I’m pleased to hear that because I don’t believe Jesus’ literacy is an inerrancy, “make it or break it” issue. An atheist who acknowledges a literate Jesus does not become a theist by believing it, and a Christian theist who refuses to believe it doesn’t cease to be a theist.
I don’t. I, personally, think it’s a “Sub-tribal” issue and impacts ecumenical decisions and the nature of bridges I surround myself with.
I don’t know why anyone other than the OP’s author is discussing this, so others can speak for themselves. As for me, If someone believes in the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Jesus, eternal life after death, the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and acknowledges the occurrence of demonic activity and of “miracles”, that person is in the same Christian sub-tribe that I am n. The OP’s author dismissed my belief in the authenticity of the Shroud on, IMO, irrational and unreasonable grounds; and I dismiss his belief in Jesus’ literacy on strictly rational and reasonable grounds. , ,
Yeah, one professor actually maintained that the book of Joshua was an ancient tour guide for stone markers in the Jordan valley. “What do these stones mean?” was his key concept.
When God became Jesus, he became an embodied human with a physical brain that controlled his cognition. Do you believe baby Jesus emerged from Mary’s womb knowing how to read in every human language?
Right. Saying Jesus was God so he had to be literate is like saying Jesus was God so of course he was better than Mozart at violin. Reading is a skill you have to learn just like any other skill and humans only know what they are taught and practice. There is no evidence that Jesus possessed all skills ever known to humanity without having to learn them with his brain and body. He got tired and hungry. He was limited by his embodiment in the same ways we are.
I’m reminded of some of the infancy narratives dreamed up later that have Him talking like an adult while still in the crib. Those made me wonder if anyone at all ever believed such things.
Let the record show that the Qur’an, the true revelation directly from Allah to illiterate Mohammad via the Angel Jibril resulted initially in an audible, perfect, infallible version of the Qur’an, containing the talking infant Jesus in the crib story along with Jesus making clay birds and commanding them to fly which they immediately did, and according to which Jesus did not die on the cross. Impressive, eh? So, yes, someone believed them and a lot of Muslims still do.
And, by the way, there are folks in this forum who believe that the Allah who gave illiterate Mohammad the audible revelation via Jibril is the same Yahweh who created the universe and gave the Torat Book to Moses; the Psalm Book to David and gave the Gospel Book to Jesus, … seriously.
A scholarly consensus does not exist despite Luke clearly describing a quite capable Jesus locating a passage and reading from a scroll on the spot? That is because Luke is not considered that reliable here by a great number of critical scholars.
I don’t recall Sanders or Vermes discussing the issue in their HJ books. Do you remember them doing so? I couldn’t find anything in Jesus and Judaism or Jesus the Jew… NT Wright is an ultraconservative scholar and will just agree with whatever the gospels say (Luke has Jesus reading so he can read to Wright). Dunn does have a really small section on education in Jesus Remembered. He takes Josephus to mean reading reading (contra other scholars) who take Josephus in a different sense. Dunn doesn’t offer that much. He kind of totes a conservative punchline with Josephus and Rabbinic tradition. Dunn:
Can we be more specific on Jesus’ education? In particular, would he have been able to read and write? There is a strong presumption of widespread illiteracy among the lower social groups in the Roman Empire. But as we have seen, Second Temple Judaism put a great emphasis on the study of Torah. The writing prophets could already assume a reading and writing public. According to Josephus (Ap. 2.204), it was expected that children should be taught to read (grammata paideuein). And the Testament of Levi similarly sets forth the ideal of the father teaching his children their letters, so that they may ‘unceasingly read the Law of God’ (T. Levi 13.2). Consequently, even a Galilean villager (of some ability) might well have learned to read. Jesus’ quite widely attested challenge, ‘Have you not read?’, probably presupposes his own reading ability.And alongside the implication of considerable dependence on scribes, we should note that the parable of the dishonest steward assumes a widespread if basic ability to write (Luke 16.6-7). Moreover, the presence of Scripture scrolls is attested in Palestinian villages as early as 1 Mace. 1.56-57 and confirmed by Josephus for both Judea {War 2.229) and Galilee (Life 134). So the picture painted in Luke 4.16-17 is in essence quite credible.
I would certainly push back on Dunn:
So because some Palestinian villages owned scrolls its credible a specific individual from the lower class could read? Complete leap in logic. It’s extremely credible that scroll was only able to be read by a small number of people.
Luke writing 60-70 years after Jesus’s death has a parable where he assumes a widespread ability to write? And he thinks this comes from Jesus in this form who grew up in nazareth and preached predominantly in Galilee? Why on earth would Dunn not simply see that as anachronism on Luke’s part? Luke is part of the literate elite and is writing to the lofty “theophilus”. A widespread ability to write? That is laughable. Rather, Luke is making Christianity palatable to Roman elite near the end of the first century. We see the same at work in Luke 4.
Does Dunn ever critically discuss the testament of Levi that he appeals to? The sentiments are nice but how enforced was such a notion? Does it even apply in a small village without roads, a synagogue building (etc)150-200 years later in early first century Nazareth? Are we supposed to just tread that and assume the platitude was the norm everywhere? Why tell someone to do something if it is the norm? The opposite is the case. Does Dunn just quote it like a proof-text? For example, Paula Fredriksen writes of the problems in comparing early Christians with the community of the Dead Sea scrolls: “The Scrolls are the lush literature of highly educated, priestly, separatist, mostly Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking Judean sectarians. Much of their literary production was for internal consumption.” What was T Levi? Who was it aimed at? It seems to use the Damascus Document of the DSS. Dunnjust doesn’t seem to offer a critical discussion on this issue.
Of all four of those, I think Sanders puts out the highest quality work. I would be interested in seeing anything he has written on the issue. It seems a lot of HJ scholars in particular just don’t address the issue. Literacy was very low but how do we know something unordinary didn’t happen for a specific individual? Probability wise, I see most just guessing he couldn’t based on literacy rates in the region.
Of special note for the rest of this topic is what Paula Fredrikens writes (Jesus of Nazareth):
But synagogues and a vernacular Bible did more than inspire religious tourism. In disseminating the laws and serving as a place for discussion of them, synagogues also created a special kind of textual community. Whether in the Diaspora or in the homeland, the synagogue, precisely through its emphasis on public reading, diminished the need for literacy, and the monopoly a literate elite might exercise, when approaching the sacred text. The individual Jew did not have to be capable of reading in order to be involved in the interpretation of Scripture: Hearing the Law at least once a week, completing the cycle of the Torah time and again throughout one’s life, provided text enough. The Bible, through community study, permitted the growth of a kind of secondary literacy, whereby Jews could be very familiar with a text without necessarily being able to read. And this secondary literacy encouraged and intensified community life: Everyone could (and for all we know, did) have a scriptural hook from which to hang his or her particular interpretation.
She goes on to quote Josephus: “Should anyone of our nation be questioned about the laws,” says Josephus, “he would repeat them all the more readily than his own name” (c. Ap. 2.175).
She doesn’t seem to touch the literacy question directly either unless I missed it.
I’m glad you can read my mind. I didn’t make this thread. The illiterate line was one small part of my post about Jesus in response to an article on Biologos about the Bethlehem star. The illiterate aspect was phrased positively but used sensationally as since literacy didn’t matter in antiquity, it only scores an emotional point anachronistically. Sue me, I wax poetic occasionally. Dale interjected and this mess started.
I generally lack belief in all historical traditions that show up 1200 ( or maybe ~ 600 if being charitable and my memory serves me well) years after the fact amidst a sea of other forgeries. Like the literacy of Jesus, the authenticity of the shroud is not very much a concern of mine.
If Allah and Yahweh and Brahman are not the same god or entity, and if Allah is a phony and Brahman is the (in Hinduism) the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena.
and “Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality”
I just can’t see how anyone could imagine that Mohammad’s Allah Israel and Jesus’ and Moses’ Yahweh were both the same god. or how Brahaman could be the same being as Allah and Yahweh.
This post was moved as it started a collection of very much off topic posts but this response was very much on topic here. I think it’s important to at least see a voice on the infancy narratives that is not steeped in concordant readings because the difficulties are many:
This entire reflection on the star of Bethlehem seems to be based on a concordant readings of Matthew’s infancy narrative. From a historical lens, it is most likely that Matthew and Luke attempt to get Jesus of Nazareth to Bethlehem via conflicting stories. There is very little in the Birth narratives of Jesus that look like historical narration.
This is why so many conservatives have trouble with an old earth. They read Genesis 1 -11 the same way this article is reading Mathew’s infancy narrative. Experts tell conservatives both readings are wrong. They dismiss both experts. It seems many Christian evolutionists will cherry pick what is historical and what is not. Conservatives see right through this. Now sure, scientific consensus is stronger than historical consensus but it’s still there. And sure there are potential astronomical candidates in the most commonly suggested decade for Jesus’s birth but none that accurately fit the Bible’s descriptions and we now know stars can’t settle over a house and they don’t behave as described. They can’t fall to the earth either. The earth isn’t immutable and thoughts don’t originate in our kidneys. Etc.,etc etc. We know now, just as we do about Genesis1-3, this story is based on mistaken cosmogony.
Matthew is looking backwards and ascribing a most wonderful birth to Jesus almost a century after the fact. Whatever actually happened we cannot know. We have two highly supernatural stories that contradict on details, are filled his astronomical and historical errors, entire streams of NT thought are entirely oblivious to this most wonderful miracle (even demons call him Jesus of Nazareth and Mark may very well have Jesus adopted at baptism), that shows up very late in the tradition with competing (highly theological) genealogies through Joseph, Luke describes Mary’s purification rituals poorly despite conservatives claiming he is using her story, history is silent on the massacre of the innocents despite Josephus parading the insanity of Herod, many other figures were given virgin births—some while alive and I’m assuming, like me, other Christian’s reject these out of hand—just as they do the other birth stories about Jesus outside the Canon). I’m sure someone can try a divide and conquer harmonization. Eusebius did so long ago. It’s all “baby dinosaurs on the ark.”
This might be hard, especially at Christmas time but imagine what conservatives think when told the Bible is not correct in how it describes creation. I personally accept the virgin birth of Jesus based on Church testimony and creed. Μuch the same way I do some form of inspiration. It is a faith based position.
Christmas is a time to celebrate the incarnation. We can read Matthew and Luke and wonder how a baby born in a backwater hamlet of Galilee, where idiom suggests nothing good could come from, a baby who grew into an inconsequential and probably illiterate woodworker that was crucified as a criminal by Rome was given the honor of such wondrous birth tales. How? Why? How indeed! Easter helps with the answer.
Wondering about the star of Bethlehem is like wondering what type of snake was in Eden.
So, tell me, Detective Colombo; Just who started this thread?" Your Dopplegaenger Twin?
Confused, I scroll all the way up this thread, to the very first post and what do I see? This:
Excuse me??? Once again, Colombo: “Who started this thread?” Your “other Dopplegaenger Twin?”
This topic was started when a post of mine and many others here was moved. I had no intention of starting a discussion on the literacy of Jesus. I did not create this topic. Christy did. My post was a response in another topic.
Christy this is a correct assumption but there is a problem…trinitarian Christians believe that Christ became self aware that He was God as he grew into adulthood…ie, he began to understand from a very young age that He was much more than a mere mortal.
By the time of His baptism, and especially immedistely after His baptism, Christ knew 100% that He was God.
Actually, here is where the Old Testament sanctuary service helps clarify a few qualities regarding the Son of Man (The God/man)…
The sacrifice for the day of atonment was to be an animal without blemish of any kind.
I think its a fair extrapolation that , given Christs knowledge of scripture as a child and that the priests and rabbis in the temple stayed on as an audience marvelling at his knowledge for days, we can satisfy ourselves we have more than enough evidence to satisfy the issue of literacy. Clearly he was extremely literate …evidence of this starts with the following
After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers " (Lk 2:41-47)
“One small part”??? Roll the tape back, Sampson!!! We can read Matthew and Luke and wonder how a baby born in a backwater hamlet of Galilee, where idiom suggests nothing good could come from, a baby who grew into an inconsequential and probably illiterate woodworker that was crucified as a criminal by Rome was given the honor of such wondrous birth tales.
Wait! let’s get rid of the “poetic waxing part”, first …
“a baby who grew into an inconsequential and probably illiterate woodworker”
Inconsequential
probably illiterate
Your words, not mine. “Poetic Waxing?” Betcha’ never said that about your kids, didja?
Are you going to Hell for it? Get real! Surely Jesus doesn’t sweat the trash talk. But,IMO, you should never be allowed to teach a catechism class or be a deacon. Your “bedside manner” needs work.
St. Francis, Mary, and Joseph! You want to argue over whether you started this thread or your post was involuntarily kidnapped to start a goofy thread. If it makes you feel better, I’ll rephrase that offensive part of my comment
Public apology and correction: Upon clarification of the facts, I confess to having incorrectly attributed Signore Vinnie’s post to being the O.P. post because he was da guy who posted it. When in fact his post was involuntarily turned into the O.P. of this thread with no editing after having been copied and pasted from its original position as a contribution to “the Bethlehem Star” thread.
I agree. But this didn’t make him omniscient or magically give him skills he never learned with his human brain. I believe everything Jesus knew and understood, he knew and understood in the same ways all humans do, by experience and learning and by what the Holy Spirit revealed to him in prayer about the specific things he asked the Father to reveal to him.
Knowing he was God is not the same thing as knowing everything God knows.
That knowledge of Scriptures entails literacy in your mind is not proof of anything. It was an oral culture in which people regularly studied Scriptures and memorized Scriptures and discussed Scripture without ever consulitng a document. Sitting at the feet of a Rabbi doesn’t involve a book, it involves a person who can recite the contents of a book and disciples who listen.