Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-28-2010, 04:50 PM | #81 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
|
The COE is ludicrous because it makes the underlying assumption that some part of the story must be true.
|
12-28-2010, 06:54 PM | #82 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-28-2010, 07:20 PM | #83 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
The original material is deemed embarrassing on its own terms, not because later authors tried to cover it up. |
||
12-28-2010, 08:05 PM | #84 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 104
|
.
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. |
12-29-2010, 12:22 AM | #85 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
Mark 16:9-13 - Quote:
The CoE is utter nonsense. You cannot EXTRACT history from a text that was NOT history in the first place. |
|||
12-29-2010, 03:40 AM | #86 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
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? |
|
12-29-2010, 05:46 AM | #87 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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. |
||
12-29-2010, 05:58 AM | #88 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 96
|
Excuse me. But the criterion of embarrassment is *not* a part of the historical method.
|
12-29-2010, 10:12 AM | #89 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||
12-29-2010, 11:30 AM | #90 | |||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
:huh: Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
My model results in exactly the evidence we see. |
|||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|