergo a quite similar expansion of powers in the gospel stories as Superman undergoes. However decrease in embarrassment is not necessary in every genre.
Embarrassment may be introduced into a genre to make it more realistic, or more likable and palatable to its audience. Take Spiderman, for example (from Spiderman, Wikipedia):

Narrative genres may also move in several directions at once, enlarging powers, while adding embarrassing behavior. The movie "True Grit" (Hathaway, 1969) is a good example of this dual development in the Western Cowboy hero. Wayne as Rooster Cogburn engages in more slapstick, drunkenness and embarrassing behavior than he does in any previous movie. On the other hand, his skill with a gun and bravery are greater, perhaps than in any previous movie.

Thus the COE may fail even in its limited uses to tell us anything accurate about early Christianity, until we have an accurate history of early Christianity, something we certainly do not have at the moment.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

The CoE is completely useless to determine history. One cannot just look for embarrassing material of an unverified text to determine its historicity.

Versions of myth fables of the same character are hardly ever the same. In Plutarch's Romulus, the author did state that there more than one version of the story of Romulus and Remus.

And, again, there is no actual historical evidence anywhere that the baptism of Jesus in gMark was embarrassing to the cult that used gMark.

The gospel called Mark has been Canonised with its baptism story alongside gJohn and no Church writer ever made any claim that the baptism of Jesus was embarrassing.

The claim that the baptism of Jesus was embarrassing is a STRAWMAN argument and ONLY exist in the MIND of those who make the claim.

Where? When? Who and Which Christians in Antiquity claimed the baptism of Jesus was embarrassing?

NO-ONE. NO-WHERE. NEVER. Up to today, the baptism in gMark is used by Christians.

The CoE is a complete waste of time.

GakuseiDon

Jay, I have never heard anyone suggest that the CoE can be used with comic book characters. There are any number of scenarios where the CoE doesn't apply. I'm sure you and others here can produce many more.

GakuseiDon

Then I agree, the CoE would not apply. But if it doesn't apply, then why say that there is something wrong with the criterion?

The criterion of multiple attestation doesn't apply to one text. But because there are scenarios where it doesn't apply doesn't mean that the criterion is useless. The CoE is simply common sense.

We can't use John to help us understand Mark? I see. Fair enough.