Achronos
What's so good about Cincinnati? You like it? You think Cincinnati is cool? I've never heard anyone say, 'I'm going to Cincinnati on vacation.'
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
 Offline
Faith: Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Jurisdiction: Just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness.
Posts: 9,374
And we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!
|
 |
« on: September 25, 2011, 03:46:54 AM » |
|
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_criticismInteresting what to make of it? Especially the last bit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
"Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are."
"We see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them.
|
|
|
|
NicholasMyra
|
|
« 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
|
|
|
|
|
jewish voice
|
|
« 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
|
|
|
|
|
Asteriktos
|
|
« 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
Elder
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
Taxiarches
Offline
Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,553
I am Bibleman
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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.
|
|
|
Michał Kalina
proud Podlachian Belarusian parajournalistic engineer in spe
Moderator
Hypatos
Offline
Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk / Diocese of Warsaw and Bielsk Podlaski
Posts: 15,424
OC.net's trickster
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2011, 10:54:18 AM » |
|
The Jewish off-topic was moved to the Religious Topics.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
formerly known as mikeDespite being a Polish citizen I am not a Pole.  Long live Belarus! "It's my constitutional right!" |
|
|
gzt
Jr. Member
Offline
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 87
|
|
« 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
|
|
|
|
|
