Criterion of embarrassment
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as criterion of dissimilarity, is an analytical tool that Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[1] See Criteria of authenticity and the Historical Jesus.
Contents |
Examples of its use
The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author 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 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.
The Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see Adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin but sin nonetheless). The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic by omitting the words "for the forgiveness of sin" and adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you.". The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The 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 of Jesus 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.[2][3][4][5][6]
Limitations
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 few and far between. A full portrait of Jesus could never be based on so little data.
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.
Also, embarrassing details may be included as an alternative to an even more embarrassing account of the same event. As a purely hypothetical example, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been a substitution for an even greater misdeed of Peter.[7]
A good example of the latter is found in the stories of the Infancy Gospels. In one account, a very young Jesus is said to use his supernatural powers first to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him. If this tradition had been accepted as worthy of inclusion at some key juncture in the formation of the Christian Bible (and hence integrated in one way or another among the Canonical Gospels), arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing—especially, strict believers in biblical inerrancy; but apparently, as is strongly suggested by the mere existence of this early non-canonical pericope, it must not have been embarrassing to at least some early Christians.[8][9][10][11]
References
- ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
- ^ Guy Davenport and Benjamin Urrutia, The Logia of Yeshua, Washington, DC 1996.
- ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
- ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009
- ^ N.S.Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus
- ^ Blue Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth - An Introduction
- ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009. p 170
- ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
- ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
- ^ Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
- ^ Gerd Thiessen|Thiessen, & Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Further reading
- Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday: 1991. vol 1: p. 168-171.
