"The criterion of embarrassment proves Gospel reliability"

The claim that "embarrassing" details in the Gospels prove their historical reliability is one of the most popular arguments in contemporary Christian apologetics. The argument typically points to episodes such as Jesus being baptized by John (implying subordination), Peter's denial of Jesus, women discovering the empty tomb (supposedly unreliable witnesses), or Jesus's cry of dereliction on the cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). Apologists argue that the early church would never have invented such awkward material, so these details must be historical, and by extension, the Gospels containing them must be reliable.^{1, 2} This argument fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of the criterion of embarrassment as a scholarly tool and the considerable academic critique it has received. The criterion is not, and has never been, a proof of overall Gospel reliability. At best, it is one of several imperfect methodological tools that might suggest a particular tradition has some historical basis. And even that limited conclusion has been seriously questioned by scholars in recent decades.^{3, 4}

Origins of the criterion

The criterion of embarrassment has a long pedigree in biblical scholarship. The earliest application of the approach may date to Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel in the Encyclopaedia Biblica of 1899, who identified certain Gospel passages as "absolutely credible" precisely because they seemed to create difficulties for early Christian theology.⁵ The term "criterion of embarrassment" itself was popularized by John P. Meier in his magisterial multi-volume work A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, first published in 1991. Meier attributed the phrase to Edward Schillebeeckx, the influential Dutch Catholic theologian, though Schillebeeckx does not appear to have actually used that exact terminology in his written works.^{5, 6}

The criterion became a standard tool during what scholars call the "New Quest" for the historical Jesus, a movement inaugurated by Ernst Käsemann's famous 1953 lecture "The Problem of the Historical Jesus." Käsemann developed what became known as the double criterion of difference, or criterion of dissimilarity, which identified material as historically reliable if it was implausible in both a first-century Jewish context and an early Christian context.⁷ Norman Perrin and other scholars subsequently formalized additional criteria, including embarrassment, multiple attestation, and coherence.^{7, 8} Stanley Porter has distinguished several widely recognized criteria: dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation, least distinctiveness, and Aramaic linguistic background.⁹

The basic logic of the criterion of embarrassment is straightforward. As Meier explains, the assumption is that "the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create or falsify historical material that embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents."⁶ If a Gospel tradition seems to create theological problems or social awkwardness for the early Christian community, the argument goes, they must have preserved it because it was historically true and they could not ignore it.¹ This seems intuitively plausible. But as we shall see, the criterion rests on assumptions that have been seriously questioned, and its application is far more problematic than popular apologetics acknowledges.

The scholarly critique

Academic criticism of the criterion of embarrassment has been building for decades and reached a crescendo in recent years. The 2012 volume Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, assembled a group of distinguished New Testament scholars who questioned the validity of the traditional criteria of authenticity to varying degrees.³ Keith's contribution argued that since the criteria cannot provide their intended results, they should be abandoned altogether. Le Donne critiqued the criterion of coherence, while Dagmar Winter addressed fundamental flaws in the criterion of dissimilarity.³

Rafael Rodríguez, associate professor of New Testament at Johnson University, contributed a chapter titled "The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Criterion of Embarrassment and the Failure of Historical Authenticity."⁴ Rodríguez is among scholars who advocate abandoning the criteria entirely rather than simply modifying them. He and others have turned to social memory theory as an alternative methodological framework, one that is more sensitive to how communities remember and interpret their past rather than attempting to cleanly separate "authentic" from "inauthentic" traditions.^{4, 10}

Dale Allison, one of the most respected historical Jesus scholars, has evolved from a reluctant user of the criteria to someone who now wishes to jettison them altogether. Allison has noted that "surely we are no closer to any uniformity of results today than we would have been had we never heard of dissimilarity, multiple attestation, coherence, and embarrassment."¹¹ Mark Goodacre, professor of New Testament at Duke University, has raised pointed objections as well. "If I'm embarrassed by something," Goodacre observes, "I prefer not to talk about it, quite frankly."¹² His point is that truly embarrassing material would more likely be omitted than included; the very inclusion of material suggests the authors did not find it as problematic as we might assume.¹²

Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, in their influential work The Quest for the Plausible Jesus, proposed replacing the criterion of dissimilarity with a criterion of historical plausibility. They argued that dissimilarity does not do justice to the single most important result of over two hundred years of Jesus research: that the historical Jesus belongs to both Judaism and Christianity.¹³ Their critique applies equally to the criterion of embarrassment, which similarly assumes we can identify what would have been alien or awkward to early Christian communities.

The problem of cultural assumptions

One of the most fundamental problems with the criterion of embarrassment is the difficulty of knowing what ancient authors actually found embarrassing. The criterion requires us to project our modern psychological assumptions onto ancient communities whose values, priorities, and literary conventions were often quite different from our own.¹⁴ Context is important, as what might be considered embarrassing in one era and social context may not have been so in another.¹⁴

We simply know too little about what early Christians would have found embarrassing to use this criterion in a meaningful way. Goodacre has stressed that we cannot be sure that any supposedly embarrassing episodes were embarrassing to the first followers of Jesus, or that they were equally embarrassing at all times and in all communities.¹² Whether Matthew and Luke found a story embarrassing, we have no reason to suspect that Mark found it so.¹⁵ Different Gospel writers, addressing different communities at different times, may have had vastly different assessments of what was problematic.

The interplay between biological universality and cultural relativism is the central challenge in understanding how social norms, linguistic structures, and self-concept fundamentally shape affective perception.¹⁴ Pioneering anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Jean Briggs documented how emotional experiences, including shame and embarrassment, are shaped by cultural context in ways that challenge simple universalist assumptions.¹⁴ We cannot assume the Gospel authors shared modern Western psychological responses to potentially awkward material.

Theological purposes behind "embarrassing" details

A key flaw in the criterion of embarrassment is the assumption that historical truth is the only factor that can overcome the potential embarrassment of some reported detail. In fact, moral, doctrinal, or symbolic truth can also override such concerns.¹⁵ Many of the supposedly embarrassing Gospel details served clear theological purposes that made them not embarrassing at all to their authors but rather essential to their narratives.

Jesus's baptism by John

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is perhaps the most frequently cited example in apologetic uses of the criterion. The argument is that since John's baptism was for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as sinless, the early church would never have invented a story that seemed to subordinate Jesus to John and imply he needed forgiveness.^{1, 16} The Gospel of Matthew even appears to address this problem by having John feel unworthy to baptize Jesus and Jesus giving him permission to do so (Matthew 3:14–15).¹⁶

However, if the story were truly embarrassing, one would expect it to disappear from the tradition rather than be elaborated. Instead, all four Gospels include the baptism, suggesting the authors found theological value in it.¹² Goodacre points out a logical tension: "I can't help thinking that one cancels out the other. If everyone, Q, an independent Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke all have this same material, who is embarrassed about it?"¹² The widespread attestation suggests the baptism story was not seen as a problem to be overcome but as a meaningful tradition to be preserved and interpreted.

The theological purposes are evident. The baptism scene functions as Jesus's commissioning and divine endorsement, with the heavens opening, the Spirit descending, and the voice declaring "You are my beloved Son." It connects Jesus to John's prophetic ministry and establishes his public identity. Matthew's addition of the dialogue between John and Jesus does not indicate embarrassment so much as theological development, interpreting the event as fulfilling "all righteousness."¹⁶

Peter's denial

Peter's threefold denial of Jesus is another commonly cited example. Apologists argue that the early church, which venerated Peter as a leading apostle, would never have invented such a damaging story about him.² Yet the denial serves crucial narrative and theological functions that made it valuable rather than embarrassing to the Gospel writers.

In Matthew's Gospel, the denial functions as a paradigm of the sinner whose subsequent tears acquire profound theological significance. The short phrase "wept bitterly" signifies the Christian movement from sin to repentance, which marks the spiritual transformation of the sinner.¹⁷ Peter becomes an example of how even the greatest failures can be overcome through repentance. Matthew stresses public witness as an essential element of discipleship, stating that whoever acknowledges Jesus before others will be acknowledged by the Father. Peter's denial, followed by his restoration, teaches that failure is not final.¹⁷

The story also served the purpose of equipping Peter for leadership. As one scholar notes, Jesus had a higher goal than protecting Peter: "He was equipping Peter to strengthen his brothers. Peter became the pillar of the early church in Jerusalem, exhorting and training others to follow the Lord Jesus."¹⁷ Far from being embarrassing, the denial was essential to the narrative of Peter's transformation into the church's leader.

Women at the empty tomb

Apologists frequently argue that women being the first witnesses to the empty tomb must be historical because, in the patriarchal ancient world, women were considered unreliable witnesses. If the story were invented, the argument goes, the authors would surely have made male disciples the discoverers.¹⁸

This argument, however, rests on oversimplified assumptions about ancient attitudes toward women's testimony. Women's testimony was acceptable in Jewish law in a range of scenarios, and the Gospels were not written to make a defense to non-believers in a court of law. Rather, the accounts were written for followers of Jesus, and women played significant roles in early Christianity, ministering as apostles, prophesying, and proclaiming the Gospel.¹⁸

Moreover, the narrative featuring women serves clear literary and theological purposes. Women were traditionally associated with mourning and burial rites, making them natural candidates to visit the tomb. Their presence creates dramatic irony: those deemed unreliable by society become the first proclaimers of the resurrection. This pattern of reversal, where the last become first and the humble are exalted, is central to the Gospel message.¹⁸

The cry of dereliction

Jesus's cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46), is cited as embarrassing because it seems to express abandonment by God. However, these are the opening words of Psalm 22, a lament psalm that ends with a confession of covenantal hope.¹⁹

Scholars recognize that when Jesus quoted the opening line, he was doing so with the whole psalm in mind. Jesus's lament comes in a covenantal context in which he is the messianic Son chosen by God to deliver his people Israel by suffering on their behalf.¹⁹ Most likely, he is identifying with the afflicted King David in Psalm 22. The king has been rejected, persecuted, and scorned; in his suffering, he feels a sense of abandonment, even by God himself. In a similar way, Jesus is the Messiah who fulfills the Davidic covenant.¹⁹

Lament psalms not only cry out to God in dark circumstances but also cling to God in hope and trust. When Jesus cried these words, he was pointing to the whole psalm, including its triumphant conclusion.¹⁹ Far from being an embarrassing expression of despair, the cry served the theological purpose of identifying Jesus with Israel's suffering righteous and pointing forward to vindication.

The limited scope of the criterion

Even if we grant that the criterion of embarrassment can identify certain details as potentially historical, this tells us nothing about the reliability of the broader narrative in which those details appear. The criterion can only, at best, rescue the one single claim it applies to. It does not in any way support the reliability of the rest of that Gospel.¹⁵

This is a crucial point that apologetic applications routinely overlook. Even if Jesus's baptism by John is historical, this does not validate the voice from heaven, the descending dove, or the subsequent temptation narrative. Even if Peter's denial occurred, this does not authenticate the Last Supper prophecy, the resurrection appearances, or Peter's reinstatement. The criterion cannot bootstrap its way from a single potentially historical kernel to wholesale Gospel reliability.¹⁵

Furthermore, the criterion is rarely used by itself in serious scholarship. It is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of multiple attestation, along with the broader historical method.⁶ No responsible scholar claims that any single criterion can establish historicity; rather, multiple converging criteria are needed, and even then the results remain probabilistic rather than certain.

Major criteria of authenticity in historical Jesus research^{6, 8, 9}

Embarrassing details in ancient literature

The assumption that ancient authors would only include unflattering material if historically compelled is contradicted by the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography and biography. Ancient writers routinely included problematic, critical, or unflattering details for rhetorical, literary, and didactic purposes.²⁰

In Greco-Roman biography, or bios, the treatment of unflattering information varied according to the subgenre. Biographies that were historiographical tended to be more critical and even polemical toward their subjects, while novelistic biographies tended to be hagiographical in exalting their subjects.²¹ Biographers like Plutarch and Suetonius, who modeled their narratives on historiographical conventions, included negative details about their subjects precisely because doing so enhanced credibility and served moral instruction.²¹

The interplay between history and story in Roman historiography is well documented. Suetonius and Tacitus used rumors, literary allusions, and unflattering anecdotes as rhetorical tools to shape their depictions of figures like Nero, portraying him as a typical tyrant through all the means of rhetorical art.²² These negative portrayals were not reluctantly preserved historical facts but deliberately crafted literary elements serving the authors' purposes.

Thucydides famously claimed not to write down the first story that came his way, instead carefully checking reports while bearing in mind their partiality and imperfect memories.²³ Yet even Thucydides embellished the speeches he recorded. Ancient historiography was not simply fact-reporting but a literary and rhetorical enterprise in which unflattering details could serve multiple purposes beyond mere historical accuracy.²³

The problem of cherry-picking

Apologetic applications of the criterion of embarrassment suffer from a significant methodological problem: they selectively apply the criterion to details that seem to support their conclusions while ignoring its implications for other material.²⁴ Scholars often use the criterion uncritically, or suspiciously seem to apply it after the fact, as if going in with the intention to prove something they already believe about the Gospels.¹²

Apologists never seem to acknowledge that using the criterion of embarrassment requires paying a price. If embarrassing material is more likely historical, what about material that is convenient, self-serving, or theologically useful to the early church? By the same logic, such material should be viewed with greater suspicion.²⁴ Yet apologists do not apply this implication consistently. They cite the baptism as historical because it is embarrassing, but they do not therefore conclude that the virgin birth, the miracles, or the resurrection appearances are suspicious because they serve early Christian interests.

Reading references to logical inferences from embarrassment in context, not just cherry-picking convenient references, is essential for proper historical assessment.²⁴ The criterion, as used in professional scholarship, was always meant to be one limited tool among many, applied carefully and in conjunction with other methods. It was never designed as a proof of overall reliability, and scholars who developed it would not recognize how it is deployed in popular apologetics.

Applications of the criterion in apologetics vs. scholarship^{3, 6, 12}

The scholarly consensus

The scholarly assessment of the criterion of embarrassment is considerably more nuanced than popular apologetics suggests. Even scholars who continue to use the criterion acknowledge its significant limitations. The criterion requires knowing what ancient authors found embarrassing, which we often cannot determine with confidence. It cannot distinguish between material that was preserved despite embarrassment and material that served theological purposes we do not fully understand. It can, at most, suggest that a particular detail may be historical; it cannot validate the surrounding narrative.^{3, 4, 6}

A growing number of scholars have concluded that the traditional criteria of authenticity, including embarrassment, have failed to deliver on their promises. As Keith and Le Donne's 2012 volume documented, these criteria have not produced scholarly consensus about the historical Jesus. Different scholars applying the same criteria reach different conclusions, suggesting the criteria are not the objective tools they were hoped to be.³ Dale Allison's candid admission that we are no closer to uniform results today than we would have been without these criteria is a sobering assessment from one of the field's most distinguished practitioners.¹¹

The criterion of embarrassment is a legitimate scholarly tool when used carefully, in conjunction with other methods, and with full awareness of its limitations. It is not a proof of Gospel reliability, and serious scholars have never claimed it was. The apologetic transformation of this modest methodological principle into a sweeping argument for the Gospels' historical trustworthiness reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criterion was developed, what it can demonstrate, and why so many scholars have come to question its value. The embarrassing truth about the criterion of embarrassment is that it cannot bear the weight that popular apologetics has placed upon it.⁴