You’re presuming that the authors weren’t entirely aware that they were making up stories.
The idea of writing history as fact is a fairly recent invention. I’m not sure exactly when the crossover point is (likely around the Renaissance), but in olden times if you wrote down a story it was for one of two reasons:
To teach a moral lesson.
To destroy the image of your enemies.
Factuality wasn’t a concern.
If you’re telling a story and your character needs to describe something that’s very detailed, then you might well have him drawing pictograms in the dirt. Hence, you have him do it regardless of whether you have any reason to think that the real-life equivalent would have.
It should probably also be noted that it’s likely that Jesus, if he existed, was a follower of something near Sethianism. We know of some symbolism used in that religion (as well as other Gnostic religions) as part of their secret teachings. While Jesus may not have written words, it’s fairly likely that he may have drawn out diagrams of the universe according to his branch of mysticism.
My point was that mentioning this event doesn’t seem to serve any purpose (like, say, writing : “and at this point, Jesus jumped up and down three times”). That’s why I find disconcerting that, knowingly or unknowingly, somebody would have thought that “Jesus wrote something in the dirt” was worth adding. In fact, I’d assumed that this was probably be a real event, because I couldn’t see why anybody would invent it.
I was aware of the existence of the Ophites, but not of those diagrams. However, it’s the first time I see someone proposing the hypothesis that Jesus was an Ophite. Do you have a particular reason to believe so?
This is not true. Well, yes, the translation of the word is techincally correct, but DtC is using atheist sources that are reading a lot more into that word than is there.
wiki "Jesus is identified in Mark as a τεκτων (tekton)[49] and in Matthew as the son of a tekton.[50] Like most people at the time, he presumably was trained by his parent in the family trade. Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as “carpenter”, but is a rather general word (from the same root that gives us “technical” and “technology”) that at the time could cover makers of objects in various materials, and builders, from tent makers to stone masons.[51] The specific association with woodworking is a constant in Early Christian tradition; Justin Martyr (d. c. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs, and there are similar early references.[52] "
Jesus was likely (as were most people of the time) somewhat literate. Today, they’d be considered “functionally illiterate” but then so would just about everyone from Senators on down. Due to how things were written then, most everyone read slowly, having to sound things out and parse out the structure.
Why do we have nothing Jesus wrote? Well, does anyone doubt Pontius Pilate was literate? He was a Roman Bureaucrat- he wrote scads of stuff. Not only does nothing he wrote survive, but in fact there’s hardly any period mention of him (outside sources that also mention Jesus). In fact for decades, the same doubters who today claim Jesus never existed, also claimed Pilate was mythical.
We then found his name on a commemorative limestone block. There’s also a couple of very rare coins. But other than that block of limestone, there is not a single word written by him or attributed to him during his long life as a Roman bureaucrat.
Other than people who wrote a lot and were famous during their lifetime for doing so (Ceasar, Josephus, Tacticus) we have very little written by anyone. And even if we concede Jesus had *some *literacy, he certainly was no scribe or scholar.
So, if we have NOTHING (other than one line on one chunk of stone) written by a Roman Bureaucrat who must have written reams and reams, why would we have anything written by Jesus?
The other thread linked to, has much good info on how many were literate back then.
tomndebb" *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."
*
As I pointed out, there was widespread graffitti, clearly written by the underclasses, throughout the Roman Empire.
As I have said before- what is “literacy”? Clearly, almost everyone- even Senators and the like would today be considered 'functionally illiterate" (much of that was due to how letters, etc were written back in those days). I have already shown you evidence of similar graffiti in Ephesus (modern day Turkey) and Egypt, outside of Greece and Rome. That completes the circle around the mediteranian. Do you have any evidence that graffiti is lacking in the ancient Judean area? Why would peasants in Italy, Greece, Egypt and Turkey all be literate and those in Palestine be illiterate? Actually, ancient graffiti occurs all over the Holy Land. I get over 4000 Google hits.
http://thriceholy.net/literacy.html
*Given that a priori calculations of ancient literacy rest upon doubtful assumptions, by far the best evidence is what the ancients, a voluble lot, themselves said about who could and who could not read and write. Rustics: shepherds, landless agricultural workers,-- are commonly assumed in ancient drama and literature not to be literate. … Subtracting these two admittedly large groups, rustics and slaves, leaves free-born town-dwellers. The evidence of ancient literature is that this group was generally literate…But for reasons of its own, Israel also valued literacy, and already had an elementary school system in the first century A.D.:
“So R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: May the memory of Joshua b. Gamla be blessed, for, were it not for him, Israel would have forgotten the Torah, as in former times the child who had a father was instructed by him; but the one that had not, did not learn at all. The reason is that they used to explain the verse [Deut. xi. 19]: ‘And ye shall teach them to your children,’ etc., literally–ye personally. It was therefore enacted that a school for the education of children in Jerusalem should be established, on the basis of the following verse [Is. ii. 3]: ‘. . . for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.’ And still the child who had a father was brought to Jerusalem and instructed; but the one who had not, remained ignorant. It was therefore enacted that such school should be established in the capitals of each province; but the children were brought when they were about sixteen or seventeen years of age, and when the lads were rebuked by their masters, they turned their faces and ran away. Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years…” (Babylonian Talmud, Tract Baba Bathra (Last Gate), Chapter II, p. 62)
This education was at municipal expense:
“Raba further said: The number of pupils to be assigned to each teacher is twenty-five. If there are fifty, we appoint two teachers. If there are forty, we appoint an assistant, at the expense of the town.” (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, 21a).
It is alleged that there were 480 elementary schools in Jerusalem at the time of that city’s destruction by Vespasian:
“There were 480 synagogues (batte kenesiot) in Jerusalem, each containing a bet ha-sefer, (primary school for the Scriptures), and a bet Talmud, for the study of the Law and the tradition; and Vespasian destroyed them all” (Yer. Meg. iii. 73d; Lam. R., Introduction 12, ii. 2; Pesik. xiv. 121b; Yer. Ket. xiii. 35c)." (quoted in article, Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘Bet Ha-Midrash.’
Bolded for you “Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years”
So, not only did the underclass possess some level of literacy, there was a large tradition of literacy amoung the Jews of that period.
For the record, the pericope in question does not say that Jesus “wrote” in the dirt, but uses a Greek word egraphen frpm the root word grapho) which literally means “to scratch.” It is figuratively used to mean “write” or 'Draw," but literally, the Greek ion that passage just says that Jesus “scratched in the dirt with as stick.” A plain reading does not rule out that he was writing words, but does not necessitate it either.
Of course, the pericope is about as clear cut a case as there is of interpolaton in the gospels. Too bad because it’s also a clear cut an exanple of “if it ain’t true, it oughta be” as there is in the entire Bible.
I’m not using “atheist sources.” I don’t even know what thsoe would be.
[quote]
[Jesus was likely (as were most people of the time) somewhat literate.[/qupte]
Most peo[ple were not at all literate. This is bullshit.
Pontius Pilate was a Roman nobleman, not a Jewish peasant. The comparison makes no sense.
The existence of Jesus has nothing to do with this discussion, and is not seriously doubted by me or by modern scholarly consensus. I can also say that the trope that the existence of Pilate was ever denied by Biblical scholars is total bullshit. An apologist canard.
Jesus would have had no access to education. That’s all there is to it. Subpeasants in Galilee (which was not part of Judea) did not go to school. Is it possible that Jesus might have been able to write his name? Possibly. Is it at all likely that he could really read and write? No.
If you don’t care about the truth you should at least be aware of your need for a justification of your self-centered convoluted state of being that you are seeking from others.
People supporting things that they know are wrong are destructive to society. You seem to be one of them.
I understand where the OP was coming from, even though “Jesis never existed” is something that can’t be technically ruled out as an explanation. He shoud have just left it open anyway, but I can understand why he wanted to avoid bogging the thread down with that debate. I guess it should probably be said, for his edification, that his board is not particularly well populated with Jesus Mythicists. They are not completely non-existent, but they aren’t populous enough to really derail this kind of thread.
He didn’t say that he didn’t care about the truth. He wanted to discuss why, if Jesus existed, he didn’t write anything down. You’ve started attacking him because of this. He didn’t want to get bogged down with people saying, “It doesn’t matter, Jesus didn’t exist, blah blah blah.” Which is exactly what you’re doing. Your post contributed nothing to the discussion, but to do exactly what the OP wanted to avoid.
I proposed that he was a Sethian. I believe that I have seen Sethian diagrams similar to the Ophite ones, but I only knew how to find the Ophite ones quickly, so I linked to them instead.
All Gnostic religions list either Jesus or John the Baptist as part of their history, except Sethianism.
What evidence we have suggests that Sethianism is the oldest of all Gnostic religions. However, it doesn’t seem to predate Christianity by any significant amount.
Nearly all of the Christian apocrypha is Gnostic.
Gnostic religions are Mystery Religions. These are like modern day Scientology, where there are levels of acceptance where at each stage you are taught secret symbols, cosmology, and rituals. Someone who is outside of the church would most likely not know most of this (since they are all secret).
The Christian religion as we know it was founded by Paul, not Jesus. Paul never met Jesus nor studied under any of Jesus’ disciples until years after he had already started preaching his new religion. There’s no reason to think he would have known any of these secrets or felt them worthwhile for his religion.
What was held to be gospel or heretical was based on the Paulian school of thought. Even so, much of Christianity comes from Gnosticism. The cosmogony of the universe was often described using Gnostic terminology in the earliest days, for example.
Overall, it seems like Sethianism is the only Gnostic religion which existed when Jesus was around, and given that we have no evidence of a non-Gnostic variant of Christianity outside of the Paulian tradition, it seems likely that Jesus was a Gnostic of some sort – which means Sethian.
The OP isn’t “excluding” it; they just don’t care about it. And as far as I know the evidence is still that there really was a religious leader named Jesus at the proper time and place. Just because all the claims of miracles and divine ancestry are nonsense doesn’t mean the guy himself didn’t exist.
The movie *Stigmata *(horrible, by the way, don’t watch it) played with that idea - the plot centers around a Gospel of Jesus that is found, but suppressed by the Church as heretical forgery because its teachings go entirely against doctrine.
Now, of course this is fanciful drek from Hollywood, and like you say it’s very unlikely that writings from the big man himself would have not been worshipped like his sandal and gourd ( ) if his followers were aware of it.
Then again, first Paul then the various Councils which decided upon the canon (and adapted Christianity for the Roman empire) had their agenda and views which may or may not have reflected that of the founder. It’s not entirely out of the question that they’d try to destroy or at least make heavy handed edits to texts that weren’t in line with them. Executive Meddling as applied to religion, if you will.
I don’t believe that at all, by the way. I’m just saying it’s not impossible.
My understanding of Jesus( as set by the writers of the NT) is: that Jesus never wrote anything down, nor ask anyone to write anything; he expected people to live by example. He is quoted as saying there were 2 commandments now. Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Look how many different translations there are of the scriptures! So much division, and there are so many different Christianities ! Some do not even accept the translations of the NT by the RCC and Orthodox monks, It was not until 3 centuries after Jesus time that there was even a NT as known to day. That is when the Bishops decided out of many writings ,what was inspired, or the word of God, so one takes the word of the then Bishops as to what was God’s word or not!
“While ‘tekton’ is usually said to mean carpenter, it more accurately means master builder or architect. As an architect, Joseph would have had a higher social status that enabled him to better educate his son,” Bradford said.
Besides, in most English translations of the Bible Joseph is described as a ‘just man’. But Bradford says the word ‘man’ is not in the original Greek text and the word translated as ‘just’ really means a senior religious scholar involved in the judiciary.
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet [Isaiah}. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written:
“The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
Just as a note, in Greek, tekton referred to craftsmen all up and down the economic scale, from piecework laborers to master shipbuilders, carpenters, and masons. You can’t drive social class from the term.
Also, if we’re being technical, he probably wasn’t. He was probably Samnite (the Pontii were a Samnite family) and a member of the Equestrian Order (Judea was governed by knights, not senators).
If my bible memory serves me correctly, Jesus was some sort of gifted and amazing youth who impressed the sages at the synagogue whose writing we no longer have either.
Regardless of station in life, an impressively smart boy will find mentors in the instiutions of learning.
My sense regarding the purpose of the life of Jesus was not to start a movement, but simply to live a just and rewarding life and share the knowledge that he had with those who he interacted with.
As such there was no reason for him to write a book.
The agenda to start a Christian movement came after his death.
There are lots of guesses about what he wrote and perhaps one version included that , but I think the point of the story is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” an often repeated line about judgement. That would be the motive to include it.
) if his followers were aware of it.