Minimalist

The COE is ludicrous because it makes the underlying assumption that some part of the story must be true.

GakuseiDon

Yes. This is done by seeing what words of Jesus have been changed throughout the different Gospels. From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteri...#Embarrassment

The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.

What is the indicator that suggests something was found 'embarrassing'? It is that later texts suppress or soften the import of the earlier text. The criterion of embarrassment can be used in studies about Jesus simply because there are a number of documents written in a short space of time, and it is possible to compare them to see how themes have developed. The criterion is simply common sense.

Toto

You have this ass backwards. The essence of the criteria is that the early church would not have invented embarrassing material, so this material is deemed probably authentic, or against interest. As an added feature, later material is shown to have softened or explained away the earlier embarrassment (according to the theory) - but this just emphasizes the embarrassing nature of the original material.

The original material is deemed embarrassing on its own terms, not because later authors tried to cover it up.

dogsgod

.


One would have to know the intentions of the author in order to consider what is an embarrassment to the author. Did the author set out to write a blockbuster?

We can see what may have been considered an embarrassment by the amendments Matthew and Luke made to Mark's gospel.

aa5874

The CoE is a most absurd tool.

It would appear that the some other author or interpolator was embarrassed with the short-ending of gMark and ADDED more verses.

Now, if you APPLY the CoE to the Long-Ending of gMark then the RESURRECTION of Jesus did happen because "Christians" may have been EMBARRASSED about the the way original story ended.

This is the end of gMark of the Codex Sinaiticus. Mark 16.8 Now look at the interpolation. The interpolator appears to be EMBARRASSED by the the END of gMark.

Mark 16:9-13 - When the CoE is applied The RESURRECTION is historical because it was embarrassing to the interpolator.

The CoE is utter nonsense.

You cannot EXTRACT history from a text that was NOT history in the first place.

GakuseiDon

But how do we know that the original material was deemed embarrassing on its own terms? Crucifixion was a nasty death; but was this 'embarrassing' for early Christians? How would we know? Might it not have been a badge of honor?

One often-cited example of the CoE is the baptism of Jesus by John. Each Gospel has its own variation (assuming that the non-existence of the story in John is a 'variation') Do you think the criterion of embarrassment is useful in that context?

aa5874

The different versions of the Jesus stories are more likely the results of THEOLOGICAL differences rather than for historical accuracy.

The post-resurrection meeting of Jesus and the disciples have variations for each Gospel and even the Pauline writings but surely do not determine that a resurrection did occur.

It is ALREADY known that there can be MULTIPLE variations of MYTH fables of Robin Hood and King Arthur and that those variations are not the result of embarrassments.

Now, it MUST NEVER be forgotten that it was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost that was baptized, crucified and RAISED from the dead in the NT and QUITE EMBARRASSINGLY the CoE would ONLY confirm that the CHILD of the Ghost of God, not a mere man, did exist.

David Deas

Excuse me. But the criterion of embarrassment is *not* a part of the historical method.

Toto

Why do you think this argument supports your position? :huh:

This is the criticism of the use of the criterion of embarrassment - that we can't know what was really embarrassing to the earliest Christians. This argument refutes the criterion as it is typically used.

If the original baptism was not embarrassing to Mark, the critierion is useless in determining whether the original event was the sort of embarrassing detail that was too well known to omit.

spamandham

I agree you could use Mark to help analyze Matthew and Luke, because they are derivative works of Mark. But the reverse is not true. You are implicitly assuming that there was a single unified system of Christian belief at the time/place of the writing of Mark, that remained essentially unchanged at the time/place of Matthew and Luke. This is a completely bogus assumption.

Even as early as Paul, Paul complains about 'false' gospels being spread by others and admonishes the Galatians for listening to some other preacher preaching a different gospel.

The church was fragmented and disparate from the ealiest records we have.

...and since Mark was closer to the Jewish scriptures than any modern scholar, therefor what he wrote is a more accurate and thorough representation of period Jewish beliefs.

Ok, so you drew the exact same conclusion I did, yet you keep saying my conclusion doesn't follow and that mythicism has no explanatory power.

:huh:

Sure it is. We know from other sources that JtB was a religious figure of authority. So when we see him make a cameo in the NT for the purpose of acknowledging Jesus' authority, it all makes perfect sense.

Is it possible that Jesus was a real historical person who really was baptized by JtB? Of course.

But we would expect to find some religious authority legitimizing Jesus' authority in the gospels no matter what, because that's how authority was recognized in period Jewish culture.

So presuming that Jesus really was baptized by John is unecessary, and presuming that it was embarrassing is just plain silly. Jesus *had* to receive his authority from an established figure, because that was the Jewish way. The fact that the figure was John is not really all that important, and neither is the baptism itself.

This might make sense if the authority of Jesus was already established at the time of the penning of (proto/)Mark. But if it is not, if the gospel is a new message someone is trying to promote to people who have never heard of Jesus but who are familiar with John (or is just a story that later turned into theology), then we would expect the opposite.


No, your model expects the exact opposite of what we see as you stated in the above highlighted comment. Your model requires a second unfounded assumption that the reason that the evidence is the opposite of what you expect, is because the author simply couldn't get away with not recording that event (which is of course absurd - of course he could ignore it if he wanted to, he wasn't a court reporter). Your model does not fit the evidence and requires strained apologetics to harmonize the evidence with the model.

My model results in exactly the evidence we see.