Historical reliability of the Gospels-Inernal criterion # 2
Inernal criterion #2
2.) Does the document in question contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material? Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized. These types of irrelevant details are powerful clues for both historians and eyewitness testimonies in trials.
Looking at the evidence for criterion #2.
The Gospels are full of the sort of irrelevant details which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts. Let's look at on primary example which is all the more significant because it deals with the Resurrection. Read John 20:1-8 carefully. I will point out some of the irrelevant details.
Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from
the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved(John's modest way of refering to himself--another mark of genuiness) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"(not her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple out ran Peter and reached the tomb first (John's modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail?). He bent over (the tomb entrance was low--a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time--the kind we know Jesus was burried in) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in(why not? another irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him (modest repetition again), arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head(irrelevant and unexpected detail--what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the line(could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual, than this? Jesus folded on part of His wrapping before He left!) Finally the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about what exact order they went in?)
The point is clear! There is absolutely no reason to throw in this sort of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the stroy line, except it's just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he is recalling the event. The Gospels are full of materials like this. These details seem irrelevant but help authenticate a document and often are later validated by Archaeological and Anthropoligical studies. |
