The criterion of embarrassment proves that the Gospels tell the truth

Summary:

Have you ever lied to protect your image or reputation? You may have. But have you ever lied on purpose to damage your reputation in the eyes of others? Certainly not! Human beings do not like to denigrate themselves for the sake of it. If they report something embarrassing, it's because it really happened to them.

The same is true when we look at the embarrassing facts in the Gospels. The Evangelists present the leaders of the Church as often impulsive, incompetent, boastful or stupid. Mark's Gospel describes the disciples as utterly unbelieving, so that Jesus repeatedly accuses them of lacking faith (Mk 9:17-19). They panick when caught in a storm on Lake Tiberias (Mk 4:35-41), and are extremely slow to understand the true meaning of Jesus' words (Mk 4:13; 7:18). When the going gets tough, they act like cowards and frightened unbelievers. Instead of praying with Jesus in preparation for his passion, they fall asleep (Mk 14:37-42). And when Christ is arrested by the chief priests, they flee (Mk 14:50).

The Gospel is particularly humiliating for Peter, the leader of the early Church, who is severely reprimanded by Jesus when he opposes Christ's future death. When Peter says to Jesus, "Lord, this will not happen to you "(Mt 16:22), Jesus replies, "Get behind me, Satan. You are an obstacle to me; for your thoughts are not God's thoughts, but men's"(Mt 16:23). Worse still, Peter proudly asserts that he will never deny Christ - "Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you!" (Mt 26:35) - but the Gospels states that Peter actually ends up denying him three times! Nothing could be more humiliating for the head of the apostles. Christians would never have invented such a story.

We can also add that the humiliating event of the crucifixion could not have been invented by the disciples. Clearly, if you think that a man is the Messiah, or at least if you want people to believe that he is, it seems quite stupid to have him crucified and humiliated like a nobody. The Jews of the time expected a strong and brave Messiah: the idea of crucifixion was unthinkable for them. Why claim loud and clear that Jesus is God, and create a scenario in which he dies a miserable death by being nailed on a instrument of torture reserved to criminals? In terms of credibility, it's hard to do much worse if you want to convince people of the truth of your religion and have them join your ranks. In the second century, the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus took great pleasure in ridiculing Christians for this very fact: "You give us for God a person who led an infamous life and died a miserable death" (A Discourse Against the Christians).

Finally, the Gospels state that it was the women who went to the tomb the next day and found it empty. At the time, however, a woman's testimony had no value before the Jewish courts. It was not even admissible in a legal case. This is exactly the kind of narrative element that a convincing invented account would have omitted, because in the society of the time, reporting such a detail was tantamount to exposing one's own account to derision and mockery.

Consequently, if the discovery of the empty tomb were a legend, the inventors of the story would have made sure that the first witnesses to the resurrection were men. They would have avoided undermining the credibility of their story in this largely patriarchal culture. This is why historian N. T. Wright remarked: "As historians, we are obliged to say that, if these stories had been invented five years later, [their authors] would never have attributed the discovery of the empty tomb to Mary Magdalene. For Christian apologists, trying to explain to a sceptical public that Jesus rose from the dead by invoking women would be like shooting yourself in the foot. But for us historians, it's a golden piece of information. Christians could never have invented such a thing" (quoted in Antony Flew's There is a God, HarperCollins, 2009, p. 207).

In short, the Gospels contain events so embarrassing that their authors would never have invented such things to promote their religion and go out to evangelize the nations. They ran the constant risk of being ridiculed in the eyes of the Jews and pagans. These facts are only known to us because the evangelists were honest and wanted to meticulously transcribe the events of Jesus' life, despite the humiliating consequences for them.

In short, the hypothesis of a lie is untenable. Moreover, it would imply that the apostles were masochistic impostors, ready to demean themselves for things they knew to be false. The least we can grant them is that they were honest and intended to report accurate facts about the life of Christ.

The criterion of embarrassment thus serves to reinforce the historical credibility of the Gospels, and in this way constitutes a solid reason for believing in Christianity.

Going further:

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs​​​​​, by Craig L. Blomberg, B&H Academic (November 1, 2016)

More information:

• Video "The Gospels are Embarrassing for the Apostles".
• Video " Embarrassing Testimony ".