Evidence Category 7: The Criterion of Embarrassment
Skeptic claim:
“The Gospel writers just wrote what they wanted people to believe.“
Opening Columbo Probe:
“If the Gospel writers were making things up, why would they include details that are embarrassing to their own case?”
Why this works
The criterion of embarrassment is one of the most powerful tools in historical method — and it’s one most people have never considered. This question introduces it without requiring any technical terminology.
Follow-Up Steering Questions
| “In first-century Jewish culture, women had no legal standing as witnesses. If you were inventing a resurrection story to be believed in that culture, would you choose women as your primary witnesses? Why do all four Gospels independently record that?” |
| “All four Gospels record Peter’s three-fold denial — including the cursing. Why would the early church preserve a story that makes their leading apostle look like a coward, if they were crafting a legend to honor him?” |
| “Jesus’s cry from the cross — ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ — is theologically uncomfortable. It raises hard questions. Why would a fabricator write that in?” |
| “The disciples are portrayed throughout the Gospels as repeatedly confused, falling asleep in Gethsemane, arguing about greatness while walking to the cross. What purpose does that serve in a legend designed to honor them?” |
| “Historians use a principle called the criterion of embarrassment — the idea that an author is more likely to include an uncomfortable detail than to invent it, because invention serves a purpose that embarrassment doesn’t. Which interpretation fits the Gospels better?” |
Sample Dialogue
Skeptic: The Gospels were just written by people who wanted everyone to believe their story.
You: That’s worth thinking about. Let me ask you this — if you were writing a story to convince people of something, would you include details that hurt your own case?
Skeptic: No, I’d leave those out.
You: Right. So why do all four Gospels independently record that the first witnesses to the resurrection were women — who had no legal standing as witnesses in that culture? If you’re inventing a story to be believed, you would never do that. The fact that it’s embarrassing is actually evidence it’s true.
Apologetics Payoff
The criterion of embarrassment is a tool professional historians use. It doesn’t prove the resurrection — but it does demonstrate that the Gospel writers were not simply crafting a propaganda narrative. They preserved inconvenient details because those details were part of what actually happened.