jjramsey

Nice try, but while there are certainly individual differences in what embarrasses people, people also pick up ideas on what is embarrassing from their surrounding culture, and so there are many similarities among people as well. Think, for example, of how commonplace nudity taboos are in the U.S. Even if one is a nudist and isn't personally embarrassed by being unclothed, one may be reluctant to broadcast that for fear of being subject to social disapproval.

As for culture, well, he's probably a denizen of the Roman empire--which still tells us a few useful things, such as what he knows about how crucifixion is viewed. Somewhat more usefully, we can infer some things about Mark's theology from what he's written.

aa5874

So, it can be said today that Jesus is a myth, since now he is not said to exist within the recent past.


The healing was promised by Serapis in a dream to the blind man and according to the story the blind did receive his sight after Vespasian spat in his eyes.

Well, if the criterion of embarrassment is about historical facts, please tell me if it was an historical fact that Vespasian did spit on the blind man and/or that the man received his sight. According to the text, Vespasian did spit on the man's eyes and the man did see, either the spitting and/or the man seeing are not historical facts.

Spitting on a man is embarrassing.

You said 50-50 before, now you come back with some rough percentages. You really don't know what you are doing, you are just making up stuff. I told you that the criterion of embarrassment was a waste of time, useless.

But, you have failed to show when it can be useful. Now, tell me what historical fact has ever been discovered using the criterion of embarrassment?

I know of one.

It is this. It has been discovered that the criterion of embarrassment is useless.

skepticdude

Since historicity deals in probabilities, the criteria of embarrassment doesn't need to hold true in every known case in order to do it's job. You cannot simply toss it away merely because it might not work properly in a few cases.

It would never have been used by any historian, if it were obvious that an ancient author might invent embarrassing details that don't advance his agenda. While there might be some idiots out there, the rule holds true for the most part: an author is not likely to invent details or stories that do nothing but embarrass her cause, therefore the inclusion of embarrassing details or stories that don't contribute to the author's cause are more likely to be objective reports.

That which looks like a real embarrassment by an author might actually have been written for apologetic reasons. Christians, such as Paul, screw things up by turning this embarrassment on it's head, making a humiliting death of Jesus into a glorious victory OVER death, and the gospel authors certainly advanced their agendas with the resurrection story, which first required Jesus to die. As such, the crucifixion is central to the purpose of the New Testament authors, and would not qualify under the criteria of embarrassment.

Again, historiography deals in probabilities and making assessments about what is more likely or less likely to have happened, so no critiera of historicity can be dismissed merely because there might be a few known exceptions.

Then again, does anybody know of any exceptions to this critiera?

Do you know of any cases where an ancient author fabricated false details in an otherwise historical account, for reasons other than apologetics?

If you know of any ancient stories which falsify the criteria of embarrassment, do tell.

Toto

Do you know of any historians outside NT studies who use the criterion of embarrassment?

skepticdude

I disagree with this completely. The distinction between "likely" and "likely enough to make it probable that it is true" is false; likelihoods ARE probability judgments, they are not mere possibilities.

from dictionary.com...

[QUOTE]like⋅ly   /ˈlaɪkli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyk-lee] Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective, -li⋅er, -li⋅est, adverb
–adjective 1. probably or apparently destined (usually fol. by an infinitive): something not likely to happen.
2. seeming like truth, fact, or certainty; reasonably to be believed or expected; believable: a likely story.
3. seeming to fulfill requirements or expectations; apparently suitable: a likely place for a restaurant.

You shouldn't say some event X is likely, if you don't mean likely enough to make it probable that it is true.

In what situation would your distinction hold true? That is, where some possibility was "likely", but not probable enough to believe it is true?

aa5874

Well, why don't you simply show where the criterion of embarrassment has been used successfully in cases where the veracity was not known?

You see a story, it appears embarrassing, the veracity is uncertain, if you apply the criterion of embarrassment the veracity of the story will still be uncertain.

The criterion of embarrassment must be tossed away as useless.

skepticdude

Incorrect, we can be justified to have believed a certain way, at the time, even if we later discover it was a false belief.

The bogus results would not be found bogus, if the reader truly didn't know for absolute certain the story was fictional.

Unfortunately, some bogus stories successfully pass certain critiera of historicity.

Using your logic, the criteria of multiple attestation is totally useless, because it might be that a single story told by only one ancient author was true. Well then, we wouldn't want to be wrong about anything! What then, are you gonna trash the critiera of multiple attestation on the grounds that some stories which have only one source might be true?

Indeed, do you use any critiera in your own historiographical work which wouldn't suffer under your same logic?

skepticdude

Not absolutely. And since historiography is not an absolute science, but rather deals with what's more likely or less likely to have happened, your absolutist-sounding objection has no merit.

There are two kinds of embarrassing details, 1) the kind that the author would rather not have had to admit, 2)the kind that contribute to the author's main agenda.

In your example, the embarrassment contributed to the cause she wished to gain (convict the innocent man), and, since it contributed to her purpose, it doesn't meet the definition of "embarrassing" that was intended by the scholars and historians who use it.

Care to give an argument to support that?

First, strawman: I don't know of any historian who says an embarrassing detail is likely to be true. They instead say that embarrassing details have a greater probability of being true than non-embarrassing or clearly apologetic details.

Second, this shows us once again that you do not approach this issue like a historian would, since you talk in absolute terms, when in fact the business of historiography calls only for making probability assessments.

aa5874

Well. you have confirmed the uselessness of the criterion of embarrassment. Based on your opinion, only what is believed to be true is be considered true, even if it turns out to be false.

Where did I say that multiple attestation was useless?

I have stated catergorically that the criterion of embarrassment is useless, do not confuse yourself. And notwithstanding, you have failed to produce a single case where the criterion was able to discover the veracity of any story.

skepticdude

If truth was the most effective baseline for any effective sell, we'd expect to see less con artists and less monkeys on TBN wowing their gullible rich audience with their circus stunts.

You fail to consider that lying has a very solid history of helping effectively sell stuff!

As far as the Christian authors being creative storytellers, their wholesale slaughter of Old Testament passages in the attempt to show how their beliefs or doctrines were prefigured thereby, and the fact that this nonsense is still hotly defended by serious bible scholars today, is enough to show that, however stupid their ideas were, they knew it would work well enough, and so it did.