Out of interest, do any of the people who rank highly the criterion of embarrassment mention the astonishing stupidity of the Disciples as an example of a historical fact proven by that criterion? In other words is Carrier addressing an example that someone else has argued? Or is it one he has thought of himself?
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
The intent of the question in my last post, in case I have not expressed myself clearly, is to find out this: do any of these or other like-minded scholars use the example given by Carrier as one to which the criterion applies? Or is it one he has suggested on his own initiative?
More generally, does Carrier address any example of a use of the criterion of embarrassment actually made by any scholar, and show that the conclusion drawn from it is false? If so, can you direct me to any case where he analyses such an argument?
Again, you write fiction and present logically fallacious arguments.
It does not logically follow that because some Bible Scholars and HJ supporters claim that Paul's letter were written c 50-60 CE that they were composed at that time and that Paul was the first to name Jesus the messiah.
You yourself have admitted you do NOT know the dates of the Pauline writings and is NOT agreeing with those those dates.
It is a FACT that Bible Scholars have admitted the Entire Pauline Corpus is NOT authentic.
You are also arguing AGAINST Bible Scholars and HJ supporters who claim Jesus was a figure of history which logically implies that you do NOT accept the claims of Bible Scholars and HJ supporters as facts.
Your argument that Paul was the first to name Jesus the messiah is completely baseless and un-evidenced since it is a fact that the exiting Pauline Corpus is ACTUALLY dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century or later.
Manuscripts of gLuke and gJohn are also dated to the 2nd century or later and Apologetic sources have ADMITTED that the Pauline writer KNEW gLuke.
Another Apologetic writing, the Muratorian Canon, claims the letters to the Churches in the name of Paul were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.
This implies that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and the Revelation attributed to John.
In Galatians 1 and 1.17 it is admitted by the Galatians writer that there were APOSTLES and Churches in Christ BEFORE Paul and that the Pauline writer PERSECUTED those of the SAME FAITH he NOW preached.
In Acts, there is ZERO mention of the Pauline Corpus and it is claimed Peter preached Christ crucified BEFORE Paul.
Your argument that PAUL was the first to name Jesus messiah is completely contrary to the evidence from antiquity in and out the Pauline Corpus.
Ians said:
You have been told "a million times" that the Pauline Corpus that is being used by the very Bible Scholars and HJ supporters is ACTUALLY dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century or later.
c50-60 CE letters under the name of Paul are NOT in Existence and their IMAGINARY contents are UNKNOWN.
It is extremely logically fallacious to argue that IMAGINARY letters dated c 50-60 CE are the first to name Jesus the messiah.
Last edited:
I'll be happy to see you expand on this. As I've tried to indicate, I don't think subjective states are the point.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
OK,
Craig (I'll just do an informal response instead of an in-line response - hope that's alright
),
I agree that we can discern retraction, assuming we have accurate chronological order of the texts.
What I don't think we can do is then discern the motive of why a construct was removed or added.
We cannot know this because we don't know the identity of the peoples.
We can create all sorts of logical possibilities and motives FOR them in their place.
The "Long Mark" is a great example - we could create an array of reasons someone might create this, but we can't actually employ any of those logics as proofs of truth of events until we actually know which possibility sympathizes with the peoples who valued the text (who it was for), or at least the author's culture and their culture's values of the content.
We can discern some crude aspects regarding such retractions and additions; for example, yes, we can discern that if we have our chronology correct, then the baptism appears to have altered over time.
However, can we claim that the retractions and alterations inherently indicate a hiding of Jesus' embarrassing story of being baptized for sin?
Not really; there are a host of other motives than simply embarrassment (in any means of the word).
For example:
Matthew's entry could be argued to be an expansion, not a retraction - for it is increasing the tale by adding a motive (an explanation of why Jesus was being baptized) which was not explicit in Mark.
Why? Well; that depends on who we identify this as.
If we are going to identify this as Metropolitan Egyptian Jews as the culture of interest, then it would be of value to clear up the explicit motive for this specific washing and one would need to show humility as to not offend the status of either John or Jesus to the Egyptian Jewish mindset; for it would be equally offensive to John to not refuse Jesus' baptism in such a culture.
But that is IF such a demographic were so accurately appointed as the intended cultural body of reception or authorship of the text.
Luke does not have anything like this explanation and is akin to Mark's version, but instead adds the context that John was baptizing other people.
Could this be out of embarrassment?
Possible; or it could be that they didn't employ Matthew's Hebrew-centric narrative (or perhaps didn't have Matthew at all) and in referring to the clearly Markan version of the tale, felt that it was needed to inform their reading audience what it was that John does normally by placing John in his normal setting (scene) when Jesus arrives.
Perhaps they aren't hiding Jesus in the crowd at all, but producing Jesus as mundane prior to the Baptism so that the subsequent scene of the heaven's opening up and the voice coming down is also more impressive and pronounced (go quiet before blaring it loud).
That is also a possibility; and one that depends on who wrote the text for whom - and we don't know.
John takes Luke's version and expands upon it further - implying that if John was baptizing people, then he must therefore be baptizing people for the purpose of the encounter with Jesus.
Why?
Is it to hide Jesus from being a simple man?
Perhaps; maybe.
But if John is the production of Anatolian theological theater (a fashion of the time), then it would have nothing to do with embarrassment and instead be about streamlining the narrative to keep the spotlight on the central character of the story and keep focus upon the primary messianic narrative.
This is also possible, but entirely rests upon - again - who wrote the text for whom...and again...we don't actually know.
Now, as to Carrier's statement about the crucifixion and the criterion of embarrassment:
This is what he actually says -
It should be clear from the above that his point is about the subjective value of the concept of "embarrassment" and not about addressing some position holding that the apostles were so stupid that fact is therefore verified.
He's outlining that the possibility exists for other motives to be involved and since we cannot rule out those other possibilities; it is hasty and erroneous to draw a conclusion regarding concepts like Embarrassment as a motive.
For my thoughts on the matter:
If we take the order of the texts to be accurate, and then examine the crucifixion; another highlight of the importance of the subjective nature of the motivated value of a scene or symbol is that the crucifixion (under the classic chronology of texts) becomes more elaborate in each version - not less.
Instead of hiding or simply removing the alleged embarrassment (which would have been simple enough to do), it is being embellished and decorated with lavish trimmings beyond Mark's version.
So it could be argued flatly back that it doesn't appear to be embarrassing at all just on asking why it was left in.
If Mark was the only one that had the account and the rest were absent of it, then no one today would know the difference.
Mark would have not been accepted into Canon later; some other text in its place would have been, and the other texts without the crucifixion would have been included.
It's not like that control wasn't available and employed - it was.
So if it was in the text; it doesn't mean inherently that it was real or true - but that it had value religiously and symbolically because (if our chronology is accurate) then it appears that the event continues to grow in admiration...not in embarrassment.
But again: we cannot FULLY know until we have the cultures in our grasp explicitly.
Craig (I'll just do an informal response instead of an in-line response - hope that's alright
),I agree that we can discern retraction, assuming we have accurate chronological order of the texts.
What I don't think we can do is then discern the motive of why a construct was removed or added.
We cannot know this because we don't know the identity of the peoples.
We can create all sorts of logical possibilities and motives FOR them in their place.
The "Long Mark" is a great example - we could create an array of reasons someone might create this, but we can't actually employ any of those logics as proofs of truth of events until we actually know which possibility sympathizes with the peoples who valued the text (who it was for), or at least the author's culture and their culture's values of the content.
We can discern some crude aspects regarding such retractions and additions; for example, yes, we can discern that if we have our chronology correct, then the baptism appears to have altered over time.
However, can we claim that the retractions and alterations inherently indicate a hiding of Jesus' embarrassing story of being baptized for sin?
Not really; there are a host of other motives than simply embarrassment (in any means of the word).
For example:
Matthew's entry could be argued to be an expansion, not a retraction - for it is increasing the tale by adding a motive (an explanation of why Jesus was being baptized) which was not explicit in Mark.
Why? Well; that depends on who we identify this as.
If we are going to identify this as Metropolitan Egyptian Jews as the culture of interest, then it would be of value to clear up the explicit motive for this specific washing and one would need to show humility as to not offend the status of either John or Jesus to the Egyptian Jewish mindset; for it would be equally offensive to John to not refuse Jesus' baptism in such a culture.
But that is IF such a demographic were so accurately appointed as the intended cultural body of reception or authorship of the text.
Luke does not have anything like this explanation and is akin to Mark's version, but instead adds the context that John was baptizing other people.
Could this be out of embarrassment?
Possible; or it could be that they didn't employ Matthew's Hebrew-centric narrative (or perhaps didn't have Matthew at all) and in referring to the clearly Markan version of the tale, felt that it was needed to inform their reading audience what it was that John does normally by placing John in his normal setting (scene) when Jesus arrives.
Perhaps they aren't hiding Jesus in the crowd at all, but producing Jesus as mundane prior to the Baptism so that the subsequent scene of the heaven's opening up and the voice coming down is also more impressive and pronounced (go quiet before blaring it loud).
That is also a possibility; and one that depends on who wrote the text for whom - and we don't know.
John takes Luke's version and expands upon it further - implying that if John was baptizing people, then he must therefore be baptizing people for the purpose of the encounter with Jesus.
Why?
Is it to hide Jesus from being a simple man?
Perhaps; maybe.
But if John is the production of Anatolian theological theater (a fashion of the time), then it would have nothing to do with embarrassment and instead be about streamlining the narrative to keep the spotlight on the central character of the story and keep focus upon the primary messianic narrative.
This is also possible, but entirely rests upon - again - who wrote the text for whom...and again...we don't actually know.
Now, as to Carrier's statement about the crucifixion and the criterion of embarrassment:
This is what he actually says -
http://www.richardcarrier.info/CarrierDec08.pdf
It should be clear from the above that his point is about the subjective value of the concept of "embarrassment" and not about addressing some position holding that the apostles were so stupid that fact is therefore verified.
He's outlining that the possibility exists for other motives to be involved and since we cannot rule out those other possibilities; it is hasty and erroneous to draw a conclusion regarding concepts like Embarrassment as a motive.
For my thoughts on the matter:
If we take the order of the texts to be accurate, and then examine the crucifixion; another highlight of the importance of the subjective nature of the motivated value of a scene or symbol is that the crucifixion (under the classic chronology of texts) becomes more elaborate in each version - not less.
Instead of hiding or simply removing the alleged embarrassment (which would have been simple enough to do), it is being embellished and decorated with lavish trimmings beyond Mark's version.
So it could be argued flatly back that it doesn't appear to be embarrassing at all just on asking why it was left in.
If Mark was the only one that had the account and the rest were absent of it, then no one today would know the difference.
Mark would have not been accepted into Canon later; some other text in its place would have been, and the other texts without the crucifixion would have been included.
It's not like that control wasn't available and employed - it was.
So if it was in the text; it doesn't mean inherently that it was real or true - but that it had value religiously and symbolically because (if our chronology is accurate) then it appears that the event continues to grow in admiration...not in embarrassment.
But again: we cannot FULLY know until we have the cultures in our grasp explicitly.
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
So do the rest of the assumptions.
If I had the time and resources to venture in some historical campaign in form akin to Carrier (which I do not), then instead of a narrative push to open up a discourse and examination upon the non-historicity of Jesus without jest, I would simply be constantly hammering our incredibly poor state of anthropological identity and highlighting over and over how we cannot proceed without first taking the time to do hard work and focus upon the deduction of which cultures were involved in these productions, and then following through with digs to hopefully verify or rule out those conjectures (e.g. from this array of factors in the text, we think this text was of this region, culture and sub-culture; dig, produce finds, if nothing - rule out and move on; if something, examine value of finds against text and how they inform the text).
"That's my jam yo."
It absolutely astonishes my mind that this interest isn't the main focus of any position in academia; none...not even Carrier!
Last edited:
@ Jayson R
I will respond in more detail later. In the meantime, what silliness is this? Attributed to Carrier.
I will look next at the "stupid disciples" theme. But it's getting late here.
I will respond in more detail later. In the meantime, what silliness is this? Attributed to Carrier.
Why would the castration of Attis "embarrass" Cybeleans? Does Carrier mean, well it's embarrassing to talk about castration and stuff? But we are dealing with prehistoric vegetation myths, not polite modern middle class dinner table conversation, for Heaven's sake. Wiki.
This example from Carrier is crazy. This is seasonal myth. The priests were so far from being embarrassed about it that they castrated themselves!
I will look next at the "stupid disciples" theme. But it's getting late here.
The claim that the baptism of Jesus in the NT was embarrassing is desperate fiction.
No NT author made such a claim and NO Christian writer of antiquity claimed the Baptism of Jesus in the NT was embarrassing.
In fact, in the Synpotics, the Baptism of Jesus was an extremely PLEASING event so much so that there was claimed to be a VOICE from heaven in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke which admitted PLEASURE in Jesus, the Son of God, AFTER he was baptized.
Matthew 3:17 NIV---And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
Mark 1:11 NIV And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
Luke 3:22 NIV---and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
In gMark, the Baptism of Jesus, the Son of God is the ONLY event which the author claimed was pleasing.
In the Gospels Jesus of Nazarth MUST first be baptized so that the Holy Ghost bird could identify or reveal the Son of God.
The Baptism story of Jesus with the Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven is obvious fiction as described
Plus, the C of E is profusely logically fallacious. The Cof E produces bogus results.
If embarrassing details of a story make the story true then Peter did see Jesus walking on the lake and did attempt to walk on the lake to meet Jesus.
In the NT, Jesus, the lake water walker, embarrassed Peter when he claimed Peter had little faith and had to save PETER from drowing.
Matthew 14 25 During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28 "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." 29 "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
It is obvious the Cof E produces bogus results. It turns fiction into historical accounts.
If Christians would NOT invent embarrassing stories then it must be true that Jesus of Nazareth walked on the Lake in the presence of the disciples and that Peter asked Jesus to SAVE him--NOT from sin--but from drowning.
No NT author made such a claim and NO Christian writer of antiquity claimed the Baptism of Jesus in the NT was embarrassing.
In fact, in the Synpotics, the Baptism of Jesus was an extremely PLEASING event so much so that there was claimed to be a VOICE from heaven in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke which admitted PLEASURE in Jesus, the Son of God, AFTER he was baptized.
Matthew 3:17 NIV---And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
Mark 1:11 NIV And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
Luke 3:22 NIV---and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
In gMark, the Baptism of Jesus, the Son of God is the ONLY event which the author claimed was pleasing.
In the Gospels Jesus of Nazarth MUST first be baptized so that the Holy Ghost bird could identify or reveal the Son of God.
The Baptism story of Jesus with the Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven is obvious fiction as described
Plus, the C of E is profusely logically fallacious. The Cof E produces bogus results.
If embarrassing details of a story make the story true then Peter did see Jesus walking on the lake and did attempt to walk on the lake to meet Jesus.
In the NT, Jesus, the lake water walker, embarrassed Peter when he claimed Peter had little faith and had to save PETER from drowing.
Matthew 14 25 During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28 "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." 29 "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
It is obvious the Cof E produces bogus results. It turns fiction into historical accounts.
If Christians would NOT invent embarrassing stories then it must be true that Jesus of Nazareth walked on the Lake in the presence of the disciples and that Peter asked Jesus to SAVE him--NOT from sin--but from drowning.
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
It doesn't really matter what example we pick, or if Carrier picks a good one or not (his example isn't even needed, actually; and I wish he hadn't bothered, as it just adds room for distracting debate over Attis - though that may be his point too).
The point was that, as your contention holds, there are other possibilities than embarrassment for the inclusion of the tangent.
The Attis sample was to show (and it really isn't needed) the ridiculousness of the idea.
Last edited:
Again, you continue to write fiction.
Only the Galatians writer claimed to have met the Apostle James the Lord's brother.
There is NO Apostle James in the ENTIRE NT who is identified as the Lord's brother outside Galatians 1.19.
There are TWO questions about some brethren called James in gMark and gMatthew but Apologetic writers who mentioned Galatians 1.19 admitted or claimed that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.
Origen claimed James was a son of Joseph and a former wife.
In fact, Christians writers who mentioned Galatians 1.19 also denied that the Apostle James was the brother of Jesus the Lord from heaven.
In the NT, Jesus was a transfiguring sea water walker, born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and was God from the beginning.
Even, the Epistle of JAMES do not state that James was the brother of the Lord Jesus, the SON of a God.
Your post is most fascinating. You are using the very Gospels where Jesus is a prehistoric holy ghost or was born after his mother was found WITHCHILD by a Holy Spirit
Do you mean Christians were embarrased that John the Baptist baptised the Son of a Ghost?
Christians were so embarrased by the Baptism of Jesus that they claimed a voice from heaven was WELL PLEASED.
The C of E appears to be a "stupid" criterion.
The C of E turns fiction into history.
If Christians did not make up embarrassing stories then it is true that John the Baptist BAPTIZED the son of a Ghost.
Last edited:
I can't comprehend this. What I am trying to get at is this. As I have explained, or vainly tried to explain, the concept of "embarrassment" can't really be made to apply to such things as priests (who have in fact castrated themselves) being allegedly embarrassed by the idea of castration (which symbolises part of the annual cycle of death and rebirth in the world of seasonal vegetation); therefore (says Carrier) anyone who accepts the criterion of embarrassment must believe in the literal personal existence of a castrated vegetation God.
I find this to be preposterous. But what I have asked is this:
Are there in fact any scholars, who do accept the criterion of embarrassment, who have inferred from it the real existence of Attis? Or, to put it another way: does Carrier anywhere ever address an argument which has in fact been made in support of the concept and show that it is wrong? Or does he simply create examples of his own from straw he collects himself, and then burn them to ashes with the consuming fire of his intellect?
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Craig, you're focusing on the wrong thing.
Let's say Carrier did a classic blunder of making a bad analogy. Does that take away the point about embarrassment being a subjective value which requires knowing what someone considers embarrassing to be able to tell if they were embarrassed by it?
Let's say Carrier did a classic blunder of making a bad analogy. Does that take away the point about embarrassment being a subjective value which requires knowing what someone considers embarrassing to be able to tell if they were embarrassed by it?
Last edited:
In fact I think the wording of that verse may be a bit loose, so that I prefer to think that nowhere at all is it stated that the brother of The Lord was an apostle. But since I have never believed, said or implied that he was an apostle, I don't really care.
Let us agree, because it's a fundamental part of my argument, that James was not an Apostle. Let us agree that the sources don't say he was an apostle. Then you'll stop having to prove to me that James wasn't an apostle. Then we can agree that "brother of The Lord" doesn't mean apostle or anything else except sibling. This is what I am trying to show so thanks for helping me and supporting my case that James was a physical sibling, not an apostle.
Just quote Galatians 1:17, and show where it says anyone named Jesus before Paul did. That was your insistent and repeated claim. So just quote it. You have been asked at least a dozen times now, and still you cannot quote it!
Why can't you quote it?
It's only 2 lines.
Just quote Galatians 1:17 and show where it says, as you repeatedly and instantly claimed in capital letters, that a church of God had preached Jesus as the christ before Paul did.
Again, it's not about what somebody "considers embarrassing". Do you agree with me that the criterion applies to contradiction between a statement and the known doctrine of the people making it? And that it applies to statements of fact, not of alleged feeling, exactly as you suggest; because that is purely subjective.
My examples related to "embarrassment of doctrine", like Jesus submitting to a ceremony designed to effect the remission of sin. Or Goliath being bumped off by some unknown warrior. Whether anyone felt bad about writing such things is not the point. They contradict later dogmas, and as I have shown, they were retracted in later texts. So why were they ever there in the first place?
Does Carrier ever deal with examples other scholars have given, and must stand by? Or does he invariably create his own alleged examples of the principle (which are patently ludicrous) and then destroy them. If ever the overused expression "straw man" was appropriate, it is here!
Have you noticed another typical tactic used by Carrier here too. Using logical-sounding expressions like "major premise" and "minor premise". Makes his stuff look really brainy, eh? He does lots of that.
Unlike personal feeling, it can be shown from the text. Jesus is without sin, according to later Christian doctrine. A text relating that he underwent baptism in a form designed to remit sin is "embarrassing" in this technical sense, regardless of what people might have thought about it.[/QUOTE]
- Status