The Gospels: Embarrassingly Authentic?
Historians take note of potentially embarrassing elements found in historical documents. Why? Because those who are writing true history don’t normally include things that might turn their face red. If you are embellishing something, you leave all that stuff out!
This is why the potentially embarrassing elements of the Gospels are a significant part of their historicity. Notice these accounts from the Gospel of Mark taken from Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy in their excellent new book Lord or Legend: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma. Â
- Jesus’ own family did not believe him and even questioned his sanity  (Mark 3:21)
- Jesus was rejected by people in his hometown and couldn’t perform many miracles there (Mark 6:2-5)
- Some thought Jesus was in collusion with, and even possessed by, the devil (Mark 3:22)
- At times Jesus seemed to rely on common medicinal techniques (Mark 7:33; Mark 8:23)
- Jesus’ healings weren’t always instantaneous (Mark 8:22-25)
- Jesus’ disciples weren’t always able to exorcise demons (Mark 9:18), and Jesus’ own exorcisms weren’t always instantaneous (Mark 5:8-13)
- Jesus seemed to suggest he wasn’t good (Mark 10:18)
- Jesus associated with people of ill-repute and gained a reputation of being a glutton and drunkard (Mark 2:15-16)
- Jesus sometimes seems to act rudely to people (Mark 7:26-27)
- Jesus seemed to disregard Jewish laws, customs, and cleanliness codes (Mark 2:23-24)
- Jesus often spoke and acted in culturally “shameful” ways (Mark 3: 31-35)
- Jesus cursed a fig tree for not having any figs when he was hungry, despite the fact that it wasn’t the season for figs (Mark 11:12-14)
- The disciples who were to form the foundation of the new community consistently seem dull, obstinate, and cowardly (Mark 8:32-33; Mark 10:35-37; Mark 14:37-40)
- Jesus was betrayed by an inner-circle disciple (Mark 14:43-46), and Peter cowardly denied any association with him (Mark 14:66-72)
- Women were the first to discover Jesus’ tomb was empty—while the men were hiding in fear! (Mark 16:1-8)
- The primary hero (Jesus) was crucified on a cross bringing a definite curse upon him (cf. Deut. 21:22-23)
If the Gospels served to form the backbone of the emerging Christian community of the first century, why include such details if they were not true? In other words, historic inquiry must ask the question concerning the raising of such stories, What explanation best accounts for their inclusion? Why make up details that are damaging?
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- The Gospels: Embarrassingly Authentic?
- The Significance of Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament
- Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!
- Converse with Scholars: Can We Trust the Gospels? Mark Roberts
- Blomberg’s “Underused Argument for the Resurrection of Christ”
Lisa S. on 20 Nov 2007 at 10:07 pm #
I have heard this argument before and it does make sense. But, I’m wondering how this compares with other religions, both now and at the time of the Gospels. I know Greek and Roman mythology was full of unflattering details about their gods. I’m not familiar with other sacred writings. Not trying to be argumentative, just pondering…
irreverend fox on 20 Nov 2007 at 10:58 pm #
I can hear crickets in the background here…
irreverend fox on 21 Nov 2007 at 7:53 am #
Lisa,
the one distinction between Roman mythology and Christian theology is that the Roman gods were not portrayed as omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent…or august in Holiness either. So the showing of their warts is not particularly noteworthy.
C Michael Patton on 21 Nov 2007 at 10:32 am #
From A.W. Pink concerning the embarrassment factor with regards to the whole Scripture:
“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. But such characters were never sketched by a human pencil. Moses and the other writers must have written by Divine inspiration.†A. W. Pink, Divine Inspiration of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 23
Carlos on 11 Feb 2008 at 2:46 am #
Hello,
I’m a Christian trying to find the best answers that I can.
What if the writers of the gospels added these embarrassments on purpose because they were seeking to create an account that would seem true because it was more like real life?
My logical process gets stuck there. I understand that people of character would not want to do this, unless they really wanted to propagate this hopeful lie.
steve matlock on 07 Jul 2008 at 3:48 pm #
Carlos,
Well, they could, of course. Anything’s possible.
But then, you have to imagine a group of men teaching about pure love and pure holiness, and widely scattered throughout the Mediterranean, conspiring somehow through distance and time to create fake details to highlight the story of one who represented God in the flesh.
That kind of man doesn’t exist, unless he’s a madman. And you have to posit that there were about a dozen or so of them, brilliant, sociable, gregarious, humble, self-sacrificing, and nearly to the man killed for what they preached. At any time they could have said “You’re right! We made it up! Stop with the torture!” But they didn’t. And their followers largely did not, either.
I don’t think that’s more plausible than the idea that they wrote these stories artlessly, adding details as they happened because that’s what they remembered or that’s how the story was told to them by eyewitnesses.
Of course, my speculation isn’t proveable. It just seems more likely to be true than the idea that men who believed in Jesus’ goodness and deity somehow thought it helpful to lie to accomplish the goal of evangelizing the world to “obey all that is written.” Except, perhaps, the part about lying and bearing false witness.
Another part of the story is that if the common literature about heroes in this time did not include these life-like details, then the writers would have had no reason to add these details - it wouldn’t make any difference, because verisimilitude wasn’t the goal of these other heroic stories - so why would they need it?