Gamaliel Never Existed

[Nimzo]

I agree that Criteria of Embarrassment has to be applied with caution but that does not discredit it. In far too many cases people apply it in the sense of "I would be embarrassed to write this" instead of "what would an author writing 1500 to 2500 years ago think?" Example: I often hear fundies proclaim that the exodus MUST be true because who would make up a story about being slaves? However, put in in the context of a time when there actually were slaves and the plot line becomes obvious. Even "slaves" can defeat mighty armies with 'god's' help.

Let's be honest, xtians were not embarrassed to write about a giant, talking cross coming out of the fucking tomb so it would take quite a lot to embarrass those shitheads.

I did exactly as you described - I talked about why "Mark", given his intentions for the gospel, should have written the verse differently given the aims of what he was trying to achieve. He is trying to sell/impose "Jesus" as the ultimate sun-god even more powerful than the pagan ones, but appears to imply that he did not have the power to do something. All appearances suggest that this would be embarrassing to his story - the problem is, that we know that appearances are deceiving (precisely because "Mark's" gospel-fiction is pure deceit through-and-through!). Your example of the Exodus is yet another example where the criterion falls through. Jews and Christians were deceiving people all over the place - and they new how to make something appear historical when really it isn't. The criterion is intrinsically unreliable precisely because it relies on appearances and guesswork about the authors feelings. I say chuck the criterion and just stick to the hard evidence.