patcleaver

The vast majority of narrative stories are fiction. There is nothing wrong at all with writing fiction. Do you think that all fictional stories are evil lies. Why should we start with the assumption that the authors of the gospels intended to write history and not fiction when we have lots of evidence of fiction and no evidence of history?

ApostateAbe

Yes, the vast majority of narratives are entirely fiction, but only a small fraction of narratives intended to be passed off as accurate are entirely fiction; such stories are almost always based on truth because truth tends to be more believable. I think the gospels are in large part fiction based on authentic accounts. If you are someone who believes that the gospels started off as intended fiction, like a novel, then I dismiss that theory for completely lacking any sort of evidence, which is a completely different red herring debate best for another thread, I am sure.

aa5874

This is just a discussion, just put forward your position and state clearly why you hold such a position.

But, in any event, I have gained a lot by reading your posts.

You seem to think that the criterion of embarrassment has some value in resolving texts where the veracity is unknown, I just think it is useless and illogical based on the fact that any texts that is actually fiction, unknown to the reader, but yet embarrassing, would be deemed true or non-fiction, if the criterion of embarrassment was applied.

I think you are brilliant.

ApostateAbe

Yes, the vast majority of narratives are entirely fiction, but only a small fraction of narratives intended to be passed off as accurate are entirely fiction; such stories are almost always based on truth because truth tends to be more believable. I think the gospels are in large part fiction based on authentic accounts. If you are someone who believes that the gospels started off as fiction intended to be read as fiction, like a novel, then I dismiss that theory for completely lacking any sort of evidence, which is a completely different red herring debate best for another thread, I am sure.

ApostateAbe

OK, you flatter me in the face of my condescension, so I yield. I believe that the criterion of embarrassment has value as part of a large set of standardized criteria and subjective personal judgment calls. It helps to make a case for likelihood, but it can be easily trumped if there is sufficient evidence that the text is completely dishonest, by originating in a much different time period than asserted, for example. If there is no evidence that the text is completely dishonest, that it contains plenty of bits of truth, that it originated in the proposed time and place, then we should settle on picking apart the honest from the dishonest portions. The criterion of embarrassment, now that I think about it, is used in my central argument that Jesus existed for his apocalyptic prophecy that miserably exceeded its deadline. The embarrassment is explicitly and implicitly attested in the later New Testament writings, and such a prophecy would be much less likely (though not impossible) to be entirely fictional given that it is so embarrassing.

aa5874

But, you still have to explain how is it that you can determine from the start what is true or not in a text where the veracity is uncertain.

Can you name the plenty bits of truth in the NT with respect to Jesus?

And the so-called apocalyptic prophecy that exceeded its deadline may be resolved easily if it was the author himself who thought the prophecy would have been fulfilled during his lifetime, that is, an unknown doomsday author wrote a story about some Jesus whom he thought was coming back to earth sometime while he, the author, was alive.

Again, all you are doing is believing a story is true first and then using the criterion of embarrassment to confirm what you already believe.

You believe Jesus existed and did make some apocalyptic prophecy, the criterion of embarrassment is irrelevant, you already believe Jesus did.

I do not think you can point out a single case where the criterion of embarrassment has been used to show that an embarrassing story was fiction.

ApostateAbe

The thing about the failed prophecy was actually the primary argument that brought me from the myth-Jesus belief to the historical-Jesus belief. The presence of embarrassing elements can draw evidence toward accuracy, and the lack of embarrassing elements where we otherwise may expect them can draw evidence toward fiction. I project that theory from my intuition, but I don't have solid evidence for it because only a few materials exist that are presented as accurate are known to be primarily fiction, and I haven't studied them.

Toto

I'm not following your objection. You do realize that Carrier labels this an obviously false conclusion? He has modeled it on the argument that Christians do make about allegedly embarrassing parts of the gospels.

Are you trying to say that the difference between the wording of Conclusion 1 and Minot Premise2 is significant?

GakuseiDon

No, Toto, he most definitely has not. He is framing the criteria as ones that scholars use. Go to page 6 in the PDF (marked Page 1), under "2. Examining Historicity Criteria". Further on, he gives this example as a "syllogistic Representation of Common Historicity Criteria". Read his paper -- he appears to be claiming to present the criteria used by scholars.

Do scholars frame the Criterion of Embarrassment in terms of Richard's syllogism? No, not that I've seen.

If some Christian uses it in this form, then Richard is doing a service by refuting him/her. If scholars are not using it in this form, then Richard has created a strawman. I think Richard has created a strawman.

Most definitely. You said earlier that the "argument is starker than it is usually presented", but the problem is the opposite: the terms are so vague that we need to define what he is talking about in the first place. This is just sloppy thinking AFAICS. For example, castrations are invented???

Earlier, I gave what I thought was a clearer idea of how the syllogism should be expressed. Let's start with Conclusion 1: Therefore, Cybeleans did not invent the castration of Attis

What does it even mean to talk about "a castration being invented"? Surely he means "the story of the castration was/wasn't invented"? If that is so, then we should reword the first part:

Major Premise 1: Cybeleans would not invent anything that would embarrass them.
Minor Premise 1: The castration of Attis would embarrass Cybeleans.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, Cybeleans did not invent the story of the castration of Attis.

Let's go to the second part:

Major Premise 2: A report is either invented or it is true.
Minor Premise 2 (= Conclusion 1): The castration of Attis was not invented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, the castration of Attis is true.

Now, is it a "report" or a "story"? A report suggests observation. A story suggests something handed down. Note that a story could be passed down with the belief that it is true, so if that is the case, Major Premise 2 would need to be modified. But I'll leave that aside for the moment.

Consider Minor Premise 2. As stated, it is either wrong or unclear. You don't invent castrations. Let's clarify it (ignoring the problems with Major Premise 2 for the moment):

Minor Premise 2 (= Conclusion 1): The story of the castration of Attis was not invented.

Conclusion 2 would then be:
Conclusion 2: Therefore, the story of the castration of Attis is true

That takes us back to Major Premise 2: A report is either invented or it is true. But we are talking about stories, not reports. So, it should be expressed as:

Major Premise 2: A story is either invented or it is true.

But, is that an exhaustive list? No. As I said earlier, stories can be believed to be true. Stories can be modified, they can evolve. So Major Premise 2 would need to be updated before we can get to Conclusion 2.

In the end, a lot of other things would need to be weighed before we can get to Conclusion 2 -- and if you look at the Wiki article I linked to earlier, that's exactly what is said. To repeat here:

This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method.

Is this adequately represented in Richard's syllogism, IYO?

I tell you what. Show me any scholar who declares that "a report is either invented or it is true" when using the Criterion of Embarrassment. Or show me one that frames the Criterion of Embarrassment in anyway similar to Richard's proposed syllogism.

And please stop claiming that his syllogisms are taken from arguments by hypothetical "Christians" or "apologists". Read his paper. They aren't. It is a "syllogistic Representation of Common Historicity Criteria." He is supposedly representing how scholars currently use these criteria.

That first section is just sloppy thinking AFAICS. This is a shame, since it detracts from his Bayes Theorem discussion that he later presents in his paper.

andrewcriddle

Can I reexpress my problems in a similar way

Major Premise 1: Cybeleans in late classical Italy would not invent a report that would embarrass them.
Minor Premise 1: The castration of Attis would embarrass Cybeleans in late classical Italy.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, Cybeleans in late classical Italy did not invent the report of the castration of Attis.

The true part of the argument is that Cybeleans in late classical Italy did not invent the castration of Attis, something deeply alien to the mores of that place and time. The cult of Attis in late classical Italy is the importation into that place and time of something alien (which is attractive and/or repulsive by virtue of its alienness. )

The false part of the argument IMO is the implication that the embarrassment of the castration of Attis in late classical Italy provides a problem for the origin of this myth in pre-Hellenistic Phrygia.

Andrew Criddle