Toto

The criterion says that an embarrassing detail is likely to be historical. When many examples are produced of embarrassing details that are not historical, the criterion fails, massively.

Claiming that something is "common sense" is generally an indication that you have not taken the time to actually think about it.

("All other things being equal" is something economists say in their theoritizing. I don't recall any Biblical scholar ever writing those words or the Latin equivalent, ceteris paribus. But then economists seem to delight in explaining why common sense is so often wrong.)

You can't escape testing the criterion by defining failure as "not applicable."

I thought not. You are not engaging with actual arguments.

This is just lazy thinking on your part.

Let's start with the basics. The Criterion of Embarrassment says that if something is embarrassing, it is more likely to be historical because people don't make up embarrassing stories.

Critics have pointed out that people do make up apparently embarrassing stories for a variety of reasons: that what appears embarrassing to us might not have been embarrassing to the author, that the embarrassing detail might be part of a larger strategy, that it might be part of a fictional plot development. Since you don't know when these situations apply, you can't use the criterion to determine historicity. Let's repeat that: these are not just situations where the criterion doesn't apply. You don't know when any of these factors is true, so you can't apply the criterion of embarrassment to declare any particular embarrassing detail to be historical.

The baptism of Jesus by John is a good example of the failure of the criterion of embarrassment. The HJ industry would like it to be historical, because there is some independent confirmation of the historicity of John, and because the basic idea that Jesus was baptized by John could be true. But we have no indication that it was at all embarrassing to Mark. We see that it is a part of Mark's narrative, full of allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, and part of his grander scheme. So it might have happened, but we have no reason to say it is likely to have happened.

If you have actually read anything on this criterion other than an especially poorly researched wikipedia article, you would know this. So I have to ask, what your game is here?

spamandham

That much is apparent. Why not have a cup a coffee and go back and read it? It demonstrates why the 'criterion' is completely useless.

If we see later authors rewriting a story known to be pure fiction, but eliminating the embarrassing parts, then we know that such a thing is motivated by a desire for literary harmony, not because it really happened. So now when we see that going on in ancient texts, that same motivation is the simplest explanation.

To the extent Matthew/Luke/John rewrote embarrassing details of Mark, it's not because they knew those things were really historical and wanted to soften them, it's because they recognized incongruity in Mark and wanted to harmonize it, just as later rewrites of Superman did.

The criterion of embarrassment might have some role in literature to help understand authors, but it is worthless in the realm of history. There is *no new historical information* added by Luke, Matthew, John regarding real historical events of Jesus that is not in Mark. They are rewrites of the same story by authors far removed.

aa5874

Well, please STATE exactly where Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-3 came from.

The VERY NT show that MYTHS can come from NOTHING but IMAGINATION.

How can you be SO dead wrong?

You are AWARE of the MYTHS of the Greeks and the Roman and you are ALSO aware of the MYTHS of Valentinus, Monoimus, Basilides, Saturnilus, Justinus, and others who have FABRICATED MYTHS from NOTHING but imagination.

Why are you giving the ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION that MYTHS cannot come from NOTHING but IMAGINATION?

Now, where did the MORMON BIBLE come from?

From GOLDEN PLATES?

From the Angel MORONI?

From Joseph Smith's Imagination and Hebrew Scripture.

Jesus, too, came from NOTHING but IMAGINATION and HEBREW SCRIPTURE.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I think Toto put it very well about the COE:

Comic books are good to use as illustrations in this case because they are the closest narratives we have in modern times to ancient myths. We can consider them modern mythology. The way people flocked to temples dedicated to Adonis or Cybele in ancient times, people flock to movie theaters today playing Batman or Iron Man movies.

If the criterion of embarrassment cannot be used to determine modern history from the literary genre closest to modern mythology (comic books), we need to understand its limited capacity to determine ancient history from ancient mythology.

It is not that the COE cannot be applied to comic books, it can. The results show interesting complexities. Superman's leaping ability was an embarrassment to animators of the Superman cartoons, so Superman's leaping ability was changed into an ability to fly. Here the COE explains Superman's evolution into a flying character. This is a minor, but significant change to the character.

In a case noted earlier by Spamandham, in the movie Superman II, Superman loses his powers and gets beat up. Later, when he regains his powers, he beats up the thug in a rather delightful act of vengeance. The COE here explains the addition, rather than the elimination, of embarrassment to a character in order to enhance the plot.

In the case of Spiderman, the embarrassment of being an awkward and lonely, poor teenager was not eliminated when Peter Parker developed superpowers. Rather, these embarrassing aspects were kept. This was a change in the genre itself. Whereas before young superheroes solved their ordinary problems and replaced them with extraordinary ones, now the young superheroe had to deal with both ordinary and extraordinary problems. Here, embarrassment can be seen as a positive development, allowing viewers/consumers/fans to empathize and relate more to the character. Here the COE actually has to be expanded to explain putting in embarrassing elements instead of taking them out. This is a major change not just in a single character, but within the genre itself.

This just indicates that any application of the COE has to be carefully considered in the context of character, plot and genre. Once these are considered, if they can be dismissed somehow, then we may talk about the COE indicating an historical layer of narrative. To assume it automatically indicates an historical layer may be counter-productive.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

The CoE is NOT a tool to determine the actions of Comic characters. The authors of Cartoons have ALREADY made it known that their Cartoon characters are fictitious.

The CoE is tool that is supposed to be able to detect historical events or historical facts from UNKNOWN and UNRELIABLE sources.

The authors of the Gospels are UNKNOWN and UNRELIABLE. The Church claimed some writer named "Paul" wrote all the Epistles under his own name but this has been deduced to be ERRONEOUS.

The CoE is a tool that is supposed to determine history in the NT by EMBARRASSMENT without knowing if there is history in the NT in the first place.

When the CoE is applied to the Conception, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of Jesus then all are actual historical events.

When the CoE is Applied to Plutarch's Romulus then Romulus and Remus were EMBARRASSINGLY and ACTUALLY nurtured by a WOLF.

The CoE is utter garbage.

GakuseiDon

That's right, and it makes sense to me. But what is usually pointed out when describing the CoE is that the criterion is rarely used on its own.

If people are only using CoE BY ITSELF -- which is what most of the people giving examples in this thread have done -- then they are not using it as it is described.

Exactly. Thus the importance of using, say, the criterion of multiple attestation with the CoE.

I was wondering when the "K" word would pop up. The "P" word shouldn't be far behind.

I agree that in those cases you wouldn't apply the CoE. I mean, that's just common sense.

The evidence suggests that John baptized for the remission of sins. Jesus was portrayed as sinless, and not in any need for baptism. Mark portrays Jesus as being baptized. The later Gospels try to mitigate the implications by revising the story found in Mark. This suggests that Mark would have arguably been 'embarrassed' by the baptism as well.

I agree we can't KNOW that, but raising suggestions that Mark wasn't embarrassed for some hypothetical reason or other -- without even trying to back up those reasons with evidence -- is sheer obscurantism.

:constern01: Well, over the years you have accused me of having many weird motives. The Mind of Toto is a wondrous thing to behold! What do you think my 'game' might be? Let's rule out it being 'I think you are probably wrong'; my motivation can't be that simple.

GakuseiDon

Comic books are like the tales told by the poets rather than like ancient myths. I'm not sure how the CoE can be used on, say, fictional narratives like the stories by Lucian. Perhaps it can be done.

Er, no. People flocked to temples the same way people today flock to churches; tradition, keeping up appearances, or to get something from God.

I agree that we need to understand its limitations. It is no point trying to use it where it's limited or of no use. That's been my point.

I totally agree.

GakuseiDon

If that is the case, then I agree that the CoE shouldn't be applied.

I think many people on this thread are confusing the CoE -- which is basically common sense -- with the applicability of the CoE. To say that it can't be used in the case of Jesus' baptism by JtB for reason X is a fair point, but it doesn't mean "therefore the CoE is useless"; rather, it gives the tautological "it is useless to apply the CoE where the CoE is useless", which is not the same thing.

What would be good is to give an example where the CoE DOES apply, and then show that applying it doesn't provide anything valuable. But I can't see the logic of trying to determine the value of the CoE by offering scenarios in which it has no value.

Toto

You went on a driving test and you were asked to demonstrate parallel parking. You claimed that parallel parking was really about cooking.

Makes as much sense as anything you said.

That's because even the commentators who try to use the CoE know how flimsy it is. But really, what does multiple attestation add to embarrassment?

What are you talking about?

And then, of course, you try to apply the CoE to the Baptism by John, evidently having lost any trace of common sense.

What evidence? Not Josephus.

Where does Mark portray this?

No it's not obscurantism. It is reading the texts as they are written instead of trying to twist them into something that fits your argument.

Mark shows no indication of embarrassment. He does show indications of being an adoptionist, so his Jesus before the baptism was not sinless, just a Galilean peasant who had not yet had the Christ spirit descend on him.

Later gospel writers obviously disagreed with much in Mark. That's why they rewrote it. Why do you think the other gospels can be used to read what was in Mark's mind?

If you think I am wrong, put some effort into showing that. Stop wasting time with arguments that are too easy to demolish.

Toto

I'm still waiting for you to provide an example where it does apply.