aa5874

So, you cherry-pick your embarrassments and claim historicity.

The principle of embarrassment is useless to determine history, since the reader would then be able to reconstruct his own history based on whatever he cherry-picked as embarrassments.

And you must first assume that the event did occur, and then assume it was an embarrassment at the time.

You have just gone circular.

Look at what you have just done, "The crucifixion is assumed to occur, it is assumed to be an embarrassment, therefore the crucifixion is assumed to have occurred."

Since you already have assumed the crucifixion happened, the principle of embarrassment then becomes irrelevant.

And this is my analysis, The NT is not credible, it is full of implausibilties and outright fiction, I cannot tell fiction from the truth, the trial itsef does not appear to be credible, I reject the crucifixion as fiction until further evidence is available.

mountainman

What if the fabrication of literature was sponsored? In this instance (and many works were created via sponsorship in antiquity) would not some of these questions be answered by the statement - an author was ordered to write a story by a rich, powerful and influential sponsor. What other explanation is then required?



Best wishes,


Pete

2-J

That's not an accurate description of how the criterion works.

It's more along the lines of

1) The crucifixion is described in this text,
2) Crucifixion was an embarrassing fate for a messiah figure to have suffered at the time (this based on other evidence about crucifixion, etc),
3) Believers would not have recorded something embarrassing unless it was true, unless it was impossible to deny or cover up and so had to be tortuously justified some other way
Therefore,
The Crucifixion happened.


I'm not saying I agree with the application of the principle here, but it doesn't assume the existence of the crucifixion.

bacht

I agree that your Constantine theory hangs together as a possible explanation of the evidence, but from other comments here I get the impression that it is not the best explanation. If it comes down to close technical analysis of the literature (calligraphy, vocabulary etc) then I'm not qualified to judge.

I agree that documents can and were created for political or legal purposes. The Letter of Aristeas is one example.

aa5874

No matter how you present the principle of embarrassment it is a completely flawed principle that must produce erroneous or false results of historicity.

The principle of embarrassment in effect, denies that a fictious event can also be embarrassing. The principle of embarrassment can bring any myth to life if anything considered embarrassing is found by the reader.

In gMatthew 14.28-31, it is claimed Peter walked on water to go to Jesus who was also walking on the same watery surface, Peter began to sink and Jesus saved him. Now the principle of embarrassment would dictate that the event must be or is most likely true since Peter was embarrassed.

However, the story of the water-walkers is an obvious fictitious event, real humans cannot walk on the sea during a storm . Even if Peter , embarrassingly, nearly drowned or showed he did not have much faith in Jesus, the principle of embarrassment is of no use, it is a total bogus theory that blatantly produces false historicity.

Now, the crucifixion did or did not occur. If the crucifixion actually did not occur, it would still be embarrassing. The principle of embarrassment would produce a bogus result, a fasle historicity.

The principle of embarrassment is actually useless, totally irrelevant, circular, a bogus theory.

Transponder

I don't think they could have copied Mark, because mark gets completely confused about the trips from Capernaum to Bethsaida and the only way to sort it out is by checking it with the other three. The only way the other three could have it straight is if they got their material from a source which wasn't Mark.

Transponder

I'm even more disappointed as you now have to resort to illogic. Of course I don't assume that the Crucifixion is true. I start with no preconceptions other than a bias against the supernatural for which I make no apology. The principle of embarrassment is a recognized method of historical assessment, whether or not you agree or not. If you want to jettison such methods because they don't support your view that it is all fake, that is up to you.

Transponder

Now, I have to jump in here. You are assuming that the sinking of Simon was an embarrassment. Perhaps. It is also possible that embarrassing Simon was part of the agenda of Matthew. Do I recall that it is in Matthew that Jesus tell him that he speaks as men speak, not as God speaks, and none of the other synoptics report that? Similarly, the sinking Simon episode is not reported elsewhere. You cannot just apply methods selectively in order to get the result you want, you must look at the whole thing. I looked at the crucifixion applying all the parameters I can think of and it still holds up, so far as I can see.

You reject the principle of embarrassment because it does not suit your theory that Constantine invented the whole thing. How like Creationists who reject the scientific method because it does not give the result they want. Evidence of Christians before Constantine? Fake as fossils. There are no separate historical references, just as there are no transitional fossils. If there are, then they are faked, just as transitionals are not really ransitionals. I beg you, don't reason like this.

And before you say it, I do not WANT Jesus to be historic. I do not care. enough of the gospel is demonstrably fictitious that I can forget about Christianity as any sort of truth. The methods I used have shown not only that the story is false but how it was falsified. However, they leave some elements that may not be false. I'm sorry if you don't care for it.

Toto

Hi Transponder - aa5873 is tied up in a misunderstanding of his own making and seems to be deliberately confused (and confusing) about the principle of embarrassment, but I think you will find that the principle of embarrassment and the other criteria used by NT scholars to define the historical Jesus are in fact close to worthless. They are not used by historians in any other field, and have many problems in NT studies. This has been discussed here frequently; I will try to dig up some references later.

Transponder

Ok. I shall welcome any input of that kind. It would be a mistake for me to use the principle of embarrassment as a reliable tool if it isn't. I must say though that, used in connection with other parameters, such as lack of support from other gospels, given that they ought to have reported it if they knew of it...and so on.. it does make sense to me.

Why does John shift the temple business to the beginning of Jesus' mission?
Embarrassment may be the answer. It is a bit earthy for John's Jesus. It strikes me forcibly that John breaks up the procession and temple business into three because he wants to disguise the cumulative impression.

I don't mind aa's theory. It's all a bit academic anyway as Christianity is garbage whether one buys into a historical Jesus, Paul as inventor of Christianity or the thing having originated with Constantine. You know...I used to think that was likely, that Eusebius effectively blueprinted the whole damn' religion to suit his boss, but I'm afraid that, the more I looked at the evidence, the less I could could believe it.