Keryg 2022: Funny Bible passages
When we hear the Bible read in church, the setting is so solemn we fail to recognize the humor. This thread is a place for people to cite their favorite funny passages.
Here is my favorite Numbers 11:10-15. It should be read aloud in a very whiny voice.
10 Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, all at the entrances of their tents. Then the Lord became very angry, and Moses was displeased. 11So Moses said to the Lord, ‘Why have you treated your servant so badly? Why have I not found favour in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me? 12Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, “Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a sucking child”, to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors? 13Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they come weeping to me and say, “Give us meat to eat!” 14I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me. 15If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once—if I have found favour in your sight—and do not let me see my misery.’
Here is my favorite Numbers 11:10-15. It should be read aloud in a very whiny voice.
10 Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, all at the entrances of their tents. Then the Lord became very angry, and Moses was displeased. 11So Moses said to the Lord, ‘Why have you treated your servant so badly? Why have I not found favour in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me? 12Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, “Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a sucking child”, to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors? 13Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they come weeping to me and say, “Give us meat to eat!” 14I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me. 15If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once—if I have found favour in your sight—and do not let me see my misery.’
Comments
They were, of course, much better off without a king. This matches up well with the last line in the book of Judges.
7 And the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’” 9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you.”
11 But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’?
And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?
And Jonah 3:3 has
"Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days’ walk across."
You bet they did when they’ve drawn 120-180 gallons (545-818 litres) by hand! That’s around six baths full.
Calasso's retelling of II Kings 2:23-24
When he climbed up to Bethel a swarm of boys surrounded him, jeering: "Climb on up, baldy! Climb on up, baldy!" Elisha looked up, sent them a withering look, and cursed them. Then two she-bears came out of the forest and tore apart 42 of the boys.
For example, Balaam and Balak (Numbers 22 through 24). Balak wants Balaam to curse the Isrealites. he, instead, praises them. Balak moves Balaam to a second location and tried again. Again, instead of a curse, praise comes out. Balak moves him to a third location--with the same result. And each time, Balak erects 7 altars and sacrifices a bull and ram on each altar! That would be 21 altars, 21 bulls and 21 rams--all to just hear Balaam praise the Israelites.
I am fairly confident this was meant to be amusing to the original audience. After all, Balak was the enemy and mocking the enemy as being incompetent buffoons is pretty standard. We still do it today. Take, for example, the news articles making merry about Russia's tank convoy grounding to a halt on the way to Kyiv because they ran out of gas.
On the other hand, I am less sure that the Moses Whine was meant to be funny. As @Moo points out, it can be funny if you read it with a suitably whiny voice, but that may be a case of us imposing a modern cultural value on to an ancient text. Or maybe not. I don't know.
I feel the same way about the Wedding at Cana (John 2). I find quite a lot about this scene funny (although I had not appreciated @BroJames point before!). It even starts with a bit that always makes me chuckle:
Mary completely ignores Jesus' comment! She just turns to the servants and says "Do what he tells you to do." She has effectively painted Jesus into a corner: she expects him to do something and, despite his protest that it isn't yet time, he is forced to take action! I mean, I suppose he could have still refused, but then he would be disobeying (and disappointing) his mother. It is such a beautiful mother-son interaction. As a son whose own mother had pulled much the same trick on him several times, I can't help but laugh at it. But, again, I can't tell if the original audience would have reacted the same way. Part of me feels that mother-son relations are universal constants over time, but I am not sure.
And, just to add another bit of Cana that amuses me: rather than making wine of the same quality, so that nobody would realize that anything was amiss, Jesus decides to make wine of superior quality--putting the poor bridegroom (who knew nothing about any of this) into the awkward position of trying to explain things to the wine steward! Was this Jesus amusing himself as a reaction to having been backed into the miracle by Mom? It seems like it would be a very human thing for him to do!
M
And God was going around saying "Adam. Where are you?. I can't find you. Come on out, ready or not."
One of my favorites is this one (paraphrased):
From: https://blog.bible/bible-blog/entry/did-jesus-tell-jokes
Query whether it might be the only joke that we have recorded from St Paul?
Although St John Chrysostom, whose first language was presumably koine, understood clearly what St Paul was saying, the translators of the AV and commentators from the Reformation era down until the late C19 may not have picked this up, and assumed 'cut off' meant excommunicated, not mutilated.
Proverbs 18:24 '.. there is friend who sticks closer than a brother'.
That's what I said. I don't understand the motivation to paint what is at best weakly humorous as hilarity when it clearly isn't. On the other hand, "Friends" taught us that some people find someone walking into a room absolutely side-splitting so who am I to judge?
What fascinates me about this topic however is not the humour that may or may not be there, it's what underlies the attempts to find humour in the Bible. There's something funny (did you see what I did there?) about that. I recall someone trying to tell me that Peter's comment in Acts that the disciples couldn't be drunk because it was too early in the morning was absolutely side splitting and I thought - no, it isn't. I wondered if it was just me and tried it on a few other people. No-one found it remotely funny.
Stereotypes about Jewish comedians aside, monotheism arguably doesn't lend itself well to humour. There's no real trickster figure(the closest you get is Satan, but he's not someone we're meant to be entertained by), and sex is treated with high-seriousness, something regulated to all get-out in order to maintain a distinct cultural identity from the fornicating foreigners. Even when Jesus in the NT liberalizes things by spiking the Law with a bit of compassion, the tone remains pretty staid.
I think if you maybe overlay a tone onto the story, it could be read in a funny way.
JESUS: So what'cha guys all talkin' about?
CLEOPAS: Huh? Did you just blow in here from Sicily? Lemme clue ya in on a few things.
Etc etc. But that's kinda going beyond what's put forth in the text.
SOLOMON: Hey, did I ever tell you girls about the time thirty years ago when two women brought a baby into the palace and---
WIFE(rolling her eyes): Yes, Solly, only about a hundred times. Now, come on, let's go get naked and dance to Ishtar.
SOLOMON: Hubba hubba hubba, spark up that incense!
First of all, I don't define "hilarious" that narrowly. If it gives me the giggles reliably, I'll use the term. Second, there's a definite damping effect that familiarity has on ANYTHING you've read a zillion times, which is a category the Bible definitely falls into for me. The first time, snorts and giggles, and a shout to someone in the other room to come see this; the thirty-first, maybe just an upquirk of the lips and a pause to savor it again. That's no fault of the material, that's the normal way human beings react to anything over time. Why should the Bible be any different?
Again, this is going to be culturally and probably personally determined. To me, this is a scene I'd love to stage. The stage "business"--the facial expressions, the gestures, the walkers stopping dead in their tracks when Jesus says "What things?" in a totally innocent tone of voice--that's what gets me. The so-very-earnest attempt to explain just how terrible everything is and was, in detail, to the very man at the center of it all, while he (unseen by the speakers) furtively shakes down his sleeve to cover the nail marks...
Now I grant you, you can argue that I've imported all this. But in turn I will argue that this is far more natural and human a reading of the text than what we usually get, when the people are treated like holy wooden poseable statues, mouthing foolishness and doubt while the risen Christ communicates nothing but impatience and a desire to give an academic lecture.
Get into their heads. How do those two walkers feel, when Jesus comes up? They clearly think Jesus is still dead. They are disciples of his. So they're grieving, right? They are sad; frightened; depressed; in that mentally dead, dry, heavy frame of mind that comes when the funeral is over and now there's nothing to do but take the next step, and the next step, and so on, until you walk into your own grave, and what is the use of anything? And perhaps just a little irritated by the foolishness of the resurrection report, which of course they do not believe (women, huh?) but nevertheless cannot wholly shrug off, and it bugs them.
They are leaving Jerusalem behind--why? Possibly flight from danger, possibly giving up to go back to the life they once left for the glorious dream of discipleship, now ended.
They are going... where? We don't know, except they aren't going to get there in a single afternoon. They will take a room at an inn before continuing their journey (which never of course happens). But the length of the journey and its timing implies a certain amount of commitment, though it doesn't prove it. It's likely they intend to leave Jesus' group for good. That's also unhappiness--one life ended, and no clear idea of what comes next.
Now get into Jesus' head, because he IS a man, even now, and has human psychology, and isn't just a stained glass figure. He has completed the work he came here to carry out. The work that has absorbed his whole life, the work he gave everything for, the work he believes himself born for. And it is a success. And Jesus is filled with joy.
There is nothing else he has to do in the near future. The ascension is next up, and that will be some weeks from now. He's all done talking to outsiders--to officials, to large crowds, etc. The next 40 days are basically his to do with as he pleases. In short, HE CAN RELAX. For the first time since his ministry began, he can relax.
And he can do it with the people he's closest to--the people who are both incredibly annoying and incredibly beloved, and most of them still have no clue that he is alive. No freaking clue. In spite of him telling them this would happen several times, in spite of the women's report, etc. etc. etc. They are being their usual human infuriating beloved selves.
Under these circs--Jesus filled with joy, relaxing, considering how to break the news to a bunch of people whom he loves who are being stubborn butts about the whole matter (taken from a certain perspective), well.... do you expect him to resist the temptation to tease them, just a little? It will do them no harm. They deserve it, on a certain level. After all, they've been told. Multiple times. And nobody, not even Thomas, is going to be left in the dark for more than a week tops. The desperate cases (Peter, Mary Magdalene) get dealt with immediately. The others, like this pair.... why shouldn't Jesus have a little fun?
That's what I'm seeing--both here and in his interaction with Thomas, at least the very first bit ("C'mere, Thomas.... stick your finger out...")
Or when Jesus says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, the disciples would not be poking themselves in the ribs over that absurdity? Matthew 19, 24
Or when Elijah squared off against the priests of Ba'al by challenging them to get Ba'al to send fire to the altar where they were sacrificing a animal. When Ba'al did not do it Elijah thought maybe Ba'al was possibly relieving himself or was sound asleep and needed to be awakened. 1 Kings 19:20-40
Then, there is the whole fable of Jonah that reads like a comedy script.
The equivalent of "camel through the eye of the needle" today would be something like "I've seen cockroaches with a higher sense of social responsibility than that guy."
Which would be moderately amusing in spoken conversation, but would be seriously diluted when the speech was recorded in writing: IOW the writer probably didn't include it in the text to make the reader laugh, just to let him know what was said.
Mine either, really. But it could work as one of those "You had to be there" sorta things. If eg. some well-known businessman dies, and everyone at my weekly stuffed-shirt dinner party is making perfunctory noises about what a great man he was, and my smart-assed nephew chimes in with "I've seen cockroaches...", I might react in the way that Gramps is assuming the disciples woulda reacted to the Eye Of The Needle.
Thing is, as readers of the Bible, we WEREN'T there, so the yuk-yuks don't really translate for us.
Could be, but needs a twisty punchline.
In addition to this, it slants the discussion if "funny" is interpreted as meaning "roll-on-the-floor grabbing my ribs and slapping-my-knees funny." It can just be amusing. it can just be something that brings a mild smile to the lips. It can just be something to lighten the mood. For example, there is that bit in Acts 2: 14-15 where the crowd is suggesting that the Apostles are drunk on new wine and Peter's response is...."it's only 9:00AM!" Do we assume that he said this sternly and somberly as a scientific or mathematic principle? Or do we think he was poking fun at the accusation: instead of saying "we never get drunk!" he goes with "it's too early for us to be drunk!" It comes across as a more lighthearted response, which was far better to get the crowd's attention than an angry denial. No, it isn't Laugh Out Loud Hilarity, but it is firmly in the category of lighthearted amusement.
Added to all that, of course, is the point that @Lamb Chopped made that we are overly familiar with the incidents of the Bible, which drain them of humor. I think we all understand that, but let's give an example:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To get to the other side.
Old, trite, boring. Not funny. But it cannot be denied that when that was originally devised it was intended to be a joke. It was intended to be funny. It just has lost any punch from overuse. But if the question was: is this a joke? The answer is "yes it is."
All of which leads to my point: saying "I don't find this funny" or "I've laughed more at sitcoms" is not addressing the question: was what is contained in the Bible intended to amuse at the time?
The disciples sound like a four-year-old, "Don't you CARE? They have had many opportunities to see how much Jesus cared, just as the four-year-old has had a lifetime of seeing how much his parents care.
This is not roll-on-the-floor-funny, but it's worth a smile.
IMO the punchline here steps completely out of the joke realm (which is where it began, I'll admit) and into the realm of mercy. God sees that there aren't enough people to meet Abraham's ten (which is where he left off, almost certainly because what he really meant was "save my relatives, Lot's family"--and he was sure there would be at least ten in that family alone who would meet the requirement). In fact there are not enough. But God saves Lot's family anyway--as many as are willing to be saved. And interprets that generously, so having to be yanked out of the city by the arm is sufficient consent. All for Abraham's sake, and the bargain that could not be literally fulfilled.
I'm sure Jesus was quite witty at the various weddings he attended, especially when he'd had a few, but that sort of trivial banter is not recorded in the text because the gospel writers had a much more serious purpose than to produce light entertainment.
Right. And Lot seems to have disassembled his original vast household--the one that was so large, the land could not support his and his uncle's in the same general area. Abraham may not have realized this. Thus his bargaining for "ten". If he had known, he would probably have kept going down to five or two...
It has always seemed to me that this is a total cop-out. Jokes can be explained. They are not some kind of magic fairy dust from the cosmos that strikes us as funny for no reason whatsoever. There could be no comedians or comic writing if that were the case. If something strikes someone as funny, and especially if more than someone, there is a reason for it.
I always heard it as an eye-rolling, "Oh brother" kind of thing. Not a lighthearted "Don't be silly ha ha ha" but a moan of "You can't be fucking serious."
Matthew 14:29-30: ‘ Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came towards Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’
I wonder whether the other disciples laughed when he fell in!
As has been noted, the are really two things being talked about here: the first is what the original audiences would have seen as humorous, which likely has to be explained because of different cultural circumstances and assumptions. Having it explained doesn’t mean we’ll find it funny, just that we’ll understand why the original audience might have, or at least recognize that they probably did.
And the second is what a modern reader might find humorous, even where no humor was intended. That may need some explanation too, because it’s our own cultural circumstances and assumptions, perhaps combined with personality or personal experience, that makes us see humor. Again, that doesn’t mean those we explain it to will also find it funny.
A fair comment if we are engaged in examples of textual erudition. I don't think the examples cited here fall into that category, rather the opposite as they are commended as humour in terms which assume a contemporary English cultural context. My problem is that I have great difficulty in finding the examples presented as being particularly amusing. and the conclusions at times misleading because they assume intentions by the author which are not sustained by the text. I am, however, open to the possibility that there is humour in the bible that can be revealed by serious scholarship and would prove helpful to a deeper understanding of scripture.
This, basically.