Criterion of embarrassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Criterion of embarrassment is a tool used by some Biblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings by Jesus in the New Testament are historically probable or not. John P. Meier, in his book A Marginal Jew, describes the purpose behind this criterion (p. 168):

"The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator 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 Four Gospels."

This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method.

[edit] Examples of its use

As a notable example, the Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." 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.

The crucifixion is another example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and therefore it is the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus. Therefore, the criterion of embarrassment can help scholars conclude that the crucifixion is historically probable.

[edit] Limitations

A limitation of this criterion is that embarrassing details may be included as an alternative to an even more embarrassing account of the same event. As a purely hypothetical example, Peter's denial of Jesus could have been a substitution for an even greater misdeed of Peter — such as letting someone else take the blame for knifing the ear of the servant of the High Priest. The Criterion of Embarrassment supports Peter being the wielder of the weapon--but the Criterion of Multiple Attestation is very much against it, since only John, of all the sources, names him as such. Furthermore, all the sources show Peter successfully, even if only briefly, infiltrating the High Priest's courtyard and mingling with his servants, glibly denying his membership in Jesus' group, and easily escaping with no attempt made to arrest him. Those holding this view argue that none of these would likely have been possible if Peter had really been the assailant in question.

Meier explains some further limitations (p. 170):

"The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria. One built-in limitation to the criterion of embarrassment is that clear-cut cases of such embarrassment are not numerous in the Gospel tradition and a full portrait of Jesus could never be drawn with so few strokes. Another limitation stems from the fact that what we today might consider an embarrassment to the early Church was not necessarily an embarrassment in its own eyes."

A good example of the latter is found in the stories of the Infancy Gospels. A very young Jesus is said to use his supernatural powers to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him. This is extremely embarrassing to modern Christians, but it was not to the early Christians.