Bottom line, I just don’t share you skepticism of the Biblical writers. What is your evidence the writers of the Bible would intentionally provide embarrassing information to fool people and strengthen their case?

Steve

I do disagree with Will Durant on this point, just as I suspect you would disagree with what he wrote in the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted. “In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between one gospel and another, many dubious statements of history, many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods, many incidents apparently designed to prove fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, many passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later doctrine or ritual of the church. The evangelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas. And presumably the conversations and speeches reported in the Gospels were subject to the frailties of illiterate memories, and the errors and emendations of copyists.” Caesar and Christ, p. 557.

By questioning the “principle of embarrassment,” are you saying historians are wrong when they use this principle to validate the historical accuracy of ancient documents? Here are the words of another critical scholar, a famous historian, who validates the use of the “principle of embarrassment.” Will Durant has stated, “Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial, the failure of Christ to work 1miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”[18] Were the gospels purely imaginative, these and other issues in the life of Christ (e.g. His association in Mark and elsewhere with Nazareth instead of Bethlehem) likely wouldn’t exist, the creative narratives merely presenting Jesus in conformity with preexisting messianic expectations. The fact that the New Testament documents record otherwise embarrassing elements thus strongly indicates their rootedness in historical events.[26] (Wikipedia) Interesting Durant said recording of embarrassing moments “…strongly indicates their rootedness in historical events.” Will Durant clearly disagrees with you.

I am saying the principle of embarrassment is just one of many tools in the hands of historians as they attempt to establish the historical core of ancient documents. I didn’t invent this tool. If you have a complaint, send it to historians and argue with them. I realize Will Durant is no longer alive but there are plenty of others you can disagree with.

Steve

The idea that the apostle’s foibles were embarrassing to the evangelists strikes me as absurd. Their shortcomings are a vital part of the narrative. Just as every witnessing Christian wants to make his life when unsaved sound as bad as possible, the gospel authors needed to make the apostles look bad prior to the resurrection sound as bad as possible. You cannot sell the transformative power of the gospel without a transformation.