It is possible that he could read from Scripture but not have been taught to write (the story about the woman being stoned never says what Jesus was "writing" in the sand --it could have been words or it could have been doodles).

IT is also possible that nobody thought it important to write stuff down.  In a much more orally-oriented culture it may not have seemed important.  In our culture such things are automatically recorded in some form.  In earlier culture that is not necessarily so.

And, rita, I don't think Jesus ever thought that over 2000 years later we would be asking this question. I don't think he realized his power in the community. And future communities.

Hi Rita,

Jesus knew he was scripture fulfilled.  We also know he was a prophet - like telling everyone a dead person is not really dead before he is risen.

We also know Jesus knew his story would be recorded.  Matthew 26:10-13.  With the level of control he had over the things of this world - we can be sure that he was able to ensure it has been recorded correctly.

You mean the guy who wrote Matthew, while writing it decades after the events he describes, wrote that Jesus said that his story would be written?

That is an absolutely bulletproof circular argument.

Hi Rita,

This was also said of Socrates. There has been nothing found that he wrote but he also had followers that were seeking truth(eg.Plato). If others hadn't written about him, would we even know of his existence?

It seems to me that both Socrates and Jesus could have been quite capable of writing things down, but I wonder, does truth arrive from anothers writings or must we experience it to have the message revealed?

Socrates:" if you take my advice you will give but little thought to Socrates and much more to the truth"

Jesus:"If you abide in my word you are truly my disciples,and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"

Rita TG wrote:

I was wondering why Jesus never wrote anything down (in  the way of scripture)

​___________________

Hi Rita

well since the whole bible is about Jesus/God, what good testimony would it be in the minds of future generations if Jesus witnessed and wrote about himself? , He would not be selfless . 

A testimony is greater when other witness of you 

True Love is not measured by how much you loved in life but by how much others loved you 

​

Or, perhaps in this case, how effective your marketing department has been.

I have 2 step kids,  who are now 35 and 33 , who I grew up since they were 5 and 3, they love me unconditionally and look out for me, all because I loved them first, I don't need to write about what kind of a step-father I was, self witness is worthless but there testimonies speak volume .

Now the oldest is expecting and is due in August, she expressed how happy she is that the baby is due close to my birthday which is also in August.

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Pure love needs no marketing, it cannot help do naturall what is in its nature but simply flourish 

Right, but you're not Jesus, and you never met Jesus - something you quite likely have in common with the people who wrote the New Testament.

That's why I refer to Jesus' "marketing department", or his "fan club" if you prefer, doing a wonderful job, considering how little we know for sure about a historical Jesus, or if he existed at all.

I can think up of a few 'reasons' (not all of which are mutually exclusive):

o  Jesus is a character in a book.

o  Jesus's words are there, in a kind of 'invisible ink' that can only be read when people grok with fullness or unlock the occult Bible code.

o  If Jesus was quite 'tuned-in' to the Human Condition, grokking psychology etc etc, especially if He was G_d Hisself (knowing everything etc etc), then He'd grok with fullness what happens as soon as something is written down -- it becomes dogma, people focussing on the words instead of the message.

o  Jesus did write things down, through the various peoples who wrote the Bible.

o  Jesus did write things down, but when His followers tried to read it, they said "Umm...this is a joke, right?  'Hen hen ponder giggle'?!  What does that mean?" and took over the job themselves of being Jesus' editors, which every writer needs.

I'll stick with 5 :3

I'll admit, the idea that it is rather difficult for a fictional character to write things down did cross my mind.

Good question Rita. Perhaps Jesus was just too busy to write anything down.

You know, he was spending his time on day-to-day stuff. Casting out demons, giving sight to the blind, enabling the lame to walk, raising the dead, that sort of thing.

chansen,

*chuckle*

For a fictional character, you do a bang-up job :3

chansen ... thank you (sincerely) ....point noted ...... all fiction ...got it......

Innawhimsey ...picked through your post a few times .... interesting thoughts....

Now ..as for the others ..... thank you as well for your comments.....

Waterfall ... thank you for that interesting post ..... something for me to look into!

SNP and blackbelt ..... just a bit more wondering here ...... then why didn't Jesus make sure that more was written down so that we would better understand his original meaning?    Now before you go to explaining how the Holy Spirit is to guide please consider the major differences that exist in scripture interpretation by various denominations and persons that claim to be led by that same Holy Spirit?   It seems to me that Jesus understood how scripture was so easily misinterpreted and that, at least in my mind, how important that clarity would be.

To me, there is something significant missing in my understanding of why scripture is this way when Jesus could have made it much more clear.

Thank you all and please continue the discussion!

Hugs

Rita

ill believe the testimonies of your family and friends of what kind of a person you were.

ps, apart from the bible. the subject of wether Jesus actually live (historical Jesus) has been put to rest. 

this is a case of  " will the real church please stand up" 

Every now and then, I follow the link from this site to the UCCan Observer magazine.  I appear to be one of 15 or so people who do this.

A recent interview in the Observer, is with Anglican priest Tom Harpur.  I like what he says about the subject:

Q But you go further than most people. It’s one thing to establish “the clear dependence of the Christian narrative on early myth.” But then you make a leap, saying that Jesus himself is a mythical figure. Why do you need to do that? Even liberal thinkers like Borg and Crossan take the historical Jesus pretty seriously.

A Yeah, but they don’t offer a shred of historical evidence. Since my book was published, there has not been one scholar come forth with solid evidence from the first century, apart for a dubious reference in [the work of the Jewish writer] Josephus that they love to hurl around, a reference that is clearly, clearly, clearly false. I’ve been waiting for the evidence to show up. I don’t have a vested interest in there being no historical Jesus. I never set out to defend that position!

Q So why’d you go there? Nobody else does.

A No, but truth has a funny way of saying “What are you going to do with me?” There’s not a shred of evidence for a man called Jesus that historians would say was verifiable or legitimate. If someone has the evidence, I’d love to see it, because I don’t need the aggravation.

http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2011/06/tom_harpur/

It's not that non-Christians see insufficient or no evidence for a historical Jesus - it's that not even all Christians see sufficient evidence for a historical Jesus.

i wouldn't expect anything less from an atheists like Crossan teaching on the Christian faith.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

​

chansen,

Jesus has become the 'authority' for sombunall people to place their feelings, thoughts, and actions.  But you have to start somewhere, I think -- to learn how to write well, one first has to learn the rules, understand grammar and so forth...it's only then that one can start writing *outside* the rules of English.

I'm rooting for less dogma and more catma.

And here we have it again, that when a Christian says they have no evidence for a historical Jesus, they must be an atheist.

What if they're just being honest?  Honesty is easily misinterpreted as atheism.

Crossan is being honest, he dose not believe in God, though he does like the concept 

Um, the quote Chansen posted was Tom Harpur, not John Crossan (who would be terribly surpised to learn he does not believe in GOd)

My belief is that Jesus was anything but illiterate - but that he likely could not read or write.  Jesus quoted the scriptures extensively; some of his most famous quotes come from in context with the Old Testament.  That doesn't necessarily mean he could read or write. 

As a carpenter, Jesus would not have had the time or means to learn to read and write.    And the lines of demarcation between trades were very sharp.  A scribe was a scribe and a carpenter was a carpenter.  As a carpenter, Jesus could not  afford the time and money to stop and learn to read and write.

Jesus, however did  know scripture extensively through the oral tradition.  Literacy was even more rare during Jesus' time than during the middle ages.  However the oral tradition kept scriptures and other material  alive and circulating throughout the early common era.  Jesus may have quoted scripture extensively not because he could read or write, but because he was a scholar of the oral tradition, where the stories were passed down in verbal, rather than written form.

Am I on the right track here?  I would like to hear from a more learned Bible scholar who could expand on this...

God bless,

he mentioned crossan and borg also 

NO, the interview he quoted did.  But still Borg and Crossan are not atheists.  They have a different theology than yours but they are not atheists.  ANd the point Chansen was making was only being made by Harpur, infact the interviewer named Borg and Crossan as a way to counter what Harpur claims.

In Jesus' time, few people could read and write. Do I know Jesus could read or write? No, I cannot say I can. Reciting words of the Bible while holding one, does not always mean someone can read. Reciting Torah is the same. The culture and religion was oral and one could tell you what was there and say where without reading. If we think about it, reciting scripture is not a sign of being able to read.

Many early Christians were former slaves and of lower classes. They could not always read and write.

Having another read to you, for you, or listening is what American slaves did. Black religion was for many years almost an invisible institution. Josiah Henson was a minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church I believe before he could not read or write. I do not know if George Lisle, founder of First African Baptist Church could read or write as an emancipated slave. I believe Moses Baker may have been illiterate.

Jesus could have recited Torah without the ability to read, though some cite his recitation as proof of reading ability. I do not think it proves anything but that he knew what it said.

There are those who need Jesus to be literate. I do not.  

I think that even if Jesus was literate, he knew his audience, by and large, was not. So, why write it? He was also too busy to sit and write stuff he never could have dreamed would matter to anyone and his followers could mostly not read... so he would have been more an orator, a preacher, a doer, a teacher, a rabbi...... not a scribe...

So, nothing written does not matter to me even if Jesus was literate.

RitaTG, does it matter to you?

I will pick up on the link between Socrates and Jesus. We know about them only by what others have written about them.

My basic position on the priority of oral communication is rooted in Socrates. He is asked one day if writing is a help for learning. Socrates suggests that writing hinders learning rather than helps. In the first place writing will lead to the diminishing of our capacity for memory. This is resonant with the Bible, with its persistent call to remembrance.

Second, when people read written words they will become able to talk about what they read without having an actual knowledge concerning the topic in view. For Socrates a matter is known only when it is expressed in effective action. We find this in the Bible which admonishes us to be doers of the word and not hearers only.

Another angle on the topic opened for me while listening to a Cree elder, a former UCC moderator, speaking about the prospect of writing down the ancestral stories so they could be preserved for generations to come. Those who looked into the matter realized that writing down spoken words would change them. Written words would not carry the affective depth of spoken words. This could lead to the words being preserved but their meanings lost. It was decided to write the stories down even with the risk. The hope was found in the possibility that at some time the written word would be 'heard' by a reader and the 'voice' of the stories recovered.

The Cree experience is resonant with me as I notice how often folk confuse scripture with the word of God. Scripture, writing, is nothing more than the recorded impression of the word heard by the author. This is evident as my mind thinks these thoughts prior to my fingers communicating them by this media.

This is brief but hopefully indicative of my thinking on topic. I feel strongly about this as we are nearly overwhelmed by the shear volume of written words that confront us. This while genuine face to face communication seems increasingly difficult at all levels of human interaction.

Hi RitaTG,

Why does anybody write anything down when they live in an oral culture?

If I am asking people to write something down for me it is usually because I am so uninvested in what they are saying that I will quickly and easily forget it.  For that reason I write things down for others.

Why do we post here?  We have something to say and we don't know exactly who the other is, having rarely met each other so words on a screen are really all we have.  Wouldn't we rather have the opportunity to sit and talk face to face?  Except for the huge logistical nightmare of getting us all together in one place and attendant problems of trying to participate in more than one conversation as the conversation happens.

Maybe Jesus wasn't as anxious to be heard as we appear to be?  Perhaps sharing some bit of wisdom with others was enough for him to know that wisdom would be shared.  That in the midst of the moment in which it is shared it has become living memory and it will in turn become rooted in the memory of many who here it long after.

We read the story of the woman caught in adultery and perhaps find it impressive.  What would it have been like to hear her tell the story?  What would it have been like to hear the story from one of those who dropped their stones and wandered away muttering?

As valuable as the stuff is that was written down.  I think that there was more valuable stuff that was shared among family until it went to a grave with the last memory holder.

Each of us can read stories of grace.  Few of those words, written on paper will move us, until we have experienced grace ourselves.  Jesus can tell a story and Jesus can write it down for himself or have someone else write it down for him.  You and I still need to live that story in order to fully grasp the power of that story or stories like it. 

Words written freeze the moment.  They become all that there is to it.  They limit the experience.  Written words might be able to inspire they have a tough slog of it.  I give the written word its voice.  The spoken word comes with voice of its own.

The lessons I remember best were not the ones I read.  They are the ones I have heard.

Perhaps Jesus never considered his lessons as scripture.  That we do know has no bearing on what he thought of the material that would be enshrined as the Gospels.  Heck we don't even know that Paul thought his stuff was worthy of being scripture.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks, Gord.  I think you explained that quite well.

I don't think I did a poor job of explaining myself, but let's sit back and see if your explanation takes.

Crossan is an atheist who uses Christian terms 

Then again... how do we know Jesus didn't write anything...? Maybe he did and it got lost somewhere.

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

NO, the interview he quoted did.  But still Borg and Crossan are not atheists.  They have a different theology than yours but they are not atheists.  ANd the point Chansen was making was only being made by Harpur, infact the interviewer named Borg and Crossan as a way to counter what Harpur claims.

 

Crossan is an atheist who uses Christian terms 

 

Nope, it didn't take.

Anybody else want to try?

Hi Chansen,

You wrote: 

"It's not that non-Christians see insufficient or no evidence for a historical Jesus - it's that not even all Christians see sufficient evidence for a historical Jesus."

This has been debated so often that I hardly pause to read anymore.  Yes, there may be Christians out there who still do not feel there is not enough historical evidence of Jesus.  However the overwhelming majority of scholars out there in the real world, from conservatives to liberals to atheists and many, many in between, concede the existence of the historical Jesus.  In fact, there is far  more empirical and evidentiary material available on the historical Jesus that many people of history who's identity or existence is ever questioned. 

Baby Alligators  thrown down the toilet in New York City  grew to full size living on the raw sewage of New Yorkers.   Preposterous?  Of course.  But as long as there is the smallest chance it might happen there will be those who contend it...if only to irritate the rational people.

God bless,

chansen wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

GordW wrote:

NO, the interview he quoted did.  But still Borg and Crossan are not atheists.  They have a different theology than yours but they are not atheists.  ANd the point Chansen was making was only being made by Harpur, infact the interviewer named Borg and Crossan as a way to counter what Harpur claims.

 

Crossan is an atheist who uses Christian terms 

 

 

Nope, it didn't take.

 

Anybody else want to try?

its called i cant be bothered with you 

I'll add myself to a list that already includes "reading comprehension" and "providing direct answers", and probably other things you have no interest in.

Why didn't Jesus write anything down.  I'm probably repeating what others have said but here is my take on it:

1/  He was too busy doing to be writing

2/ He didn't know how to write

3/ He didn't have writing materials

4/ He didn't consider it important to write things down - in his society people remembered by repetition, story telling, etc.  (perhaps something like the Norse sagas - stories were handed down over the centuries by word of mouth - wise sayings were repeated over and over - stories were told and retold)

5/  All of the above - and more.

Incidentally I looked up Matthew 26: 13.   It says that wherever this story is proclaimed . . .    Proclaimed - not written down.   And it is interesting - nobody even bothered to find out her name.

God - all knowing and all powerful, but just never had the time to run to Staples for some paper.

*chuckle*  Yeah, all the papyrus was being used in their war with the local Fonzarella cult called the Ayyyyyyyyyy-theists.  Sadly, their only remnant is a late night sitcom.  All praise the Fonz.

*blinks*

Mind you, we don't actually know thqt Jesus never wrote anything down (although I strong believe he did not).  We only know that if he did write anything it was not saved

And then everything would be plagerizing  .( ummm how do you use spell check?}

You know who did write things down back then?  The Romans.  They loved to take notes.  We still have the dry cleaning expenses for the Roman legion.  What we don't have, is any record of a Jesus being executed.

I suspect that we have no record of many people who were executed by the Romans - especially in backwater provinces like Palestine.

"Thaddeus -- pick up some more olives on your way back home. Thanks."

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were with JESUS all the time and they wrote down plenty.

And this is not an ancient practice but still exists within living memory.  My grandfather was never taught to read or write - yet he could state chapter and verse of the bible much to the chagrin of door to door evangelicals.  He had an incredible oral memory - whatever was read to him he would remember not only verbatim but he was equally able to put that memory into context and real life application.

Does the fact that my grandfather put nothing he said or did down on paper erase his existence?  Does my writing of him render him a fictional character?

Who is more real;  the author or subject?  Does a pseudonym become fact and the creator a figment of the imagination.....

LB - a myth of my own creation

---------------------------------------------------

No story is the same to us after a lapse of time; or rather

we who read it are no longer the same interpreters.

     Mary Ann Evans aka George Elliot

Sorry Jon, but I don't think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were with Jesus.   Neither Mark nor Luke are mentioned among the disciples - I don't remember them mentioned at all in the gospels.  They were associates of Paul.  Possibly they had never met Jesus in person - merely heard of him from Paul or another disciple (I think Mark was also associated with Peter.)

Was the Matthew to whom the first gospel is accredited as disciple?   There was a Levi - was this another name for Matthew?    And was that person the same one who wrote the gospel 50 years later (making him a very old man in a time when life expectancy was about 30 - 40 years), or was it someone else, who used the writings of Mark, and a list of sayings called Q, and some other material and put it together in a Gospel.  

And, yes, there was a John among Jesus' disciples.  A fisherman, a brother to James.   But did he write the gospel that bears his name?   Or was it perhaps written by a group of people in a congregation founded by John?   Would a Galilean fisherman be able to write?  And write the philosophical style of this gospel?

I don't think that we can take it for granted that the disciples and followers who were with Jesus wrote anything down during his lifetime or soon after, especially not the gospels as we have them today.  They were comprised much later.

Ummm...no.  The gospels were written approximately 40 to 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus.  Mark almost certainly never met Jesus.  Luke was not a disciple.  Besides, there is little consensus on who actually wrote all four gospels.  And, the first one to be written was Mark - the guy who didn't meet Jesus.  And Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark.

Can some better "biblical scholars" help out here?  I shouldn't be by now, but I'm still amazed that an atheist has to correct common misconceptions about the bible for Christians.

Edit:  Thanks, seeler.  I started my reply before yours was posted.  I had to look up some information, which delayed me in submitting the post.

Thank you all for your comments....

I am finding the discussion very enlightening and it is giving me new avenues to explore.

And thank you all for keeping the discussion civil ..... that is making this a very enjoyable experience.

I shall contribute some more thoughts when I have digested some of the points to ponder that I have discovered thus far.

Hugs to all

Rita

I think it's interesting how secular history is re-written every generation.

A good friend and history professor, an important Scottish historian, and I talked about this lots when I was in Scotland. He and his partner published a book about fairy belief in Scotland, and concluded that fairies were simply a "normal" part of European natural history until around the late 18th century. In working together on a project about Scottish "chapbooks" from the 18th and 19th centuries, we saw very clearly that the ordinary people of that time had no conception of the main forces that were at that time shaping modern Scotland, Britain or Europe.

The deeper story is the one that is formed out of these widespread perceptions of the moment... but a deeper current. The real shifts are unanticipated and are unclear, even in retrospect. We inhabit a shifting social context and our view is always from the standpoint of that context: there's nowhere else for us to locate ourselves. So we have seen the emphases in secular history shift through political, social and economic perspectives... while "history" itself is a western cultural artefact. (Myths are more mainstream from humanity's perspective, and and have a better shelf life.) 

So history gets rewritten and understood differently because different people with different experiences are looking at it. 

You can talk about "facts", but "facts" are necessarily selective. They stand out in different ways to different people and different generations; we are ALWAYS separated from the "full picture"... because of where we are located in time, space, culture and attitude. We are blinkered to our particular view. And, in this, facts are used to obscure as much as they reveal.

When we take the creatures we are -- now, here -- to an encounter with a figure like Jesus, we have to first understand who and where we are. We have to understand our motivations, values and social/historical context. (We have to be as critical of ourselves as we are of the information; "face value" is an illusion.)

Then we have to reach across voids of time, space and consciousness into the severe strangeness (to us) of Jesus' time and place. We have to then draw ourselves and the accounts we have of Jesus' teachings together, into an encounter, and find ways to express the teachings we hear... express them in our own lives. (Personally, I find "listening prayer" the most useful guide and source of encouragement to take the risk.)

HOW FAR can we go with this? I believe there is tremendous human truth in Jesus'  teachings because MY experience is that, when I pluck up the courage to shift my ways towards those ways, it works. It frees me and gives me courage; it gives me hope and meaning; it brings me joy. (It has nothing to do, for example, with "eternal life" which I hear as a metaphor for "unlimited, full life": I think we clutter the teachings with excuses for inactivity and wishful thinking.)

Had we a manuscript direct from Jesus' hand, fully authenticated and undoubtedly genuine, were we able to sniff his DNA from the scrolls, and were we able to see his world through his eyes, and hear the sounds, smell the smells, taste the tastes and immerse ourselves in his culture... we would STILL be unable to see clearly; we would still be at odds with it all the moment that we started telling others what it "MEANS". The disciples found out how vexingly impossible it was to get other people to see things their way. Even Jesus seems to have had tough days and frustrating communications issues.

This why evangelism is almost always such an exercise in empty vanity.

We can't tell others what they "must" believe. We can only show them how we live and why it is good. 

Others SEE how we live and they can work out whether it is cruel or kind. And we can share the stories that have informed us, but what others make of them will always be their business.

What's crucial is our witness; our words are never more than air -- written or not.

And, when I consider our witness, I am amazed that there are still Christians and that anyone is drawn to Christianity as a faith. That they sometimes ARE drawn to it is the best evidence I can think of for the "TRUTH" of Jesus' teachings so long ago.