Talk:Criterion of embarrassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)