aa5874

The CoE is useless since it cannot be applied to a text of unknown credibilty to determine veracity.

Toto

You are just repeating yourself without interacting with any of the arguments against the criterion.

Are you sure that you have defined this criterion the same way others have?

Is there any case where the criterion of embarrassment can be used to determined the historical value of a text? If not, of what use it is?

GakuseiDon

I don't regard criticisms like "the CoE can't be used for comic book characters!" as a criticism against the criterion, or any criterion for that matter. "Hey, does that criterion work for comic book characters? No? Better not use it, then."

I think so.

I think the baptism of Jesus by JtB is a good case. To quote from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus

Stephen L. Harris[20] has stated that historians know little about the historical Jesus, but that they generally agree that he was baptized by John the Baptist. Scholars who follow the historical-critical method find this event credible because it satisfies the criteria of multiple attestation and dissimilarity, that is, multiple sources attest to its happening, and it is not the sort of detail that early Christians would make up. Like the crucifixion, it meets what they call the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of embarrassment. Even scholars who credit very little of the Gospel narratives, such as Paula Fredriksen, affirm the historicity of Jesus' baptism.

• Multiple Attestation: Three canonical Gospels and various non-canonical sources agree that John baptized Jesus. The fourth canonical Gospel and other canonical and non-canonical sources also attest to John's ministry of baptism. Josephus, for example, recounts John's ministry. Thus Jesus' baptism meets this criterion, while less well-attested elements of the Gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, do not.
  
• Embarrassment: Scholars of this method give special credence to Gospel accounts that are "dissimilar" to the image that early Christians generally portray of Jesus. This why some refer to this criterion as that of "dissimilarity". Since Jesus was regarded as without sin (and not in need of baptism) and to be greater than John, early Christians would have had no motive to invent such a scene, which would have been an embarrassment to them. The last-written Gospel does not mention Jesus' baptism. Thus Jesus' baptism meets this criterion, while more glorifying elements of the Gospel narratives, such as his virgin birth, do not.

Others disagree. Skeptical science writer Frank R. Zindler argues that the references to John in Josephus are a later addition whence no external corroboration for the figure of John exists. Parallels between the figure of John and worship of Oannes of Babylonian mythology have been noted by Joseph Campbell.

If Zindler is correct, or parallels to Babylonian mythology about an Oannes the Oaptizer makes for a better explanation, then the CoE wouldn't apply. Simple as that.

aa5874

Again, the CoE is a waste time and completely FLAWED. The CoE cannot be used to determine the historical content of an UNRELIABLE text about unknown and uncorroborated events.

One must FIRST ASSUME that Jesus did exist, ASSUME that the baptism did occur, ASSUME it was embarrassing and then use those very ASSUMPTIONS of history as the very proof of the same ASSUMPTIONS.

There is NO evidence that the story of the baptism of Jesus was embarrassing to the Jesus cult since the story of the baptism of Jesus by John is STILL found in the Gospels.

There is NO evidence that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus was embarrassing to the Jesus cult since the story of the crucifixion of Jesus is still found in the Gospels.

The CoE is a STRAWMAN tool to USE ASSUMPTIONS as historical facts.

There are normally MULTIPLE versions of MYTH fables and it is CLEAR that in the Jesus stories variations were made for THEOLOGICAL reasons and to correct obvious fiction, geographical errors and those related to tradition.

If the CoE is applied to the conception, transfiguration,resurrection and ascension scenes then Jesus was truly the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, was transfigured, raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

spamandham

Because it fails as a general rule. I don't think it even succeeds well as a 'sometimes' rule. It's more of a 'rare exception' rule, which means it is not a rule at all. Most ancient texts were propaganda - to include those we classify as entertainment or history. The idea that writers felt compelled to write about that which they found embarrassing just doesn't make sense in that context. Might there be some cases? Maybe a few.

Maybe this is common sense, but if so, we need to fight the urge the think so uncritically.

The 'rule' as articulated in this thread is that if we see a later writer modify something that we suspect would be embarrassing, therefor we were right, and therefor it was historical. We don't presume that *everything* a later writer modifies is embarrassing, be have to bring that assumption to the table to start with - which is of course begging the question.

And then to say that since a later writer found something an earlier writer wrote embarrassing, therefor it was really historical is an absurd leap of non reasoning. The only proper conclusion is that something happened between the two writings such that the original author didn't find it embarrassing but a later writer did. In the case of the gospels, we know what that something was. The theology evolved. It should be clear that the evolution of theology can tell us nothing extra regarding historical events that happened decades or more prior to the first writing.

spamandham

You can't be serious. Luke and Matthew are derivative works of Mark, as almost every scholar agrees - even the crazy ones. There is no reasonable sense in which Luke and Matthew add any attestation not already found in Mark.

aa5874

The CoE is a total waste of time and completely flawed. One simply cannot assume that an UNRELIABLE source has embarrassing events and then declare the events historical. This would imply that fiction material cannot have embarrassing events.

This is the start of Plutarch's "Romulus".

It is clear that VARIATIONS can OCCUR in MYTH fables.

The CoE is a worthless tool to determine history of UNRELIABLE sources.

Toto

If the criterion fails when it is applied to popular cultural figures, this shows a problem in the criterion. If every time the criterion fails you say, just don't use it, you haven't explained why it has any value at all, or is in any way a tool for analysis.

I don't. You keep trying to bring in later literary versions of the same incident.

But this is the case where the criterion fails because you cannot show that the baptism was embarrassing to Mark. Have you been paying attention at all?

This is an intellectual embarrassment. There is no multiple attestation when all of the gospels derive the incident from Mark.

Simple - when you find any reason not to apply that criterion, you just don't.

You have demonstrated that the criterion is useless and the people who claim to use it are incompetent.

GakuseiDon

Where has the criterion failed? A criterion not being applicable in a particular scenario doesn't mean it fails. The criterion is common sense itself: people are not likely to make up embarrassing details, all things being equal.

If you are right, then the criterion is not applicable. Why does that mean the criterion fails? If the principles of building a suspension bridge can't be used to pick strawberries, do the principles 'fail'?

Probably not. I kind of dozed off when the Superman example popped up. And I'm still laughing at Steven Carr over on the "Was Jesus born according to the flesh?" thread.

Exactly. It doesn't mean the criterion fails.

The criterion is common sense itself. That it is difficult to use doesn't make it useless. Unless you mean that if Superman can't use the criterion to defeat Lex Luthor, it is useless?

DCHindley

The criterion of embarrassment is being misinterpreted by its critics, if you ask me. What is embarrassing in a culture, such as being crucified as an enemy of the state - and by implication revering such a man, is not necessarily what might be embarrassing in the formation of a myth.

Myth is an attempt to rationalize and explain why puzzling things happen. The puzzles of the cycle of birth and death, and what might happen after death, are turned into myths that make use of imagery common to the culture that constructs, or adopts by modification, a myth. The myth of Isis & Osiris is in my mind here. It includes the intrigues of royalty (here expressed in the form of the gods), the kinds of terrible things that befall men at their hands (death & dismemberment), passion and completion (Isis looking for his body parts, and his ultimate return to life). I doubt that any one person made that myth up, but rather it developed over time as folks mulled these matters over at campfires, kitchen hearths, and the marketplace.

So, the gospels admitting that their founder was crucified is to admit that an embarrassing thing happened. But it also includes rationalisations for why this thing occurred, mitigating circumstances if you will, the formation of a myth about this embarrassing fact which is on the face of things a puzzle to be solved.

The Jews were jealous. Jesus was really fulfilling God's will by completing God's master plan to die for the sins of mankind, hinted at in the prophets of the Jewish people. Rather than indicating that Christ was a threat to society, the crucifixion of Christ really benefits it by opening salvation to all, not just Jews. No wonder the Jews were jealous enough to cause his death at the hands of the Romans!

However, the puzzle that myth resolves does not have to be embarrassing, just puzzling. JMers will have to do a damn better job of explaining how and why the myth formed in Judeo-Greco-Roman society at that time rather than how it seems to resemble other myths. Why was Jesus' death puzzling, if it was not embarrassing? Myths do not form out of nothing. Crystals form on a string immersed in a sugar syrup as the water evaporates, making rock candy. MJers have shown us the syrup, but not the string that the crystals have formed upon.

Myths have strings attached.

DCH