Jesus was a travelling teacher. He probably didn't have the luxury of writing material or friends who were able to take dictation. He was teaching a small group of followers a new way of living. Often when I am in discussion with someone or with a group, ideas come up which are never written down. He wasn't a professor. He was teaching a new way to live and passing it on to those who chose to follow that path. Had he written anything down, where would he have kept it? How would he have preserved it?

What we think we know of Jesus today are things that the gospel writers feel he may have said, not what he really said. We have no way of knowing what he said or who he was. Jesus, is simply an "ideal." the real Jesus can never be found in history but for a passing phrase from Josephus.

2000 years ago there was the great library of Alexandria in Egypt. Not only was it accessable to scholars, priests and the elite, but it was open to the general public. These books were gathered from all the libraries of the known world which included areas that Jesus lived. The library was full of knowledge on the history of the world, science, astronomy, philosophies, etc... How can we continue to regard the ancients as ignorant goat herders, when we witness the complexities of the pyramids, the architecture of Rome and Greece and the witness of the many archeological digs in such places as Pompei, where cultures and intelligence are preserved for our enlightenment of past lives. Knowledge was highly regarded.

One could easily assume that the instruction within jewish synogogues for the children would include reading scriptures. Google the Theological Library of Ceasarea Maritima (library for Christians in Palestine) and one can read how poor scholars were supplied and given scriptures to study and even woman devoted to study.

I believe Alexander the Great, Napolean and Abraham Lincoln never wrote anything personally and we are familiar with them from others accounts.

Today we place more accuracy on writings from current authors who are 2000 years from the actual claimed event and question the writings that occurred within 30 to 70 years of Jesus' lifetime.

...which was very likely an insertion by someone other than Josephus.

It's only "very likely" if you're already convinced that Jesus didn't exist. Otherwise, there's certainly no scholarly consensus that Josephus' references to Jesus are inauthentic. Those who want to argue that Jesus didn't exist make this claim, but that doesn't make the claim either true or even "very likely."

Given the very early enmity that developed between Christians and Jews I'd be a lot more convinced if you could give me an early (like first or second century) Jewish source that says that Jesus never existed. The Jewish community of the time (and even later) would have had every reason to deny the existence of Jesus, but I'm not aware of such a denial. In fact, doubts about the existence of Jesus didn't really arise in any significant way until the 19th century. 

To the extent that there's any real consensus today among scholars (secular & Christian) it's probably that while Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, so much dogma, doctrine and tradition has been added on to the story of his life that the attempt to separate the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith" is largely impossible and, to some, not even that important. Someone like New Testament scholar Robert Price, for example (who is probably as representative as you can find of a liberal Christian scholar who has doubts about the existence of Jesus) is skeptical about the existence of Jesus but agrees that you can't make a definite statement that he never existed, and from what I understand still considers himself a Christian (I think he sometimes calls himself a "Christian atheist" or an "atheist Christian") and still takes Communion because he believes in any event that the "Christ of faith" is the more important figure anyway.

I for one have no personal doubts about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and have no particular need to try to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. What you believe about the man Jesus of Nazareth is a matter of faith and experience.

and Blackbelt gives this a seal of approval 

2 timothy 4:13 shows Paul asking for his scrolls and parchments and in Luke 1:63

Zachariah asks for a tablet to write down his son's name (John the Baptist).

Two examples that show writing materials were available.

Although both of those are in specific places.  I think the suggestion was that an itinerant preacher at that time likely would not have carried such things around

I knew the internet would have proof

Scientologists are lucky.  L. Ron had a typewriter.  Even Joseph Smith had Martin Harris.

Poor Moses, slogging those heavy tablets around with him everywhere he went and to think no one could read them.

We know by two Biblical accounts that Jesus wrote however the New Testament is intended that others be a witness to him.

Early church scholars such as Irenaeus and later Eusebius believed the Gospels were written by the men for whom they are named. 

Irenaeus (120-203 AD)  In AGAINST HERESAY wrote: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."

The consensus of the majority of Bible scholars is"

The authorship of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are not in dispute and confirmed by writing of early Church Fathers (bishops)

The authorship of John is uncertain, because there were 2 different John's - Papias mentioned "John the apostle" and "John the Elder" and it is not clear which John wrote the "Gospel of John".... However, from the way that the "Gospel of John" was written (it mentions that the Gospel was written by the disciple loved by Jesus), the gospel is attributed to "John the apostle".

They reach the conclusion that all four gospels were written by people who either witnessed the events first hand (Matthew and John) or by people who are intimately acquainted to people that witnessed the events first hand.  Mark was a good friend of Peters and Luke is the "beloved physician" of Paul

 Luke, a physician did in fact live in the time of the historical Jesus and was charged alonged with others to keep accurate written accounts (witness).  He was an associate of Paul's

He (Jesus) said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."

 

Luke 9:60b : he said; Go thou and preach the kingdom of God

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed another seventy and sent them two and two into every city and place

 

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed." (Luke 1:1-4 RSV)

 

In the later Book of Acts, Luke continues his account to Theophilis

 

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. To them He presented Himself alive after His passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the Kingdom of God."

The consensus amongst Bible scholars is Luke was written no later than thirty years after Jesus' death.

 

There were a number of people who kept accurate written records who lived in the time of Jesus and saw for themselves all he did and said

welcome  010ANNE

o and a BIG AMEN to your post 

In  the Nazareth synagogue Jesus "reads" (and does not merely recite from memory) portions of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:16).  The Gospel often registers Jesus' indignation that Jewish religious leaders have not "read" various portions of Scripture.  The clear implication is that Jesus Himself has often read the Old Testament.  Copious Galilean Greek inscriptions attest the bilingualism of Galilean Jewry. So Jesus no doubt had to learn to read Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew.   The ability to read was needed both for his career as a carpenter and woodworker (Greek: "tekton") and for His conversations with Gentiles,  In Jerusalem, Jewish young people actually read Greek classics like Homer.  In rurual Galilean regions, their reading seems to have focused on Scripture.  

(For documentation of Jesus' knowledge of Greek ,see Martin Hengel, "Judaism and Hellenism" and Jay Seveneter, "Did Jesus speak Greek?" ]

The only example of Jesus' writing  are the Abgar letters, in which He exchanged letters with this Syrian king, but this letter is generally deemed a forgery.  So did He write anything?  We don't know   What we do know if that many first century Gospels were lost (see Luke 1:1-4). 

Thank you for the welcome Blackbelt.  I have read some of your posts and enjoyed them.

Thank You 

Socrates deliberately did not write things down.  He just felt it was a bad practise, that the new "writing thing" would kill off old skills.  We heard the same arguments about the printing press, radio, television and now the internet.  

I don't think Socrates for a minute supposed that people would still be reading his words (indirectly) over 2000 years later.  He might have thought differently had he known.

Jesus didn't write things down for the same reason he never went on radio, TV, or had a blog. publication was not a way to get a message out quickly to a large and diverse audience. That wouldn't happen until Gutenberg. And even at that, the success of Guternberg owed a great deal to the reformations' spread of literacy.

Much of the New Testament was written only because Paul had to write to reach his audience.

Supposedly this week the PM was hospitalized by a hash brown and a Syrian security forces kidnapped a well-known blogger.

Clearly it's not the best time to argue that the written word is always superior to an eye witness.

Jesus gathered disciples around him and instructed them to be his eye witnesses.

I think it's generally accepted that the gospels were written down in part to record the testimony of eye witnesses while some were still alive.

BTW, though Paul was apparently well educated (and much better educated than Jesus), he used assistants (scribes?) to record his letters - and apologized for his awkward handwriting when he added a few words of his own.

I don't have any misconceptions at all. The gospels were written by apostles in the early first century. Attempts like yours at historical revision are nothing new, in fact it's quite passe,  but the gospel still stands.

If the gospel was divinely inspired, what does it matter who wrote it or when?

Indeed, who cares who said those words? It's the message that's important. It would be no less valuable if it had been written by Lady Gaga in 1998.

Can we imagine lovers happily met in scraps of paper, or bits and bytes as on this screen?

Lovers glimpse, glance and gaze. 

Lovers hang on whispered words and eloquent silence.

Lovers waltz and boogie to celestial music.

Lovers catch the whiff of fragrance, the touch of colour here and there.

Jon, that just isn't true, and most of the Christians here will agree with me.

Jon - Chansen is right on this one.  Although I am sure that many people think that the gospels were written early - a lot of research has gone into the dating of the books of the Christian scripture and it seems to agree that the earliest anything we have are the letters of Paul, followed by the gospel of Mark at about 70 ad, then Matthew and Luke, about 80 - 85, and finally John 90 - 100.  

Probably non of the authors were eye-witnesses.  Mark may have been a disciple of Peter.  Luke may have been a companion of Paul (who was not an eye-witness).  Matthew was in all likelihood not the Levi who was a disciple.   Which leaves John - the only gospel to even bear the name of an apostle.   Did the disciple John live to be an old, old man who was able to write or dictate his gospel 60 or more years after the events?   Or was it the church, or community of Christians, that he had founded?

That isn't to say that the gospels don't have value, or that they don't record the oral account of some of the teachings and the life of Jesus.  But Jesus and his chosen disciples lived a nomadic life, travelling about the countryside, carrying nothing but their cloak and their walking stick - certainly not writing materials which were scarce and expensive in those days.  Theirs was an oral society.  People remembered and passed on what they heard and saw by word of mouth.

We have no record of Jesus writing anything down.  Neither did his followers write it down for him.  Word of mouth got his message around for decades to come before any was written down.

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 

 

Let us try again - I was at an event with Crossan  in March there he was was very clear about his theism - not a supernatural one, more in common with Process Theology.  He makes a central point about the character of God ( cf his books) as an reality.

Harper is out of touch with scholarship and his comments would not even pass new testament scholars who are not christian, some are Jews, others self declared atheists, and they all accept a historical Jesus.  I have been to the annual meeting of biblical scholars and it is a consensus that there was a Jew named Jesus who taught.  Of course there are some, like every academic situations, who are not as sure.  But the consensus is there was a historical Jew named Jesus and not all of the scholars are christians, they have come to their opinion as historians.

The problem with what if questions like why did Jesus not write is, while interesting, they are unanswerable.  SG and others give great reasons why Jesus did not write and why the question is so modern, we read back our context as universal. Having said that I know the question was serious and I hope SG and others have given you Rita a good answer.  BB and the like are not helpful.

My Karma ran over your dogma. Sorry!

The NT Gospels are exemplars of the new literary Greco-Roman genre," biographies of revered figures."  This genrre didn't ecist 100 years prior to Jesus.  Thus, we have no biography of the towering religious leader known in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the Teacher of Righteousness.   So in a sense, Jesus was providentially born at just the right time for his life story to be told.   

Jesus expresses awareness of His impending death and resurrection.  But in my view, He has no clear picture of exactly how this will unfold and is not clear about the relationship between His resurrection and Second Coming.  Though He sometimes speaks of the church, He probably does not envisage a long church age that might benefit from written materials.  For that matter, there is not a single extant example of a first century Palestinian document whose author (Jewish, Christian, or Roman) identifies himself by name. 

Your post I consider valuable.

When I see 'historians' explain the wrongs we make, the direction we go...

The predictions they have made...

I wonder if they have read Tolstoy, Gibbons...

I am down to two people I totally agree with; Paul Krugman....and you.

.............................................................................................well, there's Seeler, and

Imhavingwhimsy.

and...Arminius...and...

Hmmm. I'm forgetting a few...

Hey! This place is great!

To both: thanks for the laugh!

Maybe Jesus wasn't a very good carpenter and would miss the spike he was about to nail into a piece of wood and hit his thumb and finger with his hammer instead. It would be pretty hard to write with a swollen thumb and fingers. What it could happen.

Near the beginning of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr grew up is Samaria before his conversion.  There are 2 interesting traditions to which he was exposed as a young man.: (1) that Jesus was born in a cave used as a manger in the Bethlehem area., not in a manger attached to a house.  The revered Church of the Nativity was apparently built over this grotto. 

(2) that he was shown ploughs made by Jesus of Nazareth in his earlier years as a carpenter.  It would be interesting to find such ploughs which might be inscribed either by name or location of origin.  What if a plough or ot her work of carpentry from Nazareth could be dated to Jesus' lifetime?  As far-fetched as this hope is, it has a better historical pedigree than either the Shroud of Turin or the quest for the Holy Grail (conceived as the cup used at the Last Supper.  The quality of the workmanship of such a plough would be interesting. 

I'm well aware that some people don't want to accept it but there is absolutely no reason to think that the apostles weren't right there with JESUS and wrote their gospels in the early first century. It may be popular in some circles to claim otherwise, but it's still revisionism. I do know why you don't want to believe that though. JESUS predicted the destruction of the great temple in Jerusalem which happened in 70 A.D. Becasue of that a lot of people like to claim that the Bible was written after that happened. They just assume that it isn't possible that JESUS predicted this so they insert their belief as if it were fact and cite that as a reason why the gospels "had" to have been written later.  If people admitted that it was written BEFORE that happened then they'd have to admit that JESUS was right about that. If they had to admit that JESUS was right about that, then they'd have to ask themselves "what if JESUS was right about everything else too". I know a lot of people are afraid of that question.