aa5874

Again, my position is that the criterion of embarrassment is useless, I have not claimed it was the end-all-be-all of truth discovery. You do not know what you are talking about.


That is why I told him that the COE was useless, it gives bogus results, it makes fiction become the truth. The COE is irrelevant.


Just name the embarrassing instance, the embarrassing case where the veracity was uncertain and the COE made the veracity certain.

Was it the crucifixion, Peter walking on water, the conception, the transfiguration, the feeding of the five thousand, turning water to wine, or the spitting on people to make them see?

On what did Jesus-Seminars scholars use the COE and made the uncertain veracity certain?

Toto

I don't think this is the same as the NT criterion of embarrassment.

The criterion of embarrassment is in fact used to argue that the crucifixion must have been historical because no one would invent such an embarrassing way of dying. It is also used to argue that the Baptism of Jesus by John must have been historical because no Christian would have subordinated Jesus to John. In both of these cases, one can argue against the use of the criterion on the basis that the events were not embarrassing to the first people to write about them.

After participating in this debate for more years than I care to think about, I have never seen this criterion used to establish anything historical about Jesus, and I have never seen it used outside of NT studies. While you can argue that it theoretically might be useful if properly applied, it appears to be useless.

Toto

Anything more recent than 1946? I don't think that any modern historians accept this.

This is nonsense on the face of it. Regard for truth is hardly inherent in human nature. Telling a good story is inherent in human nature.

dog-on

WTF, the Criterion of Embarrassment is stupid. The crucifixion was glorious. JC took a licking, but kept on ticking, the power of God and all that...

JtB baptizing Jesus? Looks like Mark was a bit of an Adoptionist, to me. Indeed, Jesus was not the Christ until the baptism, here:

As Mark makes no mention of any pre-birth status, annunciations, or even genealogy, it is a bit anachronistic to assume these things, in Mark.

Maybe the Christians are just embarrassed about what Mark wrote and what the later church has left them to defend...

ApostateAbe

We are in agreement.

Solo

The crucifixion was glorious (1 Cr 1:17-31) to Paul and his following, and likely only to them (Gal 5:10). For the rest of the Jesus missionary gang of Paul's day, it was not just an embarrassing folly but a scandal to be hushed over (Gal 6:12).

Jiri

avi

Constantine, the self appointed thirteenth apostle did so. He assigned the MOST important holiday of his religion, the summer solstice, to represent the birth of John the Baptist, and the SECOND most important holiday, the Winter solstice, to represent the birth of Jesus.
Many of the cults active in the first four centuries CE, viewed John, not Jesus, as the most important figure of the modern era. By the sixth-seventh centuries, the Muslim world similarly adopted John as slightly superior to Jesus, ranking the various "prophets".

dog-on

Anti-Marcionite Propaganda, imo...

aa5874

And once you already believe that Jesus existed , then the criterion of embarrassment is irrelevant.

You believe or presuppose that he was crucified, or perhaps believe or presuppose he did the things that are plausible, you do not need the COE to presuppose Jesus did exist, just to be a believer or a cherry-picker of the NT stories.

ApostateAbe

The criterion is also used in Old Testament, to help establish that the tribe of Joseph fashioned the tale of the life of Joseph. It is also known as the criterion of dissimilarity. The criteria are useful in any cases where the authorship is in doubt, and that is true for only a limited selection of manuscripts. And it is especially useful for the New Testament. The criterion is used to help establish that Jesus made an apocalyptic prophecy.