Toto

The baptism of Jesus does not comply with the use of the criterion as given, because you cannot show, or even infer, that Mark was embarrassed by the incident.

Based on that wiki article (which I referenced, but you did not) there are no examples of a valid use of the criterion. The CoE is just a label that someone with a PhD can use to claim that a preferred factoid is probably historical. It is of no help in analysis.

show_no_mercy

So the CoE doesn't apply to fictional or propagandist works... but it applies to theological ones :huh:

spamandham

That isn't sufficient, and is not even relevant to the concept of validating an analytical technique. Validating a technique does not mean simply declaring it to be common sense and then trying to cherry pick one case where it may or may not even make sense to apply and then declare victory and proceed to claim that the CoE proves the very case that was used to pseudo-validate it.

Real validation, rather than quack validation, would consist of a comprehensive collection of cases where we know a priori the outcome, and then we apply the principle to see how well it works. The cases should consist of things that we know are historical and things we know are not, and then we can measure how often the criterion tends to be helpful.

To my knowledge, this has not been done for the CoE, and for obvious reason: such rigor would prove it to be worse than useless. The idea that Mark found the baptism of Jesus by John to be embarassing is not merely a distraction, but is actually impairing a proper understanding. Mark was *not* embarrassed by it at all.

Instead, the baptism of Jesus plays an important role. Not only does it provide a mechanism for a recognized religious authority to announce the authority of Jesus, but it also provides a backstory for Christians to lean on when people asked why they are engaged in the ritual of baptism, and it provides a symbolic link back to the exodus to highlight that Christianity is no longer a slave to Judaism. I'm betting there is a mystical overtone to it as well, but that's more speculative.

aa5874

Your claim is ERRONEOUS. In the CANONICAL Gospels the baptism of Jesus by John was EXTREMELY delightful.

Jesus CAME STRAIGHT OUT the water and the Holy Ghost ENTERED Jesus like a DOVE and a VOICE from heaven said "This is MY BELOVED SON IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.

THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER EMBARRASSING in the BAPTISM STORY OF JESUS.


Matthew 3. The baptism of Jesus, the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, was A GRAND AFFAIR and God was PLEASED with the Baptism.

In fact, in gMark, the BAPTISM of Jesus was the ONLY event that the author mentioned that was PLEASING to God or the Heavens.

The BAPTISM of Jesus was the ONLY event that was PLEASING in ALL the Synoptics.

The CoE cannot be applied to the Baptism of Jesus. The baptism was NOT embarrassing but ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTFUL.

Even the Heavens were DELIGHTED in the NT with the outcome of the Baptism of Jesus.

Fenris_Wulf

First, a question;

What evidence is there for a cult of JtB? It seems the only time any mention of JtB having followers, let alone a post-mortem cult, is in this one specific case where its existence is needed to make the CoE work.

If Mark was writing about the unrecognized Messiah to explain the failure of messianic expectations, the question of "Why didn't anybody recognize him" would crop up quite often. This is the greater "embarrassment" that makes the story of the initial baptism not embarrassing at all.

By starting his story with the baptism he accomplishes several things:
1) He gives Jesus an Elijah figure to show that he is the Messiah.
2) He has what is basically an annunciation scene, the unveiling of the hero which is at the start of every heroic fantasy.
3) He ties his beginning to his ending. John says nothing to anyone else about Jesus being the Christ and the women at the end say nothing.
4) He firmly dates the time of Jesus's ministry to a period in the previous generation.
5) He gives the respect that the people had for JtB had to his Jesus by having John "pass the baton" to him. (tied to the Elijah idea but separate)
6) The body of Jesus is purified so that the Spirit that enters him isn't sullied by contact with impure flesh.

Not a single one of these is embarrassing, therefore the CoE must surely fail in this case. Later writers, not understanding what Mark was about and writing to a different theology, would find this embarrassing but not for the reasons given by apologists.

Plus, there is still the dearth of any mention of followers of JtB after the fall of the Temple. (to tie my ending to my beginning:devil1

GakuseiDon

In this case, I believe so. Thus the question about the applicability of using the CoE.

If you think that Mark is fiction, then the CoE shouldn't be used. It's just common sense.

If you think that Mark is ancient biography, then the CoE can be used. Though in that case, it needs to be supported by the criterion of multiple attestation, etc. Again, it is just common sense.

Thus the need to support the CoE with multiple attestation, which lends credence to something more likely to be historical.

But surely you would have to agree that multiple attestation fails, for the same reason? After all, fictional events can be multiply attested as well. I'm sure that Philosopher Jay will be along shortly to tell us that Peter Parker has lots of comics about him. And mountainman has all pre-4th C works as forgeries. Therefore how can we trust the criterion of multiple attestation?

GakuseiDon

Then why are you trying to apply the CoE? I honestly don't understand.

Logically, if Mark was not embarrassed, then the CoE shouldn't be used. I think we both agree there. But what you seem to be implying is "Mark was not embarrassed, therefore the CoE is bunk." And I simply don't understand the logic behind that.

What are you claiming? The former or the later? Or something else?

Toto

No, it's not common sense.

For the purpose of argument, let's assume that Mark is an ancient bios. We know that the authors of ancient bioi combined fact and fiction. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the factual elements in that work.

Can you seriously claim that the criterion of embarrassment can be used in this case?

But there is no multiple attestation here, just the same story told four different ways.

Obviously, you can't. So there goes your argument.

The title of this thread is "the criterion of embarrassment proves that Jesus existed." Do you argree that this contention is false?

spin

Generally, the criterion of embarrassment seems to me to be based on 1) individual subjectivity and 2) ignorance of the writer. How can we know what would be embarrassing to a writer long dead? Appealing to common sense ("it makes sense to me!?") highlights the subjectivity and is a sure fire admission that it has little if any analytical value. One has to work hard to establish significant embarrassment. Claiming that "being crucified as an enemy of the state" is embarrassing to the christian religion requires more footwork than a researcher is capable of, especially when Paul himself shrugs off any sense of embarrassment ("a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles", yada, yada). One may as well claim that being torn to pieces and eaten was an embarrassment to the worshippers of Dionysus or that being brought up by animals was an embarrassment to the founder of Rome, so these things have an air of truth. :thinking:

Even christian hermeneutics knows that the criterion of embarrassment has no value by itself and that it must be used by christian hermeneutics along with some other of these wonderfully useful criteria such as "the criterion of multiple attestation", which itself must be used with caution, given that we are frequently have no way of testing the independence of witnesses, so multiple attestation can often mean "rehearsals of the same thing".

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

I haven't considered the criterion of multiple attestation, but you do raise an interesting point. In a society dominated by mythology, why would multiple attestation be considered a test for historical truth? Wouldn't it on the contrary be a better test for mythological fiction?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay