spin

Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999, p.135, writes:

[t2]when Jesus talks about himself as the Son of Man in the Gospels—as he frequently does—there's no way to know... whether that's the way he actually talked or if that's how Christians—who believed he was the Son of Man—"remembered" him talking. But in sayings like Mark 8:38, there is no indication that he is talking about himself....

...since Christians thought Jesus was the Son of Man, it seems unlikely that they would make up a saying in such a way as to leave it in question whether he was referring to himself. That means Jesus probably did say the words now found in Mark 8:38.[/t2]
Here we see Ehrman attempt to assert this criterion of embarrassment, while providing himself with elements that could help him see why the argument is fallacious.

He reasonably assumes that there are two instances in time indicated by sayings where 1) the son of man refers to someone else and 2) the son of man refers to himself. Then for some reason he assumes a kind of uniformity of all christians across time such that they believed Jesus was the son of man, so that (some) christians could not have believed Jesus referred to someone else, so that when the son of man referred to someone else "Jesus probably did say" that. He does not conceive that we may be looking at formulations from two different stages in the christian tradition each shaped by the christians who passed on their tradition. We don't know the needs of the writers. We can only overlay our own prejudices with a tool like embarrassment.

TedM

Yes, it has to be used with caution. But the theory is excellent. People don't normally write embarrassing things about something unless they are true or believed to be true. Others will avoid/remove such information intentionally.

The "criterion of embarrassment" is an excellent criterion because it is a reliable indicator of how human beings behave. The problem is in knowing how to apply it to someone other than ourselves. Can we really know that something was embarrassing to someone else when they don't explicitly state that it was? Sometimes we can be very confident, based on all the other information that is related. In those cases there may always be another explanation, of course. But to throw out the criteria simply because we can never "know" how another culture might perceive something would be foolish. It's an excellent criterion.

hjalti

When we talk about "the criterion of embarassment" I assume that we're talking about the criterion used in historical Jesus studies, and there it seems to me to be "if a later author seems to be embarassed by something in an earlier text/tradition then it's probably historical" (the story of Jesus' baptism being an excellent example). That's not an excellent criterion, it's a silly criterion (as the examples provided in this thread show).

I'm sure we can find some real instances when it's valid to point out that someone mentions something that he considers to be embarassing, but historical Jesus scholars don't seem to be dealing with cases like that.

TedM

False. It is not useless for determining whether the other 3 gospel writers BELIEVED that the baptism was true. If they think it never happened, they perhaps simply would have said so, and it may well have then been written out of GMark. This is important. This is why it has meaning. They think it happened. They weren't just writing theological 'fictions', in their own minds, it appears. And, the fact that John -- the one who 'wrote out' the actual baptism by John, still has Jesus' disciples performing baptisms suggests a strong historical basis for Jesus being involved/interested in baptism.

As to whether it was 'embarrassing' to Mark or not, we cannot say one way or the other as to whether it was. All we know is that it WAS embarrassing to OTHERS, and as so it MAY HAVE been embarrassing also to Mark, but that he left it in because it was a critical to explaining how/why Jesus started his own ministry. To dismiss all this embarrassment simply because we don't know what Mark really thought about it is to throw away 'evidence' that is meaningful.

spin

If it is flawed, it doesn't matter how much care you use.

We are about to get a load of codswallop that you paint for yourself as "common sense". Yet again, we come to a topic in which there is nothing common

How do you decide what is embarrassing to the writers without knowing their ethos??? These texts are anonymous, unprovenanced and undated.

Perhaps if they act like you.

I've already shown that this is false. There is nothing reliable about embarrassment, because you are ignorant of all the conditions that would allow one to divine embarrassment regarding the tradition in question. Besides, embarrassment is an individual reaction that not everyone adheres to. Lots of people act in ways I see as embarrassing, though they don't consider it so. If you could divine embarrassment, there is no reason to assume that someone earlier evinced the same embarrassment. This is all so embarrassing for the criterion.

You can repeat this mantra as often as you like. It won't provide a rationale for using this criterion.

Someone else can hold your hand.

aa5874

Your position has already been debunked multiple times. The supposed Baptism event is MULTIPLE attested to be PLEASING to God or a voice from heaven itself.

The Baptism event was a Sign to IDENTIFY the Son of God.

The story of the Baptism of Jesus was NOT ever claimed to be embarrassing by the Jesus cult of antiquity.

The Baptism of Jesus by John was fabricated to introduced a Holy Ghost and that God was PLEASED with the baptism of Jesus by the Holy Ghost.

Every author of the Gospel claimed that the Holy Ghost entered Jesus or descended upon him at the Baptism by John.

Mark 1 Matthew 3 Luke 3:22 KJVJohn 1 The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to Mythology about God, Jesus, Satan, the Holy Ghost and voices from heaven.

outhouse

So we should appeal to ignorance?

TedM

There are signs in every culture about what is embarrassing and what isn't. Also, the writers provide signs. To throw it out because we can't know for sure or because we think human nature has changed so much between cultures is foolish. It is a valid criterion, and excellent one, but requires common sense and good perception into human behavior in general and the clues that do exist that are specific to the culture. Some people just don't have those people skills or intuition...

The rationale is that some people are more perceptive than those who refuse to use something that isn't 'foolproof'. THE arguments of perceptive people are worth listening to.

outhouse

Id just like to add that mutiple other criteria must line up first. Criterion for Embarrassment is never used alone to determine anything.

aa5874

It is extremely disturbing to me when the Baptism of Jesus is Singled out as a most PLEASING event yet people mis-represent the very Bible which they seem to believe.

There are ONLY two PLEASING events in the Jesus story-- the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Jesus.

When will this blatant erroneous debunked fallacy end?

The Baptism of Jesus when the Holy Ghost descended upon him is one of the MOST significant event in the early fables of Jesus.

Mark 1 The Baptism event was used to established that the Jesus character was God's Son.