That makes sense. It also seems likely that one of his more literate disciples might think to start writing things down. Jesus spoke often of the scriptures and they were very much a part of the Jewish tradition.
It also seems possible that , not anticipating the crucifixion, nobody began writing things down until after that event. His actual teaching time was relatively short.
By the time early Christian writings were being divided into officially sanctioned and not sanctioned as scripture many things had changed and the very concept of Jesus and his mission was part of the sorting process. It’s possible more accurate writings about Jesus teachings were tossed in favor of the preferred doctrine.
A thought provoking point. When I’m in a political discussion about social programs and someone is saying how ineffective they are and that according to Jesus charitable giving should be voluntary not forced by government , I often think or ask , “then why haven’t Christians made these programs unnecessary?”
Over and over again in the NT, you see Jesus stressing reaching out to those in need as a reflection of our true state of heart and mind.
Right, by the time the votes were being cast as to what writings were going to be canon, the copies of copies of copies of anything Jesus might have written could have been rejected as not in line with the most popular doctrine. Just as something like The Gospel of Thomas , a collection of his sayings, might have been rejected if certain passages seemed to conflict with the preferred doctrine.
While it’s true that ancient historians had a different attitude and approach than modern historians, I find it really, really hard to believe that telling what actually happened never even crossed their minds.
Maybe it’s because I’m an atheist, but I have no issue with “atheist sources.” Research is correct or it isn’t regardless of the authors biases or lack thereof, right? But anyway, thanks for the rest of your thorough post.
I have no doubt that both Pilate and Jesus existed. That said, I’m still attracted to the idea that Jesus had dedicated followers who would have been highly motivated to preserve his works whereas- so far as I know- Pilate had no such popular appeal.
Wow. I’ll just offer that you know squat about me and that the dangers I pose to society notwithstanding, people (like you apparently) who don’t read the whole thread before posting are destructive to the conversation. Did you see this post, by any chance?
Not addressing the problematic issue of “purpose”, I’m certainly coming around to the idea that I’ve harbored a distorted view of Jesus’ relative importance as a historical figure during his life and after his death.
Not to mention that there is something very inspiring about the notion that it’s OK if your wordly life sucks so long as your eternal afterlife will make up for it later. So much the better if the guy who spent all that time whipping you ends up in hell.
They are the only sources you ever use, when you can be bothered to actually use a cite.
Here are more source which say your take on reading more into the definition of tekton is wrong:
*the text of the Gospels say only tekton, which can be read in the broad sense as “builder of houses…” (Craveri, 1967, p. 6)
“It [the word tekton] certainly did not identify Jesus and Joseph as woodworkers. More precisely it defined them as men with skills - learned men, who were masters of what they did.” (Gardner, 2001, p. 27)
"It [tekton] can refer to a worker in wood, or in stone. I agree that this likely means Jesus and his family used both sorts of materials to build houses, since stones were the normal main material used to construct a house in Galilee. (Witherington, 2006, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com)
“In the Gospels…a tekton [is] a Greek word that meant not merely a carpenter skilled in making cabinets or furniture but a designer, construction engineer, or architect. A tekton could build a house, construct a bridge, or design a temple.” (Starbird, 2003, p. 53)
THE REALITY
The common conception of Joseph is that he was a carpenter (Matthew 13:55), however, this is a mis-translation of the Greek word, tecton (tekton), which more accurately should be called “general contractor”, or more provocatively, “Master of the Craft” (Gardner, 2001). In fact, the Protoevangelium of James, [1] which concerns the lives of Jesus’ parents, specifically identifies Joseph as a general contractor. The Blueletter Bible offers various translations of tekton - (1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder, (2) any craftsman, or workman (e.g., the art of poetry, maker of songs), and (3) a planner, contriver, plotter, or (4) an author.
*
Yes, and that was my point. Even if Jesus was literate, at most he’d have written very little. Pilate must have written reams of stuff yet we have a single line of his. In fact we have almost nothing in the way of day to day bureaucratic documents from that period.
Most scholars questioned the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus’ crucifixion. Similarly they questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels. However in June 1961, Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Antonio Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheater near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima). They uncovered a limestone block. On the face is an engraved inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” [8] This was a significant development in the quest for the historical Jesus, as scholars have confirmed the inscription to be authentic. [9
Both tomndebb and I have given you cites that have shown that there was great FREE access to education by the Jews during that period. You simply stating otherwise is meaningless.
There is an possible answer. It has little to do with the teacher himself and everything with the followers, or rather, the ambitious apostle Paul type of “follower”. The kind of follower that starts a religion himself.
It is common for anyone who wants to start a cult or religion, to base it not on his own teachings, but on someone elses. That has a number of advantages. If the “original teacher” had been dead or gone long enough, it is possible to romanticize him to the specs you need. People love to idolize someone, but it is harder for them if they know too much of him or have hung out with him in daily life and found out he’s just human like everyone else. A good manager/founder will know that inevitably people will find fault with himself, but will try to project all that is good and holy on the image of the original " teacher".
A teacher who hasn’t written down anything is even better for this purpose, because then the “Paul” can cherrypick his teachings to his own needs.
Oddly, I found this out when I took an motivational course with my co-workers and the speaker rattled off his usual sell-speak of how his theory wasn’t his own, but someone elses. And that someone else was a insanely great guy who had developed that theory by hanging out with wise, old Hopi Indians as well as captains of industry.
No it doesn’t. It means “builder,” and is an all-encompassing term refering to all manner of workers and laborors associated with building or repairs. As applied to Galilean Jews, though, it referred to the underclass of day laborors as I’ve described.
Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς δίκαιος ὢν…
(MT 1:19)
“Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man…”
Bradford is full of shit. Dikaios means “Righteous,” “just,” “virtuous,” Obedient to God." It is not a title, it’s an adjective. It only has reference to the judiciary as a descriptor for those who make sound judgements.
Incidentally, it means nothing that the word “man” is not actuially found in the Greek. It is common in Greek to use adjectives as nouns with an implied object. (“she was a beautiful [one]” He was a fat [one]") We do it in English too, but more often with plurals (“The good, the bad and the ugly”).
Matthew does not say that Joseph was a judge or a scholar (the suggestion is frankly ludicrous). It basically just says he was decent.
They often didn’t know what actually happened, and frequently didn’t care. Their objective wasn’t necessarily to relate what happened but to create a heroic or romantic narrative.
Having said that, the writers of the Gospels weren’t exactly lying or fabricating. They were working largely blind and trying to infer a lot of things about Jesus from the Septuagint and from whatever other meager sources (e.g. sayings gospels) they had available to them. Matthew and Luke both put Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (albeit using vastly different devices and timelines) because they sincerely thought the Messiah had to have been born in Bethlehem. They weren’t lying in their minds. They were relating what they assumed must have been essentially true. There’s a lot of stuff in the Gospel narratives that is essentially derived from the Old Testament. These passages often have completely different contexts in the OT, but if Matthew or Luke thought they saw something that could be construed as a reference to Jesus, they did so. They were trying to write “what actually happened,” but they were using a methodology that was, shall we say, rather loose. They probably also believed they had some kind of divine guidance or inspiration going for them. If they felt like God was showing them good info in the OT, that was good enough for them. They weren’t cynical liars, just the opposite, they were extremely credulous and trusting that they were being guided in the right direction.
