Talk:Criterion of embarrassment

Improvements needed

This article needs to be seriously improved or deleted. Reasons:

There are no sources cited; there are no common criticisms of the criterion of embarassment; the writing style is pretty poor and appears to be POV Starless and bible black 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We surely must not delete it, since it is a critical component of the debate on the factual accuracy of the Gospels. Let's get it cleaned up then. Sr.Wombat 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made some significant changes to the article. I was hoping others could review it now and see what else is POV or in need of sourcing. Hopefully we can clear this up and remove the warning tags! -_Andrew c 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The theory that Jesus was the leader, or at least one of the main promoters, of the protest against Pilate described by Josephus in Wars of the Jews (18:3) and Antiquities of the Jews (18:3) certainly receives some support from the Criterion of Embarrassment, since Christian writers and editors would have been embarrassed by an episode showing Jesus leading Jewish people against Roman oppression - while the Tendency was to distance Jesus from the Jewish people and their concerns, and to show him as being completely harmless to the Empire - but is far from being sufficient proof that the theory is correct. Das Baz 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Several of the Omissions in the Gospel of John can be explained by the Criterion of Embarrassment. Das Baz 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't bothered to look at earlier versions, but this one looks good. If anyone feels inspired to write other good "criteria" articles along John P. Meier-lines, the present article is a good example (already near the top of Google searches for its subject, & deservedly so). If you do, please consider letting me know or check that it becomes cross-referenced in John P. Meier. Thomasmeeks 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This "tool" is a load of rubbish. Why wouldn't authors put in embarassments to trump up the reality of overall accounts? Cite the count of embarassments in known muths at least. -lysdexia 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain your complaint a little bit more in detail, citing specifically what isn't neutral about the article? We say it is a tool used by some scholars. We explain how it is used, a few examples, and then some limitations. How is this not a neutral explanation of something that actually exists. Even if you personally believe it is rubbish, that doesn't change the fact that Meier and Ehrman and others use it as part of their historical methodology. How else can we improve the article? Thanks.--Andrew c 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

All serious New Testament scholars accept and use the Criterion of Embarrassment. lysdexia is promoting a very partisan POV. Erudil 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First, the article only claims that some Biblical scholars use it, but doesn't list any, so if you're able to produce evidence that they all do, it'll only help the article. Second, even if they did, it doesn't mean that the method isn't rubbish. Many allegories contain situations that would be embarrassing for their audience. Ishtar, a Sumerian goddess was stripped naked and crucified. This is an embarrassing event, so does this mean she existed as well? This methodology isn't one employed by general historians, it's just employed by Biblical scholars working off the assumption that Jesus existed, and the Bible is a historical account, in some manner. However, there are alternative, tenable hypotheses, that do not require such assumptions, and don't rely on such embarrassing methodologies.

Richard Carrier, a historian, goes into details of why the criteria of embarassment could be utilized to justify other crucified, resurrection deities here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/crucified.html

SirMoogie (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Criterion applied to itself…

Couldn't this sort of "loop around itself", in the manner of "Sicilian logic", ad infinitum? Like, "Clearly, this embarrassing story was deliberately included because its inventors thought that we would think that they would not want us to hear it"… 71.58.69.203 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

The discussion about the incident in St Thomas effectively claims "Anything reported was not embarrassing, otherwise it would not have been reported." The not so hidden assumption that no-one reports anything embarrassing would, if true, disembowel the criterion completely. However we know that there do exist, in general, embarrassing reports, so the assumption would need special pleading in this case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

6. If you have to tell a lie, add embarrassing details to make it more believable

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/12-mind-tricks-make-people-like-you-help-get-ahead-bradberry

Not much of a principle if it works both ways... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.187.170 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Most absurd thing on Wikipedia

This is the most absurd thing I have ever read on English Wikipedia. I'm how can a serious historian even consider it as a possibility to analyse historical event and this same criteria is used to say Jesus was historical. Looks like all those Christian historians are busy in creating new idiotic criterion to somehow prove that Jesus was historical. I mean it is a common practice today that people add many embarrassing details in their recounts to make it look more believable. Then can any serious historian tell me why couldn't people do it 1000 or 2000 years ago? And author has lots of reason to add embarrassing details in the stories they are creating to make it look like more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.94.13 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@43.251.94.13: Having come across the article for the first time due to your message, yes it is pretty strange. Remember this is a page used to discuss improvements to the article - if it meets the Wikipedia policy WP:Notability then it's suitable for inclusion. NottNott|talk 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think this "article" defines the absurd on Wikipedia: Camel_toe. This "criterion of embarrassment" article, on the other had, discusses a real evaluation criteria that scholars utilize when evaluating Biblical tales. You may not approve of scholars using this criteria, but it is used nonetheless. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A bit disappointed not to see the story of Jesus cursing the Olive tree. It's both the most absurd story in the Gospel, seemingly embarrassing, and not in any context. If anyone has context, that would be interesting too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:C201:7890:4CEA:A610:1D2D:44B7 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(Off-topic:) The NABRE suggests (link) that it's a metaphor for Christ's relationship with Israel. Rebbing 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criterion of embarrassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316185139/http://ancienthistory.about.com:80/b/a/229667.htm to http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/a/229667.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Use in mainstream historiography

It sounds from the article and a cursory reading of some secondary sources that this concept of the criterion of embarrassment is only used in Christian apologetics to try to prove the historical accuracy of the gospels, but the introduction to this article also implies that this is a general historiographical concept that often gets applied in this context. I think if the criterion is not taken seriously outside of biblical studies then that is a key fact to include in the definition. Does anyone have a good source which discusses biblical historiography in the context of general, mainstream historiography, that can help to clarify this? If the concept is exclusive to Christian apologetics and absent completely from mainstream historiography then we need to state that at the head of the article. A pretty quick search on Google lead to no mentions outside of the christian apologia context, but that is not enough evidence in itself to change the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.200.200.180 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can this approach be mentioned in an other article?

One of the big problems I have is the statement "The criterion of embarrassment is one of the criteria of authenticity used by academics..." at best this needs to be qualified to "Christian academics" since it is used exclusively as a defense in Christian Apologetics. In fact, why not move this to an entry in that article?

Padillah (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely can, it is actually an important element mentioned in the article about the so-called Satanic Verses in Islam (and linking here as well). I am actually surprised there is no mention of this at all on this page, which is definitely very Christian-centric right now. I will probably edit that at some point, but if someone else is motivated before that happens please go for it (and if you have other non-Christian examples even better!). Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)