Hello? He could walk on water. He could calm storms. He could raise the dead.
And don’t forget that one of the first manifestations of the Holy Spirit involved universal translation of languages.
There are only two possible positions. Either he could do anything he wanted, or the whole thing is made up.
I favor “made up.”
There’s an intermediate possibility that he was a real, albeit non-divine, person who accrued legendary/mythological claims about him after his death.
Sure, but if he wasn’t what the Bible claimed, then why worry about whether he could read?
Makes much more sense to me to worry about why he didn’t take command of the IDF and drive the Romans out of the country, which is what the Messiah was supposed to do.
Which brings us to Bill Maher’s question: If Jesus was Jewish, why the Spanish name?
I will repeat for those who haven’t bothered to read the thread:
That passage is apocryphal. It was added several centuries after Jesus’ death. It appears in no modern Bible, except as a footnote. It is universally accepted as being fake.
It is a mistranslation. The word translated here as writing in fact means “scratchings” or “fine marks”. It *can *mean writing in certain contexts, but there is no justification for such a translation in this context.
In short, Jesus never did any such thing, and if he had, he probably wouldn’t have been writing anyway.
Isn’t tekton ambiguous in regards to social class? It could mean unskilled laborer, but it could also be used to refer to skilled craftsmen.
We read the thread we just don’t beleive it. I’ve checked 11 modern version of the bible (10 through Bible Gateway and 1 at the Vatican) in three languages and all include the passage. Can you point to versions that don’t include it?
You can start with something as basic as Wikipedia and work out from their if yo are interested in fighting ignorance rather than perpetuating it.
Dude, get off your high horse. You made a claim, he checked it, you were wrong. Nothing Wikipedia says is going to change what’s in the Bibles he checked.
I think Blake might be referring to the Conservapedia translation.
You might want to moderate our language, here, (as should Blake). I am not sure what Blake meant by “modern translation” or why he ncluded that claim, but the Wikipedia article to which he linked showed a clear and convincing record that the “woman caught in adultery” story does not appear in any of our earliest extant manuscripts. It is a bit difficult to argue that it has always been part of the Gospel of John when we have 300 years of manuscripts that fail to include it.
What would be the point of making up literacy? Son of God, sure, I can see that but why would the authors of the gospels decide that Jesus needed to be literate?
I’m well aware that the passage is disputed, but the claim he made was that it doesn’t appear in any modern translation, and that is just not true. Rather than acknowledge his error, he resorted to IMO hostile condescension.
However, I realize that “IMO” is the operative term in the last sentence, and I apologize if my own language was inappropriate.
Perhaps it is akin to movie producers deciding that he should be blond and blue-eyed. If you’re trying to sell something, you want your product to be as attractive as possible.
It would not be a matter of Jesus “needing” to be literate, (to the point of deliberately making up false claims), so much as simply portraying him in a way that presumed he could handle any situation–which would include being educated. Someone who can read (and write?) simply has an advantage in the world that an illiterate person lacks, (particularly from the perspective of the authors of the gospels who were, themselves, literate).
= = =
OTOH, Dio, believing firmly in his own favored scholars makes an absolutist case for illiteracy that requires a number of assumptions, as well. The case for illiteracy based on a lack of time or materials has a certain persuasion, but it is not the clear cut case that Dio would like to believe. There is enough commentary from people in the first century B.C.E. through the second century C.E. about the general level of education among the Jewish people that a more cautious scholar might wish to temper his or her certitude.
Among the tantalizing points:
When the Pharisees briefly held power in the early First Century B.C.E., they passed a law demanding that every father ensure that his sons could read and write.
Later, a further law was passed that actually talked about establishing schools.
These are not conclusive. Many laws are held in the breach more than the enforcement. It is also possible that the laws were only felt to apply to the merchant class and large land-holders with the poorest peasants simply ignored. Further, there is no reliable evidence that the required schools were ever built.
Both Philo and Josephus commented in their respective works regarding the Jewish people regarding the widespread, (pretty much universal), education among the Jews.
These comments are not conclusive. The language regarding the material that was taught was not explicit in naming reading and writing among the subjects. An understanding of the Torah could have been accomplished in an oral environment of memorization and verbal explication. And, again, they may have been discussing only merchants and land-holders while ignoring the larger numbers of peasants.
References to Jewish learning also appear in a number of Roman authors. (I don’t recall any similar comments from Greeks, but they had been out of power by more than a century by that time.)
Again, the comments do not explicitly address literacy and there is always the question of whether the peasants were included.
In addition, there is a presumption that the “illiteracy” model makes that may be quite valid–or might be unsupported in fact. Much is made of the costs of the materials required to produce a Torah and further materials needed to study. However, there does not need to have been a Torah in every home. One in each village (or even cluster of villages) would have been sufficient to provide a basic understanding of reading to children old enough to walk to the village but too young to effectively contribute to the labor force. Chalk and slates or sticks and hard packed sand are not that expensive. Children in Ireland were educated in “hedge schools” for several generations under similar conditions of poverty with the additional threat of British authorities seeking to break them up.
None of this is affirmative argument in favor of widespread literacy; it simply points out that the obstacles of time and materiel were not insurmountable obstacles.
Since none of the apocryphal books, even the ones written centuries later, have ever been attributed to Jesus himself I think it’s safe to say he either didn’t or couldn’t write. Plus Paul was a letter writin’ fool, if Jesus had written anything he’d have presumably known about it or it would have been mentioned.
Add in the supernatural element and it’s a bit like MATRIX I suppose- “upload a helicopter piloting program” as needed- but if he was just a man and the stories in the Gospel are true then I vote “could read but not write”.
Quoth Diogenes:
How do you know what social class Jesus was from? Given that you’re completely rejecting everything in the Gospels, that is.
I said “the social class he is described as coming from.” If you want to hypothesize that he was from some other social class, knock yourself out. He still would have been illiterate in most all of them, though.
But if you’re going to go by the descriptions, why not just cut to the chase and go by the descriptions that say he read? Or put another way, the social class that the Bible says Jesus was a part of was the class which would debate scripture with rabbis.
Everybody debated scripture with rabbis. There was no special social class for that. It was an ordinary part of Jewish religious life (and still is).
Let’s put it this way, the social class he is alleged to have come from is historically incompatible with the anecdote that he read from the Bible. That story is clearly fictional anyway, because it has Jesus reading from the LXX and because it has him reading separate passages that would not have been together on the same scroll.