Toto

I find it hard to take the criteria seriously, but I finally checked your link, and you are misreading this. In fact, you have created this out of your own imagination. Here is everything Kloppenborg writes about this criteria, and there is nothing about multiple sources being a part of the criterion.

Multiple sources are used to demonstrate the effect of embarrassment, but the multiple sources are not part of the definition.

spamandham

Again, *what* multiple sources are you referring to?

GakuseiDon

Kloppenborg refers to it thusly: "The criterion of ‘embarrassment’… or ‘contradiction’…" How do we suspect that 'embarrassment' takes place in the first place? By observing later texts to see how they contradict earlier ones. It's the contradiction that indicates embarrassment, not just the assumption of such. No doubt some people use it badly, but it's not just a matter of saying "X must have embarrassed Christians, therefore it was probably true", which is how it is sometimes presented.

I was objecting to spamandham's use of Adam and Eve falling to temptation. Do you think it is an example of the criterion of embarrassment? How can we know whether the ancient Hebrews were 'embarrassed' by that story in the first place?

GakuseiDon

Well, let's go back to your post that I commented on. You wrote:

That which is unflattering serves some theological or story telling purpose under this scenario. Look at other pure myths. Does Ehrman argue that the aspects of Zeus which are unflattering are rooted in history!? What about Adam. Does the unflattering submission to temptation indicate that there is a historical Adam?

How would the criterion of embarrassment be used to suggest that the unflattering submission to temptation indicates that there was a historical Adam? What would you need for it to be useful? Or if it cannot be useful for this, why offer your objection in the first place?

Toto

That's the end of the quote from Kloppenborg.

What follows is not from Kloppenborg. K only refers to a fact that would not be in Christians' favor in arguments with pagans or Jews.

That is how it is almost always presented, with enough extra verbiage to obscure the weakness of the argument.

I have been reading about this criteria for the past decade, and I have never seen anyone claim that it depends on a contradiction.

After all, the birth narratives in Matt and Luke are contradictory, but are never treated under the criterion of embarrasment. Similarly the synoptics contradict John on the timing of the cleansing of the Temple.

I do not think the criterion of embarrassment has any value. I think this example was just used to show how weak it is. How does it differ from any other case where it is used? How do you ever know if something was embarrassing to the original author?

GakuseiDon

I've only been reading about it for a few years, and I have only ever seen it described as "criterion of embarrassment/contradiction". :huh: Not sure what that means.

IIRC, Ehrman uses the criterion (amongst others) in evaluating Mark having Jesus being "of Nazareth" while the others have Jesus born in Bethlehem.

By examining how a story changes between texts. Assuming a historical Jesus (which I know you don't, but just for the sake of argument), why would the later Gospels portray Jesus being born in Bethlehem, in your opinion?

jgreen44

Josephus was in Rome, for over a year, from the first part of 64, [Life, 3]. The fire happened in July, but, he fails to mention it at all. Josephus’ attitude to Nero was such that he would have mentioned it in the passage in the Jewish War XX. vii. 2-3. Instead he takes other biased historians to task, “some of whom have departed from the truth of the facts, out of favour,... while others, out of hatred to him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies.”

Surely, out of some kind of consideration for his home city, Jerusalem, which was burnt to the ground, he would have made a comparison with the Capital of the world being burnt?

Toto

I am sure that it does not mean that it is based on a contradiction in texts. The Historical Jesus industry uses the term embarrassment. Meyer appears to have introduced the term "criterion of contradiction" which is used in philosophy - but he does not seem to use it in the same way.

Mark does not have a birth scene for Jesus, and identifies him as a Nazarene, not of Nazareth. The others have Jesus living in Nazareth. :huh:

That misses the point - how do you know someone was embarrassing to start off with?

Prophecy fulfillment. That has nothing to do with the criterion of embarrassment.

I recall an argument that Jesus must have been born in Nazareth, because Nazareth is more embarrassing and Bethlehem fulfills prophecy, but that is a dreadfully poor argument for the historicity of Nazareth, which might not even have existed.

GakuseiDon

As I said, and I think we both agree: How do you establish the embarrassment in the first place? The criterion needs to be used with other criteria; it very rarely stands on its own. Yet that is how it often seems to be portrayed on this website.

Well, he does, though the references are often portrayed as interpolations. At the least, he has Jesus being of Galilee and Capernaum (about 15 miles from Nazareth).

Exactly. You can't do it from one text. You need to see the texts change the point being discussed, which suggests that some embarrassment is driving the changes. Even then, it can't be known as sure, but then that's why when CoE is described, it nearly always says that you need multiple sources and contradictions between sources.

So what? Why bring up a dreadfully poor argument? I suspect that's why you've never heard of the criterion of embarrassment being used in conjunction with multiple attestation and contradictions between sources. People only bring it up here is in the form: "Apologists say that if it was embarrassing, it must be historical! But what about the embarrassments in Greek myths? Surely that means they were historical!" If we are going to criticize something, at least get it right on what its about first.

Anyway, I feel like King Canute here. This board, which used to be so great, is now drowning in its own cr*p. It's a shame. The only question is: why am I still swimming here? :Cheeky:

(ETA) Actually, I know why: there are some still good posts raised, and even some good discussions, before the HJ/MJ debate starts dumping on the thread, and the cr*p level reaches the unbearable stinky mark. It might not be bad to have sub-boards: one for Christ myth proponents, and the other for historical Christ proponents. There can still be a lot of good discussions on Biblical Criticism and History, without it being about HJ/MJ.

aa5874

Please state exactly how the CoE has been used with other criteria to establish the historicity of Jesus or any event associated with him.

Please state a website that shows that the CoE used with other criteria has indeed establish the historicity of Jesus or any event associated with him.

The CoE with or without cannot establish the historicity of Jesus or any events about him.

You NEED external corroborative sources of antiquity for YOUR Jesus and there is NONE. ZERO.