Are The Gospels Reliable? - The Evidence of Humility, Restraint, & Embarrassment (Part 2 of 8)

So how does the ordinary reader develop the conviction that the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable? In part one of this series, I discussed how the gospels present themselves as history and appear to the average reader as history. Millions of Christians for the past two thousand years have been convinced the Jesus of the New Testament is the real Jesus of history. In this series, I offer ten reasons why the ordinary reader of the Gospels can develop a well-grounded, common sense conviction that they are reading REAL history. No advanced degrees are necessary. All that is needed for this conviction is you and your Bible. This is part two of a ten part series.

Embarrassing Details

A common criteria literary critics use in determining the authenticity of a given text is what scholars call the criteria of embarrassment. When an author inserts a detail into the story that would hurt the overall Christian cause, it seems reasonable that such a detail was actually true. Otherwise, why would the author include it? For instance, if I want people to follow Jesus as Lord and the promised Jewish Messiah, why would I include the thorny details of him being rejected by God’s people, beaten by the Roman guards, stripped naked, and killed by the oppressors of Israel? These are very embarrassing details if the goal is to entice readers to embrace Jesus as the divine savior. You include them if they are true; otherwise, what is the point?

Two more examples will illustrate this point, though embarrassing details permeate all four gospels. The first pertains to the resurrection accounts. During the first century, women were viewed as inferior to men. In fact, their testimony was not allowed in court, as men did not view woman as reliable witnesses. But when it comes to the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, women are the first reporters of the empty tomb. The apostles want the world to believe in the resurrection and their story begins with woman as witnesses to the event. Another example is Peter, one of the founders of the early church and part of the inner circle of Jesus. The early church needed its followers to trust the apostle’s teaching, including Peter. Yet Peter is perhaps the most embarrassing figure of all four gospels. He denies Jesus to a young girl, he prevents children from coming to Jesus, he cuts off a Roman guard’s ear, he sinks in the water for lack of faith, and on and on. Why make the Rock upon which the church is built such a fumbling, impatient, and hasty goofball? You would only write such things if they were true. The common man, reading the gospels, can see that such embarrassing details bear the mark of truth.

Humility & Restraint

Have you ever noticed how the gospels possess surprising restraint in their details, specifically regarding the miraculous? Not only are the miracles of Jesus limited primarily to acts of compassion, they are typically constrained to the facts of the miracle and avoid pious embellishment. Consider the resurrection of Jesus, the miracle of all miracles for each gospel author. Jesus rose, a large stone was rolled away, and a few angels appeared. That is basically it! The apocryphal gospel of Peter, written at least 100 years after Jesus lived, reports Jesus as so tall when he emerged from the tomb that his head was up in the clouds. Not only that, but the cross was talking! The average person can see the difference. The traditional gospels sound like reportage and the the Gospel of Peter sounds like fanciful embellishment. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John display this truth-sounding restraint throughout their narratives. The miracles seem so commonplace, the authors don’t feel the need to elaborate. In fact, the authors seem to remain silent, at least in their accounts, on whether or not they personally believe the events they narrate. These are all subtle hints of truth.

Just as the gospel authors display amazing literary restrain, they also exhibit a subtle humility. This comes out in two forms. First, the authors of each gospel don’t anywhere seem to lift themselves up as better than others. All the attention focuses on Jesus or the people he ministers to, not the apostles. If this were a propaganda piece to help bolster the early apostolic ministry, why such silence and self-effacing material regarding the apostles? Second, there is amazing restraint toward the enemies of Christianity. As lovers of Jesus and desirous to see his message spread, they speak so little of those who hated and opposed his ministry. The Jews rejected his message and sought his death. One of his own disciples turned against him and betrayed him. The Romans inflicted the most cruel of deaths upon him. Surely the writers of the gospels had strong feelings towards these parties, yet they only report the bare facts, letting the reader draw his own conclusions. I am not here suggesting that since they omit such topics they are by default telling the truth. That would be a faulty argument from silence. However, what I am suggesting is that these subtle characteristics all bear the mark of truth and authenticity, adding weight to the cumulative case.