aa5874

Whether or not a story is handed down and believed to be true does not in any way alter the premise that a story is either invented or true.

Name any story about Jesus , the conception, the temptation, the raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration, the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, or the ascension, all these stories were either invented or true.

andrewcriddle

Yes it is a problem.
One can't say that because something was an embarrassment to Matthew and Luke it necessarily was an embarrassment to Mark.

However, Matthew and Luke are probably a better guide to Mark, than late classical Italy is a guide to what was an embarrassment in pre-Hellenistic Phrygia.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, it is a well known fact that people fabricate embarrassing stories about themselves to gain sympathy, to make others believe their stories are true or to destroy or severly damage other peoples' characters.

Now, to claim there are embarrassing material in the NT without even showing that the events did actually occur is counter-productive.

So, was there really some called Jesus who actually made a prophecy that did not come true or was it the author who fabricated Jesus and the prophecy?

Not everything in the NT appears embarrassing, or perhaps most things about Jesus do not appear to be embarrassing, so it is your view that the only thing that is known is that Jesus made a false prediction, and every thing else is false since there are not embarrassing?

ApostateAbe

It isn't the only thing that is known, but I think the failed prediction of Jesus can be concluded to be original and authentic with greater certainty than other accounts. It fits the theory that the original Jesus was an apocalyptic cult leader, and it is difficult to explain the failed prophecy with any other theory, because of the embarrassment. But, yeah, that whole theory would have to yield to other evidence that shows the whole Jesus character is entirely fictional.

aa5874

But, you have never shown that Jesus did exist and did make a prophecy.

Why do you think only a real Jesus could have made a prediction that did not come true?

And, it is not difficult at all to explain the failed prophecy by another theory. I have supplied a very simple basic theory. It may have been the author who fabricated Jesus and the prophecy.

An unknown doomsday author fabricated a story about Jesus thinking that the world would come to end around the time he wrote his story.

ApostateAbe

That would certainly dodge the problem that the prediction is embarrassing, as long as the account was presented around the same time the generation of the proposed Jesus is still alive and well. But that only creates another unlikelihood: that people would accept an account involving people who are supposed to be still alive and out and about. It is no good solving a problem if your solution only brings in new and bigger problems. What you really need is evidence for your alternative theory. That would be the best way to conquer the problem of the embarrassment, I think, by having a theory with better evidence behind it. After you have evidence on your side, then you can go about winning the debate by figuring out how an anonymous author persuaded people to believe a story involving fictional people supposedly alive at the time.

GakuseiDon

Ah. So then, Major Premise 2 becomes:

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

That is what Richard is implying forms part of the Common Historicity Criteria used by scholars. Are you okay with that? Shall we continue on that basis?

I am trying to get consistency in terms.

I'm happy to go with "factoid" or "myth", or even "report" or "story". What I am trying to do is impose consistency across the terms. I think I've already shown the problem with Example 2, and how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. I believe a similar problem exists with his Example 3 (Criterion of Embarrassment), but first we have to remove the sloppy wording.

Would you like to try to express his syllogism, using "myth" or "factoid"? We can work from that, if you like. Use the term that best approximates historicity scholars when they use the Criterion of Embarrassment might be best. ("Factoid", as you've defined it, may be a better fit.)

Does Conclusion 1 below follow (ignoring the sloppy wording for now), as a probability indicator, in your opinion? If so, then the Criterion of Embarrassment DOES add something, surely.

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 castration of Attis.

I understand that. I probably would have ignored Richard's prologue on the problems with criteria relating to historicity studies, except that you commented in the OP about how there was something bogus in the Criterion of Embarrassment. As I like Richard's writings generally, I was interested in what he had to say, so I looked into it. I think that in his eagerness to show how historicity studies are flawed, he oversimplified his representation of historicity criteria. But that doesn't affect his section on Bayes Theorem and its application to historical studies.

Toto

There's no probability here. This is a valid syllogism. And since the results are invalid, it calls into question the premise, that people do not invent things that embarrass them.

If you want to claim that it is unlikely that people invent things that embarrass them (or other people in their religion), then you have to decide what that probability is, what the probability is that things that are embarrassing now were not so embarrassing last year (deregulation of the banking system, e.g.) and many other factors. But at some point the criterion of embarrassment becomes rather useless.

aa5874

So, how long does a "generation" last? One year, 70 years, 100 years? And where was the story written?

Are you claiming that no-one can believe something that is false about you while you are alive?

I can tell people that ApostateAbe predicted that the world would end in this generation, some people might believe if I tell them that you have predicted many thiings before that came true. I can tell them you successfully predicted 911, hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in Asia and the last earthquake in Japan. And I will tell them I met you in the jungles of South America.

You just cannot show that anything in the NT is true, and the criterion of embarrassment, cannot magically make things that are false, unknown to you, become true.


You have already claimed you have no solid evidence for your intuition, so you have not resolved anything by believing Jesus did exist and made a false prediction.

ApostateAbe

I don't know the mean lifespan of a typical first century Mesopotamian, but I would estimate that a generation in that time lasts about 40 or 50 years. I would say that would be a good way to build your theory. Figure out a date of origin, as well as a person and place.