Mark 1:41 Jesus either get’s angry with the leper, or feels compassion for him. This depends on which manuscript you read.
The method of dissimilarity states that the most probable of these two is the one that would reflect most poorly or embarrassingly on the agenda of the author. So, per the method, we should choose the “angry” Jesus as the most historically reliable passage.
At first glance this appears fine. But I always felt that it could be used in favor of anyone who reads the text. Take my next example which took advantage of this:
I read Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”. They also use this “embarrassment” factor to get their point across to find what they believe to be the most reasonable conclusion.
They basically say that the Apostles were prone to mistakes and were dumb, and that the legendary account would have beefed them up to be almost superhuman, therefore it must be historically accurate since they clearly laid out all their shortcomings.
They also state that it is most likely that Jesus actually did turn water into wine. Their reasoning is because the early Christians lived a rather dull and self-punishing lifestyle. Therefore nobody would ever make up such a miracle that would encourage the “eat, drink, and be merry” lifestyle that is contrary to the “take up your cross” mentality. Therefore the miracle really did occur.
They conclude with the fact that it went against all current beliefs that the Messiah would be crucified as a common criminal, and then be raised from the dead. Therefore since it goes against the grain, it must be true.
You see how I feel that the dissimilarity or embarrassment historical method has its shortcomings and can be abused by either side. I feel like the Christian stance taking advantage of this method is basically this in a nutshell: “The more unreasonable, ridiculous, mistake ridden, dim-witted, wild, and unbelievable the story is… that means it MUST be true, indeed after all!”
What are your thoughts?
There is some confusion here between the criterion of “dissimilarity” and the criterion of “embarrassment” which are not identical. As formulated by theologian Ernst Kasemann COD is a method to determine Jesus’ authentic teachings by distinguishing them from the Judaism of his day and the beliefs of later Christians. Basically, if a Jesus saying differed from contemporary Judaism and later Christian claims then it was likely to be a real Jesus saying.
The criterion of embarrassment is a method to determine the authenticity of a New Testament account or teaching pointing out that an account or teaching likely to be embarrassing to christian sensibilities is presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an account or teaching embarrassing to the church.
COE seems much firmer a method than COD. One of the insights of Jesus studies in the last half century has been how much the Judaism of Jesus’ day informed his ministry and ideas. On the other hand there are many examples of COE; the crucified Messiah, Jesus being baptized by John, Jesus claiming the end would come in the lifetime of the disciples, etc.
Finally, it should be pointed out that these criteria are methodological principles, not laws of the universe. Aids to textual analysis. They should be modulated and used in tandem. Turek and Geisler are confused and really don’t know what they’re talking about, typical christian apologists.
In principle, the criteria of embarrassment is perfectly valid. Legal rules of evidence recognize a hearsay exception for a “statement against interest.” However, apologists make a number of unsubstantiated claims. For example, the Gospels are anonymous, so it is impossible to show what is or is not against the interests of the unidentified authors.
…the Gospels are anonymous, so it is impossible to show what is or is not against the interests of the unidentified authors.
This is certainly true on a personal level but I think we are safe to assume the writers were Christian partisans. I’ve never heard a cogent explanation of why the story of Jesus’ baptism by John would be in there unless it really happened and everybody knew it and “Mark” had to explain it. There is clearly some relationship, so much so that “Mark” can’t just ignore it. Otherwise he could have just left John out because he plays no real role in the main story. John is in there because he had to be.
Good point. I should not have made such a broad statement. I was thinking about apologists claim that the gospel authors would never invent women finding the empty tomb because women were not considered reliable witnesses, but they cite only Jewish and Roman authorities belittling women. Apologists make the false assumption that the gospel authors shared Jewish and Roman prejudices against women, but the evidence indicates the exact opposite. Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, would not be embarrassed that women were important witnesses. Women traveled with Jesus and provided for him “out of their resources.” Mark 15:40‑51; Luke 8:1‑3. Paul’s letter to the Romans in 56‑57 C.E. identifies several prominent women in the Roman church. Romans 16:1‑16.
My problem with both embarrassment and dissimilarity is how they are used. In many cases they are treated as a binary situation. The reality is that there are other possible explanations. For example, in some cases it could be simple misattribution. This happens all the time in real life. Any parent who has more than one kid has probably been confused about which child did something, or which teacher at school made a comment.
Whenever I hear an argument based on dissimilarity or embarrassment I evaluate it by mentally injecting a third option of misattribution. Suppose someone else said that, and early followers either intentionally or unintentionally took what someone else said and injected it into their narrative of events.
As Yogi Berra said “I really didn’t say everything I said.” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
There is some confusion here between the criterion of “dissimilarity” and the criterion of “embarrassment” which are not identical. As formulated by theologian Ernst Kasemann COD is a method to determine Jesus’ authentic teachings by distinguishing them from the Judaism of his day and the beliefs of later Christians. Basically, if a Jesus saying differed from contemporary Judaism and later Christian claims then it was likely to be a real Jesus saying.The criterion of embarrassment is a method to determine the authenticity of a New Testament account or teaching pointing out that an account or teaching likely to be embarrassing to christian sensibilities is presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an account or teaching embarrassing to the church.
COE seems much firmer a method than COD. One of the insights of Jesus studies in the last half century has been how much the Judaism of Jesus’ day informed his ministry and ideas. On the other hand there are many examples of COE; the crucified Messiah, Jesus being baptized by John, Jesus claiming the end would come in the lifetime of the disciples, etc.
Finally, it should be pointed out that these criteria are methodological principles, not laws of the universe. Aids to textual analysis. They should be modulated and used in tandem. Turek and Geisler are confused and really don’t know what they’re talking about, typical christian apologists.
Stephen said
There is some confusion here between the criterion of “dissimilarity” and the criterion of “embarrassment” which are not identical. As formulated by theologian Ernst Kasemann COD is a method to determine Jesus’ authentic teachings by distinguishing them from the Judaism of his day and the beliefs of later Christians. Basically, if a Jesus saying differed from contemporary Judaism and later Christian claims then it was likely to be a real Jesus saying.The criterion of embarrassment is a method to determine the authenticity of a New Testament account or teaching pointing out that an account or teaching likely to be embarrassing to christian sensibilities is presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an account or teaching embarrassing to the church.
COE seems much firmer a method than COD. One of the insights of Jesus studies in the last half century has been how much the Judaism of Jesus’ day informed his ministry and ideas. On the other hand there are many examples of COE; the crucified Messiah, Jesus being baptized by John, Jesus claiming the end would come in the lifetime of the disciples, etc.
Finally, it should be pointed out that these criteria are methodological principles, not laws of the universe. Aids to textual analysis. They should be modulated and used in tandem. Turek and Geisler are confused and really don’t know what they’re talking about, typical christian apologists.
How is it that it HAS to be authentic just because it is dissimilar or embarrassing? Maybe there is a reason not considered. Judas is an embarrassment but he is NOT REAL because he is needed to explain away the death of JAMES at the hands of PAUL. (Ps. Recognitions 1:70). Judas is a stand-in for James. “Misreading Judas” is my book explaining it all.
Dissimilar teachings are not necessarily from a fictional guy named ‘Jesus’ just because people wrote a story. They are dissimilar because they were inconvenient for a new and phony religion called “Christianity.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)