Embarrassing testimony

From Religions Wiki
(Redirected from Criterion of embarrassment)

Apologists argue that embarrassing testimony demonstrates the truth of their holy book because if it was fictional, the author would not have recorded the event. Since a holy book does contain embarrassing testimony, apologists argue it is true.

"In the Gospel narratives we find detail after detail that is embarrassing. The question we have to ask ourselves is this; What did the author have to gain by telling this detail? Obviously if it is embarrassing he has more to lose than gain. So why would he make it up? This sort of reasoning lends the investigator to infer they are telling the truth. [1]"
"That’s why when historical accounts contain events embarrassing to the authors (or heroes of the authors) those events are probably true. Historians call this the principle of embarrassment, and it’s one reason why I think the writers of the Bible are telling the truth.[2]"

The problem is the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability.

Other examples[edit]

Other embarrassing moments include:

"Jesus’ disciples are petty, slow to understand, arrogant, and unfaithful. Peter denies Christ; the rest flee. Women, disrespected in the ancient world, are the first to witness the risen Christ. Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels are works of fiction?[3]"
"Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account.[4]"

Counter arguments[edit]

The New Testament provides no embarrassing details about Jesus, meaning the primary subject of the text is not historical. Most of the New Testament "embarrassing details" are designed to make Jesus look better than the apostles.

Authors including "embarrassing" testimony[edit]

Most of the embarrassing details in the Bible are the result of various pre-existing documents and religious traditions being compiled and edited into the Bible over a long period of time by many authors. What was embarrassing to one author (or reader) was a useful story device to another author. An example: Jesus being baptised by John was quite acceptable to Mark but downplayed by later authors.

"With John the Baptist (and many other examples), later authors saw problems with the story Mark created, because their morals or theology had evolved or differed from his, so they rewrote the story to suit their own agendas.[5]"

Propaganda contains only positive claims. However the Bible and other scriptures fall under the category of myth and legend. Myth and legend often incorporate facts along with fictional elements. There are plenty of examples of myth and legend containing embarrassing statements but most are not accepted as true.

"Does that mean Romulus existed? That he really committed murder? No.[5]"

A moderately skilled liar would include embarrassing details to make a story seem more plausible.

Guides to history[edit]

Embarrassing testimony is only one of the guides to historicity. The Bible fails most of the other principles, including lacking any primary sources by eyewitnesses. The argument from embarrassing testimony is used by apologists but it is rejected in other circumstances: a person's story of being probed by aliens, which is embarrassing testimony, is not accepted as true just on that basis.

Embarrassing facts don't authenticate an entire text but only support those specific facts.

"And for that reason they all argue the Criterion of Embarrassment can only, at best, rescue the one single claim it applies to (the embarrassing one) as reliable. It does not in any way support the reliability of the rest of that Gospel.[5]"

Women at the empty tomb[edit]

"Women, disrespected in the ancient world, are the first to witness the risen Christ. Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels are works of fiction?[6]"
"That women were less reliable as witnesses in court doesn’t matter because there is no court in the story!"

Mark may have included women discovering the empty tomb to fit his theme of "the last shall be first". Mark 10:31 Bible-icon.png From Mark's perspective, this is not embarrassing.[5]

See also[edit]

References[edit]