Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The criterion of embarrassment is one of the most useful tools historians use when trying to figure out what actually happened in the life of Jesus (or any ancient figure). It’s important because it helps us cut through theological propaganda and later legend-making.

If a story contains details that would have been embarrassing, inconvenient, or counterproductive for the early Christians who wrote it down, those details are unlikely to have been invented. Why would you make up something that makes your movement look weak, foolish, or wrong—unless it was too well-known to deny?

Early Christianity was trying to convert people. They had every motive to make Jesus look as powerful, wise, and obviously divine as possible from day one. Yet the earliest sources (especially Mark) keep including these awkward, unflattering moments. The best explanation historians have is: those things really happened, and the tradition was too strong to suppress even when it was inconvenient.

That’s why even completely secular, skeptical scholars (Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders, etc.) treat the crucifixion, the baptism by John, the family conflict, and a few other “embarrassing” items as basically bedrock facts. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the main reasons the total “Jesus never existed” position is considered fringe in academia.[/quote]

The criterion of embarrassment argument sounds perfectly reasonable in theory but utterly collapses under a rigorous analysis of the specific texts and the historical context of early Christianity. It is far from being “one of the most useful tools historians use".

You argue that embarrassing details were too well-known to deny. This presumes an audience that knew the history independently of the Gospels themselves, which is a massive, unwarranted assumption. For most audiences outside of a tiny core group of original followers, the authors were the source of information. They could deny or alter anything they wished.

The issue is that the alleged "embarrassing" facts are only embarrassing if you assume the later theological framework of a divine, all-knowing Christ who was supposed to appear powerful from day one. This anachronistic standard ignores the actual beliefs and concerns of the specific communities that produced the earliest gospels.

Let's dissect the primary examples offered:

The Crucifixion - You call the crucifixion embarrassing. Of course it was … in the Roman world. A messiah being publicly executed as a criminal was a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. However, this is precisely why it had to be addressed, not ignored. It wasn't an inconvenient fact they couldn't suppress; it was the central theological problem they had to solve with sophisticated allegory and prophecy-fulfillment narratives. The claim that Jesus was crucified was essential to the theology they were already developing (salvation through sacrifice = atonement). The "embarrassment" generated the very theological necessity that shaped the narrative. Paul, writing decades earlier than the Gospels, doesn't treat the cross as an inconvenient fact he wishes he could hide; he treats it as the proud center of his preaching. It wasn't an historical embarrassment; it was a theological starting point.

The baptism by John - "Why would God's son need a baptism of repentance from sins, and why be baptized by a lesser figure (John)?" historians ask. But again, this misunderstands the Markan community's potential beliefs. Mark 1:9-11 doesn't say Jesus was being baptized for sin. The narrative exists primarily to establish divine identification and fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 40:3). If anything, the "embarrassment" argument is defeated by the subsequent gospels, who felt this supposed embarrassment and immediately modified the story to mitigate it (eg, Matthew adds John's protestation, "I need to be baptized by you..."). The fact that the later gospels felt the need to change the story shows that earlier authors could have done so too. The fact that Mark didn't suggests it wasn't an embarrassment to him, but fulfilled a different narrative purpose.
[/quote]

Mainstream scholars who use the criterion (Dale Allison, John Meier, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, etc.) treat it as a secondary, supporting argument at best. The primary criteria remain:
1. Multiple independent attestation
2. Coherence with undisputed data
3. Dissimilarity is largely abandoned or heavily qualified
4. Aramaic substratum / Palestinian context

In practice, the baptism and crucifixion pass on multiple attestation and contextual plausibility.

The women at the tomb passes on multiple attestation and the difficulty of deriving it from Scripture.

Embarrassment is an extra nudge, not the foundation.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics