Toto

But that's MY point. I think it was false, but Christians don't seem to, at all, ever, even after 2000 years. So there is no embarrassment.

Juststeve

Toto:

Just a little fun at your expense.

The point however stands. Christians today are at pains to explain away the rather obvious failure of this prophesy and a number of other Jesus made about his prompt return They twist themselves into intellectual pretzels to avoid the obvious problems associated with Jesus saying he would be back within the lifetimes of his disciples and the High Priest, and not showing up.

On your hypothesis, that the Gospels are pure fiction, there was no reason for the Gospel writer to make up a prophesy that he already knew was unfulfilled and put it in Jesus’ mouth. It couldn’t possible advance his cause. It just raises questions about whether Jesus was a false prophet and gets him nothing in return. It’s a question of why the Gospel writer would do that, whoever he was.

On the standard hypothesis, that whoever the writer was he was relying upon oral stories for his information, the explanation is clear. Jesus made false predictions, too many people knew about them to just ignore them, so they were included in the Gospels creating the need to explain them away once someone looked at the Gospels critically.

Consider that the standard hypothesis became the standard hypothesis among experts for a good reason. It fits the data pretty well.

Steve

Toto

It doesn't actually fit the data very well at all. We have no record of this prophecy, supposedly made around 30 CE, until several generations later.

If it were truly embarrassing, it could have been easily omitted, or softened to be less specific than a promise that Jesus would return within a generation. The most reasonable explanation is that the prophecy was aimed at the generation that first read Mark's gospel, not that it has any historical basis.

aa5874

There need not be an actual human Jesus for someone to claim Jesus said he will be coming back in his own generation in a story about a character called Jesus the Messiah.

There are so-called Christians who are even now claiming that Jesus will come at a specific time.

You seem not to understand that it was the original author of the Jesus story who was likely to have used the Jesus Messiah character to propagate the author's own beliefs about the END of the heaven and earth.

We KNOW for sure that it was a human author who wrote the Jesus story but you cannot say with any degree of certainty that Jesus did exist and did make any prediction in the Gospels.

You have NO external corroborative source for Jesus the Messiah and what he said or did.

But, you are assuming that you know exactly when the very first Jesus story was written.

Now, if it is your hypothesis that Jesus was only human, JUST a mere man, why did the author claim that Jesus taught his disciples that he would be RAISED from the dead on the third day?

In 72 hours Jesus would have been a FALSE prophet.

The claim of the "third day resurrection could NOT have advanced the veracity of the author or Jesus if he was a mere man.

Why would the author claim Jesus was RAISED from the dead when he KNEW Jesus did NOT?

But, you are NOT making much sense. It is hardly likely that an author would write in a manner that destroys his own credibility.

It is more likely that the authors were NOT embarrassed about the predictions of their Jesus Messiah character and that no-one really KNEW about Jesus the Messiah before the story was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple..

What DATA? You have NO DATA? Please state the external corroborative source of antiquity for your STANDARD hypothesis.

You seem TO HAVE a DOUBLE STANDARD for your Jesus.

You use Speculation and Opinion as DATA and IGNORE the written statements, the ACTUAL DATA, that Jesus was described as a MYTH.

We have DATA. I will show you and it is CAST IN STONE. You CANNOT ALTER the written statements of the authors of antiquity. You cannot tamper with the EVIDENCE.

Mt 1:18 - You want more DATA!!!

Mt 14:25 - Mr 16:6 - Luke 24:36-37 - Ac 1:9 - This is what you call DATA.

And the DATA demonstrates that Jesus appeared as a SPIRIT to the disciples.

The hypothesis that Jesus was a MYTH fits the DATA perfectly.

Now, you say you have DATA? Where, what data? when?

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure that the CoE has ever been used to suggest that the movement started with a historical Jesus, so I don't get your point here, I'm afraid.

Yes, I agree.

I think you miss the point of the criterion. If the stories were embarrassing and could be left out, then they would have been left out. The criterion only works when the details could not be left out, either because they were too well known, or because they weren't embarrassing initially. It is when other sources try to soften or change those details that the criterion starts to come into play.

But is this a reference to only one source being used for the CoE? I'd like to see how that argument is framed. The Wiki article says: "This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation". It doesn't say how the crucifixion meets the CoE, or what sources are being used.

The article also quotes Meier as writing:

The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria.

Do we have any examples of biblical scholars using this criterion by itself and only one source to show that crucifixion "is the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus"? That would be interesting to see.

mountainman

Is it reasonable to expect to find this "HJ" candidate within the ground of the Hebrew/Judaic civilisation, or is it more reasonable to expect to find this "HJ" candidate within the ground of the Graeco-Roman civilisation? What streetlight are we searching the ground under?

What does the evidence say about what historical language the "HJ" story was authored in?
What does the evidence say about who were the historical audience that received and then preserved the "HJ" story?

spamandham

Why? Why *must* have the original author included an intro that paints John the Baptist as Elijah and has him baptize Jesus? Why *must* Mark have included an embarassing intro that has Jesus out in the desert inexplicably being tempted by Satan - something that *can not possibly be historical in any sense*? These stories were clearly not embarrassing at all originally. They only became embarrassing later on when people had turned Jesus into a god man.

The gospels are *not* histories, they are not even biographies in the modern sense. The closest modern genre is probably the prequel, where an origin story is invented to answer all the questions left by a popular tale.

You are welcome to accept that authority if you find it compelling. I don't.

Suppose you're right and there was already a well established oral tradition that included embarrassing aspects (which is absurd in it's own right), why then is an author of a fantastic implausible tale compelled to include them in his written story? If anyone objected that he hadn't included them, he could just say "Why bother? Everyone already knows that."

Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Hitler Youth as a boy. He was conscripted and had no choice in the matter, but nonetheless, this is quite embarrassing to the Catholic church. Where do you find this fact mentioned in the official Catholic bio? You don't.

If even modern biographies conveniently omit well known embarrassing facts, why could ancient fantasy stories not omit them as well - even if they originate in an oral tradition?

spamandham

The post I just made above addresses the point about the stories being well known. In regard to the part in bold, the fact that something *later* becomes embarrassing tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not it is rooted in reality. A lot of modern Christians are embarrassed by the talking donkey story in the OT. Does that mean the story has some basis in reality?

I'm not sure what multiple sources you're referring to in regard to the crucifixion. There really is only 1 source for it, which was rewritten by multiple later authors.

GakuseiDon

No. But again, that isn't what the criterion of embarrassment is about. If all it meant was that someone was embarrassed, why does it matter whether there are multiple sources or not? Obviously there is more there than just embarrassment. That's the only point I wanted to bring up.

aa5874

But, it is ALREADY been shown that the criterion of embarrassment produces BOGUS results.

Why are you regurgitating a most hopelessly flawed criterion?

In the NT Peter attempted to walk on the sea towards Jesus the sea-water walker and Peter, because he had little FAITH, began to SINK.

Jesus the sea-water walker RESCUED Peter from SINKING in the story.

Now, this story of Peter is OBVIOUSLY quite embarrassing but it is Total Fiction.

Matthew 14.25-31 The criterion of embarrassment produces BOGUS results. It can turn OBVIOUS fiction into history.

Please stop wasting time. The criterion of embarrassment has been DEBUNKED.