aa5874

Total nonsense.

patcleaver

It is common for propagandists to leave out facts that are embarrassing to their cause, even if they are well known. There is no good reason that we should expect that Mark would have included the crucifixion if it was embarrassing to his cause.

The best explanation of why he included embarrassing things in his narrative is that his narrative was fiction, that he did not believe it, and that later readers (possibly from a different culture) mistook his story for history.

The criterion of embarrassment presupposes that Mark is historical, but it’s more likely that Mark is fiction.

The criterian of embarrassment presupposes that Mark was embarrassed by the cruxifiction, but there is no evidence that Mark was embarrassed.

The criterion of embarrassment also presupposes that Mark had to include the crucifixion if it was well known, but we know that propagandists often leaves out facts that are embarrassing to their cause, even if they are well known.

Either way, it is unlikely that Mark was embarrassed by the crucifixion if he included it in his story.

Yellum Notnef

Obviously you can put as many nails in the coffin as you want, but like Dracula, it will keep coming back. What it needs is a stake through the heart.

patcleaver

No, embarrassment is very subjective. Something that embarrasses one 3rd century Roman might not embarrass another 3rd century Roman. You have to prove that Mark himself was embarrassed.

aa5874

Things with a stake through their heart, like the criterion of embarrassment, can only re-appear like Dracula, in the other world, the world of the dead.

the_cave

Of course--and the human heroes of fables and myths and legends also go through embarrassing circumstances. But we know that these myths and legends are just that--myths and legends. We know a priori that they are fictional. So the embarrassment never actually happened--it's only a story.

Until recently, the assumption has always been that Jesus was a real person, who really was seen as a messiah-figure, and hence his crucifixion would have been a real embarrassment to his followers. Under those circumstances, the criterion of embarrassment does suggest the reality of the crucifixion. Again, if you assume that we can't rely on the historicity of any of it, then yes, at that point the criterion of embarrassment becomes suspect.

Compare:

a) a real Jesus, a messiah-figure
b) story about his crucifixion
c) probably this crucifixion really happened to this real person

That's fairly sound reasoning, using the criterion of embarrassment.

But not:

a) story about Jesus, an incarnate god
b) story about his crucifixion
c) probably BOTH Jesus was a real person AND this crucifixion really happened to this real person

That's (probably) not sound reasoning.

Oh, I don't know, roughly 50-50. Enough doubt to make its likelihood ambiguous, however much that takes.

You have a very strange way of understanding how symbolism and allegory work. Yes, all of these elements are figurative and allegorical. And yet Peter (and Jesus) could have been real persons--just because you tell an allegory about someone doesn't mean they're fictional! You would need to use other criteria to prove that.

And allegories are about something real. The allegory is fiction; what they represent is real. This is rather basic stuff.

aa5874

What you have said does not appear to be really true. During antiquity, people regarded their Gods as existing not as myths or fiction. The Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans, the Indians, and numeous other countries had their God. It is reported that Vespasian actually made a blind man see by spitting into his eyes as promised by Serapis. But, spitting on some-one is very embarrassing, so the blind man did see and Serapis did exist, if the criterion of embarrassment is applied

What you have posted may not really be true. In the Jesus stories, Jesus predicted that he would be killed and through his death he would show that he was indeed a God, the son of God, he would rise after the third day.

The crucifixion was not an embarrassment for Jesus, it was supposed to show the Jews that he was a real God and had divine powers. Jesus was supposed to embarrass the Jews.

Please read the Gospel stories.

But in the first place, it always a 50-50 chance that a story is fictional, and after you apply the criterion of embarrassment, the chance that it is fictional remains the same 50-50.

You have confirmed that the criterion of embarrassment is completely useless.

ApostateAbe

I think your model seems a little more unlikely than mine. If Jesus really was crucified, then it is not only well-known among Christians, but it is an extremely relevant fact for any biography. Any reader expects the account to include how the subject exited the planet, just like any other biography in the world. Any account that leaves it out would seem outwardly deceptive or inadequate.

aa5874

It is not really true that Jesus exited the planet as a result of his crucifixion, the Jesus stories all wrote that Jesus rose from the dead, and it is written he exited the planet, witnessed by his disciples, going through the clouds which is in itself outwardly fictitious.

If Jesus was a man, virtually all written about him is outwardly deceptive. If must be true that people of antiquity had the propensity to openly and outwardly believe fiction as truth.

It is therefore likely that if Jesus never existed at all, people of antiquity would still believe he did, without being embarrassed, even though faced with outward deception and clear false information.

the_cave

Yes, but they were not said to exist as historical people within the recent past.

Not so: the story says that the man asked Vespasian to spit on him in order to heal him--and he was healed. Hardly embarrassing for Vespasian! Embarrassing for the blind man? Possibly, but that tells us something--not that Vespasian actually healed his blindness, but that people believed that spittle could heal blindness!

So while it doesn't confirm that this story ever actually happened, it does suggest something about magical practices in the first century. For that matter, we don't know if Vespasian spat on him or not--maybe he did! But if he did, obvously that doesn't mean he was healed. The criterion of embarrassment is not about proving miracles; it's about the likelihood of historical facts.

Even if this is true, that tells us nothing about how his followers would have perceived his crucifixion.

It is not about whether it would have been an embarrassment for Jesus; it's about whether it would have been an embarrassment for his followers.

Yes, but I am talking about a situation where something was more unlikely than likely--let's say 33%-66%. Then the criterion of embarrassment might shift the percentages a bit, to 50-50. If it were something that was already 50-50, then under the right circumstances the criterion of embarrassment might raise it to more or less "more likely than not", let's say 66%-33%. These are very rough estimates, and I imagine each case is different.

For some purposes, it is. And for others, it isn't.