Grog

Sure, I understand that, but author of gMark couldn't project forward to what future Christians might find embarrassing. There is nothing in Mark that indicates he is reporting potentially embarrassing facts.

This is where the criterion of embarrassment seems to get derailed in biblical studies. When we find material in primary documents that is potentially embarrassing to the person or entity that produced the document, we tend to give more weight to that material. For example, the Pentagon Papers contained material that was embarrassing to the US government. While we can imagine (easily) the US government producing documents as propaganda to support controversial policies, it is not likely that the government would produce, for internal consumption, documents that could damage support for those policies. Therefore, we tend to give more weight to the credibility of the information in the Pentagon Papers than we would to, for example, information in Colin Powell's address to the UN in his tour de force performance intended to build support for US war objectives in Iraq.

That is a legitimate application of the criterion of embarrassment when used to evaluate the reliability of source material.

So for the criterion of embarrassment to be applied to the Baptism of Jesus, one would have to have reason to believe that the event was embarrassing to MARK, not to the authors of Matthew, Luke or John. Sure, they wanted the story to come out a different way and so they changed it. They thought Mark got things wrong, but for theological reasons, not reasons based on historical memory. That, in itself, does not lend ANY support to the reliability of the initial account contained in MARK. MARK is not embarrassed. It does not meet the requirement of being embarrassing to the source who reported the event and, therefore, does not meet the basic requirements to be used as a criterion of embarrassment.

This is how I was trained in HISTORY programs at two different universities, one undergrad level, one master's level. How this criterion is applied in biblical studies is frankly baffling to me. It is literally like George Lucas being embarrassed by Ben Kenobi's statement that Darth Vader killed Luke's father and having to fix the problem in the Empire Strikes Back. That doesn't mean that Ben Kenobi's initial story was actually more true than the fixed less embarrassing version.

Does this make sense?

aa5874

But, is it not precisely what you are presently trying to make?

You yourself is presently engaged in an attempt to make a better argument than others. You are presently making references to texts when you have no actual outside assistance other than texts.

It is the better argument--the argument that is supported by the evidence or data--that is most reasonable and must be accepted.

Arguments that are supported by evidence or data are RIGHT.

Weak arguments, unsupported arguments, must be rejected--they are WRONG.

The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to the Baptism event because the account is known fiction. When an ordinary man is baptized there is NO Holy Ghost bird and No voice from heaven.

And further, there is NO known Jesus cult writer who claimed that the cult was embarrassed about the Baptism story of their Son of God called Jesus by their John the Baptist.

Supported arguments are RIGHT until data or evidence is presented to the contrary.

At one time, it may have been a better argument that the earth was stationary and flat. However, new Data and evidence CHANGED ALL THAT.

There is enough evidence and data from antiquity to support the argument that the Baptism event was a non-historical account.

Solo

Agreed.

That was precisely my point to Andrew earlier (7531194). There is simply no way one could positively identify the later accounts of the baptism as flowing from alternative traditions. There could have been - and for me this is the preferred approach - three separate revisions of the original Mark's account - which I believe was a haggadic midrash on the investiture of Joshua in Jos 3:1-9. The baptism gets played in all four gospels most likely because all the communities would have had contact with the Baptist sect and needed to address the "event" once it was written down. So the reaction was not to the event itself but to a text which was read by some as straightforward narrative. We have one hilarious example of a narrative as a result of a polemic over the original text - Matthew 28:11-15. The expansion was to defeat the persistent rumours that the disciples stole the body.

I am kinda getting what you mean but I am unsure of the analogy. The principal difference with the gospels is that they were servicing different communities, each with their own particular set of priorities and predilections. They would adapt the gospel narrative to fit their own needs and considered their product the most complete account of the life and teachings of Jesus. George Lucas IIUC was not struggling with different communal points of view on Darth Vader that needed to be addressed. He changed the script in simply exercising his artistic license.

Best,
Jiri

Grog

Yes, however, if there was no such figure then you would again expect there to be no recoverable evidence. Isn't the formulation you point to just stating the hypothesis in such a way as to make it unfalsifiable. In fact, it need not be necessarily the case that such a figure was not "politically significant enough to worry," that he "did not interact in such a way as to alter anything directly in the past." We can envision just the opposite, a messiah figure who did influence his contemporaries, who did enrage the authorities to the point that they crucified this miscreant, and whose followers then wallowing in anguish and possibly passing around "visions" and dreams of having been visited by this character spurred a new religion. AND that this individual's deeds were commented upon somewhere in the contemporary ancient world at the time. Indeed, it COULD be the case that we have just not found anything credible enough to consider.

On the other hand, we formulate the hypothesis to fit just such the figure that won't be found in the historical record. The illiterate, itinerant preacher who gained a small, insignificant following, whose deeds went largely unnoticed except as an undercurrent of stories passed from follower to follower until bursting forth in the Gospels in full blown mythical attire, angelic robes and all.

So the hypothesis, unfalsifiable, yields exactly the same evidence as the falsifiable hypothesis that there was no such historical figure. My position is then, that you take the falsifiable hypothesis. It is POSSIBLE, but not probable that evidence will emerge. A graffito that can be dated of the Messiah crucified, perhaps. Maybe a breakthrough in our reading of a already discovered material. There are any number of ways that the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis could potentially be falsified. The obscure preacher cannot be, though. He forever is just out of reach of what we can possibly find, until, of course, we find something.

Further, I think there is evidence to indicate that indeed it is unlikely that the Jewish followers of an illiterate woodworker raising a ruckus in the Temple would ever declare their teacher to be the divine son of God. For one thing, it is a FACT that Jews of that time abhorred the idea of elevating a man to the position of God, or to be equal to God. Philo says in Legatio ad Gaium as much ( I don't have that direct reference, but I will find it when I have a chance later tonight). Here is Philo who can imagine all sorts of things, the Logos, the Logos coming to earth...all sorts of fanciful ideas, but he cannot abide by the abhorrent idea of corruptible flesh and blood having the nature of God. I find it highly IMPROBABLE that a ragtag band of followers of an itinerant, illiterate preacher could somehow turn their executed leader into a widely worshipped deity. I find it highly PROBABLE given an assortment of literature existing from that time, that Jews could imagine a heavenly, spiritual entity, even the Son of God, descending from heaven to earth as a Revealer/Redeemer.

There is direct evidence of the latter. And direct evidence against the likelihood of the former.

On this anthill, I make my stand that Jesus is more likely than not a product of human imagination and was never a fleshly being.

Grog

To clarify this, Andrew: That the author of Mark equates the Son of Man to the Messiah. In Mark's mind, does the "Son of Man" = "the Messiah." Is not Jesus in Mark, Jesus Christ? Does not this passage directly relate to Jesus Christ (Messiah)?

aa5874

Anyone familiar with gMark knows that the author claimed his Jesus character admitted he was the Christ and Son of God at the supposed trial with the Sanhedrin.

In any event, the author of gMark equated his Jesus with the God of Jews by using passages about the LORD GOD in Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

gMark's John the Baptist was preparing the way for the LORD Jesus.

gMark's Jesus was LORD--Jesus was GOD even on the Sabbath.

Who can forgive Sins but God?

Truly this man was the Son of God!!!

spin

Understood in this formulation "It does not mean though that that figure was not real" is "It does not mean though that that figure was real". I haven't changed my mind overnight that there is no evidence to sustain a historical Jesus. That means there is no way to map Jesus into reality: he may or may not have existed.

I personally find no value in these guesses as to probabilities of various events related to the figure of Jesus. I find referring to the content of tradition text as a necessary event in the life of a hypothesized historical Jesus, such as the temple ruckus, won't produce any meaningful results. If it's in text how do you manage to translate the modality from text to reality? Once a figure has entered a tradition--be that figure real or not--, the tradition expansion concerning that figure is not constrained to reflect reality. And I see no way that the mythical Jesus can be falsified, given the raw data we have.

Grog

RE: Temple disruption: I only refer to a possible event, one that is often cited as historical and leading to the event of the real Jesus crucified by Rome. I am not trying to argue that it is improbable that this event occurred. I am arguing that, beyond any Gospel story, the probability that an illiterate woodworker could be considered the Son of God is low. Temple disruption or not. The likelihood that a man named Jesus would disrupt the Temple and anger Jewish authorities is fairly high, and just such a story about a different Jesus is found in Josephus. That's not the point. The point is this:

I think this sums up what happened, not that Jesus was first known as a man and then worshipped as a God, but that belief in Jesus as a spiritual entity came first, then that entity was made into a man. It is unfortunate that Philo was either unaware of, or chose not to comment on, the Jesus Christ movement which claimed a recently crucified man was the Son of God. Just as unfortunately, Paul also chose not to give any more concrete indication or mention of jesus' ministry on earth which led to his crucifixion.

The "obscure" Jesus to Christ hypothesis only puts testing the hypothesis out of reach. Shadowy, obscure preacher Jesus cannot be disproven, but is only a completely hypothetical being to begin with. There is no indication anywhere in the record that obscure Jesus existed. He is a construct created to explain the lack of evidence. Just as my explanation for no evidence of Klingons orbiting Earth is that they are using cloaking devices far too advanced for our stone age detection devices.

spin

What is the standard you are trying to measure this probability by? How many non-illiterate woodworkers have been considered to be the son of god? Is that statistically significant?

I really don't understand out of where you pull these statements of likelihood. We are delving into text that embodies tradition. There is no solid basis in that to make any estimates of reality, of probability. Any two facts along side each other could be one relating to a real past and the other not, or neither, or both, and you have no way of knowing. A source has to manifest substantial agreement with the known past before it is considered as somehow directly related to the past it purports to deal with.

I don't see your interest in Philo here, other than the soundbite. He was putting down Gaius, who was the man seeking to be the god.

Is it then worth the effort to complain about the vagaries of the past?

He may not have, but arguments from silence when the silence is not significant have no value.

You just plain miss the point, but that is because you have the agenda of disproving the existence of this Jesus, when I couldn't give a fuck one way or another. We don't have evidence to say he existed. Neither do we have evidence to say he didn't. We just have unconfirmed reports from the past.

Again, most facts from the past are missing. I asked elsewhere what was the name of Pilate's wife? How many children did he have? What was his next appointment? And so on. Do you want to get out a ouija board and decide on probabilities regarding answers to these?

You got it. It's harder to disprove existence of things than to prove it. So why bother?

Grog

I bother because I am interested in the origins of Christianity and decidedly not because I have an agenda to prove the non-existence of Jesus. Whether or not one assumes that Jesus exists has an impact on how one reads early Christian literature. If we are interested in what Paul is really saying and what early Christians believed, then it matters if Paul is talking about a "real" Jesus or a Jesus in the sky.

Frankly, it seems that for all your condescension you seem to have missed the point of doing history. Historians do deal in probability--all the time.

I haven't made up probabilities out of thin air. Josephus relates a story about a Jesus causing commotion in the Temple who is then questioned and beaten by Jewish officials and is subsequently questioned and flogged by the Roman governor, I believe, Albinus. (Wars 6.5.3). Whether or not we take this event as an event that actually occurred depends on our estimation of the reliability of Josephus. Certainly, there is plenty of room for criticism as it seems Josephus was not particularly critical of his sources. He did have a sense of using sources, though. The event described here would have occurred during Josephus' life and at the height of his interest in events occurring in Palestine. On the other hand, Josephus apparently reported rumor as well as events he witnessed or discovered in Roman reports. So I overstated the probability of this event occurring, but overall, I think we can generally accept that something like this happened.

My point is not to try to persuade you to set aside your agnosticism. I only want to point out that your commitment to it need not be the rule followed by those interested in proposing hypotheses related to what actually happened. I am interested in what probably happened in the past. That means weighing probabilities but explaining our choices.