Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-03-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.... Thus the question about the applicability of using the CoE.

If you think that Mark is fiction, then the CoE shouldn't be used. It's just common sense.

If you think that Mark is ancient biography, then the CoE can be used. Though in that case, it needs to be supported by the criterion of multiple attestation, etc. Again, it is just common sense.

What nonsense!!!

If you ALREADY THINK or pre-supose gMark is ANCIENT BIOGRAPHY then you have NO NEED to APPLY the CoE.

Once you THINK or pre-suppose gMark is ANCIENT BIOGRAPHY then it follows you most likely THINK Jesus was baptized by John in gMark whether or not the story is embarrassing.

It is MOST obvious that those who THINK or pre-suppose gMark is ancient biography also THINK Jesus in gMark did things that were NOT embarrassing.

It is clear that PRE-SUPPOSITION of history makes the CoE worthless.

The CoE is to be APPLIED when you DON'T KNOW or HAVE NO IDEA what to think about gMark hence the CoE IS a complete USELESS tool.

GakuseiDon · 01-03-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In this case, I believe so. Thus the question about the applicability of using the CoE.

If you think that Mark is fiction, then the CoE shouldn't be used. It's just common sense.

No, it's not common sense.

I don't think the CoE can be used with fiction, but if you think it can, fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For the purpose of argument, let's assume that Mark is an ancient bios. We know that the authors of ancient bioi combined fact and fiction. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the factual elements in that work.

Can you seriously claim that the criterion of embarrassment can be used in this case?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

But surely you would have to agree that multiple attestation fails, for the same reason? After all, fictional events can be multiply attested as well. I'm sure that Philosopher Jay will be along shortly to tell us that Peter Parker has lots of comics about him. And mountainman has all pre-4th C works as forgeries. Therefore how can we trust the criterion of multiple attestation?

Obviously, you can't. So there goes your argument.

That IS my argument. We can't use these criteria where they can't be used. :constern01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The title of this thread is "the criterion of embarrassment proves that Jesus existed." Do you argree that this contention is false?

Yes, I agree.

GakuseiDon · 01-03-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

I haven't considered the criterion of multiple attestation, but you do raise an interesting point. In a society dominated by mythology, why would multiple attestation be considered a test for historical truth? Wouldn't it on the contrary be a better test for mythological fiction?

In a society dominated by mythology, probably the question of the historicity of any mythologized character is moot.

spamandham · 01-03-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Then why are you trying to apply the CoE? I honestly don't understand.

Logically, if Mark was not embarrassed, then the CoE shouldn't be used. I think we both agree there. But what you seem to be implying is "Mark was not embarrassed, therefore the CoE is bunk." And I simply don't understand the logic behind that.

What are you claiming? The former or the later? Or something else?

I'm claiming that Mark was not embarrassed. However, proponents of the CoE start with the assumption that the baptism is embarrassing, and since it's embarrassing - through the magic of embarrassment - ta da! Now it's historical.

The CoE *is* applied to this story by CoE proponents - hell, this story is the quintessential example they use, and they are simply wrong. It's a classic fail that demonstrates the question begging inherent in the CoE, and why it is worse that useless.

Toto · 01-03-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I don't think the CoE can be used with fiction, but if you think it can, fair enough.

...

You are still dodging the point. The CoE was designed for cases where the text in question contains both historical data and fiction. I can assume that Mark contains historical elements, and still find that the CoE is useless in finding them.

spamandham · 01-03-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In a society dominated by mythology, probably the question of the historicity of any mythologized character is moot.

We have a winner!

GakuseiDon · 01-03-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Then why are you trying to apply the CoE? I honestly don't understand.

Logically, if Mark was not embarrassed, then the CoE shouldn't be used. I think we both agree there. But what you seem to be implying is "Mark was not embarrassed, therefore the CoE is bunk." And I simply don't understand the logic behind that.

What are you claiming? The former or the later? Or something else?

I'm claiming that Mark was not embarrassed.

Right. So in that case, the CoE shouldn't be used at all. So why use it? How can it fail if it shouldn't be used at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

However, proponents of the CoE start with the assumption that the baptism is embarrassing, and since it's embarrassing - through the magic of embarrassment - ta da! Now it's historical.

But that's exactly what they don't do. Whenever the CoE is discussed, it is stressed that it needs to be used with something else. I don't know where this strawman version of the CoE comes from.

The baptism is assumed to be embarrassing for Mark since it appears to be an embarrassing event in the other Gospels. (Whether you agree or not is not the point; I assume that you disagree.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The CoE *is* applied to this story by CoE proponents - hell, this story is the quintessential example they use, and they are simply wrong. It's a classic fail that demonstrates the question begging inherent in the CoE, and why it is worse that useless.

If it was embarrassing for Mark, does this then lend credence to it being an actual event? If yes, then the CoE works.

GakuseiDon · 01-03-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I don't think the CoE can be used with fiction, but if you think it can, fair enough.

...

You are still dodging the point. The CoE was designed for cases where the text in question contains both historical data and fiction. I can assume that Mark contains historical elements, and still find that the CoE is useless in finding them.

If the baptism was embarrassing for Mark, would you agree that this lends credence towards it being an actual event?

aa5874 · 01-03-2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....I don't think the CoE can be used with fiction, but if you think it can, fair enough.

EXACTLY. If you don't know whether a text is FICTION or NOT then you WON'T know when to use the CoE.

And if you ALREADY know that a text is historical then the CoE has no significance in its application.

Once you believe Jesus and John the Baptist did exist and that John did baptize Jesus then the CoE is a USELESS tool.

Toto · 01-03-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are still dodging the point. The CoE was designed for cases where the text in question contains both historical data and fiction. I can assume that Mark contains historical elements, and still find that the CoE is useless in finding them.

If the baptism was embarrassing for Mark, would you agree that this lends credence towards it being an actual event?

If?

That's not how it works. There is no reason to assume that Mark wrote anything that was embarrassing to Mark.

The Jesus commentators who want to think that the baptism was an actual event try to find a reason to think that the baptism was embarrassing.

But the embarrassing events of the infancy gospels are clearly not historical, so these same scholars decide that Jesus the Menace must not have been embarrassing to the authors.

This is why the criterion is useless - you can reach any result you want. There are no controls.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.