The Reliability of NT Gospels and the Criterion of Embarrassment (5/5)
As we have stated in previous posts, the view of Ehrman (and the form critics before him) is that the NT Gospel writers—as well as the many tellers of the stories of Jesus before them—reshaped the stories they heard about Jesus to suit the present needs of their Christian communities. In this view, early Christians were more interested in the usefulness of these stories than they were in preserving a historically accurate account of Jesus’ life and ministry.[1]
In this fifth post, we will see how this interpretation of the available data squares with the certain aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry that would have been regarded as embarrassing in a first century Palestinian context.
THE CRITERION OF EMBARASSMENT
One diagnostic question historians ask of ancient documents to determine their historical reliability is whether the document reports details that would damage the cause of the one recording them. This diagnostic test is often called the criterion of embarrassment. This criterion is built on the premise that it would be unlikely for a historian to record details of an event that would cast his or her cause in a bad or embarrassing light. For those trying to determine whether the NT Gospels are reliable, this means that we would not expect the NT Gospel writers to include details about Jesus or the Christian movement that would “put Jesus or themselves in a negative light” or “made them vulnerable to the criticisms of opponents” if they were not true.[2] And yet, there are some notable embarrassing details in the NT Gospels.
What would motivate NT Gospel writers to include these embarrassing details if they were not true? And why would they be included at all if the NT Gospel writers merely used the stories about Jesus to suit the current needs of their communities as the form critics and Ehrman have proposed? The inclusion of these details lends historical credibility to the NT Gospels as a whole.
EMBARRASSING ELEMENTS IN THE NT GOSPELS
There are a number of “embarrassing” details included in the NT Gospels. Here are several worth noting [3]:
Jesus associated himself with the outcasts of society, such as “tax collectors and sinners” (Mark 2:16).
Jesus broke Jewish traditions and codes of cleanliness (Make 2:18, 23f; 7:5)
Jesus’ own family members struggled to believe the claims Jesus was making about himself (see John 7:5), and even regarded him as “out of his mind” at one point (Mark 3:21).
Jesus was rejected by the people of his hometown of Nazareth and was subsequently unable to perform many miracles there (Mark 6:1-6).
Jesus’ disciples were unable to cast out a demon who made a boy mute (Mark 9:18).
Jesus made claims to divinity in a religious context that regarded such claims as blasphemous (Mark 2:6-12; 14:60-64; John 8:58-59; 10:33).
Jesus’ disciples, who became the future leaders of the Church, are often depicted as dull, cowardly, and unbelieving (Luke 18:34; John 20:19; Luke 24:11).
Jesus was abandoned by his disciples when he was arrested and one of his closest friends, Peter, denied even knowing him (Mark 14:50, 66-72). Later Peter would be regarded as a major leader within the Christian movement (Galatians 2:6-9).
Jesus died a shameful, criminal’s death by crucifixion (Mark 15:20-32; cf. Hebrews 12:2).
The first people reported to have seen the risen Jesus were women who had gone to Jesus’ tomb while the rest of the male disciples cowered in fear behind locked doors. The very first person to see Jesus after his resurrection was a woman who had been known to have been possessed by multiple demons (John 20:18f; cf. Luke 8:2). The testimony of women in general was not regarded as reliable at the time, nevermind one who had been known to be possessed!
Given these details recorded in the NT Gospels, the question becomes: are these elements more likely to have arisen from:
1. A model of transmission with controls set in place to preserve the historical truth about Jesus and his disciples
Or…
2. A model of transmission where stories about Jesus and his disciples were freely shaped to fit the current needs and sensibilities of the different early Christian communities that received them.
In my view, it does not seem likely that these embarrassing details would have been the type of details that early Christian communities would have created in order to fit their current needs. The more likely explanation for their inclusion is that they actually happened. And if those details were not glossed over, then it is likely that other details recorded in the NT Gospels are historically accurate as well.
CONCLUSION
This series of posts was written in response to some of the claims made in Jesus Before the Gospels by NT scholar Bart Ehrman who has been following in the footsteps of the form critics before him. As I mentioned in my first post in this series, we can summarize Ehrman’s view in this way:
The NT Gospels are the products of stories and memories of Jesus freely and frequently shaped by early Christians far removed from those who knew Jesus personally. They were used to meet the immediate needs of their Christian communities rather than preserve a historical record about Jesus.
We can be grateful to Ehrman for bringing these important topics to the public’s attention. However, I believe the conclusions he offers are based on false premises that go counter to the evidence we have. After looking at…
Evidence within and outside the NT Gospels suggesting that they are the product of eyewitness testimony from first century Palestine (see posts 2 and 3).
Evidence suggesting that the stories of Jesus behind the NT Gospels were preserved in a way that safeguarded their historical accuracy (see post 4)
Embarrassing elements in the NT Gospels that would not have been included unless they happened (see post above).
…the following counter thesis to Ehrman’s claims can be affirmed:
Rather than being the products of stories and memories of Jesus freely and frequently reshaped to meet the immediate needs of different early Christian communities, the NT Gospels are the reports of carefully preserved eyewitness testimony written down within the lifetimes of those who would have been able to and would have desired to safeguard their historical accuracy.
——————
[1] Bart Ehrman. Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 64, 185.
[2] Paul R. Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 408-409.
[3] List adapted from Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend : A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 411-412.