In Judea, not likely except among the Roman leadership.
Among well-to-do Romans across the Empire a ‘house’ (e.g. noble house) scribe who was a slave was common.
It’s always struck me that Herod was angry that the Magi had deceived him, when he apparently deceived them in the first place by claiming he wanted to pay homage to the babe.
4 Likes
Well…I suppose it is a matter of sources. These speakers may have meant “scribes in general” or “scribes in Judea” or a combination of both. The discussion was the method of scribal activity---- did they sit at desks and write or did they walk around taking notes ?? How many scribes did Luke have with his work? Cicero etc?
1 Like
My point was the “star” is about as historical as the snake in Eden. That is to say not at all. Both can be deal breakers for some Christians. I don’t see the relevance. Maybe you underestimate the serious difficulties with not viewing early Genesis as history? I don’t. Not accepting what the Bible plainly narrates is always going to be somewhat troubling. I find creation and the fall far more important theologically than an alleged star behaving oddly during the time of Jesus’s birth.
Just as many take Genesis 1-11 in a mythological sense, there is nothing wrong with seeing many of the details in the infancy narratives of Jesus in the same way. The texts all but necessitate this view.
I spent a lot of time outlining them in the opening post above. There is nothing necessitating all parts of individual gospels must have the same literary genre from start to finish. Just as Genesis 1 is understood in its ancient context so too is Matthew’s infancy narrative. He presents Jesus as a new and greater Moses… his story mirrors Israel’s.
Matthew gets wild ant the end too with all those zombies no one else ever seems to have heard of parading around Jerusalem. .
Vinnie
Neither Matthew nor Mark can be called “high Greek”; in fact the only writing in the New Testament really deserving of such an appellation would be the letter to the Hebrews (Luke is sort of borderline).
Accounts? “To do” lists? Shopping (supplies) lists? Contracts tended to be written by professional scribes since they often kept records of having written them.
1 Like
If you follow the discussion, Terry mocked critical
Scholars for thinking Peter, for example, couldn’t himself write the epistles in Greek bearing his name. He thinks the entire enterprises is disproved because someone found a “bobber and a pen” in a house 2,000 years ago. If you want to defend the belief that Peter wrote the two epistles in his name in the NT himself in Greek, have fun. It’s “secretary” or bust.
Which of these did they find in the house?
Vinnie
Vinnie, questioning the literacy of fisherman is a way of questioning the reliabiity of the whole “Messiah” story —“who would believe a bunch of illiterate fishermen anyway?” as a skeptical relative of mine once asked. Whether literate or “not so much” — they were not necessarily intellectual midgets and likely they were not fools. There is quite a longstanding discussion about the value of oral traditions common in earlier times and of the written word in periods of time when, it seems, literacy was a rare skill–not to mention the dates of the “original autographs” of the NT, the likelihood that some listeners to rabbis (like Jesus) may have taken notes (or just memorized it), whether or not there was a Q, L, M, O, P, XYZ document before the actual gospels were written etc. —and the date of the second coming (thought I would throw that one in there). Terry is just happy (it see,s) about this additional information about a 1st or 2nd century AD/CE home. You are right. There is likely much to be learned about that home. .
1 Like
Anyone today worrying about illiterate fishermen is literate but ignorant. This is not a valid critique and entirely anachronistic.
This was an oral culture and listening to things read by an elite few was the norm. Not being able to read in antiquity is not the same as today. The world worked differently. Did you read the quote from Fredriksen I posted:
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).
Just happy? Is that how you whitewash mocking the work of critical scholars via caricature? Are we all seeking truth here or just picking sides and rolling with the tide?
Vinnie
1 Like
Dale mentioned that to me long ago in here and as I said, that is part of the Lucan infancy narrative my opening post question the veracity of on many points.
Jesus could interpret scripture just fine if he heard it read and discussed over and over again. The ability to read remains a possibility but it is not necessary by any means. .
Hmm now thats an interesting statement…are you able to explain the following then…
John 1:48
“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”
You know that theologically this is a claim that Christ actually knew Nathanuel from the perspective of an all-knowing God right?
And before you answer that question…i would suggest you first read on in John 1 and note what Nathanuel says…
49“Rabbi,” Nathanael answered, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
50Jesus said to him, “Do you believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” 51Then He declared, “Truly, truly, I tell you, you will all see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”j
And to add to the above…this is just after Christs baptism which i brought to your attention in the last post.
Brahman is the magician. If the illusion is true, then the critical scholars are right about Jesus being a myth. The scholars would be an illusion as well.
3 Likes
Given how itinerant rabbis operated, having a set of stock discourses that were repeated over and over with some adjustment for particular audiences, and given how memorable Jesus made His teachings, it would be surprising indeed if there weren’t (at the very least) many dozens of people who could recite His lessons along with some few who took notes.
2 Likes
Maybe – it could also be special knowledge given by the Spirit in line with Paul’s mention of special knowledge being a gift of the Spirit.
Which is a reasonable conclusion even if it was special knowledge operating; that wasn’t a gift available to anyone else at that point.
BTW, a speaker when I was a university student got laughed at when he asserted that Nathaniel’s fig tree was on a hill and Jesus could just see him from a different hill – even non-Christians in the audience could see that was totally contrary to Nathaniel’s declaration.
2 Likes
I like what you said about the illiterate fisherman idea…but there are a lot of people around who grab at things like that.
Good point…and that’s human nature.
Adamjedgar:
Understanding is the key to his teaching in the Temple. They were amazed at his understanding and answers to his questions. The passage is very clear that he was not a child who had memorized Scripture.
The passage says nothing about it, so it certainly doesn’t indicate literacy.
That they were hanging out around the same location and he saw him before he met him and the Holy Spirit revealed something specific to Jesus about his potential as a disciple. Or that the Holy Spirit revealed this to him in a vision or through prayer. This kind of thing happens to people who aren’t God incarnate too though.
That might be your interpretation. It’s certainly only one interpretation.
Yeah, and it can be kind of scary. Once when I was in a house with 48 other guys at university I was sitting in the hall talking to someone when one of the guys came charging up the stairs, back from a weekend at home. The moment my eyes caught his I knew what he had done that weekend.
He freaked out when I went to talk to him about it – that made two of us.
That is a great, and very respectful, analogy.
1 Like