Historical reliability of the Gospels-Internal criterion #3
3.) Does the document contain self-damaging material?
If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the "heroes" of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
Internal evidence #3
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging details. For example, in the Resurrection account in John 20:1 Mary Magdalene is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the testimony of the early Christians, because women in first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable "talebearers". They couldn't even testify in court (which is why Paul doesn't include any women in his list of people who saw the risen Christ in 1Cor. 15).
In addition, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus' life are included which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" This is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It's a tough statement, but that just proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including it in his account is because Jesus actually said it!
I think the self-damaging material in the Gospels are a good indicator that the authors had truth as the central motive for writing their accounts. Consequently, I believe the self-damaging criterion for reliability is met. |
