TedM

paranoia taking over now?

Grog

And, how do we determine what would have been embarrassing to "early christians?" A comon mistake I see is exemplified by TedM's recent asertion that "average Jews" would have been repulsed by the christian story. This overlooks the probabilities that a) they were and b) early adherents to the Jesus cult were not "average Jews."

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

The Criterion of Embarrassment is meant to help distinguish a true or historical event from a false or fictional event.

There are two main arguments against the criterion of embarrassment, as I understand it.

1. It is difficult to know what a people or group might consider embarrassing at any particular place and time. This is especially difficult if people do not expressly tell us what they find embarrassing.

2. One may be as embarrassed by false things as by true things, so establishing embarrassment does not establish the true or historical nature of an event.

One may answer the first argument by declaring that a more complex understanding of a particular society, using whatever information we have available from that society will solve the problem. This is true and we are left to argue particulars. What evidence is there that this society or group found this embarrassing or not.

This same argument that better psychology and sociology will solve the problem cannot be applied to the second argument. The second argument cuts to the heart of the problem. Embarrassment cannot be summarily attached to truth because false things may equally well embarrass people.

This cannot be fixed by a more thoughtful application of the method. This criterion for delivering the truth simply does not deliver the truth. Let us say you give me a metal detector. You may say that it only works under certain conditions - there must be a certain amount of metal (at least 2 ounces), it must be between 3 and 10 feet from the surface of the ground, and the metal detector must be pointed in the correct direction. This I can accept. However, let us say that when all these conditions are met, the metal detector beeps when there is metal, but also when there is wood under the ground and plastic under the ground and even horse manure under the ground. In other words it beeps no matter what is under the ground. Now we can say that the metal detector is useless because it does not fulfill its basic function of detecting metal.

In the same way, even when we find and prove that some person or some group is embarrassed by data "A," we cannot say that data "A" is more likely to be true because people are embarrassed by it. The reason is that people are embarrassed by false things as well as by true ones.

I have already given examples such as the writers of Superman being embarrassed by Superman's not super enough leaping ability and Jim Carrey being embarrassed by the extreme violence portrayed in "Kick Ass 2". Here is another one.

In 1921, one of the leading comedians in Hollywood, movie star Roscoe Arbuckle, was arrested for the rape and murder of a young actress named Virginia Rappe. He went through three trials, the first two with hung juries, and was finally fully acquitted. The last jury deliberated for only five minutes before returning with a 12-0 not-guilty verdict. They also issued an apology saying that he should never have been arrested on such filmsy evidence. Apparently the woman had drunk too much at Arbuckle's party and passed out. The only things Arbuckle actually did to the woman was carry her from the floor to a bed and call a doctor to make sure she was okay. The overwhelming evidence in the case suggests that Virginia Rappe was not raped and/or murdered, but died of natural causes exacerbated by drinking.

The whole trial was an embarrassment for Arbuckle and for all of the Hollywood community. A section of the public, believing only malicious tales about Arbuckle's depraved Hollywood lifestyle, were never convinced of his innocence. He was banned from appearing in movies for the next ten years. Despite being totally innocent of the rape-murder charges, he felt that he had let his friends, family, community, and fans down. He was embarrassed by the events for the rest of his life. He died at age 44, a tragic, broken man.

This is another example of how something that did not happen can be an embarrassment to a person and group.

The "Criterion of Embarrassment" is like a metal detector that simply doesn't detect metal. it is a truth detector that doesn't detect truth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

spin

No, the TedM I remember wouldn't have been such a putz as to fuck around with someone's name.

aa5874

The criterion of embarrassment is totally useless in the determination of historical accounts unless it can be shown that there cannot ever be embarrassing details in fiction or myth fables .

Toto

I think this is true, especially give your second point:

This nails it. It might be embarrassing to have your Messiah crucified, but not if he defeats the crucifixion by rising from the dead, as the Jews thought their nation could rise from the defeat by the Roman army.

outhouse

No truth in that at all Toto. Which Jews?

Jews knew going against the Roman military was suicide, what they wanted and what they prayed for, and what would really happen is 4 different things.

Not only that Hellenistic Jews did not want to fight the Romans, they profited from working hand in hand with Romans and had it great over the typical oppressed Jew who followed any sort of "kingdom of god"

Toto

The Jews who invented the myth of the resurrected Christ and the other Jews who were attracted to it.

TedM

A little sensitive I see...yet with seemingly little reason to be since you are the one who chose a name that is ideally suited for comments like mine on a board in which you are providing your own interpretations of things. Unless you are telling me that is your real name, I don't see any reason for either one of us to see it as anything but a minor acceptable dig to illustrate my point.

TedM

Embarrassment isn't exactly the right criteria to apply to the idea of a crucified Messiah. I would say it is more along the lines of an 'unexpected, against the grain, concept that the Jews would be highly resistant to accept'. Furthermore there is no indication in the NT writings that anyone thought Jesus was going to come back and fight the Romans, so you appear to be making things up to remove the 'embarrassment'.