OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 05:33:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Embarrassment  (Read 654 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: September 25, 2011, 03:46:54 AM »

Quote
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]

The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.

The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see Adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism, adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying his seniority and the entrance of Jesus into his cult. Similarly it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin," the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Interesting what to make of it? Especially the last bit.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,835


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2011, 04:12:49 AM »

This is based on the Ebionites-were-the-real-Christians hypothesis that holds no water.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471



« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2011, 04:41:27 AM »

Wow who ever wrote this has no idea of history at all on Baptism
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2011, 04:45:10 AM »

The main problem I have with this kind of argument is that there was plenty of "embarrassing" stuff left in there. Why not take out the stuff about Jesus praying to God before the betrayal? Or continually depicting the disciples as dense? Or Jesus name calling and losing his temper? And so forth. If they were gonna try to clean things up, why didn't they go the whole way? And if Christians were worried about explaining away embarrassing things, then why did they choose to include the earlier Gospels in the canon? If things are as the argument says, and Christians tried to rewrite the story to wipe away potentially embarrassing stuff, then why did they put the first version of the story right next to the supposedly modified ones?
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2011, 09:02:08 AM »

If it were an embarrassment, why would we commemorate it with one of the biggest feasts of the year?

And isn't the Crucifixion more "embarrassing"? But that's in all four Gospels.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2011, 04:44:35 PM »

Wow who ever wrote this has no idea of history at all on Baptism

I am surprised you would say this...
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2011, 07:48:03 PM »

The main problem I have with this kind of argument is that there was plenty of "embarrassing" stuff left in there. Why not take out the stuff about Jesus praying to God before the betrayal? Or continually depicting the disciples as dense? Or Jesus name calling and losing his temper? And so forth. If they were gonna try to clean things up, why didn't they go the whole way? And if Christians were worried about explaining away embarrassing things, then why did they choose to include the earlier Gospels in the canon? If things are as the argument says, and Christians tried to rewrite the story to wipe away potentially embarrassing stuff, then why did they put the first version of the story right next to the supposedly modified ones?

Thread pwned.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2011, 10:54:18 AM »

The Jewish off-topic was moved to the Religious Topics.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
gzt
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, then GOA, now OCA
Posts: 109


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2011, 12:07:44 PM »

I think you should take the conclusions with a grain of salt, but I think there is something to the argument when you're sorting through the Gospels vs non-canonical accounts. Consider, for instance, that a number of the non-canonical accounts say that Judas was switched with Jesus on the cross - and many Muslims hold to this account!
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 35 queries.