FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-28-2006, 05:17 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
I think ruling John out because he was an "uneducated fisherman" suggests a certain cultural bias. Shakespeare was an uneducated actor and he did pretty well. Studies of literacy for that time suggest that Judean Jews tended to be literate, due to the requirement that Jewish males be able to read the Torah, and the educational efforts of the Pharisees. It's quite plausible that John augmented his rudimentary education (just as Shakespeare did), and cultivated the philosophical
I did not know this. Would you make the same assumption about Jesus then? I've often wondered why Jesus did not put pen to paper. Was this something "prophets" did later in life?
douglas is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 05:21 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WishboneDawn View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "basing beliefs on", not that we literally believe it, right? I found this list on religioustolerance.org as well...



It goes on (here) to list more and it might help you get a perspective on liberal christian thought on the bible. I sort of wish I'd found that before so I could offer the link to people.

Interesting! I know nothing about "liberal Christians" but will endeavor to learn.
douglas is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 06:41 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas View Post
I did not know this. Would you make the same assumption about Jesus then? I've often wondered why Jesus did not put pen to paper. Was this something "prophets" did later in life?
Judaic tradition had both kinds of prophets, the writing (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and the nonwriting (Samuel, Elijah, Elisha). It may or may not mean anything with regard to writing, but the gospels seem to compare Jesus to Elijah or Elisha quite a bit. (To be fair, they also compare him to Moses and at least once to Jeremiah.)

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 08:49 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas View Post
I did not know this. Would you make the same assumption about Jesus then? I've often wondered why Jesus did not put pen to paper. Was this something "prophets" did later in life?
Given how little we know for certain about Jesus, I'd say it's impossible to answer that question with anything other than idle musing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas View Post
Ok. I'm figuring out that my Ireneaus authorship understanding was wrong but this liberal Christian view of the authorship of John has got me a little confused.

"Conservative" Christians base much of their beliefs on a Gospel that was probably written by someone other than John, but "liberal" Chrisitians believe that John didn't write it but choose to base their beliefs on it anyway???
Not exactly. Believers of tradition use reasoning for establishing authors that non-Christians would not. The idea of "divine inspiration" plays a heavy role in Christians' determination of Biblical authorship. Because they place importance on such ideas, they believe there is enough evidence to prove Johannine authorship. Meanwhile, for those Christians who admit John may not have written the fourth Gospel, they often insist that its anonymity doesn't undermine its divine authority. This is evident in the case of Hebrews and Revelation, whose authors are much more commonly disputed within the Christian community, yet whose importance is relatively unwavering regardless.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 02:52 PM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas View Post
I did not know this. Would you make the same assumption about Jesus then? I've often wondered why Jesus did not put pen to paper. Was this something "prophets" did later in life?
I think the consensus is that Jesus was trilingual, as many if not most Judean Jews of the time were. He spoke Aramaic, knew Hebrew, and probably spoke Greek, the lingua franca of the time. He clearly was literate since we have several examples of him reading (the Torah, the inscription on a coin, etc.).

Why he didn't write anything would be pure speculation, but it's hardly suprising. Most religious and philosophical leaders wrote nothing down, but left that task to their disciples. Socrates comes to mind.
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 03:06 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
Not exactly. Believers of tradition use reasoning for establishing authors that non-Christians would not. The idea of "divine inspiration" plays a heavy role in Christians' determination of Biblical authorship. Because they place importance on such ideas, they believe there is enough evidence to prove Johannine authorship. Meanwhile, for those Christians who admit John may not have written the fourth Gospel, they often insist that its anonymity doesn't undermine its divine authority. This is evident in the case of Hebrews and Revelation, whose authors are much more commonly disputed within the Christian community, yet whose importance is relatively unwavering regardless.
Divine inspiration may play a part in many christians thinking but again, it's not part of liberal biblical scholarship or many liberal christian ideas. The bible/christian history course I'm taking, distributed through Anglican and Episopal churchs, makes it quite clear that the bible is a work of men, period.

In fact, in looking at liberal christian biblical scholarship and the secular ideas tossed around here about the bible, the only difference I can see is one of belief in god. Otherwise the ideas and theories seem pretty much the same.
WishboneDawn is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 03:30 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default

Quite true. But it's not always that black and white, to be sure.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 03:35 PM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
I think the consensus is that Jesus was trilingual, as many if not most Judean Jews of the time were. He spoke Aramaic, knew Hebrew, and probably spoke Greek, the lingua franca of the time. He clearly was literate since we have several examples of him reading (the Torah, the inscription on a coin, etc.).

Why he didn't write anything would be pure speculation, but it's hardly suprising. Most religious and philosophical leaders wrote nothing down, but left that task to their disciples. Socrates comes to mind.
The Jesus in the book called John apparently had no formal education, he may have been born educated, or should I say literate, knowing how to read and write since it is claimed He is the Son of God.

Look at John 7:15, 'And the Jews marvelled saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

The observation of the Jews is similar to the apocryphal writing of 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas' (VI. How Jesus was treated by the Master)
Quote:
There was a man named Zacheus....And he came unto Joseph and said unto him: Thou hast a wise child, deliver him to me to learn letters..... Joseph answered and said unto him: No man is able to teach him but God only....
The Jesus in John acquired his literacy by divine intervention.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 04:20 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson View Post
No, the gnostic Heracleon wrote a commentary on John that predates Irenaeus.
Let's also not forget the Naassene gospel (contained, in its entirety, in Hippolytus), which made use of John.
HeretiKc is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 04:57 PM   #20
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Jesus in the book called John apparently had no formal education, he may have been born educated, or should I say literate, knowing how to read and write since it is claimed He is the Son of God.

Look at John 7:15, 'And the Jews marvelled saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

The observation of the Jews is similar to the apocryphal writing of 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas' (VI. How Jesus was treated by the Master)

The Jesus in John acquired his literacy by divine intervention.

The Greek word here is grammata, which can mean letters in the strict sense, but also in the figurative sense that we sometimes use letters -- i.e., learning. It also is used to mean "sacred writings" and "sacred learning," i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures.

I think the sense here is not that they're amazed that he can read (most Jewish males were expected to read the Torah), but that he was able to expound upon it in a learned manner. It's his "scholarship" they are amazed at, not his literacy.

That's why a number of translations of this passage don't use the word "letters"

Bible in Basic English
7:15 Then the Jews were surprised and said, How has this man got knowledge of books? He has never been to school.

Weymouth New Testament
7:15 The Jews were astonished. "How does this man know anything of books," they said, "although he has never been at any of the schools?"
Gamera is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.