hallq

Point taken with regards to the author's motives. I would not dream of arguing the Gospels have ben untouched by authorial bias. Is this, however, qualitatively diferent than the problem of political motivations in secular history? Also, is there anything in the Gospels you would not regard as theologically significant?

rlogan

thanks for those quotes. I think it pretty easily demonstrated how hokey this "embarrassment criteria" is.

In this example we see the proponent struggling to isolate something out of context in order to create an illusion.

he can call it "Baptism by John" - and I'll call it "John confirms Jesus as the messiah". because that, in fact, is the major thrust of the whole JBapt/jesus interaction.

We begin with the importance of "credentialing" Jesus with some HB prophecy fluff - the voice in the wilderness heralding Jesus. That is JBapt.

What better means of determining who John was heralding except for him to state so directly in a meeting of the two? And just exactly how are we to arrange a meeting of the two? Tea and crumpets at the polo ground?

Don't we need Jesus to be baptized as a means of demonstrating to us the import of the ritual? Just as he also says the Lord's prayer to himself? So who are we going to get baptizing Jesus? Sure - JBapt is embarassing. pffft.

it is a "theological problem" kin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This one really makes me wonder about the proponent. For thousands of years now, preachers have been browbeating their people with this. yea - Jesus is right around the corner.

How can we watch this fail for thousands of years now and pretend that the major feature of this ploy is "embarrassing"? There is more than one purpose at work here. Among other things, it preys on some very basic fears. Even in situations where people know for an absolute fact that the situation is completely false (such as a halloween spook house) fear can be exploited and produce a reaction as if it were real. Introduce uncertainty and fear is a powerful motivating force.

Vain "revenge" is another classic. When someone gets the best of us we cope by envisioning vague ideas of trouncing them somehow in the future. By inspection of history, we know this record can be played continuously because people just love the song.


haw! Opposing the "man" is embarassing"?! Martyrdom too? Is this guy on crack?


Good Lord, what tripe. Theologically, the sacrifice of an innocent as expiation for sin is of paramount import. Not just in Christianity. But especially so in the bizarre theory of Jesus.

So how are we going to sacrifice him? What manner will make us beholden to him? What manner will lay the guilt trip on people most effectively?

Why, you have to pick the most suffering manner you can. See what Jesus did for you? For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son...blah blah blah. OOOO, I feel so indebted.

This business of claiming crucifixion is "embarassing" and therefore true is a lesson in how proponents of this theory are actually quite busy misrepresenting what is at work


Etc.

it is the embarrassing nature of this stupid theory that ought to make us distance ourselves from it.


A clever fraud, in any case, makes sure his myth is not too perfect. And entire genres of literature, such as the Greek Hero Tragedy have flaws I could peddle as "embarrassing". but what you conclude from it is not historicity.

Amaleq13

Sorry, I didn't understand you to be implying that "other methods or criteria" were used to establish the initial conclusion. It looked a priori from your statement.

By what methods or criteria is this initial conclusion about an effort to record history established?

Unfortunately, it is used inappropriately too often. We've often seen attempts here to argue the historicity of the baptism, for example, based on the "embarrassment" of Mark's author. That this alleged embarrassment is founded on nothing within Mark doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ben C Smith

I am still hashing that out for myself. When I come up with something solid, I shall let you know.

Loren Rosson mentioned demonstrating that it was the author himself that was embarrassed, not just one of the characters. That would be using embarrassment, to be sure, but in a very limited sense. I am not sure yet.

All I know right now is that whatever method we use to determine whether it is worthwhile looking for historicity in an ancient text it ought to be able to distinguish between, say, the Pelopponesian War of Thucydides and the Ethiopian Story of Heliodorus.

I think that the embarrassment in Matthew is obvious even to the average toddler, and find it rather telling that the baptism itself is virtually the only thing that John the evangelist does not take over from the synoptics in his account of John the baptist. But, like you, I do not find any obvious embarrassment in Mark.

Hypothetically, then, it is quite possible that it was Mark (and not an historical baptism) that stuck the later authors with this event that had them manufacturing explanations and evasions.

I am leaning toward the notion that Mark is adoptionist (the kind that placed the adoption at the baptism, not at the resurrection).

I agree that this is often the case. The embarrassment of the (later) church at large becomes an illegitimate substitute for Marcan embarrassment, which is nominally what we would be looking for.

All of this would be quite different on a presumption of Matthean priority, of course.

No problem.

Have a very happy holiday.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Thanks Roger! I could always use another motivation boost from religion-driven apologists. But I see you left out the comment about money! Better get that one in next time.

BTW "The manner in which the theory arose, and the things that lead people to advance it, are sufficient to disqualify it as a serious theory" have nothing to do with whether it is right.

But I'll be happy to hand you your head next spring in the debate forum of your choice, on the MJ vs. the HJ.

Like all apologists, you have no understanding of the idea. It's sad, really.

LOL. Thanks Loren. The problem is that according to modern scholars, salvific redemptive figure of Christianity IS embarrassing, and had an embarrassing death. The usual claim of modern scholarship is that the Crucifixion was too embarrassing to have been made up. Just like the claim of Frodo's failure would be, in some alternate future where Frodo became the center of a religion studied by scholars who believed in it. Your argument undercuts the whole historicity argument for the crucifixion.

But thanks for the Ragnarok example -- I can always use examples of embarrassing fictions. I had forgotten all about it!

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I am not sure either. I do not like the idea of "institutional" or "corporate" embarrassment. But it is a fact of history that institutions do try to cover up events, and alter or destroy documents.

The embarrassment criterion can't do that. First we have to distinguish which is history and which is fiction. I'm leaning toward the idea that some kind of literary analysis in conjunction with the external evidence has to be performed first, prior to any use of criteria-based methodologies. I'm afraid that those are going to be discredited entirely. That is one reason my reading of Mark went so heavily into literary analysis.

Michael

Vorkosigan

NT Scholars don't do that. They don't "come a conclusion" about genre prior to the application of criteria. They assume history as an axiom and then go out and study it. And also, Ben, with the exception of Gerd Ludemann, none of them formally espouse "negative criteria" -- criteria of ahistoricity. Once you formally incorporate those you run into a problem -- positive critera that confirm historicity and negative criteria that disconfirm it clash on many events in the Jesus narratives. So NT scholars slide around the problem of disconfirming criteria by not presenting them.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

It's not being used to demonstrate genre. Genre is assumed, and then the EC is called in to drag facts out of the "history".

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Welcome to the MJ/HJ debate, Roger. It's not a debate about evidence, which all sides agree on. It's a debate about interpretive frameworks.

I do not agree that all NT writing about history and the gospels is rhetoric and not history. But the level of rhetoric rises as we approach the historical reality of Jesus. Not only is Jesus defended with bad methodology, he is also defended with attacks on those who deny his existence. As Doherty pointed out in a previous thread, these defenses are up so high that even five big ones won't get you space in a non-refereed journal to debate the topic.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

That is my thinking and would even go so far as to suggest he held beliefs like those described in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all."

I think assuming a similar belief for the author easily explains why Mark can unapologetically depict Jesus going to John to repent sins.