xj2yzz

The word virgin could be translated young woman.

Toto

teamonger - you are new here, but if you search the archives, you will find some in depth discussion of the criterion of embarrassment. In short, it is not used by professional historians to determine the truth of ancient writings in any field outside NT studies. Writers may record seemingly embarrassing incidents for many reasons other than their truth - the incident might not actually be embarrassing to the writer, it might cover up a more embarrassing fact, or it might further some other aim. And even the NT scholars who use the criteria do not necessarily use it to separate fact from fiction.

Saunders has made a good faith effort at finding the historical Jesus, and I would not impugn his motives. But his attempt just is not convincing.

bacht

The classic historical problem is that neither Jesus nor his followers made any impression on their contemporaries. Despite strained efforts to use references from Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, the truth is that this absolutely unique individual was 'invisible' before Christians started writing about him.

The "messianic secret" of Mark reflects the historical vacuum for Jesus and his gang: no one either heard of him or cared about him in his own day. Why is there no trace of a Jesus 'industry', tourists visiting Nazareth and Golgotha, or exchanging relics and quotations?

Why is there virtually nothing said about Jesus' life and teachings in the epistles? Paul and the others only seem to care about the transcendental Christ, the Son who was coming soon.

And then there's the question of what exactly this messiah was teaching. Was he preaching the kingdom of Heaven? What kind of kingdom? Was he a leader in this kingdom? Was the kingdom already here?

Rick Sumner

This is not entirely true. For example, Christian Meier, in his Ceasar: A Biography, uses it several times. I'll dig out the book and specific references later today or tomorrow, time permitting. He also employs the converse--events flattering to Caesar recorded by those sympathetic to Caesar are less likely to be true.

It's also used in OT studies at length.

We even use the criteria today, for events in the very recent past. Witnesses in court, for example, are frequently considered more reliable if they are making statements against personal interest. For a famous example, Linda Kasabian, the star witness in the Manson trials, was that much more valuable for that reason. But because her testimony wasn't as much against interest as Sadie Atkins, Atkins would have been the preferable witness, had she followed through. Ultimately this is precisely the same reasoning used in the application of the criteria of embarrassment.

There are few sources that are so fueled by ulterior motives as Biblical and extracanonical texts. Because of that criteria that are adapted to attempt to see past motivations are used with far greater frequency than in other branches of ancient history. That doesn't mean that they aren't used at all elsewhere.

Sanders, not Saunders. And even if you think striking the criteria of embarrassment would effect Sanders' argument overly much, one must wonder if you've read the man.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

No Robots

The basic historicity of this scene, in which Jesus and John appear as baptizing rivals, is supported by the criterion of embarrassment. Jesus' baptism by John was likely an embarrassment to many Christians. The Fourth Gospel omits explicit mention of it, while Matthew has John the Baptist offer a solution that relieves the embarrassment (Matt 3:14). Several apocryphal Gospels (the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites) reflect the same or similar embarrassment. Is it likely that John would have deliberately created a scene that actually works against his (mildly) anti-Baptist apologetic?--John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views / Paul N. Anderson, et. al (Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), p. 167.

See also Criterion of Embarrassment.

spamandham

But Mark, the earliest known Gospel, does not try to gloss it over! Mark deemed baptism theologically necessary for resurrection. ("Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - 16:16). Don't you find that relevant to the discussion?

By the way, I don't buy the early datings the apologists push. Luke/Acts is to me obviously a mid 2nd century work just like all the other 'acts' type documents penned at that time. I see no justification for claiming it was earlier than that.

Multiple attestations merely indicate a common source. That source need not have been a historical event. If those attestations were in themselves reliable, then it would argue for a historical event. But they are not. There are no known documents prior to Mark that discuss any of these points except the crucifixion (Paul mentions the fact of it, but gives no details).

Paul does not mention Jesus' baptism, he does not mention Jesus being from Nazareth, he does not mention Jesus being rejected by his family (Paul's view of the family is completely at odds with the gospels). There's a strong argument from omission you are avoiding. If Paul could get away with not mentioning those things, so could have the Gospel authors.

When do you think Mark was written? If it was written many decades after the supposed events by someone who obviously wasn't there, and who might have had access to Paul's writings, and yet mentioned the baptism nonetheless, how strong is the argument from embarassment at that point? Mark went out of his way to put the baptism in there even though Paul had made no mention of it.

I agree, but Q is too contentious. Maybe this whole discussion boils down to when we date these documents.

The apocalyptic events central to Mark require that Mark is later than 70 CE. Matthew's birth narrative and his inclusion of the prophecy regarding Jesus being called a Nazorene indicate a theological shift toward the traditional expectation that the messiah would decend from David. I don't see how that could have happened in a short amount of time. A minimum of several decades would be needed, but it certainly could be much more than that. Matthew's theology resembles Luke's more than it resembles Mark's. Acts reads just like the dozens of other noncanonical acts style documents penned in the late 2nd century, so I see no justification for claiming it's earlier than that. Luke was written by the same author as Acts. John was written later still. So, my estimates for when these documents were penned:

The genuine Pauline epistles: unknown. Paul's theology is so unlike that of the Gospels, and has been so worked and reworked, that I don't think we can say anything about them prior to the late 2nd century.

Mark: no earlier than 70CE, but more likely 2nd century. It takes time for theology to evolve, and the destruction of the temple is critical to Mark's theology.

Matthew: shortly before Luke

Luke: mid-to-late 2nd century based on the proliferation of Acts style documents at that time.

John: no earlier than late 2nd century

No Robots

Mark 16:16 is an interpolation. See Mark 16. Christ did not institute baptism among his followers, and Paul writes:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel--1Cor 1:17.

spin

The criterion of embarrassment is an embarrassment in itself. How does one know what would embarrass someone from a different era and culture from yourself without thoroughly knowing about that era and culture? Projecting one's modern ideas of embarrassment onto such a culture or its writers is an epistemological disaster.


spin

Rick Sumner

I don't know that this is always true. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. For an example people here will likely have less invested in, when Julius Caesar describes his own defeats, it seems pretty reasonable to apply the criteria of embarrassment and conclude that Caesar is probably fairly reliable. Why lie about his own losses?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

I don't think this really argues against a historical Jesus directly, but it does argue against claims of a large Jesus cult.

My current favorite Christian origin's theory is that Rome created the Gospel story intentionally as a slap in the face against the Jews. Much of it appears to be political satire aimed against Jews, and it's ridiculously pro-Roman.

I agree. I also think 1 Cor. 15 is a later addition. It opens and closes with indications of this, and it differs significantly from the rest of 1 Cor. Most scholars accept a good chunk of 1 Cor. 15 to be a later addition, but have not taken the logical leap of recognizing the whole chapter as a later addition. Without 1 Cor. 15, the argument you make here becomes much stronger.

Here's the opening section that indicates it's pseudepigraphical:
"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand." - Huh? Why does Paul need to remind them of something he taught them and that they accept? This is a device a later writer has used to insert new teachings into the mouth of Paul that they had "forgotten" Paul told them.

The opening flows as one thought (an oddity for Paul!), and so it's reasonable to conclude the entire opening paragraph was written by that same pseudepigraphical author. Here's the second sentence: "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.".

Here's the close that indicates the entire chapter was inserted:
"Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain." - This refers all the way back to 1 Cor. 15:2, which was a later insert per my argument above.

So, all of 1 Cor. 15 is a later insert.