What Best Explains the "Embarrassing Elements" in the Gospels?

I'll comment later, but what do you think about this argument?

29 comments:

zilch said...

I think that the inclusion of "embarrassing elements" in the Gospels shows that they are likely to be true- or that master storytellers were at work. Carlos Castaneda included all kinds of "embarrassing elements" in his works too, but I'm disinclined to believe them also.

Anonymous said...

There are other, more embarrassing elements to be found in the Bible. Take for instance Deuteronomy 32:8-9: This passage should be translated like this: "When the Most High (Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the descendants of Adam, he set up boundaries for the peoples after the number of the sons of God. The LORD's (Yahweh's) own portion was his people Israel."

According to Hector Avalos, in his book The End of Biblical Studies (pp. 43-44) a correct translation of this passage reveals itself to be polytheistic, to the core, for it says that the god Elyon gave certain nations with their boundaries to his sons, and Yaweh's portion was the nation of Israel!

There are many many other much more embarrasing elements in the Bible and the Gospels than those mentioned on that Christian Blog!

Anonymous said...

So what does he mean by authentic? Evidence of Jesus divinity or as Zilch pointed out, just a bunch of anecdotes? I don't see what the significance is. A rebuttal to this argument is that While he's singing the praises of this aspect of scripture, Luke and Matthew went to a lot of trouble to 'fix' them. Therefore it seems that the people closer to the source had a problem with it.

And if you buy into dissonance theory, then what Luke and Matt. did and Jesus's eventual elevation to trinity god-hood over the course of three hundred years is consistent with the behavior of people trying to provide justification for things that they know are contradictory.

Which is what I believe. The bible is the result of self-justification, which is why it is out of control in terms of internal consistency. Like a liar trying to support a lie with more lies. Its easy to support the truth with more truth cause it isn't self-contradictory.

Adrian said...

My feelings are mixed. To create a better "hero archetype", wouldn't the writers have to make Jesus struggle? To make the stories more applicable to us, wouldn't the writers make other characters disbelieving at first? That way we can have conversion stories as Doubting Thomas (for example) comes to see the light.


I think the questions are interesting, but his answer strikes me as disingenuous. The first step should be to understand what literary qualities these points bring to the story, and to understand more about how Jesus was viewed at the time. These traits which modern readers think are negative may be because Jesus has been rebuilt into different models. Even in the Bible, we see a different Jesus in the Epistles than is in the Gospels. Does anyone think that these embarrassing elements add veracity?

Mark Plus said...

I have to wonder if people had different standards about "embarrassing elements" back then. Muslims' own approved traditions about Muhammad have him sporting a big, hairy mole on his backside, marrying prepubescent girls and getting some of his teeth knocked out in a battle. But they don't seem embarrassed by these aspects of Muhammad's life story.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

These points -- and even more the quotes from the Sermon on the Mount that insist on the 'unchanging requirement of obeying The (OT) Law' are why I cannot accept the idea the 'Jesus was a myth' (or a composite -- as one person recently argued in a response to an article of mine on another blog).

I think that the memory of some of Jesus' sayings was still alive when the Gospel was written, and that the writers -- particularly Matthew -- had to include them, even if they directly contradicted what Paul argued. (I also wonder if Paul had yet reached the prestige he was later to have.)
Embarrassing, yes, some of them -- though they make the man even more human and more likable. But so fixed in people's minds that they couldn't be left out of the Synoptics -- though 'John' did a good job in ignoring them thirty years later, and Paul, of course, never met the man or heard him preach.

Edwardtbabinski said...

The "embarrassing elements" in such passages present Jesus as a modern day televangelist healer/exorcist. People today watching religious TV healers see people allegedly being "healed" and "exorcized" at huge rallies, while others think such televangelists are off their rockers or charlatans. Even many Christians today doubt such faith healing televangelists, note the exposes at the Wittenburg Door's website.

What definitely came LATER in the Gospel tradition (from Mark to Matthew, to Luke/Acts to John) was Jesus being raised to higher divine status especially by the time of the Gospel of John.

What also came LATER in the Gospel tradition were ever more elaborate post-resurrection tales that added on, aggrandized and mythicized them, piling up higher and deeper and assuring people that it's better to believe without seeing. For a detailed discussion google:

Babinski Habermas resurrection

The words allegedly spoken by the raised Jesus increase in number from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John.

Stories of the resurrection also grow longer when the Gospels are viewed chronologically, including an increasing emphasis on its physicality (eating fish, and the insistance that "I am not a spirit"), and even a later tale about a bodily rising into the sky, which all are found in the last two Gospels, in Luke/Acts and John.

Even the dying words of Jesus on the cross grow grander in the last two Gospels. For instance in Mark, the earliest Gospel, Jesus dies with the words, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" But notice how Jesus's dying words grow nobler and longer in the later two Gospels, Luke and John. (Such as "It is finished," and Jesus dying like a philosopher, not in as much agony but speaking something noble at the end.)

So the EMBARASSING ELEMENTS are the Gospels themselves, especially when read in chronological order, Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, John

Speaking of embarrassing, why did Christians ADD ON an ending to Mark that wasn't original? Or conversely why did God let Mark end so unsatisfactorily that Christians thought they had to make up an ending later?

Or if the original ending was lost, why did God let the ending of the earliest Gospel get lost, and instead have it end merely with the women visiting an empty tomb, meeting a "young man" (not even an "angel" at this early point in the telling of the story), and then "telling no one" what they had seen? Pretty shaky ending for the FIRST AND EARLIEST GOSPEL.

Thank God Christians saw fit to write more Gospels that changed the story and kept adding things to convince others of the truth of the resurrection.

But honestly IF GOD INSPIRED the GOSPELS he could have put more genuine details about the resurrection into the first one, especially since it was written closer to the time of the actual events than the later Gospels which kept adding stories.

*And if the earliest Gospel did have a longer ending then it seems a bit unlikely it was ever "lost" especially since it was probably written on a scroll and scrolls are rolled up with the ending inside their middle, rolling up the ending first, which means the ending was in a safe place, rolled inside the scroll.

And why do MATTHEW AND LUKE differ most in the very places where MARK, the earliest Gospel, is silent? (That is in the birth narratives and post-resurrection appearance tales.)

Embarrassing? You bet.

Anonymous said...

Embarassing to whom? I'm sure Jesus isn't embarassed and I think God can handle it.

About John's comment:

John,
Hector Avalos believes the Bible is irrelevant, as I know you do, because it can only really be understood, culturally, by the highly educated "elite" . A.W. Tozer, among others who's higher education began with reading that book, would disagree.

The use of the term Elyon seems misleading. This was not God's name. It was a descriptive concept to explain an attribute, along with the other names which were commonly used in polytheism to give substance to their ideas about gods. Borrowing those concepts does not make God a myth. When God named Himself, He said "I Am".

If you have time, and I'm sorry this is such oddly formed reading, here is an extensive rebuttal for this argument, and is written by Michael S. Heiser who is a reliable source.

I'm not sold on Mr. Avalos's understanding of the translation.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, that article was written in 2001 by a conservative Christian for a conservative journal. He attended Dallas Theolgical Seminary, taught for Jerry Falwell's college, Liberty University, Grace College, and for Taylor University of Ft. Wayne, formerly known as Ft. Wayne Bible College. So he has a vested interest is arguing away the problems in the Bible. In fact, conservative translations of the passage all misrepresent what the text actually says because of the implications of it.

Anyway, Avalos argues that these scholars are ignoring the archaelogical discoveries at Ras Shamra where "Elyon" is used as an independent deity. Given the whole nature of the polytheistic texts in the Bible ("Let us make man in our image" by "Elohim," translated "gods," and the fact that polytheistic gods had "sons of.." theirs) the best translation is Avalos'. After all, why does it say so often that God is the "god of gods" in the Psalms? Wouldn't it be clearly monotheistic to say "God alone is God and there is no other God?" We don't read that until 2nd Isaiah. Even the 1st commandment merely says not to worship other gods. Why say that at all if God alone is the only God? Why not command them to reject all other religions, or all other religious practices?

Tsheej said...

Its fascinating to me the dismissive attempts people go to. A person's conservative interpretation no more invalidates the argument than your liberal interpretation, John, invalidates the argument. Jennifer, the people here are not interested in dialogging about truth. That's why John was dismissive of your argument.

C. Michael Patton said...

With all this dismissing everyone, what is a legitimate skeptic to do?

This begs the question: Can there be a legitimate skeptic? Sounds like a blog title.

:)

Kyle Szklenski said...

There was an interesting comment once by the author of the blog found at: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath

I am not quoting it because I can't seem to find it anymore (it was hidden under a post just as a comment), but it's an interesting point about one of the embarrassing things found in the bible. Dr. Chu-Carroll, the author, is a Jewish math and computer science wiz who works for Google.

The gist of it went: Why did women find Jesus' tomb empty instead of the men? Yeah, that seems troublesome at first, unless you know something about the culture back then. Then it makes complete sense: Touching or even being near a dead person was considered unclean at this time, and so the apostles would never have gone near Jesus' dead corpse.

I always found that to be very interesting, and I don't think he would lie about such a thing. Can anyone here corroborate/refute that claim?

Anonymous said...

John,
I see your point about the position of Mr. Heiser. I don't think the date of the publication or the conservative predisposition dismisses his thorough treatment of the subject. Mr. Heiser also has so many academic credentials it would take too long to list them right now...I think that counts for a great deal, especially given his expertise.

I don't know if you read the paper, but one of his points is that "gods" in the ancient mind meant any heavenly being. I know that you now think that heavenly beings are silly and a delusion, but I don't, and Mr. Heiser doesn't. He does write about Elyon and it's use. His explanation is very articulate and honest scholarship.
Why does his faith dismiss his objective scholarship? I don't think it does anymore than Avalos's predispositions nullify his scholarship.

Here is where I am with the myth proposition. If there is a god, and Heiser argues articulately for the strength of the Jewish form of monotheism as distinct from other "monotheistic" cultures, it makes sense to me that all people would have some form of understanding the idea of this god. If people did speak with God face to face at some point and then experienced the "veil" resulting from sin, which seperated them from Him, it makes sense to me that as they related their stories something was lost in communication.
This is the central theme of the Bible. God working for reconcilliation.

It makes sense that we would have thousands of different interpretations of a god or gods because something inside man is drawn to this idea of a higher being, the ultimate parent.


So...I can see it both ways. If I didn't believe in God and had no experience of Him I most likely would not believe in Him. The day I did believe I was ready to give up on hoping. Really. I was raised in a "culturally Christian" home, but had no faith in God until my late teens. Anyway...that is beside the point. If I didn't have any reason other than reading ancient texts, I may not think any of it to be real. I would conclude the same as you.

I think I am fairly critical. Not to the point of vascillating continually, but I try to see all sides before I make a decision. It makes more sense to me to believe in God. The reason I laid out such a large test for God's existence a few months ago was not for drama, but because, as you have alluded to, history is not a good medium for revelation. I don't think people can only make choices based on written or verbal history because without the primary sources there is no way to judge whether it is accurate. Even with primary sources it can be difficult to interpret context at times. There is dissonance on both sides of the fence when it comes to particulars, aren't there?, but the God side has less for me.

Why say that at all if God alone is the only God? Why not command them to reject all other religions, or all other religious practices?

Mr. Heiser addresses this in his paper, and from what I understood him to say, God was referring to heavenly beings. The flip side of this command is to love Him only...no other gods, even so far as not to make any graven images of ANYTHING that would represent God or other (supposed) gods. Why wasn't He pleased with the symbol of strength the Israelites made in the golden calf? It probably seemed like a compliment in the minds of the Israelites. The Egyptians did it.

I'm digressing. To end:

Why is the differing opinion of two biased scholars not equal? Both men draw from inner voices and a wealth of scholarship...they simply see something different.

Speedwell said...

(thinks a moment)

Ok... I failed ninth grade math. I have a wart on my nose. I have a hard time finding a deodorant that works. I once sleep-walked out of my house nude. I've been in jail twice. I can't follow directions. I scratch my ass.

All right, there you go. All of the above must be true because they're all embarrassing, right? Wrong. None of the above are true.

Geeze. What a lame argument.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, the subject of predispositions, biases and control beliefs are indeed important. They don't dismiss a person's argument, of course, but it's been shown time and again that the conclusion a person seeks to arrive at will be found by smart people if they want to do so, percisely because of that disposition. You can see them on display whenever someone has to revert to sub-standard definitions and improbable hypotheses. I know, I did it myself for years as a Christian exegete.

If you want to allow women to speak in the church, for instance, all you have to do is to interpret the word "authority" in a modern way. Of course, it means to domineer over someone else in the Greek, but the point with Paul is that for a woman to teach is doing just that! That's what Paul thought. Now he's either wrong about this, or Christians interpret the situation differently according to their modern views. But you cannot say it's correctly interpreting what Paul said to say that so long as a woman doesn't domineer over a man that she can teach. Why? Because it's clear that Paul thought for a woman to teach was in fact to domineer over a man! You may not understand my point because I'm not here dealing with the particular text in question, but it's easier to understand, that's all. And I learn from you, so thanks teacher! Keep it coming.

Happy Thanksgiving!

C. Michael Patton said...

I don't think that anyone is saying that the "embarrassment factor" proves that the Gospels are true, they are just saying that it does add credibility to their historicity.

Good historical inquiry must ask Why would someone include such if they were not true?

Anonymous said...

Michael, there is an alternative hypothesis to consider whether such embarrasments add credibility to the Gospels. The oral tradition and Q, which the Gospel writers used to construct their accounts, were more faithful transcriptions of what Jesus said and did. Surely you believe this, correct? Then consider this hypothesis: The traditions about Jesus grew about him until he was granted divine status as the decades progressed, and while there were attempts to change these earlier stories, they couldn't change them all.

Compare Mark 10:18 where Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone", with Matthew 19:16, where Jesus' words are changed by a later gospel writer to say, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good." Notice Matthew doesn't have Jesus say that only God is good, because it would be a discrepancy with the fact that in Matthew's time they were beginning to think of Jesus as God.

Cheers.

C. Michael Patton said...

John, its as good as any I suppose. Yet, I guess it would depend on the dating of the Gospels and the various elements that contributed to Q. But I suppose we have to remember that Q, M, and L, while early, are not too much earlier than the Gospels themselves (supposing that the Q theory is correct).

I would say that while such a hypothesis is indeed possible, so is the hypothesis that these accounts do indeed contribute to the historicity of the Gospels. Would that be beyond consideration?

Anonymous said...

Hi c. michael,
as another commenter pointed out, embarrasing does not necessarily mean authentic.

In my opinion this is a weak argument because the principle it depends on can so easily be refuted by examples of non-authenticity. Namely the commenters example.

and then so what if these parts of the gospel are true? Does it mean that that the rest are true? No. at the end of the day, you are still stuck with figuring out what is true and what is embellishment.

And it is not out of the question for someone to include these things exactly because of their persuasive power. The con game is the other oldest profession.

This is not to say that they were deliberately trying to fraud anyone, but if they understood the principles of persuasion in an intuitive way (as we all do in degrees) then it would be natural to include things such as that.

But in any case, if I were an apologist, I wouldn't touch this argument. The principle it rests on is too weak.

C. Michael Patton said...

I agree Lee that no one should make this say more than it actually does. In my opinion, it just contributes to a cumulative case if there is no more plausible explanation for it.

Anonymous said...

Ya'll are talking about Q as if it exists. Do we have a copy? You're basing an entire method for understanding the texts on a hypothetical document...as well liked a hypothesis as it is, it is still a hypothesis.

John,
Do you want me to respond to women teaching :)...Tom Wright has some enlightening things to say about the context.

I got your point...I'm a mom, I can multi-think. Are you disregarding the scholarship of Michael Heiser?

And Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I hope you enjoy your time with your family or friends or both.

Anonymous said...

hi c. michael,
I wouldn't even add it to my portfolio to make a cumulative case. The reason why is someone like me would turn it around and point out, like I did in my first post, that in the beginning, Jesus as god was not the consensus. These things put in there were not threatening to that idea. Over time they became threatening. I would turn this argument around and say that it better supports Jesus lack of divinity because the anectdotes are not consistent with what should be the case if a god walked the earth, and if anyone should know it would be his mother. It better supports as ed points out that the further away from the event the larger his divinity grew which is more consistent with the creation of a legend than historical authenticity.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, arguably the most comprehensive book discussioning the sources for the Gospel tradition is this one. It's a scholarly book. If you want a less technical book, choose from any number of Introductions the the New Testament, even conservative ones.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I promised to comment on these specific passages, so here I will. I have not re-read them so I’m going from memory. Let me address Michael since he posted them.

The thing about most of those you mentioned is that the context of the gospels themselves provides the answer for the reader. Let’s say I write a story about a hero and tell about a time someone smashed a pie in his face without additional comment, or that his mother thought he was insane, or his hometown rejected him, or that some people thought he was in collusion with the devil, or that he was a glutton. It would merely be saying my hero faced opposition and problems, but it’s clear that I’m claiming he’s a great man despite that fact, and he overcame that opposition. So there is nothing embarrassing about telling these stories in the context of my whole story. My hero still shines.

Other passages merely tell us something about Jesus, that his healings were sometimes based on common medical techniques, or that they weren’t instantaneous, since in the ancient world it was still considered a healing, and that’s what healers did. For them it would not be embarrassing to tell them, even though for us today it is. Anytime Jesus couldn’t heal someone it was always explained as a lack of faith on other people anyway, so I see nothing embarrassing in that.

That Jesus associated with lower class people is actually a praiseworthy thing in the gospels since the Christian movement took off among the lower classes (with notable exceptions). Even high class people can admire such a person who is known as not being a respecter of persons. At least, that’s what higher class people say they admire, even if they don’t want to emulate this behavior.

The fact that it says his disciples faltered shows his patience with them in teaching them how to be overcomers, and the gospels show how they did eventually overcome. It would be like a Niki Cruz story, or a conversion testimonial: "Look how bad I was, weak, sinful, and ignorant. But Jesus helped me be what I am today." It serves the Evangelists purposes very well, since they want to show how Jesus changes lives.

Others passages, like the fig tree incident, show he is all-powerful, and there is a moral lesson to be found there. Still others can be explained by my earlier hypothesis. And still others are merely modern embarrassments, like his racism, and his rudeness, which surely were not seen as such to ancient people.

And while the cross was a curse upon the crucified, the story ends with him being resurrected, so Jesus, the hero, overcame death itself. In fact, without the cross there would be no story…no faith…no victory over sin.

Just tell me if YOU are embarrassed by these incidents. Don’t you find them and the lessons learned from them to be positive and uplifting? If yes, then they are not embarrassing after all (except for the modern embarrassments, which are indeed embarrassment to us today).

Cheers.

C. Michael Patton said...

Lee, do you have such a portfolio? :)

I would ad it considering that it contributes in a positive way, even if it is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to make a case. Historical inquiry demands that I take it into consideration. The alternatives, while plausible, are not very strong in my opinion since they argue from silence and are based on hypotheticals.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Steven Carr said...

I see that they now require logging in to comment on the 'Reclaiming the Mind' blog. Christians don't always go in for this free speech thing.

'Jesus’ own family did not believe him and even questioned his sanity' (Mark)

This is really embarrasing, because Luke had Mary know that she is carrying her Lord and Saviour, and Luke also depicts the foetus John the Baptist leaping for joy in the womb when Mary arrives.

Of course, Mark has none of these birth narratives , so there is no conflict for him in depicting the family of Jesus in a way that depicts them as utterly insane after the events that happened to them when Jesus was born.

Steven Carr said...

Actually I think W.S.Gilbert summed up the 'embarrasing' bits best.

'Merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.'

I guess the stories of the childhood Jesus killing his playmates must be true, because Christians are so embarrased by them.

What Christian would have claimed Jesus killed somebody, unless he had been forced by the demands of historical reality to concede that that had actually happened?

Tsheej said...

Again, you give me Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the bible poses no problem for me. Not only do I believe the whale swallowed Jonah, I would have even believed it if Jonah had swallowed the whale. Did God in fact create the world? That is essentially where the argument begins and ends. Everything else completely misses the point because whether you believe this one thing or not dictates your whole sphere of interpretation and belief.

Steven Carr said...

'“A forged history would have clothed friends with every virtue, and would not have ventured to mar the effect designed to be produced by uncovering the vices of its most distinguished personages. Here there is displayed the uniqueness of Scripture history. Its characters are painted in the colors of truth and nature.'

Gosh, the Koran must be true, because it includes embarrasing stories about Muhammad getting 'revelation' to enable him to face down his wives in a domestic dispute.