ficino

Thanks for the link.

rlogan

Then WTF are you even using this ludicrous criteria for, when you say yourself it does not hold across individuals?


This is not the criteria of embarassment. It is your own new invention that embarassing stories are "softened" by later story-tellers.

That is not an argument supporting the criteria of embarassment. It is an argument against it.

Applying this criteria consistently, the real story is that John sodomized Jesus. That was embarassing of course, so Mark "softened" that to baptism. Later writers softened that further, in accordance with Ted M's "softening rule."

TedM

Don't you judge other people the same way in real life? Why not do it in history? One can get a feel for what people are like from just reading their writing. Historical analysis isn't science. It can't 'prove' anything. It's subjective just as are most court cases. Why require that it be anything more?


So be it then. If they did something because they were embarrassed I call it the 'criteria of embarrassment'. But perhaps that's just me.


You have a strange way of misinterpreting me. I would not conclude that Mark softened your filthy idea to baptism because there is nothing to which to compare Mark's softening with. For Matthew, Luke, and John there IS something to compare to. Big difference.

I'm going to stop responding soon to most posts. Don't take it personally--just have too much other stuff that should be addressed.

Grog

My point was specifically about the crucifixion, which is what you referred to in the post I responded to. How do you determine that is more likely to have occurred in the context of an actual historical person versus a spiritual being believed to have performed his sacrifice in a timeless past?

There were other would-be messiahs that were killed by the Romans whose followers did not spin off a resurrection cult. Why this one? Why did the least attested historical failed messiah become the origin of the most successful resurrection cult in world history (I submit)? Everything you say about this makes it seem highly unlikely to me. If Jesus of Nazareth had been a real person, it seems to me, attempts to turn him into a God would be dead in the water...in fact, laughed off stage.

As far as the Baptism example goes, nothing about the embarrassment, or alleged embarrassment of later Gospel writers supports the position that the GMark description really happened. Other commentators already provided you with the mostly likely scenario: what was likely an attempt to depict the passing of the torch from John to Jesus in Mark became embarrassing later. That doesn't make it a real event.

Ben Kenobi originally told Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader had killed Luke's father. This was later embarrassing when it turned out that Darth Vader was made into Luke's father. Ben then had to backtrack in an awkward explanation that "in a way" Darth Vader had killed Anakin Skywalker. Was the truth actually that Darth Vader really did kill Anakin Skywalker (a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away)?

It isn't hard for me to imagine people in the second Temple era conjuring up a spiritual messiah who redeemed the world, took away the sins of the world, freeing the flesh from bondage and opening the Kingdom of God with a past sacrifice only now revealed by the Spirit.

I have been rereading Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ by William Horbury and trying to make a more careful study of it than in the past. I have attempted to link Philo's thought with early Christian views of a spiritual Christ. On the plane, I just read this passage (and while it may be a case of confirmatory bias, it is nice to read scholarly opinion that seems to lean toward my way of thinking):

I have cited Carrier's observation that the figure in Zech 6.12 that Philo refers to here is actually named 'Joshua,' which, in Greek, is the same as 'Jesus:'

So here is Jesus, whose name is anatole, upon home the house of the Lord will built. A Jesus who Philo specifically links to a heavenly messiah. Just what are the odds that just such a one would arise in Galilee with just that name and be attributed with just those characteristics but leave not a trace on the contemporary historical record?

So here we already have in the early first century the re-imagining of the messiah figure as a heavenly being. We also have a linking of the suffering servant to the Messiah in the Targum of Jonathan Isaiah 52-53:

The 'he' through out this targum is identified as the Messiah. Thom Stark argued that since the commentary portion does not specifically say that the Messiah was wounded, that it isn't saying that. But clearly as you read this, the commentary (in bold) is a continuation and commentary of the text of Isaiah. The targum identified the suffering servant as the Messiah, who is wounded, crushed, and flogged, but also builds up the Holy Place and through whom sins are forgiven. Here you see a direct link between the suffering servant and the messiah figure. In Philo, you see the messiah figure as an angelic, spiritual, being. I think it is a small step to Paul's view of Jesus as a heavenly Revealer/Redeemer.

Grog

I am sorry for this double post. I was at the airport typing on my tablet and there must have been a glitch.

TedM

Passover circumstances (ie martyr for the temple turned into martyr for sins), claims he was seen after death. Especially if he was already being followed/admired before his temple incident. I've often thought he may have seen himself as the Suffering Servant and orchestrated his own death.



I guess you are referring here to contemporary 'external' attestation.



IF the targum identified the suffering servant as the Messiah BEFORE Jesus then I agree. If it only identified the passage as Messiac but still saw the Servant as Israel suffering prior to an idealic age then that isn't enough. Don't know what to say about your observations on Philo and the name Jesus...not up to checking it out..I did a few months ago and decided there wasn't much to the name part but I've never looked at it real close.

aa5874

Again, we see that there was NO embarrassment by the Jews that their Messiah would suffer once you accept the targum.

Your argument has collapsed.

The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied neither to the baptism or the crucifixion or works of fiction and mythology like the Bible.

Grog

You really are saying that you don't want to consider too closely evidence that doesn't confirm your bias.

Have you ever been able to approach the evidence with an open mind? I mean, haven't you always held the pre-conceived position that Jesus existed? How can you consider evidence if you are only looking for evidence that confirms your bias?

TedM

You have zero basis for these comments based on what I actually wrote. I don't know how else to respond other than deny what you attribute to me.

aa5874

The claim that early Christians of the Jesus cult was embarrassed by the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus is completely unsubstantiated.

First of all there is no known Christian or Christian writer of the Jesus cult who claimed those events were embarrassing to the cult.

Secondly, if Jesus was a mere man then it could not have been embarrassing for Jesus to have been baptized by John