So-called postulated "embarrassment" alone can never establish historicity -- which is the claim of many biblical scholars.
There is little or no "establish" in anything discussed here. There is to accept a contingent proposition, or else to decline to accept it. Which it is may change if additional evidence comes to light, but it's always one or the other, anytime, whatever the amount and quality of the evidence in hand (hence, the "anytime" property demanded by modern, not to be confused with postmodern, normative uncertainty management).
Civil suits (as opposed to "forensic," which typically refers to criminal cases) are usually decided on the preponderance of admitted evidence actually in hand at the end of the trial.
(Criminal cases and some civil cases apply a different standard than in the usual run of civil cases, but also apply that standard to the evidence actually in hand at the conclusion of the trial, whatever that happens to be.)
You asked for somebody who does something. I told you somebody who does it.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Confusion and doubt about basic beliefs of the emerging Christian faith.
I am still unsure what those would be. The only near-contemporaneous portrayal we have of those basic beliefs is from Paul. There's nothing in Mark
that I can see that contradicts anything in Paul. I also have seen no evidence, in Paul or elsewhere, of any conspicuous unformity of belief during the First Century.
How do you know the plot is about Jesus on a suicide mission?
He says three times that his death is scheduled, an ordained part of his role as Son of Man (etc.). He discusses his death again in the "anointing" scene. At the dramatic crisis, he only has to leave when Judas and the crowd approach, and Mark
makes a point of having Jesus see that approaching band, and to understand its purpose.
But I have no reason to think that Jesus wanted to indirectly suicide himself.
He fairly plainly doesn't "want" it; it's the role which he has been assigned and accepts. "Suicide mission" refers to the forseeable likely outcome of a course of action being the death of the agent, not whether the agent likes it (nor whether the mission literally involves unassisted self-slaughter, although some do).
All the rest is your imagination and the scene in the high priest courtyard is something I would not vouch for.
What's on the page is that Peter receives a direct order of unspecified duration. The courtyard denial scene immediately follows Jesus' public announcement that he is the Christ (plus brief audience reaction), that which Peter was forbidden to disclose, an announcement orchestrated without tipping Peter that his continued compliance is moot.
The idea that constraints upon the options available to an agent are irrelevant to understanding the behavior actually chosen seems intuitively unappealing to me. I don't think that that has anything to do with imagination. It is a fact of Peter's decision space, laid out in black letters.
writing for Gentiles, could have invented just "the king"
Given that the execution is set in Jerusalem, king of whom if not of the Jews?
What do the Gentiles care anyway? Jesus doesn't say he's king of the Jews, and Mark
's narrator doesn't say he's king of the Jews. Whoever wrote the sign said it, presumably somebody connected with the soldiers who moments before mocked Jesus on the same theme (rather the opposite of portraying Jesus as a king), or somebody connected with Pilate, who also uses the phrase.
Nobody who says it is depicted as knowing what they're talking about. Nobody who says
it believes it to be the case. Their saying it does advance the plot, though.
Yes, INRI (latin) avoids "king of the Jews" (even if RI is drawn from that) but that comes late.
Sorry, I was just using INRI
in an English sentence as an established abbreviation for "the content of Jesus' titulus
was in parenthesis, since the wording of the sign varies from Gospel to Gospel, and Mark
only has the portion corresponding with the RI
My intent was to assert that the plot development in Mark
of having the Roman characters understand Jesus as a poltical criminal was a reasonable storyteller's choice to get the corpse up on something wooden, one of the few earthly details Paul harps on. In the event, that choice has attracted and held audiences rather well. The story element needs no other explanation.
Maybe something actually happened which resembled that, maybe nothing like it happened at all. Either way, there's nothing embarrassing about being a good writer, solving narrative problems in a way that fills the seats.