aa5874

In discussions on events in the NT with respect to Jesus and other figures therein, the word "embellishment" is used fequently to explain away inconsistencies and implausibilties.
The virgin birth, the miracles, like raising of the dead, the temptation by the devil on the pinnacle of the temple, the transfiguration, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are sometimes classified as embellishments.

Now, the verb "to embellish" means, according to my webster's, "to add made up details to (a story) so as to increase the pleasure of telling it or listening to it."

So, based on this definition, we can have "embellished fiction and embellished non-fiction", that is, if a story, true or not, is being told or written and details are made up that are not in the original, then the story has been embellished.

Now if we go back to Jesus, even if it is claimed that certain events are embellished, we still have to determine whether the original story was fiction or not.

If we assume gMark was written first, then we can say the events of the birth of Jesus as described by gMatthew are embellished, but this embellishment does not inherently make gMark's Jesus non-fiction, in fact, it says nothing about the status of Jesus.

I therefore conclude that using "embellishments" of events as a means to support the HJ position is of very little value.

DCHindley

Hmmm,

And which HJ advocate(s) use the tem "embellishments' to describe the virgin birth, raising the dead, etc? Are you sure these aren't, rather, MJ terms that you are putting into the mouth of HJers, in effect, setting them up to knock down?

DCH

aa5874

MJers use terms like "fiction", "never happened", and "did not exist", but almost never "embellishments"

Zeichman

Yeah, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with critical methods of NT scholars; it's certainly more complex than what you describe. That said, I don't think any critical scholar would say Mark's Jesus = historical Jesus in the terms you use above.

Gamera

I think the idea is that historical figures often attract legendary material that accretes around their narrative. This is a common phenomena: Alexander and his supernatural birth; Washington and his cherry tree; Lincoln and his book returning rigor; Joseph Smth and his apotheosis after his defenestration.

The point is, the legendary material that tends to accumulate around famous or notorious historical figures is not evidence that rebuts their historicity. It is simply how narratives form.

So I wouldn't get too huge up on the definition of embellishment.

aa5874

Mythical figures also attract legendary material, such as supernatural births and resurrections.

DCHindley

Well,

Not to push or anything, but I am not sure where you would have encountered HJers, especially the academic ones, calling the virgin birth, resurection, etc, "embellishments." Could you give a few examples?

DCH

PS: I do not want to give the impression that I or anyone in particular here believe these things were actual events. Mythological developments, maybe (especially as defined by Roland Barthes). Rationalizations, perhaps. But *embellishments*, never! <g>

aa5874

Once a person believes that Jesus was just human, then his virgin birth and resurrection, as described in the NT, can be considered embellishments.

mountainman

I'd rather go for the buyer beware angle.
We have no evidence to historicity.
Embellishments of myth is still myth.
Embellishments of fiction is still fiction.

Once a person believes that Jesus was
"just human" (without evidence), then
anything is possible. Buyer beware.
Biblical commentators like conjecture.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

Like I said before, MJers prefer to catergorise the events about Jesus as fiction never embellishments. Thanks for the confirmation.