FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-28-2010, 04:50 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

The COE is ludicrous because it makes the underlying assumption that some part of the story must be true.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 06:54 PM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
... The criterion is used to analyse changes between evolving texts.

....
You have stated this many times here, but I have been unable to find anyone else who thinks that the criterion is used for textual analysis. The HJ scholars who use it claim that it is used to separate out elements of the story that are most likely true, or represent the actual words of Jesus.
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.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 07:20 PM   #83
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

You have stated this many times here, but I have been unable to find anyone else who thinks that the criterion is used for textual analysis. The HJ scholars who use it claim that it is used to separate out elements of the story that are most likely true, or represent the actual words of Jesus.
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.
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-28-2010, 08:05 PM   #84
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 104
Default

.


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.
dogsgod is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 12:22 AM   #85
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
.... 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.
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
Quote:
...8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid
Now look at the interpolation. The interpolator appears to be EMBARRASSED by the the END of gMark.

Mark 16:9-13 -
Quote:
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them...
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 03:40 AM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 05:46 AM   #87
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
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.
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?
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 05:58 AM   #88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Anyone who has spent five minutes on historical methods will recognise that your example is a strawman version of the criterion. I don't know why this strawman version keeps popping up here.
Excuse me. But the criterion of embarrassment is *not* a part of the historical method.
David Deas is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 10:12 AM   #89
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
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?
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.

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?
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:30 AM   #90
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
In my way of thinking, yes, Mark was not familiar with Matthew and Luke, but that is not relevant to the point that we can understand Mark in part by also looking at Matthew and Luke, because they all shared the same religion, the same language, the same way of thinking in the same time and place, and Matthew and Luke were intimately familiar with Mark.
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.

Quote:
No modern scholar understands the way of thinking of the author of Mark nearly as accurately and thoroughly as the authors of Matthew and Luke.
...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.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
For the moment, assume Mark is a work of pure Jewish fiction written by someone who is clearly familiar with Jewish scriptures. Please tell me the most plausible explanation, in your mind, for the author including the story of Jesus' baptism by John. For the purpose of this exercise, assume the existence of a JtB cult.
OK, I'll play the thought experiment. The author included the story of the baptism account because JtB was a known religious authority figure, and the baptism of JtB would enhance the authority of the character of Jesus, given that it was an event augmented by a revelation of God.
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:

Quote:
The problem is that the evidence is not strongly expected from your model.
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.

Quote:
Given your model, that John the Baptist was a known religious authority figure, and Jesus was a character of an even greater religious authority, then what account do we expect?

I'll tell you: we expect Jesus to baptize John the Baptist.
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.


Quote:
I am telling you that every other explanatory model also does so, because that is what the evidence directly implies, and your model is given no advantage.
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.
spamandham is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.