Criterion of embarrassment
The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria. One limitation to the criterion of embarrassment is that clear-cut cases of such embarrassment are few and far between. A full portrait of Jesus could never be based on such few data. Another limitation stems from the fact that what we today might consider an embarrassment to the early Church was not necessarily an embarrassment in its own eyes. Embarrassing details may be included as an alternative to an even more embarrassing account of the same event. As a hypothetical example,
Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been a substitution for an even greater misdeed of Peter.
[7]
A good example of the second point is found in the stories of the
Infancy Gospels. In one account from the
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a very young Jesus is said to use his
supernatural powers first to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him.
[8] If this tradition had been accepted as worthy of inclusion at some key juncture in the formation of the
Christian Bible (and hence integrated in one way or another among the
Canonical Gospels), arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing—especially strict believers in
biblical inerrancy. But as is strongly suggested by the existence of this early non-canonical
pericope, it must not have been embarrassing to some
early Christians.
[9][
A further limitation is the possibility that what could be classed as embarrassing could also be an intentionally created account designed to provoke a reaction. For instance,
Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been written as an example of the consequences of denial.
Matthew 10:32-33: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."
