Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thedistillers · 07-16-2008, 10:04 AM

For anyone who've had experiences with liars, a common tactic for the liar is to include embarassing details in a story to gain the trust of people who are listening to the story. That's a trick we often see in movies or in books.

I'll give an example. Suppose a man cheats on his wife and she is suspicious something is going on. Which excuse will convince her more his husband is telling her the truth?

Story 1) Okay, I admit, If I arrive late at home recently, it is because I started smoking again. You have to understand me, I have a lot of stress at work (blablabla).

Story 2) I arrive late at home because I chat with my coworkers after work and also there is a lot of traffic these days.

Story 1 is much more convincing, because there is an embarrassing element to it. :huh: I would actually argue that stories with embarrasing elements in it are more persuasive. I think this is something we all intuitively know. So I cannot see how the criterion of embarrassment is useful.

patcleaver · 07-16-2008, 10:21 AM

I agree.

The Criterion of Embarrassment also assumes that what we perceive as an embarrassment today would have been perceived as an embarrassment to the authors.

Anyone who tries to use the Criterion of Embarrassment should have to support that the author himself would have been embarrassed about the fact.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-16-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I agree.

The Criterion of Embarrassment also assumes that what we perceive as an embarrassment today would have been perceived as an embarrassment to the authors.

Anyone who tries to use the Criterion of Embarrassment should have to support that the author himself would have been embarrassed about the fact.

Just what do you understand the criterion of embarrassment to be?

Jeffrey

thentian · 07-16-2008, 10:54 AM

I get it! The bible is so embarrassingly full of shortcomings that it has to be true! :Cheeky:

vid · 07-16-2008, 11:06 AM

Another point of view might be that authors would OMIT embarassing details about themselves, in order to appear better. I think embarassing details in something may point both ways...

And I wouldn't expect such strategy from ancient authors. People believed any sort of obvious lies back then anyway, why would authors need to embarass themselves?

Littlejohn · 07-16-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

I get it! The bible is so embarrassingly full of shortcomings that it has to be true! :Cheeky:

Very very "arguta"(*) observation !

(*) - arguta = Intelligent + witty

All my best

Little john

.

thedistillers · 07-16-2008, 11:14 AM

I'm not concerned about the Bible specifically, but as to whether or not it is a valid criterion historians can use to assess the reliability of a document, whatever it may be.

How do we know there is a correlation between embarrassment and truth?

mens_sana · 07-16-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I agree.

The Criterion of Embarrassment also assumes that what we perceive as an embarrassment today would have been perceived as an embarrassment to the authors.

Anyone who tries to use the Criterion of Embarrassment should have to support that the author himself would have been embarrassed about the fact.

Just what do you understand the criterion of embarrassment to be?

Jeffrey

¡No one here knows what they're talking about — until Jeffrey's question has been answered!

Toto · 07-16-2008, 11:44 AM

There has been a lot of discussion of this criterion on this forum, some of it rather heated like this thread. It appears to be a "tool" developed by a few NT scholars, which is not used by historians or any other scholars in any field. It is not even universally accepted within the NT guild as particularly useful in deciding what is historical.

Darrell Doughty discusses this criterion (and the others) here in some lecture notes preserved by the wayback machine.

Quote:

Embarrassment -

Related to dissimilarity is what Meier refers to as the criterion of "embarrassment." The focus here is "on actions or sayings of Jesus that would have embarrassed or created great difficulty for the early Church" (Meier, I, 168). The most commonly cited example of this is the story of Jesus' "baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins" by John the Baptizer (Mk 1:4-11); and another example would be the portrayal of Jesus as a drunkard and glutton (Lk 7:34). The rational here is that if such materials had not been firmly embedded in the Jesus traditions, they would not have been preserved and passed on. One problem with this, however, as Meier observes (p. 170), is that "what we today might consider an embarrassment to the early Church was not necessarily an embarrassment in its own eyes." (Even in Lk 7:34, while it is said that, in contrast to John, Jesus came "eating and drinking" - i.e., that he was not an ascetic - the characterization of him as a "glutton and a drunkard" is by Jesus' unfrendly critics.)

With regard to Jesus' baptism by John, Meier observes (p. 169), "It is highly unlikely that the Church went out of its way to create the cause of its own embarrassment." In a similar way, with regard to Jesus' not knowing the day or hour of the end (Mk 13:32), Meier observes, "Once again, it is highly unlikely that the Church would have taken pains to invent a saying that emphasized the ignorance of its risen Lord..." In both cases, however, it was not "the Church" that created these stories, but the writer of Mark, for whom (as Meier observes) such stories seem to have presented no problem. Mark's own reason for relating such stories may be obscure. Simply because such stories later created problems for the Church, however, it does not necessarily follow that such stories are historical.

Roland · 07-16-2008, 12:20 PM

Sometimes, too, storytellers use such "embarrassments" to help create drama, conflict and ultimate redemption. A good example is the frequent dimwittedness of the apostles, especially as they are portrayed in Mark. Their seeming inability to comprehend anything Jesus is saying gives Jesus a foil to play against. Similarly, their drifting away from Jesus at the time of his crucifixion helps to isolate Jesus and make his suffering more poignant and heroic. The weaknesses and flaws found in the apostles don't necessarily point to the fact that they are real people, just that the author who invented them knew that one can make more effective drama through weakness than through virtue.

Look at how deeply flawed the Greek gods and heroes are in the stories about them. That doesn't make them real. It just makes them interesting.

07-16-2008, 10:04 AM	#1
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	The Criterion of Embarrassment is Invalid For anyone who've had experiences with liars, a common tactic for the liar is to include embarassing details in a story to gain the trust of people who are listening to the story. That's a trick we often see in movies or in books. I'll give an example. Suppose a man cheats on his wife and she is suspicious something is going on. Which excuse will convince her more his husband is telling her the truth? Story 1) Okay, I admit, If I arrive late at home recently, it is because I started smoking again. You have to understand me, I have a lot of stress at work (blablabla). Story 2) I arrive late at home because I chat with my coworkers after work and also there is a lot of traffic these days. Story 1 is much more convincing, because there is an embarrassing element to it. :huh: I would actually argue that stories with embarrasing elements in it are more persuasive. I think this is something we all intuitively know. So I cannot see how the criterion of embarrassment is useful.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2008, 10:21 AM	#2
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	I agree. The Criterion of Embarrassment also assumes that what we perceive as an embarrassment today would have been perceived as an embarrassment to the authors. Anyone who tries to use the Criterion of Embarrassment should have to support that the author himself would have been embarrassed about the fact.

07-16-2008, 10:54 AM	#4
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	I get it! The bible is so embarrassingly full of shortcomings that it has to be true! :Cheeky:

07-16-2008, 11:06 AM	#5
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Another point of view might be that authors would OMIT embarassing details about themselves, in order to appear better. I think embarassing details in something may point both ways... And I wouldn't expect such strategy from ancient authors. People believed any sort of obvious lies back then anyway, why would authors need to embarass themselves?

07-16-2008, 11:14 AM	#7
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	I'm not concerned about the Bible specifically, but as to whether or not it is a valid criterion historians can use to assess the reliability of a document, whatever it may be. How do we know there is a correlation between embarrassment and truth?

07-16-2008, 12:20 PM	#10
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Sometimes, too, storytellers use such "embarrassments" to help create drama, conflict and ultimate redemption. A good example is the frequent dimwittedness of the apostles, especially as they are portrayed in Mark. Their seeming inability to comprehend anything Jesus is saying gives Jesus a foil to play against. Similarly, their drifting away from Jesus at the time of his crucifixion helps to isolate Jesus and make his suffering more poignant and heroic. The weaknesses and flaws found in the apostles don't necessarily point to the fact that they are real people, just that the author who invented them knew that one can make more effective drama through weakness than through virtue. Look at how deeply flawed the Greek gods and heroes are in the stories about them. That doesn't make them real. It just makes them interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.