There is no reason to think that a Gospel writer would not say something negative about Jesus, so that any portrayal of Jesus in a negative light must be historical. In the Mahabharata [Hindu scripture written around the same time as the Tanakh], the stories of the heroes are full of their foibles, mistakes, wrong doings and more. It is the same with the Iliad and the Odyssey (Greek) — written close enough to a similar time. So the historical data shows ancient fiction and religious scripture is often written with imperfections and such to make the story believable, more interesting, relatable and more.
And take the example of Jesus’ baptism by John The Baptist in the gospel of Mark. This is generally taken as historically sound material about Jesus because it passes the criteria of embarrassment, in that the early church would not want to make up a story about John baptizing the son of God, which is why later gospel writers changed the story.
Now, just to take this example, there is no reason to think the story was embarrassing to Mark at all, even if later writers found it so. Mark may have just thought he was writing a beautiful story about the beginning of Jesus ministry where John The Baptist is passing the torch to Jesus, in the same way as in 2 Kings 2 where Elijah gives a double portion of his miracle working power to Elisha, making Elisha his successor and superior. Mark certainly seems to interpret John The Baptist in terms of Elijah. Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wildernes in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on).
Also, Mark probably didn’t have the high Christology of later writers, so there would be nothing embarrassing for Mark in John baptizing Jesus.
For this example, then, there is no reason to think that the criteria of embarrassment does anything to contribute to the historicity of John The Baptist’s baptizing of Jesus in Mark. There is, therefore, no reason to think John The Baptist ever baptized Jesus.
john76 said
There is no reason to think that a Gospel writer would not say something negative about Jesus, so that any portrayal of Jesus in a negative light must be historical. In the Mahabharata [Hindu scripture written around the same time as the Tanakh], the stories of the heroes are full of their foibles, mistakes, wrong doings and more. It is the same with the Iliad and the Odyssey (Greek) — written close enough to a similar time. So the historical data shows ancient fiction and religious scripture is often written with imperfections and such to make the story believable, more interesting, relatable and more.And take the example of Jesus’ baptism by John The Baptist in the gospel of Mark. This is generally taken as historically sound material about Jesus because it passes the criteria of embarrassment, in that the early church would not want to make up a story about John baptizing the son of God, which is why later gospel writers changed the story.
Now, just to take this example, there is no reason to think the story was embarrassing to Mark at all, even if later writers found it so. Mark may have just thought he was writing a beautiful story about the beginning of Jesus ministry where John The Baptist is passing the torch to Jesus, in the same way as in 2 Kings 2 where Elijah gives a double portion of his miracle working power to Elisha, making Elisha his successor and superior. Mark certainly seems to interpret John The Baptist in terms of Elijah. Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wildernes in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on).
Also, Mark probably didn’t have the high Christology of later writers, so there would be nothing embarrassing for Mark in John baptizing Jesus.
For this example, then, there is no reason to think that the criteria of embarrassment does anything to contribute to the historicity of John The Baptist’s baptizing of Jesus in Mark. There is, therefore, no reason to think John The Baptist ever baptized Jesus.
This is a very good topic, thank you for introducing it.
It is well known to scholars that a passage may appear embarrassing to the later church, but not to the original author. If so, it is an indication that the passage reflects an old tradition, something not invented by the later church, or not reflecting later editorial work.
So what we have here, in the your example , is an old tradition that might be true. The fact that later gospel-writers changed the same story to fit later dogma, increases the likelihood of it being authentic in some respects, but it does not prove it. The embarrassment criterion is not designed to work in isolation , but must be used with other criteria and methods.
If you read Matthew’s version, you will see that he understands the theological implications of the Markan story and he adds an additional small dialogue whose purpose is to remove this theological problem inherited from Mark. But in doing so, he conflicts with another inherited tradition, the one in Matt 11:3.
The bottom line is that by the application of the embarrassment criterion, Mark’s story is old, and later gospel writers tried to solve it, but was unable to completely remove the story, because the tradition was too strong and well-known. This increases the likelihood that its original core is authentic, but it does not prove it.
John 76, a few double negatives in your post makes it difficult to follow but easy to write when you are typing away as I find sometimes.
The whole problem with the NT is one of biography in my simple mind.
ie We don’t read anything about Jesus’s life between 12 and 30. What was he doing? What was his trade? How was he taught and by whom? Why did he remain single, when the tradition was to get married and have a family? How tall was he, colour of his eyes and other personal things. We know nothing about Jesus or Joseph really. How old was he, did he die before Jesus went on his ministy? What happened to both the Mary’s. Was Jesus a disciple of John the Baptist as some maintain as well as some of his disciples? Maybe John baptised Jesus along with hundreds of others and so was nothing special at the time and maybe confirmed when he asked if Jesus was the one they were looking for. ie the Messiah? That itself maybe proves there wasn’t a dove at Jesus Baptism with a message from God about him being his beloved Son? That suggests he didn’t ‘choose’ them as the text suggests but a breakaway cult/sect where Jesus was unsure of who he was and what was his purpose.
All this means its almost impossible to know what really happened back then and seem logical that most of it was made up later to fit a narrative of the Messiah and thus OT prophesy and writings. Even to Jesus repeating David’s My God my God, why have thou forsaken me? This all means, there was no eternal deity, no virgin birth and thus the Christian Church followed the wrong doctrine in the Trinity and the worship of a man.
The most embarrassing piece is as I have alluded to before and that is Jesus saying some will not taste death until all things are fulfilled. Jesus saying he came only to save the lost sheep of Israel is up there and he cannot have uttered the words of the great commission. That was the early church looking after its self propogation. The later writers would have loved to have removed both of these but the tradition was so strong among the early converts including Paul that Jesus was coming back shortly, that it was not possible to redact it.
To think millions of people have died over the centuries just because people thought their particular faith was the true one and all others false remains as a blot on humanity, logic and reason. Far far better was to allow anyone to believe what they wanted and be free to do so. The USA is supposed to have separation of state and religion. I think the founding Fathers would be apalled to see how all that panned out when most if not all members of congress cannot come out as atheists and have to proclaim a belief in God especially to become the President! No wonder most Americans believe the universe is only 6000 years old.
Good post. Couple of points:
1.) I think it would be a bit broad to dismiss the criterion because embarassing stories are told about legendary figures elsewhere in antiquity. The question is rather would the intended audience and community find the story embarassing. This isn’t so important in the case of John of Baptist, as I agree with you and your interpretation of Mark. It is important when considering other (big) questions though, like Jewish expectations of the messiah.
2.) It’s a bit far off to conclude that there is no reason to think Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist just because Mark didn’t find it embarassing. The story is multiply attested in Q, if you accept the theory, and John. Although John doesn’t explictly say John baptized Jesus, the author still felt the need to show that Jesus associated his ministry with John, who was known for baptizing people.
Do we know if Jesus baptized his disciples or anyone else?
John the Baptist couldn’t have used the the words….”I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and so wonder what words he used? I think I read that it was a Jewish custom anyway and not a new development. Then of course digressing as I do, the Catholic Church then decided it had to be done by the Priesthood and mandatory for heaven because Jesus said so.. Then the same Catholic Church would not allow unbaptized babies to be buried in the Church graveyard and came up with the idea of Limbo which caused double pain and untold anguish to the little ones parents.
Why does all this make me despise what all this religious claptrap has done to humanity?
I was never baptized in all the years I was a Christian. The Salvation Army doesn’t do that or hold the Eucharist. Let us reason together sayeth the Lord and so what difference does it make to anyone, whether they are or not in the eyes of God. Paedophile Priests were all baptized and took the Eucharist. Its how people live their lives alongside others and how we treat animals and the world around us that is important, rather than a collection of ancient meaningless rituals. Jesus IF he had been the Son of God would have said just that. He never even condemned slaughtering thousands of innocent animals.
He was a man, certainly not God!
I wish there were a better term for this criterion than “embarrassment.” The word, in this usage, strikes me as too…trivial.
But I do understand what it implies, and I think scholars may sometimes be too ready to accept it. One possibility about which I’ve speculated is that Jesus’s early followers might have invented the “baptism by John” story for the sake of attracting people who’d been followers of John. (Assuming that by the time the story was first told, John himself was either imprisoned or dead.)
But I think it’s at least equally likely that Jesus was baptized by John. And I wish scholars were more willing to at least speculate about why he’d been motivated to (presumably) hike all the way from Galilee to Judea, possibly alone, to hear this preacher. Had he experienced some recent trauma or tragedy? The death of his father? Or even a wife, one of the many who died in childbirth? We can never know, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the possibilities, just as we would with any other historical figure.
And as I’ve said elsewhere, the “criterion of embarrassment” doesn’t prove, for me, that Jesus was necessarily “betrayed” by a person named Judas. Nor am I convinced that there wasn’t a “Judas”! I just don’t know.
Wilusa said
One possibility about which I’ve speculated is that Jesus’s early followers might have invented the “baptism by John” story for the sake of attracting people who’d been followers of John. (Assuming that by the time the story was first told, John himself was either imprisoned or dead.)
I don’t think that’s likely. Mark presented the episode as a somewhat simple sequence of events: Jesus goes to John and John baptized him. Apparently early Christians were embarrassed by this (I don’t know what other word to use than “embarrass”) because by the time Matthew and Luke write about the episode Matthew changes things up a little by having John say, in effect, “I should be baptized by YOU, but you come to ME to be baptized???” (Luke changes things up again by having John proclaim to the people around him that someone greater than he was coming and then a few verses later Jesus shows up to be baptized). It makes it look like by the time Matthew and Luke wrote that Christians were worried that converts might think that from Mark Jesus was inferior to John and/or that Jesus had sinned and needed to be baptized for that reason (since baptism is a spiritual cleansing).
If nothing else I think this episode helps show how Matthew and Luke derive from Mark and not the other way around therefore helping to show Mark was older than the other two synoptics (as if there were any doubt at this stage, but I’ve never heard of the baptism being used to help support the idea).
As an interesting side note, John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew writes that it is likely that historically Jesus was a follower/disciple of John before starting his public ministry, hence his reasons for being baptized by John.
We can understand why the later Christian/Greek Gentiles may have been embarrassed about John baptizing Jesus but only because by that time they had elevated Jesus to God or the eternal Son of God. But for the disciples who along with Jesus just went to be baptized probably because all of them were looking for something. What we don’t know is IF he was a disciple of John then why did he breakaway? Is it possible the timescales got mixed up and it was Jesus that took over from John?
Its pretty clear that had John known that Jesus was the Son of God (via the dove) or the Messiah, then he surely would have followed him and became his disciple.
It really is difficult to follow who said what and when? And what was myth and what was the truth? Its why people are still arguing about these things 2000 years on. So much for the Bible/NT being the word of God and Paul said he is not the author of confusion. Pull the other one mate! 
Aleph82 said
Good post. Couple of points:1.) I think it would be a bit broad to dismiss the criterion because embarassing stories are told about legendary figures elsewhere in antiquity. The question is rather would the intended audience and community find the story embarassing. This isn’t so important in the case of John of Baptist, as I agree with you and your interpretation of Mark. It is important when considering other (big) questions though, like Jewish expectations of the messiah.
2.) It’s a bit far off to conclude that there is no reason to think Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist just because Mark didn’t find it embarassing. The story is multiply attested in Q, if you accept the theory, and John. Although John doesn’t explictly say John baptized Jesus, the author still felt the need to show that Jesus associated his ministry with John, who was known for baptizing people.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke both used the gospel of Mark, so the baptism of Jesus in either of them cannot be assumed to be independent of the attestation in Mark. The gospel of John also probably uses Mark too, so this wouldn’t be an independent attestation of Jesus’ relationship to John The Baptist either. L. Michael White says “John’s many changes to the Synoptics may well have been made intentionally and with full awareness of the Synoptic tradition.” Several features of the Johannine narrative seem to reflect such an awareness and use of the Synoptic tradition, including direct verbal similarities with distinctive linguistic formulations or narrative elements in Mark and Luke, respectively.” For example, Crossan points out that John copies Mark’s pairing of the feeding of 5000 and Jesus’ walking on water (John 6 thus derives from Mk 6.31-52), in the exact same sequence. Both Mark and John share that 5000 were fed (Jn 6.10; Mk 6.44), that exactly 12 baskets of crumbs remained (Jn 6.13; Mk 6.43), that Jesus started with exactly 5 loaves an 2 fishes (Jn 6.9; Mk 6.41), and that feeding the crowd would otherwise have cost 200 denarii (Jn 6.7; Mk 6.37). John likewise borrows the literary structure of Mark’s narrative of Peter’s denial of Christ (Jn 18.15-27 Mk 14,53-72), and the notion that Jesus once cured a blind man with spit (Jn 9.6 redacts Mk 8.23) but had to back that up with additional magic to get the spell to work (Jn 9.7 re-imagining Mk 8.24-25). And so on.
MikeyS said
We can understand why the later Christian/Greek Gentiles may have been embarrassed about John baptizing Jesus but only because by that time they had elevated Jesus to God or the eternal Son of God. But for the disciples who along with Jesus just went to be baptized probably because all of them were looking for something. What we don’t know is IF he was a disciple of John then why did he breakaway? Is it possible the timescales got mixed up and it was Jesus that took over from John?Its pretty clear that had John known that Jesus was the Son of God (via the dove) or the Messiah, then he surely would have followed him and became his disciple.
Good points. If you accept most, or all, of the events that scholars can show to have probably been historical and if, like me, you believe that Jesus existed but was not divine, then your second paragraph is extremely pertinent 
Wilusa said
I wish there were a better term for this criterion than “embarrassment.” The word, in this usage, strikes me as too…trivial.
The criteria is analogous to the “statement against interest” exception to the hearsay rule. Federal rule of evidence 804(b)(3). I do not mean to take this analogy too far because, in a court of law, we always know who made the statement. It is difficult to say whether anything was against the interest of Mark’s author because the gospel according to Mark was anonymous.
As for my baptism, I was baptized on April Fools’ Day.
“John’s many changes to the Synoptics may well have been made intentionally and with full awareness of the Synoptic tradition.” Several features of the Johannine narrative seem to reflect such an awareness and use of the Synoptic tradition, including direct verbal similarities with distinctive linguistic formulations or narrative elements in Mark and Luke, respectively.” “
That’s anything but a certainty, as the quote’s language clearly indicates. It’s also worth noting, if not exactly proving anything, that both those scholars believe that Jesus associated his ministry with John the Baptist.
Lawyerskeptic said,
“The criteria is analogous to the “statement against interest” exception to the hearsay rule. Federal rule of evidence 804(b)(3). I do not mean to take this analogy too far because, in a court of law, we always know who made the statement. It is difficult to say whether anything was against the interest of Mark’s author because the gospel according to Mark was anonymous.
As for my baptism, I was baptized on April Fools’ Day.”
Very interesting! Are there any other law analogies you can think of that apply to the historical-critical studies?
About “embarrassment”…
Maybe criteria can’t be summed up satisfactorily in one word, and scholars shouldn’t try.
For this one, I take the meaning to be “unlikelihood of anyone’s inventing a story that diminishes their hero, god, or cherished institution.” But a “criterion of diminishing”? It might be more precise than “embarrassment,” but still not clear to the uninitiated.
You guys please put me right on the word ‘evil’ that was used a lot in the NT and by Jesus himself to the pharisees when he said they had ‘evil’ in their hearts. Paul also used it for non believers etc. This may not be the right thread and advise me where to place it if you would but the more I think of Christianity the more it annoys the hell out of me.
So when they used the word ‘evil’ did they mean..
Child Rapists, murderers and Paedophiles?
Those who beat up, rob and/or kill people on the street or in their homes?
Those who were involved in the Holocaust and especially the leaders?
Others like Stalin and Pol Pot that murdered millions?
Those who kill others in the name of religion?
The Catholic Church and others that caused people to be burned at the stake?
The Romans who crucified thousands of people including Jews?
The list goes on..
So what did Jesus and Paul mean and did they ever speak of thel Roman Occupation in their land as ‘evil’? Indeed did anyone consider what they did to Jesus as ‘evil’.
Sorry but I cannot get my head around Jesus and Paul suggesting people were evil because they had a different belief than they had? Or maybe I have that wrong and why the question.
I just read a story here in the UK where a Widow was conned out of her life savings of 100,000 pounds and she died penniless.
I consider that act to be ‘evil’
I also consider the 9/11 atrocity as being evil and as Christopher Hitchens used to say where were all those Christian Church Leaders telling people to forgive these people for what they had done or to turn the other cheek etc? He said they wouldn’t dare!
Please advise? Thank you!
Wilusa said
About “embarrassment”…Maybe criteria can’t be summed up satisfactorily in one word, and scholars shouldn’t try.
For this one, I take the meaning to be “unlikelihood of anyone’s inventing a story that diminishes their hero, god, or cherished institution.” But a “criterion of diminishing”? It might be more precise than “embarrassment,” but still not clear to the uninitiated.
To be precise, it would be something in a written collection of traditions, that the readers later found inconvenient. It is obvious that the author himself probably did not find it “embarrassing”, or else it would most likely not have been there. Of course the author may have thought “this is weird, but everyone say it’s true, so I have to include it”. Or it was included by way of “redaction fatigue” or simply because the author was intellectually unable to see the implications. We’ll never know, but the criterion has to be applied to the readers in the posterity. It is worth noting that Matthew and Luke did not hesitate to leave out or change pericopes in Mark that they did not like. Only 15 years or so later Mark and Matthew started changing the baptizing story, to make it fit their theology.
The conclusion is that the baptizing story was inconvenient to gentile Christians influenced by Paul’s christology, but it would not have been equally embarrassing to Jewish Christians who may have seen Jesus initially as an ordinary man. Now , if we have a model of early Christianity, something like early historical Jesus traditions being initiated among Jewish Christians and later passing through and being colored in the Pauline domains, then it makes sense.
This shows a basic problem with the authenticity criteria: One needs a model to test them against. You cannot put verse by verse through a criteria machine, and get a probability number out of it. People with different models can start their work using the same criteria and arrive at different conclusions. In my opinion the criteria are valid tools, but with limitations, and has to be used together with other historical tools.
Still on terminology… I confess that when others mentioned “dissimilarity” here yesterday, I’d forgotten what that meant! Not what the word itself means, of course, but what it means as the catchall title of a “criterion.” I had to look it up in one of Bart’s books. (So there isn’t a criterion called “embarrassment”?)
I have a new suggestion of my own. What I’d call a criterion is “unlikelihood of invention”! That’s clear, and no more unwieldy than “multiple independent attestation.” Then, in actual discussion, one could explain different reasons why “invention” of stories might be unlikely.
And there may be instances when, despite there seemingly being a reason why early followers of Jesus wouldn’t have wanted to “make up” a false story, they may have seen a stronger, immediate reason for doing so. For example, they might have falsely claimed Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist, even gone further in exaggerating his admiration of John, for the sake of bringing John’s disciples into their camp. It would “diminish” Jesus, yes; but they could fret over that later. They wanted those new recruits!
I’m not saying I believe that happened. Just that the argument against a story’s being “invented” may sometimes be outweighed by other considerations.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)