Rick Sumner

Okay, we'll stop right there, because what you have just done is admitted that the reasoning behind the criteria of embarrassment is used elsewhere, and is ultimately sound. It doesn't give us facts, it gives us probability.

But even whether it's sound or not doesn't matter. It's used elsewhere. Thanks.

I believe I already expressed my reticience at using it in this manner. You're not disagreeing with me.

An exact analogue, complete with the name "criteria of embarassment?" of course not. In the sense of a statement against interest? All the time.

You've also changed your tune. Before it wasn't used at all. Now it's not used "to determine the historical value of an ancient manuscript."

But if the reasoning works in one instance, it should carry over to the next.

There was a BAR article some time ago that argued that it applied in the name of Moses--that no Hebrew source would be inclined to use an Egyptian name. I wasn't persuaded, but there it is. It's also been used frequently in reconstructing the historical david, eg his affair with Bathsheba, also IMO, unconvincingly.

Wrong Meier. As I noted from the outset, the Meier in question is Christian Meier, and the book is Caesar: A Biography. And I already gave you the example, what you're missing is the citation. Bear with me, I have two young children that keep me from getting to books as often as I'd like, a tooth that just smashed in half and hurts unbelievably, and a book with neither footnotes nor an index (supposedly it had both before the translation), making finding citations time consuming.

BTW, after his glowing review and expressed willingness to use Freke and Gandy for course material I generally don't bother reading anything by Darrell Doughty, but the link wasn't directed at me anyway, so I can be excused for missing it.

Identifying and adjusting for bias is second only to physical provenance in the list of priorities of historical method. That's ultimately all the criteria of embarrassment is.

I'm aware that you were. The problem was that you somehow got the idea that I wasn't.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

teamonger

That's what the criterion of embarrassment discussion was about... the things we can know are historical, such as the baptism, the origin in Galilee, Jesus' mistaken end-times predictions (and his radical ethic which fits in with that), and the crucifixion itself.

To be complete fabrication, a conspiracy is required because we have sources with a fair degree of independence: Mark, Q, Paul, mostly lost Hebrew gospels. And there was nobody at the time claiming Jesus was a fabrication. The Jewish opponents did not question his existence, only his legitimacy.

As for why Mark didn't name himself, let me turn the question around. Why wouldn't a fabricator lend creedence to his work by putting a famous name on it? You could say, it looks more authoritative as something anonymous. Maybe so, but that might motivate a 2nd-hand reporter as well.
t

teamonger

I've already pointed out why I think Mark wrote only a short time after the events he portrays. I've also pointed out the embarrassing details that Mark includes, which later authors had to gloss over. Mark is clearly prior to Matthew and Luke for those reasons.

Not having any evidence that Mark is a total fabrication, I wonder why you would believe it is.
t

teamonger

My password keeps failing and keeps needing to be reset. Is that happening to anyone else??

teamonger

It's true the gospels were not simply histories, as they were attempting to glorify their subject. But they were clearly intending to provide historical information as they understood it, that much seems utterly obvious.

Can you state briefly why Talbert thinks there could be no history in a gospel, and why he must be more "right" than mainstream historians?
t

teamonger

There are earlier dates proposed for Mark, but 40 years qualifies as relatively recent in my book; short enough so that some people who knew Jesus could still be alive at the time, as Mark clearly implies.

Historians like E.P. Sanders, Michael Grant, Burton Mack, Gerd Theissen, Geza Vermes, even admitted secularists like Michael Arnheim, Jeffery Lowder.

The independent sources of Jesus tradition include Mark, Paul, Q, Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews. Quite an improbable conspiracy would be necessary for all these people to independently cook up a human preacher who was crucified. The alternative is not improbable in the least: that a real Galilean preacher walked the earth and impressed people with graphic parables and end-times talk.
t

Toto

The "criterion of embarrassment" is a specific tool used by NT scholars to determine the historicity of events in the gospels, which are admitted to be full of ahistorical theology and legend. That is all that it has ever referred to.

If you try to redefine it to a something like statements against interest are more likely to be true, you reduce it to a triviality.

For example, this statement from Mr. teamonger:Caesar: A Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk) - searchable on Amazon.

I think you have redefined the criterion of embarrassment. Read the other Meier.

Toto

Paul and Q have few biographical details. Mark is the only identifiable source for the biographical details of Jesus' life. If you assume that Mark created the story of Jesus based on a spiritual Jesus from Paul, and others just copied or expanded on his idea, you have accounted for all we know about Jesus.

I think that the name Mark was taken from Papias. It does nothing to add to the credence, but I see no evidence that early Christians cared much about believeable history.

But you have not addressed the other points that indicate that Mark's gospel was not second hand reporting - the lack of dates or discussion of sources.

aa5874

You do not understand what I have written.

The criteria of embarrassment is circular or useless to determine historicity when applied to second-hand or indirect information.

If I read a book where a person claimed that they were jailed, I cannot claim that the person was jailed because it is embarrassing when I do not even know if such a person actually exist.

In books of fiction people are jailed.

So when I read the NT, I do not know if any of the characters actually existed, like Jesus, or the disciples, even if their words and actions are embarrassing.

In books of fiction, characters can be embarrassed or do embarrassing things.

Again, if you do not realise a book was actually fiction, use of the criteria of embarrassment would produce bogus results.

Toto

Have you actually read those historians, or do you just have a list of historians who support a historical Jesus? Which of them claims that the historicity of the Jesus story is probable because there is no evidence of a conspiracy?

And why do you include Michael Grant in the first group but call Michael Arnheim and Jeffery Lowder "admitted secularists?"