I'm glad ~~you~~ I finally figured that out. FIFY
...you also seem completely unaware that virtually all Historical Jesus scholars ~~uses~~ used to use it.
FIFY, again!
One criterion, that of dissimilarity, has fallen on hard times. this criterion excludes the likelihood of Jesus having a high degree of continuity with His Jewish contemporaries and the likelihood of his disciples having a high degree v with his teachings. From what we know of ancient teachers and their schools, however, is that the reverse is far more likely. The criterion is therefore useful only in its positive role; what later Christians would not have invented in authentic tradition [i.e. the criterion of embarrassment]
In recent years scholars in the discipline have thus seriously critiqued the negative use of the criterion and urged special caution regarding it. The rising dissatisfaction easily evident a decade ago [the 1990's] is currently a relatively strong consensus against the feasibility of this particular from-critical approach, and not surprisingly so. source
You are arguing with scholars, you cite no one for your view [except Erhman who has been debunked by the above posted books], it is apparently just your own.
>t's not "if it contradicts the early church it's authentic," but "if it's not something the authors would want to make up, then it's more likely to be historical."
You are confusing the criteria of embarrassment with criteria of dissimilarity!