Don’t know if this would go better in Great Debates or not, or if it has already been addressed on this board. I have never heard anything about it. It seems like it would have been a lot easier to spread the word and keep it accurate if Jesus could have just written down some of his teachings himself. Is there a standard explanation for why he didn’t?
Well he could well have been illiterate. The vast majority of the people were in those days.
<SO going to Hell>The nail holes made it hurt to type?</SO going to Hell>
Not if you take Luke as gospel – Luke tells of Jesus reading Torah.
I’ve often asked this question – it seems odd that Jesus never himself wrote anything (aside from apocryphal “writings”, like the letter to the Armenians) or dictated anything, and all his teachings are second-hand or third-hand. AFAIK, there has never been an “official” explanation of this.
Jesus appears to have been able to read a little of the Torah. The only thing we know Jesus wrote was a few letters in the dust. However, that doesn’t make him a Scribe. Many of the most educated men of that period employed a scribe to do most of the “heavy lifting” as regarding writing stuff down.
The early disciples also expected the speedy return of Christ, that is the reason I’ve been given why nothing was written down.
Maybe he felt it was egocentrical to write down what he was preaching. Maybe he already knew his disciples were already doing it for him.
This would be a lot of it right there I expect. From what I’ve heard and read, it was fully believed at that time that it was the end. No need to write it down as the world was going bye bye anyway.
Aren’t the first writings dated at around 70-80 BCE? They must have realized after 40-50 years that maybe someone should write something down, just in case you know.
Optionally, he didn’t have time, as he has to catch the last bus to Japan.
LINK TO THE CLAIMED JAPANESE BURIAL SITE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
One common hpothothesis is that indeed, the sayings and preachings of Christ were written down during Jesus’s life. These writings are called “Q” (for Quelle, German for Source). (There is also the “TDH” hypothesis, too, but it still has Q).
However, these collected sayings were just that- no history, “Jesus did this, here on this day” and so forth. Just stuff like the Sermon on the Mount (which was likely several Sermons).
So, they did “write something down” before any of the Gospels were written.
The writings of Paul, by the way, are generally held to have predated the gospels (although there are folks who think otherwise). What’s interesting is that Paul, with few exceptions (like the blessing of the bread and wine) doesn’t quote Jesus, even where you think it would be relevant.
Nitpick: Trying to find a cite, but IIRC it is the concensus amoung Biblical scholars (both within and without the religion) that this passage was added into the Bible by a scribe several hundred years or more after the book was written. Thus even some biblical literalists question the truth of this story.
It’s in The Pelican Guide to the New Testament: Luke. AFAIK, however, it’s not by any means a universal opinion. But apparently the story only appears in the more recent of old manuscripts, and is absent from the oldest. but I don’t know the details.
Except he was God. He had perfect knowledge of everything, from the beginning of time until the end.
Most of Jesus’ disciples were uneducated fishermen and whatnot, with a few notable exceptions. Probably very few of them could read. Many of his sayings and teachings, such as the beatitudes and parables, are designed to be easy to remember.
I’ll also bet (but don’t know for a fact) that writing tools – styluses and scrolls or whatever they used – were prohibitively expensive and impractable for an itinerant preacher to carry around with him.
I just came back in to chastise myself for posting before I located a cite, it seems that there is much more debate to the origin of the passage than I was aware of. Even so there does not seem to be any debate on the validity of the passage, whether it came from Luke or even some unamed scribe it appears to be accepted as canon.
Related and unrelated, but was Socrates literate? He was a stone mason, an occupation that would not have required it, but otoh he had students and aristocratic friends which would imply he may have been.
Is Buddha credited with writing anything (not rhetorical- I’m asking because I don’t know the answer)? Or is it known (at least traditionally) who wrote the Quran (Muhammad was illiterate but recited what the angel recited to him)?
I suppose Joseph Smith is one of the few religious leaders who did write about himself, come to think of it.
Christians debate that point. Not that he was God, but that he retained his knowledge of everything (his omniscience) during his human lifetime. It is a common, but not universal, belief that his omniscience was limited in much the same way his omnipresence was. For example, did he know how to read and write from birth or did he have to be taught? If he had to be taught, does that mean he didn’t know everything?
As a member of the sub-peasant artsan class of Galilee, Jesus would have been almost certainly illiterate unless he got some kind of formal scribal or rabbinical training as an adult. Even if he had been able to write something down, he was preaching to non-literate peasants and used teaching techniques which are amenable to oral transmission (aphorisms and parables which are substantively easy to remember and repeat, rather than long-winded discourses, which are not).
The Luke passage which shows Jesus reading in the the synagogue actually has him quoting from the Greek Septuagint, which makes it likely to be a literary creation of the author.
As has been pointed out, the adulterous woman story in John, which features Jesus “scratching” in the dirt (the Greek doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus “wrote” words. it uses a word [egraphen which literally means “scratch” but can mean “write” or “draw,” so the verse doesn’t really specify if Jesus was “scratching” letters or just doodling) was probably not part of the original Gospel.