Could Jesus Read

[Merlin]

If you believe he was a man, then it is highly unlikely that he could read and write. He was the son of a carpenter, but the word "carpenter" here doesn't even mean the skilled woodworker that we think of today. More accurately, he was the son of a journeyman, a guy who does odds&ends fix-up jobs around the house. And Jesus was from Nazareth, a poor rural area that other people thought of as backwards. That's the sense of wonder reported in the gospels that is lost on us today because we don't understand the background. Repeatedly, when Jesus taught and people gathered to hear, the gospels reported that people would ask, "who is this man, this son of a carpenter from Nazareth?" They weren't just observing some biographical factoids. They were expressing shock, because a poor person from a "backwards" village was not supposed to be able to speak so eloquently and be able to out-debate trained scholars.

I'm veering off-topic but my point is that if Jesus could read and write, it would have been highly unusual for a man in his socio-economic station at that time.

Of course, if you believe he was God incarnate, then anything is possible.

Don't worry about it, he left no writings, so it is irrelevant

 

[Merlin]

A rabbi who didn't feel the need to write? I bet you can count the number of rabbis on both hands throughout history who did not feel the need to write holy inspirations. Even more curious if Jesus knew the bible was going to be the holy book of all holy books wouldn't it even be more important that be the one to lay outs its content and scripture before returning to the right hand of the father?

Terrywoodenpic, you do realize you are suggesting the sun of God, that which is all knowning, was illiterate. I find it paradoxical to suggest that both could be mutually possible.

He was not actually a rabbi in the normal sense. He did not go to rabbinical school. His followers just called him Rabbi.

 

[Qumran]

Don't worry about it, he left no writings, so it is irrelevant

Agreed. The Bible says Jesus could read {Luke 4:16-20) although,If memory serves, there is no place where it is said he ever wrote anyting at all. Notwitstanding, its pretty safe to presume that since Jesus could read and was always regarded as a studious, knowledgable sort, he almost certainly could also write.

My point is, what does his reading or not reading have to do with anything? IMO it is irrelevant. Yes, it is nice to know if he could or could not read, but it is his TEACHINGS, his IMPACT on the world, that has people like us discussing his life over 2000 years later.

We could be discussing some other individual who lived in Jesus' time instead, someone learned, someone who left scholarly writings behind - BUT WE ARE NOT. Why not?
---because nobody gives a crap about that old dead scholar no matter how much he wrote!!!--- We would never have even heard about Paul (a learned man of letters) were it not for his relationship to Jesus!!!

So really folks, what does it matter if Jesus could read and write? Buddha left no writings. Gandhi left no writings. Ramakrishna left no writings. Jesus left no writings. He's in pretty good company, I'd say.

No offense to anyone who disagrees with me, just throwing my 2 cents into the pot :jiggy:

 

[James the Persian]

AS nothing was written down for about 40 years after the crucifixion, it is an irrelevant discussion. I did not think anybody claimed that Jesus wrote any of the Bible!

Paul was the first one to write anything down, followed by Mark with his gospel and then his second gospel which is called Acts of the Apostles. After that there was a long gap, with Matthew being almost 100 years later (with his own agenda).

As has already been pointed out to you, Mark did not write Acts. You are the first person I have ever seen who has attributed Acts to Mark and this certainly was not the belief of any early Church Fathers - Tradition quite clearly attributes Acts to Luke. You are equally wrong when you describe acts as a Gospel. It is not. There are only four Gospels in the New Testament and Acts is not one of them. It does not tell of the Incarnation of Christ but of events afterwards during the early years of the Church and, hence, cannot be described as a Gospel.

James

 

[michel]

Agreed. The Bible says Jesus could read {Luke 4:16-20) although,If memory serves, there is no place where it is said he ever wrote anyting at all. Notwitstanding, its pretty safe to presume that since Jesus could read and was always regarded as a studious, knowledgable sort, he almost certainly could also write.

My point is, what does his reading or not reading have to do with anything? IMO it is irrelevant. Yes, it is nice to know if he could or could not read, but it is his TEACHINGS, his IMPACT on the world, that has people like us discussing his life over 2000 years later.

We could be discussing some other individual who lived in Jesus' time instead, someone learned, someone who left scholarly writings behind - BUT WE ARE NOT. Why not?
---because nobody gives a crap about that old dead scholar no matter how much he wrote!!!--- We would never have even heard about Paul (a learned man of letters) were it not for his relationship to Jesus!!!

So really folks, what does it matter if Jesus could read and write? Buddha left no writings. Gandhi left no writings. Ramakrishna left no writings. Jesus left no writings. He's in pretty good company, I'd say.

No offense to anyone who disagrees with me, just throwing my 2 cents into the pot :jiggy:

I agree with you completely; I think the agenda behind the question was the inference that Jesus, the son of God, should have been able to read and write; if it could have been shown that he could not, then his 'position' could have been in question.

I agree that it is written that he could read, and I agree with your statement that if he could read, he could almost certainly have written. I also agree that this whole topic is a lttle bit 'picky' to say the least; as you say, what difference does it make either way? so now that makes it 4 cents.........

 

[Linus]

And how do you know that?

I suppose I should say that It was most likely written by Luke.

They are both letters that are addressed to the same person, which is a pretty big indicator, with Acts 1:1 referring to a "first account" written sometime previously.

Luke 1:3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus: 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:1The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach...

What makes you so sure Mark wrote it?

 

[lilithu]

Qumran, I totally agree that Jesus was exceptional. His teachings have deeply impacted my own life. But that doesn't mean that he could read and write.

I can easily believe that he had exceptional wisdom and compassion despite not having learned to read and write. It's harder for me to believe that he had a formal education given his putative life circumstances. Remember that written text was relatively rare until the invention of mass-produced paper and then the printing press. It was something that only the elite had access to. On other hand, oral tradition was strong at that time. People listened to scripture being recited by the priests and rabbi. It wouldn't be that hard to imagine Jesus quoting scripture even if he couldn't read.

Of course, this is assuming that Jesus really was a carpenter from Nazareth. He could have been a highly trained rabbi and his followers just changed the story to make it more dramatic. Or he could have been God incarnate and could naturally read and write despite no education. Who knows?

Guys, yes, of course it's irrelevant. It's a question that we can't answer and detracts from the main point, as is most of the stuff we talk about on RF. But it's fun. And based on my previous interactions with Terry, I don't think there was some sinister agenda behind his asking the question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

AS nothing was written down for about 40 years after the crucifixion, it is an irrelevant discussion. ... Paul was the first one to write anything down, followed by Mark with his gospel and then his second gospel which is called Acts of the Apostles. After that there was a long gap, with Matthew being almost 100 years later (with his own agenda).

What is irrelevant is your contribution to this discussion. It is both disrespectful and irresponsible to deign to instruct when so thoroughly ignorant of the topic at hand.

• Mark did not write Acts.
• Paul did not write in the mid-70's.
• gMat was not written circa 170 CE.

I encourage you to think some before further embarrassing yourself.

 

[lilithu]

If you believe Jesus was a man you believe it on the basis of Biblical scripture and nothing else.
Biblical scripture states that he could read and write so it would seem pretty consistent to state that he was literate.

Biblical scripture also said that he was uniquely God. So if I believed on the basis of Biblical scripture and nothing else, I'd have to believe that Jesus was uniquely God. Since I don't believe that, I obviously don't believe everything written in scripture, and therefore scripture alone is insufficient for me to believe Jesus could read and write.

 

[linwood]

Biblical scripture also said that he was uniquely God. So if I believed on the basis of Biblical scripture and nothing else, I'd have to believe that Jesus was uniquely God. Since I don't believe that, I obviously don't believe everything written in scripture, and therefore scripture alone is insufficient for me to believe Jesus could read and write.

If scripture is not what you base your belief in Christ on then what do you base it upon?

 

[robtex]

He was not actually a rabbi in the normal sense. He did not go to rabbinical school. His followers just called him Rabbi.

What do you base this statement on?

 

[greatcalgarian]

I believe the intention of asking whether Jesus can read and write is to move forward to the next question. "If Jesus can write, why didn't he write down all the important teachings, and instead just taught his followers by verbal only?" He should know that human being has limited memory and verbal instructions will change from one person to the next. If He has the intention of making very clear teachings for all the generations to come, he should have employed someone who can write (if he could not write) to wrote down and read back to him to confirm all the teachings. Instead, everything is left to oral traditions, and we ended up with 4 Gospels that have many places contradicting one another.
Perhaps this is another of the mysterious way God tests us.

 

[Qumran]

"If Jesus can write, why didn't he write down all the important teachings, and instead just taught his followers by verbal only?".... Instead, everything is left to oral traditions, and we ended up with 4 Gospels that have many places contradicting one another.....

This is a good and honest question.

Many great teachers never commited thier own words to paper. Buddha and Gandhi are just two examples (When I say did not write themselves I do not mean they NEVER wrote anything, just that they had no intention of cataloging their words into books and such - they left that to followers)

I would not presume to know how Jesus would answer your question but here are a couple things to keep in mind:

1) If we look at Christendom as it exists today, with thousands of traditions, complex doctrines and countless laws, bylaws and Papal Bulls, edicts etc etc etc, you would never guess how VERY SIMPLE the teachings of Jesus actually were. Look at the actual words JESUS HIMSELF are recorded as saying. Not the writings of his apostles and disciples. I mean JESUS' OWN WORDS. They are quite simple. Simple and easy to remember. Perfect for an oral tradition! Perfect for the simple people he was trying to reach.

2) Most of the people he preached to were illiterate. His ministry was not targeted primarily to scholars who could read, although he preached to everyone.

3) Likely he did not want his writings to be turned into holy relics, prefering that the MESSAGE and God be glorified, not the scrolls he would have written.

Lastly, in the first century there was fierce competition among Christians and Christian-like sects. Many documents were destroyed and lost because they did not agree with the leaders of congregations who were trying to create a new religion. How do we know Jesus DIDN'T write his simple teachings down, but they didn't meet with the approval of ambitious followers? A possibility.

Jesus' teachings were S-I-M-P-L-E - not at all like mainstream "Christianity"

In my opinion, Jesus would not recognize Christianity today.

 

[buddman1111]

i dont think the teachings are hard today , i think you might just be a little stupid for ever thinking something like that,jesus was god, read a bible

 

[lilithu]

If scripture is not what you base your belief in Christ on then what do you base it upon?

First off, I believe there was a man named Jesus, and Jesus is who I've been talking about. Whether or not he was also the Christ is up to the Christian, and I am not Christian.

That said, what you originally said is that if I believe in Jesus, then I believe it on the basis of scripture and nothing else. And therefore if scripture says that Jesus could read then I must believe he could read. I dispute that.

I am not limited to what is inside scripture. I do not just believe that Jesus existed because scripture says so. I believe that someone had to be the source of the teachings that are ascribed to Jesus. This I would believe even if I thought that the gospels were complete fiction. In the absence of evidence proving otherwise, it is more parsimonious to believe that Jesus was that someone. I believe that someone had to be the inspiration that so moved a small group of Jews that they left their families and society and created their own small communities where everyone was equal and shared all of their belongings with the community (true communism). In the absence of evidence proving otherwise, it is more parsimonious to believe that Jesus was that someone. Despite there not being any definative corroborating evidence of his existence, it seems reasonable to me to believe that he did exist for the reasons given above. That in no way obligates me to believe everything that is written inside scripture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that someone had to be the inspiration that so moved a small group of Jews that they left their families and society and created their own small communities where everyone was equal and shared all of their belongings with the community (true communism).

May I ask where you get this information?

 

[Qumran]

i dont think the teachings are hard today , i think you might just be a little stupid for ever thinking something like that,jesus was god, read a bible

I never said "the teachings are hard today." Please re-read my post- both eyes open this time.

Since your Biblical knowledge is obviously great, please cite scripture's where Jesus claims to be God. If you have trouble with that one, please cite scriptures where the Apostles or disciples say "Jesus is God." Not texts that can be INTERPRETED that way...I mean an actual text where it says, clearly and directly that "Jesus is God."

I am aware there are a great many people who believe Jesus is God.

NOTE: I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT BELIEF.

But show me where it makes this statement, clearly, DIRECTLY, refering to God AND Jesus - by name in the same sentence.

And by the way, suggesting someone is STUPID because they do not share your viewpoint doesn't say much for your own intelligence.

 

[lilithu]

May I ask where you get this information?

OK, please amend the previous statement to read "I believe that someone had to be the inspiration that so moved a small group of Jews that they started what eventually became Christianity." Is that satisfactory?

Personally, I see no reason to question what's in the text unless there is a reason to question the text. If one believes that Jesus was a carpenter from Nazareth, then there is reason to question whether he could read/write because it severely violates the social conventions of the time. (Of course that doesn't mean it wasn't true, only that I see reason to doubt it.) I see no reason to question whether early Christians really did live communally, as is recorded in Acts and the epistles. It would seem a reasonable consequence of following Jesus' teachings.

Plus it really annoys certain Christians to hear that the earliest Christians were communists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, please amend the previous statement to read "I believe that someone had to be the inspiration that so moved a small group of Jews that they started what eventually became Christianity." Is that satisfactory?

Of course, although I disagree.

 

[Scott1]

But show me where it makes this statement, clearly, DIRECTLY, refering to God AND Jesus - by name in the same sentence.

Why? Would you run down to the closest Christian Church and "sign up"? I think not... if you don't respect/believe the men who wrote Scripture or the men who defined the Canon of Scripture, then why in the world would what was IN the Bible make any difference at all to you?

And by the way, suggesting someone is STUPID because they do not share your viewpoint doesn't say much for your own intelligence.

Amen.:tsk: