Ben C Smith

This is literally gospel of him (Didache 8.2). The genitive can be either subjective or objective. If subjective, then it means the gospel that Jesus preached or spoke or wrote. (Gospels are not all written.) If objective, then it means the gospel about Jesus.

An English example of a subjective genitive is the love of a mother; in this case it is the mother who loves; that is, mother is the subject of the verbal idea in the noun love.

An English example of an objective genitive is love of country; in this case country is the object of the verbal idea in love; country is what is being loved.

The Greek can go either way with virtually equal facility.

Ben.

aa5874

The infancy Gospel of Thomas has some very incredible information about Jesus as a child, it appears that the child may have had perhaps one day of lessons about the alphabeth, but the child Jesus seemed to know more about letters than the teacher.

The infancy Gospel VI [QUOTE] 1.Now, a certain teacher, Zacchaeus by name, stood there and he heard in part when Jesus said these things to his father and he marvelled greatly that being a young child he spake such matters.

2.And after a few days he came near unto Joseph and said unto him Thou hast a wise child, and he hath understanding. Come deliver him unto me that he may learn letters.........

3.And he told him all the letters from Alpha even to Omega, with much questioning.

But Jesus looked upon Zacchaeus the teacher and saith unto him: Thou that knowest not the Alpha according to its nature, how canst thou teach others the Beta? Thou hypoctrite, first, if thou knowest it, teach the Alpha, then will we believe thee concerning the Beta. Then began he to confound the mouth of the teacher concerning the first letter......."

VII.1 It seems, based on this Gospel, that Jesus was born literate.

mens_sana

With so little to go on, I think we would have to estimate probabilities. What is the probability that the young Jesus would have had access to more than an "oral" education in Torah? Or that the child of working peasants would have had the time away from survival labor to pursue such?

Doug Shaver

Yes, but are you suggesting that, given the evidence we have, such as it is, his literacy and illiteracy are equally probable?

Solitary Man

No, I'm not suggesting anything at all.

Doug Shaver

OK. I am. I am suggesting that we have some evidence for his literacy and some evidence for his illiteracy, and that the evidence for one is a lot better than the evidence for the other.

Solitary Man

OK, that's fair, but I'm not suggesting which of the two.

skepticalbip

If he did, it was likely claimed to be heretical by the church and hidden or destroyed.

Sorta like the Gospel of Mary:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

or the Gospel of Judas:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lo...geographic.com

or many, more of the Essene or gnostic writings of the time.

Solitary Man

Except it wasn't. He wrote in the sand in John (not destroyed), he read in Luke (obviously literacy of Jesus is not heretical).

skepticalbip

I wasn't referring to whether or not he was literate. I would assume he would be since he was supposed to be a Rabbi. It would seem for a Rabbi to read the Torah, this would be necessary.

I was referring to the fact that if he did leave a Gospel then it could have been declared heretical by the church and hidden or destroyed, like most of the Essene writings of the time (as I understand, Jesus is thought to have been an Essene.). If what he had to say conflicted with the meme the church was creating in the third and fourth century (the accepted gospels) then it could have been treated like the other writings that they chose not to include in the official bible.