Rick Sumner

Not at all. That's ultimately all it is. Walker actually termed it "Movement against the redactional tendency," which might work better here.

Embarrassment, as you're defining it, largely owes itself to Crossan and Meier (John P., not Christian). But they aren't the only people employing the method, they just attach significant weight to it. If you want to find someone even more suited to your use of the term, A F Segal considers anything that survives embarassment to be bedrock history.

The criteria has actually been known by many other terms as well. Sanders' (whose usage of it is actually the point I jumped in on) terms it "against the grain," it's also been termed dissimilarity, modification, theological divergency and hermeneutic potential. All of which are different terms for the same thing, most of which don't carry the connotation out of the gate that you suggest. I think you might be getting caught up in the semantics.

Sanders, who you chastise for his use of embarrassment, does not employ the criteria in the sense you're using it. Since it was that point in which I began to contest, I'm pretty reasonable in assuming that you were aware of the divergence between, for example, how Sanders employs the method and how Crossan does. If you weren't aware of the difference, perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick to tell teamonger he was wrong to cite Sanders?

Ultimately what you're taking issue with is the weight attached to the criteria--using it to establish bedrock facts. And on that point I agree with you, nobody does that outside of Biblical studies. At least nobody to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that the argument isn't used. Claims made against personal bias are, in general, more reliable, a point you've already conceded.

Teamonger isn't using the term the same way his source is either. Most of what Sanders terms "most secure" isn't born from embarrassment at all.

Take this, for example:

Which also includes a footnote which, after cautioning against employing the converse (dismissing everything that's "with the grain") notes:

Emphasis added in both cases.

Jesus: 2000 Years Later ed. J H Charlesworth & Walter P. Weaver, p.51.

Sanders is here discussing sayings material, something he usually avoids. Preceding that, Sanders has a ten page discussion on why sayings material is inherently unreliable, and why we will never be certain of any of it. That is, he feels that even things that survive tests for authenticity cannot be guaranteed to be authentic.

That's right, Sanders thinks things that survive the "criteria of embarrassment" might still not be historical. Sanders is employing the criteria in precisely the way I have suggested. Also in precisely the same way statement against interest are considered. Precisely the way you suggested above the criteria was never used.

Caesar: A Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk) - searchable on Amazon.

Excellent. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully there aren't different restrictions here in Canuckistan.

I've read the other Meier. I think the problem is that you're letting really two prominent figures define a method used, with varying degrees of emphasis, by scores of scholars. The way the other Meier, or Crossan use the criteria isn't the same way Sanders does. Or the way Allison does. Or the way. . .you get the drift.

The amount of emphasis placed on the criteria varies with the eye that's viewing it. You're getting caught in the extreme and assuming that's all there is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

teamonger

But why would you assume such things, when you have no evidence that Mark was fabricating of whole cloth? Why would you assume the Q writer simply made up parables to put into Jesus' mouth? Certainly, someone had a way with graphic parables... why couldn't it have been a Galilean preacher named Jesus? When Paul states his belief that Jesus was crucified, that he was "descended of David according to the flesh", why not just accept that he heard these historical details from Peter or James? A historical Jesus is the simplest explanation for the evidence we have.

Yes, the name Mark was from Papias, and you bring up a good point: why assign an important gospel to such an obscure figure, if that wasn't really his name?

Actually I find Papias quite credible; seems trustworthy to me on the meager statements concerning Mark and Matthew. He appears as an inquiring mind, asking questions of anyone he met. Also impressive that he is willing to report imperfections: that Mark wrote not in order, that Matthew composed "logia" which was translated by others "as best they could". If he was referring to Q, that could make sense.

It's unreasonable to expect ancients to write like modern historians. We're pretty sure that Matthew and Luke used Mark, but they don't describe sources either. This doesn't indicate anything except the intention to keep the focus on the subject. Anyway, as stated earlier, a fabrication could be just as likely to provide sources to lend creedence.

As for dates: if some of the followers were still alive, everybody would know the dates already. Mark was writing for a short-term audience, since the world was about to end.
t

teamonger

First of all, if I read in your book that a person was jailed, I would not just assume that person was fictional, if I had no good evidence to think you were simply writing fiction.

If your book was trying to explain how wonderful this person was, in spite of being a criminal, that would increase my confidence in your declaration that he was a criminal (and thus indirectly, that the person existed) because that datum would be against your bias.
t

teamonger

Thanks for the insights, Rick. Just for the record, I didn't mean to imply the criterion of embarrassment can be used in a simplistic way, or that it's the only criterion. As you say, it's simply one of the tools, but one of the most important.

Here is how Sanders describes it:
"I shall introduce here an explanation of one way scholars have of testing material for 'authenticity', that is, historical accuracy. We doubt things that agree too much with the gospels' bias, we credit things that are against their preference. This rule cannot be applied mechanically, since some things that actually happened suited the authors very well, but it will stand us in good stead here. Matthew wants John's subservience to Jesus to be clearly recorded (Matt 3.14). Yet he transmits a tradition that is opposed to that bias (11.2-6). Therefore we trust the second tradition: John, while in prison, was still not certain of Jesus.
In view of this it is most unlikely that the gospels or earlier Christians invented the fact that Jesus started out under John. Since they wanted Jesus to stand out as superior to the Baptist, they would not have made up the story that Jesus had been his follower. Therefore, we conclude, John really did baptize Jesus. This, in turn, implies that Jesus agreed with John's message... ".

t

aa5874

That is exactly what you must do. You must first assume the story was true.

The criteria of embarrassment is then irrelevant, you have already assumed the story was true.

Again, you must assume the story was true. You must first assume the person existed. The criteria of embarrassment is irrelevant, you already have assumed what you now claim you want to prove.

And that is all you have done. You assume Jesus existed and then use your assumption as proof.

If you believe Jesus was crucified, the criteria of embarrassment is irrelevant, you already believe.

teamonger

You paint it so black and white. I do not believe the story is all true, nor do I necessarily believe it's all false. You seem to do the latter.

I do not "believe" Jesus was crucified, I simply accept there is sufficient evidence that it occurred. There is no counter-evidence, nor is there anything intrinsically improbable about the execution of a Jewish rabble-rouser.
t

Toto

Why are you trying to put the burden of proof on me? Why do you assume that the gospels are some sort of true record, when we know that most ancient documents are not reliable? We know that Paul's letters were edited and amended by later people.

And I disagree that a historical Jesus is the simplest explanation of the evidence. A later fiction writer is much simpler.

spamandham

You are assuming, with no basis whatsoever, that Mark was attempting to record history. The genre of the canonical Gospels has been well covered by scholars. The best and most recent analysis concludes Mark is a hero biography (Talbert, "What is a Gospel"). This argues against an early date, since the purpose of hero biographies was to settle doctrinal differences that arrise over time.

spamandham

It is no different than the gospels. It is nothing more than assumption that the writers were recording their own memories, or those of other witnesses. My timeline is consistent with all the evidence - internal and external, yours poses problems. Mine is simpler.

For a nonchristian, I'm amazed you would even propose such an argument. Clearly, the Gospels contain mountains of fantasy that didn't happen. They can not possibly have originated from an honest witness, whether first or second hand. Yet you assume they are attempts to purport history nonetheless. Bizarre.

Please, before you continue, consider reading Talbert. If you do, I think you'll drop this argument.

aa5874

You mean that you believe the information in the NT about the crucifixion of Jesus. The criteria of embarrassment in that case is still irrelevant, you aready believe that Jesus existed.