lystn

I know you think that the criterion of embarrassment is not a valid argument for the historicity of Jesus since what is embarrassing for one generation or group of Christians was not the same for another. However, the following points are startling pieces of evidence where the gospel writers are embarrassed enough to revise the story or reluctantly accept it: 1. Jesus's place of birth: Implied as being in Nazareth in Mark, but changed to Davidic/Judaean Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke. 2. The revision of the baptizing of Jesus by John in Mark and Luke to make the subservience of the baptist clear in Matthew and John. 3. Matthew's claim that Jesus' fame reached "all over Syria" even though Jesus journeys mostly in the northern Galilee (with one notable visit to Phoenicia) 4. The proclamation of Jesus in Matthew that he has not come to overturn the Law (despite pretty much doing so everywhere else) but to fulfill it. 5. The amazement of the Nazareth crowd in Mark regarding how and where Jesus, the son of an artisan-peasant, got his wisdom and knowledge of the scriptures. 6. The confusion of Jesus with John the Baptist who, according to Herod, was Jesus raised from the dead (as you have commented on). It implies the baptist was the greater figure. 7. The suffering and despair of Jesus on the cross in Mark versus the fatalist triumphalism in Luke and John. 8. The piercing of Jesus' side in John to show he really did die to defend against charges he had not been on the cross long enough (12 hours being minimum even if he had been flogged). 9. The detailed resurrection appearances in John compared with the very limited accounts of them in Mark and Matthew.