Honor and Shame culture and the Bible?

[shunyadragon]

Some apologists claim the Honor and Shame Culture of the culture at the time the New Testament justifies it's accuracy and reliability, and the Testimony of the authors. This is projected by some to the writing and testimony of the Old Testament

I disagree that in terms Honor and Shame cultural characteristics they were not significantly different from any other culture. This does not mean that there are no cultural differences, but citing these specific differences to justify the accuracy of testimony is false.

Source: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0077.xml

Introduction

Anxiety, shame (along with its correlative, honor), and guilt are three control patterns of human personality that exist in all cultures. There is no honor culture, no shame culture, and no guilt culture; all cultures contain these three strategies for controlling human behavior but tend to stress one more than the others. Indeed, all three controls exist in each person, group, and culture but in varying degrees and in many different configurations. This is what anthropologists mean when they identify circum-Mediterranean cultures as characterized by honor and shame controls.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

For interested readers, Shunya is apparently referring to this thread.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure you entirely understand the argument, shuny. This is usually a response to people claiming that the New Testament writings were "embellished" in whole or in part. The counterargument is that if the gospel writers were inventing the narrative, in whole or in part, then why would they undermine their message with details that would have been embarrassing or shameful? If they were going to dress things up, why not leave those details out all together, or invent a better story, such as what the apocrypha did when it depicted the disciples standing at the tomb to witness Jesus triumphantly rising from the dead? The most plausible answer is because those embarrassing and shameful details are actually true.

[Christianbookworm]

Why would anyone make up something embarrassing?!

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure you entirely understand the argument, shuny. This is usually a response to people claiming that the New Testament writings were "embellished" in whole or in part. The counterargument is that if the gospel writers were inventing the narrative, in whole or in part, then why would they undermine their message with details that would have been embarrassing or shameful? If they were going to dress things up, why not leave those details out all together, or invent a better story, such as what the apocrypha did when it depicted the disciples standing at the tomb to witness Jesus triumphantly rising from the dead? The most plausible answer is because those embarrassing and shameful details are actually true.

I understand the argument, problem and the reasons for the claim, but nonetheless the gospels were progressively added to from Mark (with addition) to Matthew and Luke. First, it would not be shameful if those that added or invented(?) the material was thought to be true by those who edited the gospels. What the redactors and editors of the gospels thought was true is not necessarily true. Second, in this culture it has been common to embellish the biographies of those that out to be famous and powerful with miracles and Divine powers, such as Virgin birth.

Also, the culture is not significantly different from any other culture where the writings of their religions and beliefs may be edited and redacted over time like the Bible based on an evolving mythology common to the Middle East and the Mediterranean world. As cited based on the evidence comparing cultures that the supposed roll of guilt or shame is not adequate to justify that the gospels are true to some early original author as composed. There is no specific evidence that could justify that one person as the original author. The fact of the case is the authors, editor and redactors of the gospels are unknown.

Guilt and shame issues obviously did not prevent the creation and composition of other non-canonical gospels with various mythologies and imaginative compositions.

Other specific evidence is the letters credited to Paul. Some of which are obviously not Paul's letters and are of questionable origin. There is obviously no guilt nor shame in the authors who wrote and/or edited and redacted them, and attributed them to Paul.

[shunyadragon]

Why would anyone make up something embarrassing?!

When they added it they likely did not consider it embarrassing nor shameful. It is common to embellish biographies of the famous and powerful throughout the history of this culture with miracles at the times the OT and NT were written, compiled edited and redacted without any apparent consideration of guilt nor shame, such as Alexander the Great..

[Mountain Man]

I understand the argument, problem and the reasons for the claim, but nonetheless the gospels were progressively added to from Mark (with addition) to Matthew and Luke. First, it would not be shameful if those that added or invented(?) the material was thought to be true by those who edited the gospels. What the redactors and editors of the gospels thought was true is not necessarily true. Second, in this culture it has been common to embellish the biographies of those that out to be famous and powerful with miracles and Divine powers, such as Virgin birth.

Also, the culture is not significantly different from any other culture where the writings of their religions and beliefs may be edited and redacted over time like the Bible based on an evolving mythology common to the Middle East and the Mediterranean world. As cited based on the evidence comparing cultures that the supposed roll of guilt or shame is not adequate to justify that the gospels are true to some early original author as composed. There is no specific evidence that could justify that one person as the original author. The fact of the case is the authors, editor and redactors of the gospels are unknown.

Guilt and shame issues obviously did not prevent the creation and composition of other non-canonical gospels with various mythologies and imaginative compositions.

Other specific evidence is the letters credited to Paul. Some of which are obviously not Paul's letters and are of questionable origin. There is obviously no guilt nor shame in the authors who wrote and/or edited and redacted them, and attributed them to Paul.

First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades. There's no reason to question it outside of rampant skepticism. Trying to ground your argument on uncertainty simply won't fly. You want to claim otherwise? Then let's see your survey of the gospel manuscripts, ordered from early to late, showing each successive change.

Secondly, claiming that certain details might not have been considered shameful or embarrassing by the gospel writers only serves to expose your ignorance of Ancient Near East culture. It was a patriarchal society, and so any time men in the gospels are shown to be dense or stupid or cowardly would have been a source of shame that would have undercut the narrative, unless it was true.

[shunyadragon]

First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades. There's no reason to question it outside of rampant skepticism. Trying to ground your argument on uncertainty simply won't fly. You want to claim otherwise? Then let's see your survey of the gospel manuscripts, ordered from early to late, showing each successive change.

There is no credible external documentation that the suthors are known. What documentation can you provide for authorship and who were the authors. Most contemporary scholarly consider the gospels of unknown authorship.

Secondly, claiming that certain details might not have been considered shameful or embarrassing by the gospel writers only serves to expose your ignorance of Ancient Near East culture. It was a patriarchal society, and so any time men in the gospels are shown to be dense or stupid or cowardly would have been a source of shame that would have undercut the narrative, unless it was true.

The facts are as cited that Ancient Middle East Culture is not significantly different than other cultures. It is common in ancient Middle Eastern cultures to embellish biographies of the famous and powerful without any consideration of shame nor guilt. Please provide references that document that the ancient Middle Eastern culture was in any way significantly different than other cultures in this regard.

[rogue06]

There is no credible external documentation that the suthors are known. What documentation can you provide for authorship and who were the authors. Most contemporary scholarly consider the gospels of unknown authorship.

To start with the names of the authors of the Synoptics are mentioned very early on and they are the only names ever attributed to them.

[shunyadragon]

To start with the names of the authors of the Synoptics are mentioned very early on and they are the only names ever attributed to them.

Weak, what do you call early? The erly gospels were first mentioned unnamed, and John was most definitely not authored by an apostle John. It remains the dominant academic view that the authors were not the apostles, nor were they written prior to 70 AD.

The following is a good reference that describes the present view of the evolution of the gospels without known authorship. It shares the view of most contemporary scholars concerning the historical and authorship of the gospels.



Claims of authorship of the gospels as the apostles lack external evidence that any such named and authored gospel exists prior to 100 AD.

[shunyadragon]

A good description with footnoted academic references.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#New_Testament

Gospels and Acts

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[70] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.[72][73][74][75][76]

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

I'm not sure you entirely understand the argument, shuny. This is usually a response to people claiming that the New Testament writings were "embellished" in whole or in part. The counterargument is that if the gospel writers were inventing the narrative, in whole or in part, then why would they undermine their message with details that would have been embarrassing or shameful?

To make it more convincing?

Surely the gospel writers were capable of evaluating the possible effects of including or omitting such details.

[Roy]

First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, ...

We do? Who wrote Matthew, and how do you know?

[shunyadragon]

To make it more convincing?

Surely the gospel writers were capable of evaluating the possible effects of including or omitting such details.

Consequences? It was very much a part of the culture of the ancient Middle East to add miraculous events to the biographies of the famous and powerful to glorify and honor them. It iws not considered shameful, nor embarrassing to do this. The addition of stories of virgin birth were common.

[Mountain Man]

Consequences? It was very much a part of the culture of the ancient Middle East to add miraculous events to the biographies of the famous and powerful to glorify and honor them. It iws not considered shameful, nor embarrassing to do this. The addition of stories of virgin birth were common.

Seriously... what... what are you even talking about? Those aren't the details that would have been considered shameful, you dolt! I'm talking about depictions of the disciples as obstinate, stupid, and cowardly, or the fact that women, of all people, were the ones who made the most momentous discovery in all of Christendom while the disciples were shamefully cowering behind locked doors! Details like that would have caused the story to be rejected outright by a patriarchal society unless there was vindicating proof that it was all true. Anybody writing fiction would have known that no such vindicating proof existed and would have had no compelling reason to introduce such embarrassing details to the narrative.

Do you really not understand this? Are you just ignorantly flapping your gums because you like the sound of your own voice?