Los evangelios son vergonzosos para los apóstoles

If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually try to paint them in the best possible light. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that’s not what we see in the Gospels. Those who will eventually lead the church often appear impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be public relations for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.

This type of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of shame. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone to the trouble of creating material that would only embarrass its creator or weaken his position in arguments with opponents.

Marginal Jew

Those Unbelieving Disciples

Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark, since most believe it to be the oldest. Mark tells us that the disciples were often unbelievers. When they encountered a storm while crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mark 4:35-41) They blatantly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having faith. They were also terrified when they saw Jesus walking on water just two chapters later. (Mark 6:50)

When a man brought his demon-possessed son to his followers, the disciples proved too incompetent to help the boy. Jesus rebuked them for their lack of faith. (Mark 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought he was crazy. (Mark 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other brothers became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future leaders of Jesus’ church seem like a sorry bunch.

The Disciples Were Slow

Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow learners. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. They often missed the main points of the parables (Mark 4:13; 7:18).

Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5,000 and later 4,000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They quarreled among themselves because they had forgotten to put bread in the boat for the crossing. Jesus had to remind them that food was not their goal or problem. That should have been obvious by then. (Mark 8:14-21)

The Disciples Were Rude

The disciples were notoriously rude. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when He was sleeping through the storm. Peter had the brilliant idea to rebuke Jesus when He said He was going to be sacrificed. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go down well. (Mark 8:31-33)

When people brought little children to be blessed by Jesus, as if they were ogres, his disciples tried to drive them away. (Mark 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her sharply.” It was not a gentle move. Jesus told them emphatically to leave her alone. She was worth more to Jesus than all of them put together. (Mark 14:4-9)

The disciples were fighting over who was the greatest, and John and James had the courage to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left when he came into his kingdom. (Mark 9:33-34, 10:35-37) It is clear that they did not understand the kind of servant leadership that Jesus was modeling.

When things get tough, disciples run

In Jesus’ darkest hour, they boast that they were willing to die rather than abandon him. (Mark 14:31) While Jesus was praying, they all fell asleep. (Mark 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all ran away. (Mark 14:50) Peter eventually denied him three times under pressure from a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all absented themselves on the day of the resurrection. (Mark 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them that he would rise again three days later. (Mark 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criterion of shame when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p. 162)

Finally, who came to the tomb? Women (Mark 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. This is in itself an embarrassing detail, since the testimony of a woman in the context of the first century had very little weight.

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, because of the frivolity and boldness of their sex” … (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15).

“Any proof that a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)” … (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c).

Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They did not believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later, Celsus would mock Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Against Celsus 2.54)

Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or to make the resurrection story more convincing, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar N. T. Wright:

“As historians, we are forced to comment that if these accounts had been invented five years later, let alone thirty, forty, fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. Putting Mary in there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists who want to explain to a skeptical public that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But for us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, ever have made this up.”

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Embarrassing Details in the Facts

And it’s not like things are all right in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over leadership after Jesus. You’d think Luke would make it seem like they finally got on track. Instead, we see Paul and Barnabas have a huge fight over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) along because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of the earlier ministry. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is mentioned later in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things were patched up later. (Philemon 24)

There were also racist disputes in the nascent church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)

And although Jesus told them to take the Gospel to all the world, it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was okay to preach to those unclean Gentiles, apparently years later. (Acts 10)

What True Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of the Emperor Constantine that was very careful, to say the least. He cleverly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Instead, Eusebius makes Constantine out to be a super saint. This is what real propaganda looks like.

It is hard to imagine early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough trouble from persecution. However, it is difficult to read Mark’s Gospel without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still have been present, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were actually said. NT scholar CEB Cranfield concludes:

“The fact that the material is disconcerting and offensive… will be preserved and will reach Marcos speaks volumes about the general reliability of the sources used by him.”

These self-defeating materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence does not by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to this view. It is one part of a much larger cumulative case.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik Manning is a chapter director for Reasonable Faith located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa . He is a former freelance baseball writer and co-owner of the antique and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original Source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/3DgF9Rs

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia