Board index ‹ Jesus

[Big Ed]

Let's assume Jesus was literate. There must be reason he didn't write any of the Bible. Either that, or none of his writings made it in. I'm going with "his writings would have shown he never claimed to be God."

Does this work for a debate? I'm very interested in the topic. Please let me know if I can clarify anything, but I'm basically arguing that Jesus's writings were not included in the bible because they would not support the "I am God" position the bible is supposed to convey.

[jimwalton]

You're basing your argument on opinions, not facts. So first let's analyze your assumptions.

1. Jesus was literate. It's a fairly safe assumption, but there were different levels of literacy in the first century. It's safe to assume, as a good Jew, Jesus was instructed in the basics of reading and writing. He could obviously read (Luke 4.16), and he may have been able to write (Jn. 8.6). There was another level of literacy in their culture, and that was the professional scribes, the "experts" in reading and writing. Jesus may not have been one of those. But since his disciples could read and write, we can assume Jesus was quite literate as well.

2. You're assuming Jesus, then, wrote something. There is no basis for this claim. Why didn't he write his own works? He came for a different reason: to teach, to help people by healing them, to train disciples, and to die for people's sins. The first century was in transition between an rhetorical oral culture and a writing culture; Jesus taught orally. He could accomplish more that way in the short time he had.

3. "His writings would have shown he never claimed to be God." An explicitly false assumption. John 10.30 is his clearest statement to that effect: "I and the Father are one." The word he uses for "one" (Greek ἕν [hen]) denotes not one person, but one essence. It's singular, and if he meant separate persons he would have used the plural. The Pharisees with him understood perfect what he said and meant, and picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy: claiming to be God.

[Hail Man]

> He could accomplish more that way in the short time he had.

There's this thing I thought he could do though, called a "miracle". He could poof a divine gospel into existence, without any hope of fallible humans miswriting/mistranslating/self contradicting. And why do you think he was short on time?

[jimwalton]

I'm glad to see you acknowledge he could do miracles. The miracles he did were not just for show (something he unwaveringly refused to do), but they were specific signs of his deity. Poofing a divine gospel into existence doesn't fit into that category.

From observing the rest of the Bible, we see that God's *modus operandi* was to use humans to communicate his written word, letting us be part of God's process of self-revelation.

> without any hope of fallible humans miswriting/mistranslating/self contradicting

Some examples would be helpful here so we can discuss them. Most accusations of this sort come from brief Internet skimming from a link and not from dedicated study. You'll find that a little study eliminates truckloads of alleged "miswriting/mistranslating/self-contradicting."

And why was he short on time? He was killed within three years of making himself known. There was a lot of work to be done, and teaching to accomplish. Remember writing in the ancient world was a tedious process. Pen, parchment, and ink weren't particularly cheap. Even in our era it's quicker to say something than to type it.

[Cool Hand Luke]

> He could accomplish more that way in the short time he had.

As if he accomplished the most he could have accomplished? Not even. He only interacted with the smallest part of the population most of the time. He could have accomplished so much more simply by writing down his own words and taking credit. Instead,we get other people's interpretation, and then even further filtering after that.

[jimwalton]

> He only interacted with the smallest part of the population of the time.

Jesus interacted with large segments of the population (Matthew 4.25; 14.21). He spent most of his time with an inner circle of 12, however, using his time to train others who would train others who would train others. It's a different strategy than taking time to write one's own manifesto, but it's the mechanism he chose. As it turns out, it was an effective game plan, because thousands upon thousands of people turned to Christianity in the years immediately following his resurrection.

> Instead we get other people's interpretation, and then even further filtering after that.

There's nothing wrong with getting other people's interpretation, even with further filtering. The account can still be accurate, coming from someone who was there. Our journalism (newspapers, TV, magazines, Internet) all rely on the news, which is a person's interpretation of an event in the world. And then as we discuss it around the table, there is even further filtering after that. We accept that as legitimate, and so did they. There's no problem here.

[Waffle]

> John 10.30 is his clearest statement to that effect: "I and the Father are one."

Completely contradicted by his statement in John 14:28: "for the Father is greater than I," not to mention about 7 other verses in John where he referred to himself being subject to God's authority, or being commanded by God.

[jimwalton]

It's not a contradiction. You're failing to distinguish between their essence and their rank, between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. When Jesus was incarnated on the earth, he emptied himself (Philippians 2.7), taking the very nature of a servant. In that sense the Father became greater than he. He chose to submit himself to the Father's authority (the other seven verses in John where he referred to himself being subject to God's authority).

In the Bible, the Trinity distinguishes between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence, but the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence.

It's no contradiction, but a paradox. Jesus and the Father are of one essence, but Jesus becomes subject to God in divine action, submitting to His will. In the former sense, one is not greater than the other, and in the latter sense, the Father is greater than Jesus. It's no different in our world where in one sense (let's say at home, as a father) a man is the authority of his world, and in another sense (at work, as a lower-level employee) he is is subject to the authority of others. It's the nuances of context and environment, and exactly what we're talking about when we can say truthfully that this man is both "Lord of his castle" and "a humble underling".

[Jimi]

> But since his disciples could read and write, we can assume Jesus was quite literate as well.

Just to take this one point, what's your source for this? Perhaps Matthew could if he was a tax collector, who else?

[jimwalton]

Besides Matthew, as you have mentioned, James and John may have been of a priestly family (Jn. 18.15), and logically would have been schooled accordingly. Throughout history, Jews have been known to give priority to literacy and education in their societies. The first century was no different, since Jesus appeared in the Temple for his bar mitzvah at age 12.

In addition, the Gospel of John has more eyewitness accounts than the other three Gospels combined:
- Times of day (1.39; 4.6, etc.)
- A link with one of the feasts (2.13, 23, etc.)
- Place names are brought in naturally and for no apparent reason other than narrative events
- The call of the disciples (1.35-51)
- The episode of the foot-washing (13.1-20)
- Information about persons not mentioned elsewhere: Nicodemus, Malchus, Annas
- Claims to eyewitness testimony (1.14, 19.35)

...to name a few. It gives credence to the position that John the disciple was the author of the Gospel of John (a position, by the way, unanimously advocated in the early centuries. Unanimously.) Therefore, John was most likely also literate, and therefore possibly his brother James as well.

The writers of the early church (Chrysostom, Andrew of Crete, Refines, Prosper of Aquitaine, Gregory of Tours, Bede, Bar-Hebraeus) unanimously attribute 1 Peter to the Apostle Peter. But the level of Greek seems far beyond what a Galilean fisherman would be capable of. What's likely is that Peter dictated his letter to Silas (1 Pet. 5.12), who wrote it in good Greek. So we don't know if Peter was literate or not.

The rest we don't know enough about.