Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rich Oliver · 10-25-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

One study puts literacy in Israel at the time of Christ at 3%.

Well even if we run with this 3% figure that means if Jesus had 30 followers one of them should have been able to write. How big is this this movement supposed to have got, how far is it suppossed to have spread, before someone wrote something down. How old were Jesus's followers, some of then must have been around for a few decades. Why is their no written account by or dictated by one of Jesus's followers, and please don't try and pass off any of the extant Gospels because they are plainly nothing of the sort.

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-25-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Rabbi" was a pretty generic term for teachers and preachers. By no means did everyone who was called by that title have formal training in one of the rabbinic schools.

There was no official training, no official rabbinate until sometime after 70 CE.

There were two major rabbinical schools at the time of Jesus. They did not turn out clerical rabbis in the sense that we think of them now (i.e. the clerical tradition which arose after the destruction of the Temple), but they were scholarly groups whose members acquired the title of rabbi in a more formal context than the rural teachers and lay preachers who might get called "rabbi."

Clouseau · 10-26-2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

There was no official training, no official rabbinate until sometime after 70 CE.

There were two major rabbinical schools at the time of Jesus. They did not turn out clerical rabbis in the sense that we think of them now (i.e. the clerical tradition which arose after the destruction of the Temple), but they were scholarly groups whose members acquired the title of rabbi in a more formal context than the rural teachers and lay preachers who might get called "rabbi."

We know that, and it's totally irrelevant.

Joan of Bark · 10-26-2007, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

In short, we have no reason to believe that HJ would have tried to write a Gospel since a.) he, his followers and his audience were probably all illiterate, b.) writing materials cost money and c.) it would not have been seen as necessary when the teachings were already being engineered to survive in oral form.

If HJ was an apocalyptic preacher, then I think we can add

d.) no reason to record anything since The End was coming soon

My opinion also. There was no reason to believe that nearly two thousand years later the morally-confused world would still exist and the majority of people would be literate enough to read His words.

Rich Oliver · 10-26-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If HJ was an apocalyptic preacher, then I think we can add

d.) no reason to record anything since The End was coming soon

If he was just an apolcaltptic preacher that begs the question why, within 20 years of his death, was Paul preaching that he was a pre-existant divine son of God through which all things had been made. And why did his supposed companions and possibly even his brother not object to this. There must have been something pretty distinctive about his life or death that inspired this deification. Something that would have been worth recording, even if times were short.

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-26-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If HJ was an apocalyptic preacher, then I think we can add

d.) no reason to record anything since The End was coming soon

If he was just an apolcaltptic preacher that begs the question why within 20 years of his death why was Paul preaching that he was a pre existant divine son of God through which all things had been made. And why did his supposed companions and possibly even his brother not object to this when. There must have been something pretty distintive about his life or death that inspired this deification. Something that would have been worth recording, even if times were short.

Paul had to make lemonade out of lemons with regards to the crucifixion. His Christology appears to have been largely a product of his own psychosis, so there isn't necessarily any reason to go looking to any reference to historical events. We also don't know that James or any of Jesus original followers agreed with Paul at all. There is some implication in Paul's letters that they did not. We simply don't know how Jesus was viewed by those who knew him directly. They left no writings.

No Robots · 10-26-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

Well even if we run with this 3% figure that means if Jesus had 30 followers one of them should have been able to write. How big is this this movement supposed to have got, how far is it suppossed to have spread, before someone wrote something down. How old were Jesus's followers, some of then must have been around for a few decades. Why is their no written account by or dictated by one of Jesus's followers, and please don't try and pass off any of the extant Gospels because they are plainly nothing of the sort.

The actual mechanics of production of the written Gospels as we have them are certainly cloaked in impenetrable mystery. Birger Gerhardsson has done some fascinating reconstruction work, positing a combination of oral and written transmission. You can get an idea of his orientation here.

Amaleq13 · 10-26-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If HJ was an apocalyptic preacher, then I think we can add

d.) no reason to record anything since The End was coming soon

If he was just an apolcaltptic preacher that begs the question why, within 20 years of his death, was Paul preaching that he was a pre-existant divine son of God through which all things had been made.

I don't think a response can be said to beg a question it wasn't intended to answer. The question was why Jesus didn't leave a written record of his own.

Magdlyn · 10-26-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There were two major rabbinical schools at the time of Jesus. They did not turn out clerical rabbis in the sense that we think of them now (i.e. the clerical tradition which arose after the destruction of the Temple), but they were scholarly groups whose members acquired the title of rabbi in a more formal context than the rural teachers and lay preachers who might get called "rabbi."

We know that, and it's totally irrelevant.

"We?" I doubt you knew that until I brought up Hillel and Shammai on another thread yesterday.

Here is more detail on literacy rates in Palestine 1st century CE.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/...ate/id/1467844

Quote:

Historical Jesus - Was Jesus Literate?

To refute the idea that Jesus was illiterate, Ben Witherington simply says that, "the only concrete evidence we have suggests the contrary (cf. Lk 4 to Lk 24)" (The Jesus Quest, p. 88). Luke 4 tells of Jesus reading from a scroll in a Nazareth synagogue. However, Meier notes the following (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 270): "However, the sources and historicity of the narrative in this pericope are disputed. Some exegetes consider Luke's scene a tradition from his special 'L' source and hence an independent verification of what the other Gospel traditions tell us about Jesus' return to and preaching in Nazareth. However, it is also possible that Luke 4:16-30 simply represents Luke's imaginative and colorful reworking of Jesus' preaching and rejection at Nazareth as recounted in Mark 6:1-6a. A middle ground is also possible: the pericope shows Luke's acquaintance with Mark, but some important elements come from Luke's special source. Certainly the Lucan pericope is loaded with Lucan motifs; the highly symbolic scene functions as a programmatic preview of the course of Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection, resulting in the proclamation of the good news to the Gentiles. The clear presence of Luke's redactional hand makes one wary."

Other scholars, such as Safrai, have argued that the majority of Jewish children in first century Judea received education at schools, a program instituted by Simeon ben Shetah (c. 103-76 BCE) and later Joshua ben Gamala (c. 63-65 CE). However, our accounts of this in the Talmud were written down about 200 years after Jesus' boyhood. The references from Philo and Josephus probably only refer to the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue. Any school system would have to be reinstituted after disruption during the two Jewish revolutions around 70 and 130. Many scholars consider the educational program of Simeon to be a later legend: "What elementary education did exist was carried out within the family, and most often it simply involved instruction in a given craft by the father." (page 273) Meier writes: "Hence, despite inflated claims from some modern authors, we are not to imagine that every Jewish male in Palestine learned to read - and women were rarely given the opportunity. Literacy, while greatly desirable, was not an absolute necessity for the ordinary life of the ordinary Jew. Indeed, the very existence of Aramaic targums (translations) of the Hebrew Scriptures argues that a good number of ordinary Jews present in the synagogue could not understand Hebrew even when it was spoken, to say nothing of an ability to read or write it. Jewish peasants who never learned to read or write could still assimilate and practice their religion through family traditions in the home, the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue (with accompanying Aramaic translations), and the homily that preceded or followed the reading. These living traditions of the community would have been the matrix of Jesus' religious life and thought, as they were for most Palestinian Jews at the time. Taken by themselves, therefore, such influences as reverence for the Torah and respect for literacy do not prove that Jesus was counted among those Jews who could read and study the Scriptures; they simply show what might have been." (page 275-276)

So far, the results have been unpromising, as neither the most relevant biblical citation nor common Jewish practices do much support the idea that Jesus was literate. But Meier argues that the debates of Jesus over the Scripture in the synagogues and other details suggest that Jesus had the ability to read the sacred Hebrew texts. However, this "indirect argument" can be doubted, not least because the scriptural background "could have been conveyed by word-of-mouth catechesis and memorization."

W. V. Harris in Ancient Literacy estimates less than 10% of the Roman Empire under the principate to be literate, with that number falling as low as 3% in Roman Judaea (see also M. Bar-Ilan, 'Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries CE', in S. Fishbane and S. Schoenfeld, Essays in the Sociel Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, pages 46-61). Since we do not have any clear reliable tradition in the Gospels, a positive judgment cannot be made here, especially in light of the fact that illiteracy was widespread in the ancient world.

Clouseau · 10-26-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

We know that, and it's totally irrelevant.

Quote:

"We?" I doubt you knew that until I brought up Hillel and Shammai on another thread yesterday.

The rest of the post must be pretty yawnworthy, too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.