Toto

But probably not at this level of contention. :devil1:

Check out this thread and the reference to Darrel Doughty's class notes:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=248198

It's not a standard tool - what does that tell you? When Ceasar speaks of his defeats, he may in fact be lying to cover up something else. When he speaks of his victories, he may be following some other agenda.

And please do not assume that the only reason for dismissing this particular argument is that atheists have some reason to want Jesus to disappear. I think that many of the adherents to some of the theories of a historical Jesus are in fact atheists, and some versions of the historical Jesus fit the atheist agenda even better than a mythical Jesus. And I think you will find Christians who agree that the criterion of embarrassment is virtually worthless.

Note that in Anglo-American law, admissions against interest are an exception to the rule against the admission of hearsay testimony, but that's it. Not every admission against interest is true. (And that may just be admissions against pecuniary interest - I haven't looked at that rule in a while.)

I read one of his books a few years ago (you can tell what an impression it made on me.) There's a review here from one of our forum contributors. I am waiting for Richard Carrier to finish his book on historical method.

No Robots

Did you know that a prominent rabbi recently declared that Jesus is the Messiah? No? Didn't hear about that? Huh. Israel Today article.

bacht

Just to clarify, I'm not an atheist. I was an Evangelical Christian many years ago [I know you were addressing spamandham]. Mythicism is still the minority opinion about Jesus anyway.

If Jesus was just a cult leader, where did the gentiles get the idea of elevating him to the level of God? Were they using a pagan concept, more of a divine hero rather than the Jewish Yahweh? We know that Marcion and the gnostics worshipped a higher 'true' god, but the Catholics retained the Jewish scriptures and presumably their deity.

I think Jesus of Nazareth is exactly the sort of troublemaker Josephus would have noted. He expressed disdain for apocalypticism and would-be messiahs. Why wouldn't the example of Jesus fit his agenda of showing how the Jews brought destruction upon themselves?

spamandham

Possibly, or possibly later fingers added that. We are dealing with writings that we know are heavily interpolated, and which are gradually being exposed as more and more pseudepigraphical.

That doesn't mean we can't glean anything from them, but it does argue against making too big a deal out of anything "Paul" says when trying to establish the history of the early church.

spamandham

...a rather odd conclusion, considering I explicitly stated I'm playing devil's advocate.

I have no opinion on whether or not there is a historical core to Jesus, but the poor mythicists need some help. They're outnumbered 1000 to 1.

Rick Sumner

Nobody said that every admission against interest was true. Nor, for that matter, did I say that everything gleaned from the criteria of embarrassment is true. It's simply considered more likely to be true. It lends credibility to the testimony.

And whether it's true or not really doesn't matter, it's an example of the criteria being used outside the study of the New Testament, something you said didn't exist.

I'd venture that a criteria similar to "embarassment" is employed in most branches of history for exactly the same reason. It's not given the same limelight it is in Biblical studies simply because it's not as important to strip away agendas. And while I haven't studied every branch of history in even cursory detail, I have read enough to know that your suggestion--that it is only employed in NT studies--is false.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

Embarrassment does no such thing, it does not lend to credibilty. If an author already knows that people would think that a fictitious event did occur if it is embarrassing, he can simply fabricate an embarrassing scene to dupe the readers.

teamonger

Seems obvious to me that Paul was the catalyst for the transformation. Pagan concepts like virgin birth then got mixed in, and the amalgamation emerged over the kernel of historicity.


Exactlly.
t

teamonger

Again the criterion of embarrassment comes into play... hard to imagine the church wanting to depict doctrinal argument if none occurred.
t

teamonger

Hmmm. In the discussions among atheists that I know of, they seem to dominate the conversations.

When I can stand it, I spend time in the trenches discussing Bible criticism with Christians, at least until they run away screaming. Some are receptive, even some who have never thought to think that way, and I find that gratifying. When discussing Jesus, I try to point out the weakness of the inconsistent birth narratives, and the plausibility of his being an ordinary human who made mistakes, and how his radical ethic fits in with his end-time views.

But then enter the strident atheists who are just there to beat Christians over the head with, "Jesus never existed, you morons!" To the average believer, the idea just looks nutty... and seems to confirm to them what their preachers say: that atheists hate Jesus so much that they just want him to go away. When I engage these atheists, they often get extremely pissed... some call me a traitor for accepting that a Galilean preacher once walked the earth. I've even been accused of being a closet Christian. One asked me, "why don't you grow some balls and join the fight against these fundies?"

When the more rational fundies take them on, the fundies start to look like the rational ones. There has to be something wrong with THAT! :-/

t