DCHindley

What is so embarrassing about the massacre of billions of beings by atomic bombs? It will probably happen in our own time, but on the bright side rush hour traffic will not be a problem and all of our debts will be erased. I will feel 1000% better, yep!

Modern observers do seem to have a difficulty imagining what should have been embarrassing to early Christians, or Jews, or citizens of the Roman empire in general.

At the time it is spoken, "Your mama wears army boots!" is embarrassing to the little boy who wants to think of his mother as a proper lady, not a gender bender (or whatever bad thing the little boy thinks the phrase is meant to suggest). It may or may not be true, but no one is going to execute you because it was asserted. Few if any will bring it up in a passionate defense of one's right to live, or simply live unmolested.

A sarcastic "Nice two tone shoes!" is embarrassing to the kid who wears cheap plastic imitation leather shoes his mom bought from the Pay-More Shoe Store while the other boys wear "real" shoes that fail to display changes in color at wear points. But if someone wants to deport to a place of torment all persons who had a fashion challenged mom, or whose dad didn't drive the right car, or a parent who was not present due to moral defect, death or divorce, then I'd expect a spirited defense from those so accused. "I am not (now) embarrassed by what you say, those were circumstances beyond my control and I've come to terms with it. How is it that you are so shallow/ill-informed that you (still) find this kind of thing offensive?"

So, it is not what is embarrassing to the one being accused, but what is perceived as embarrassing to the accuser. The fact that a Christian was NOT embarrassed to be accused of being the follower of an executed rebel, or to hold some uncommon belief about resurrection, etc., means (s)he has already rationalized it away long ago, and throws it back at his accuser. "Ha! You are ill-informed about the man, let me explain ..." "You are shallow not to perceive that what you say about our beliefs is not so different to what you say about your own heroes and gods?"

This kind of defensive response is what Christian literature is all about, whether in form of a canonical gospel or an Apology by Justin, Aristides, etc.

DCH (Yes, I am not embarrassed to admit, I once wore plastic shoes, although since then I have graduated to poorly tanned shoes that smell when damp)

Matthew1

In Mark, Jesus says it to his disciples.

Toto

What have you read except for a review of Le Donne? Where would you apply the criteria?

yalla

The stuff Christian apologists write is embarrassing - therefore it must be true.

outhouse

I wouldn't. I don't have the skill set to do so accurately.

Vorkosigan

Texts in antiquity were read aloud to audiences. Again, do you think the writer was sending a message to readers/listeners of his own day ("let the reader understand...") or faithfully recording what Jesus said?

Vorkosigan

outhouse

So true.

Some more then others. I know Hebrews makes more sense in that context.

Steven Carr

So something is historical if it is 'multiply attested'

And something is historical if it is not multiply attested - if one of our sources never says it happened, then it happened.

Mark was written 30 years or more after Jesus died.

For 3 decades, Christians had been taunted with people pointing out that Jesus had been baptised.

Just how dumb was Mark and the other early Christians that after 30 years or more of being mocked and embarrassed that Jesus had been baptised, he still could not find a way to spin away the embarrassment?

Do Biblical scholars ever think?

Do they seriously imagine that after 30 years of being mocked, the author of Mark would have had the sense not to write embarrassing things?

ficino

Adding to Andrew: criterion of embarrassment, even if it were a good methodological tool, would get nowhere with Soc's "by the dog," since Plato puts that phrase in his mouth in texts that have to postdate Polycrates' pamphlet.

aa5874

In the NT, it cannot be assumed a character is human if it is NOT God or Good.

May I remind everyone that in the NT, Satan, Angels, and Evil Spirits were also capable of NOT being Good and were regarded as figures of history.

In Revelation, there was War in heaven and Satan and his Angels were cast into the earth.

Revelation 12:7 KJVRevelation 12:9 KJV Effectively, in gMark, of all the heavenly creatures ONLY God was Good.