Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clarice O'C · 09-10-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical:


If your going to post in a thread, it's common courtesy to actually address the question the thread is dedicated to. If you have an actual answer, I'm willing to listen.

Sorry, it sounded like this thread included joking around.

Quote:

So I ask again, why didn't Jesus leave any personal writings?

Because he was humble and wanted others to write about him.

Best,
Clarice

Skeptical · 09-10-2002, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clarice O'C:


Because he was humble and wanted others to write about him.

Best,
Clarice

What is better, to hear something second hand, or to hear it from the source? Given the problems of authenticity with the record of Jesus and his sayings as we have it and the vast amount of time that has passed between his death and the present, don't you think that the great benefit of his leaving some of his own writings would far outweigh any utility of humbleness?

Queen of Swords · 09-10-2002, 07:11 PM

How humble can you be if you want other people to write about you?

Clarice O'C · 09-10-2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical:


What is better, to hear something second hand, or to hear it from the source? Given the problems of authenticity with the record of Jesus and his sayings as we have it and the vast amount of time that has passed between his death and the present, don't you think that the great benefit of his leaving some of his own writings would far outweigh any utility of humbleness?

Maybe he did leave some of his own writings but they were lost just as we assume other texts were lost.

Best,
Clarice

Clarice O'C · 09-10-2002, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
How humble can you be if you want other people to write about you?

I'm glad that someone got the joke

Best,
Clarice

Clarice O'C · 09-10-2002, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


Suprisingly I agree. If you are starting with the premise that an all powerful, ominsicient god exists and sent his son to earth to atone for the sins of mankind (and all the metaphyscial baggage associated with that) you set up the question itself to be unanswerable, since one could not possibly imagine the motivations and methods of such a being unless one was one.

It seems to me the historical question is pretty easy to answer and already has been in this thread. A)Jesus was most likely illiterate as were his followers, save possibly Levi the publican B)Jesus appears to have preached either an immanent or imminent kingdom of god and expected things to wrap up pretty quickly (i.e. "This generation shall not pass away" etc. etc.). So the answer becomes that he couldn't write anything down and wouldn't anyway since the end was nigh.

If Jesus was God why didn't he know that the end wasn't going to happen quickly?

Best,
Clarice

Skeptical · 09-10-2002, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clarice O'C:


Maybe he did leave some of his own writings but they were lost just as we assume other texts were lost.

Best,
Clarice

Possible, but it seems hard to believe that if Jesus had written something his followers would not have preserved it.

BTW, sorry about my earlier comment, I get it now. Both of them. "Duh" on me, I guess I need to lighten up a little.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

Copernic · 09-10-2002, 07:53 PM

I've been thinking about this a bit as well.
My initial thoughts are that if there was a historical Jesus (some charismatic rabbi named Yeshua) and he was literate (doubtful) and did leave any writings then consider one possible scenario.

1) His writings weren't new. As a Phariseic Rabbi, perhaps he didn't write much that wasn't being talked about already (golden rule, live by the law, don't mix w/ gentiles, be the best Jew you can be, struggle against Roman oppression, etc).

2) Any writings would have been kept by the early Jerusalem church led by James and family. They may have been lost in the 70 CE war or marginalized by Gentile Jesus followers whose influence in Xtian development was catapulted by this event anyway.

3) Had they countered Paul's understanding of the way things were they would have never made it past their second Greek transcription.

Just a layman's perspective.
Regards
J

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ]

Clarice O'C · 09-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical:


Possible, but it seems hard to believe that if Jesus had written something his followers would not have preserved it.

I think that you have answered your question. Many people think that the Shroud has been preserved by Jesus' followers. Voila! Jesus was illiterate.

Best,
Clarice

leonarde · 09-10-2002, 09:42 PM

Posted by Skeptical:
Originally posted by leonarde:
My (theistic) ruminations on the topic:

1)though the function of writing was a very important one in ancient times when a small percentage of the population was literate, these
writers (frequently they were a priest class)were
usually working for someone (the monarch).
In the religious scheme of things the monarch is Jesus/God. Others write what He tells(inspires)
them to.
-----------------------------------------------
Are you saying Jesus was illiterate? This may be true but it seems to be a problem to reconcile this with the picture of Jesus in the NT.
-------------------------------------------------
No, I'm not saying that He was illiterate; I'm saying that plenty of (literate)world leaders leave no (auto) biographies (ie Alexander the Great). They have a confidence that their story
will eventually reach a written form just because
the orally-spread message will reach so far and wide that (a) writer(s) will find the story worth writing down.
-------------------------------------------------
quote:

2)a Gospel written by the pre-Crucifixion Jesus
would not have included the Crucifixion and Resurrection (ie the most important events of the NT by far).
-------------------------------------------------
Jesus is reported in the NT to have known what was going to happen to him. He could have written about them prior to the events and he also could have left information regarding his teachings that would have cleared up a lot of questions.
-------------------------------------------------
This however STILL wouldn't tell us whether his
predictions came true. The great claim of the Gospels is that the witnesses on whose testimony
they were based were claiming that the death and
resurrection happened.
______________________________________________-__-

quote:
3)had Jesus written anything, there would be no
way many centuries later to verify that HE was
indeed the author: the given work would be in the
same gloom of doubt by disbelievers as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are today.
-------------------------------------------------
This may be true in a sense, but it would seem that if Jesus had written anything it would certainly have been commented on by Paul in his letters only 20 years after the fact. On top of this, believers would have a document that they could at least plausibly claim was from Jesus himself, I don't see how this could do anything but help the cause.
-------------------------------------------------
But Paul's ACTUAL testimony ('I was struck down
by God/Jesus on my way to Damascus and this Jesus
spoke to me') is, to my mind, MUCH more powerful than 'Oooh, I read this book written allegedly by
Jesus and it made a great impression on me'. The latter would have been far less compelling to the audiences that received Paul.
_________________________________________________

quote:
4)since His human/divine Presence was the important thing for his earthly followers, his
teachings, even in written form, would have been
terribly overshadowed. It was only when He left the earth bodily that written works began to be important. Yet even THIS took decades: as long as
the LIVING witnesses to Jesus' life were around,
written documents were an afterthought.
------------------------------------------------
So you don't think Jesus knew it would be 2,000 years or more before his return? Again, it would seem that this is hard to reconcile with the picture of Jesus given in the NT.
-------------------------------------------------
No, there doesn't seem to be any indication He
knew the chronology.
_________________________________________________

quote:
5)since ancient parchments were not made to last
centuries, a permanent record of his life (even if written by Him) would depend on diligent copying of same. This dependence on a FUTURE class, scribes meant that there was for His purposes little difference who wrote the Gospels: if people wouldn't trust the copiers/translators (almost all of whom were faceless monks, at least during the Middle Ages) then they probably wouldn't trust that a Jesus-written Gospel was indeed Jesus-written.
--------------------------------------------------
Your assuming again that documents written by Jesus would only be useful for non-believers, when this is clearly not true. The exact same argument your making could be given for all of the NT documents, and the documents we currently have are very important for the church.
-------------------------------------------------
Well before Pentecost Sunday just about EVERYONE
was a non-believer in Jesus except for perhaps
a few hundred people in Galilee and Judea. I "read into" the original post, perhaps falsely, the idea that a Jesus-written Gospel would be somehow "better" than the ones we have. It would
have to be better in certain ways and one of those
ways, theoretically, could be credibility.
________________________________________________

quote:
6)the Gospels contain (and this is most explicit
in John) an element of WITNESS: hey, I saw this guy raise Lazarus with my own eyes! If Jesus had written a Gospel it would have been one guy "witnessing" to himself. Not so persuasive; what if he really WERE loco?
-------------------------------------------------
Your assuming what the content would be. It could just as easily have been Jesus simply relating his teachings and philosophy first hand.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes I had to make certain assumptions about an
entirely hypothetical work.
_________________________________________________

Honestly, I don't think these are very strong arguments unless your saying that Jesus was just a typical 1st century peasant who became a teacher and then by chance a religious figure.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't follow how his not having written a Gospel
makes him a "typical 1st century peasant".

Cheers!

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

09-10-2002, 07:53 PM	#28
Copernic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO, USA Posts: 446	I've been thinking about this a bit as well. My initial thoughts are that if there was a historical Jesus (some charismatic rabbi named Yeshua) and he was literate (doubtful) and did leave any writings then consider one possible scenario. 1) His writings weren't new. As a Phariseic Rabbi, perhaps he didn't write much that wasn't being talked about already (golden rule, live by the law, don't mix w/ gentiles, be the best Jew you can be, struggle against Roman oppression, etc). 2) Any writings would have been kept by the early Jerusalem church led by James and family. They may have been lost in the 70 CE war or marginalized by Gentile Jesus followers whose influence in Xtian development was catapulted by this event anyway. 3) Had they countered Paul's understanding of the way things were they would have never made it past their second Greek transcription. Just a layman's perspective. Regards J [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ]</p>

09-10-2002, 09:42 PM	#30
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Posted by Skeptical: Originally posted by leonarde: My (theistic) ruminations on the topic: 1)though the function of writing was a very important one in ancient times when a small percentage of the population was literate, these writers (frequently they were a priest class)were usually working for someone (the monarch). In the religious scheme of things the monarch is Jesus/God. Others write what He tells(inspires) them to. ----------------------------------------------- Are you saying Jesus was illiterate? This may be true but it seems to be a problem to reconcile this with the picture of Jesus in the NT. ------------------------------------------------- No, I'm not saying that He was illiterate; I'm saying that plenty of (literate)world leaders leave no (auto) biographies (ie Alexander the Great). They have a confidence that their story will eventually reach a written form just because the orally-spread message will reach so far and wide that (a) writer(s) will find the story worth writing down. ------------------------------------------------- quote: 2)a Gospel written by the pre-Crucifixion Jesus would not have included the Crucifixion and Resurrection (ie the most important events of the NT by far). ------------------------------------------------- Jesus is reported in the NT to have known what was going to happen to him. He could have written about them prior to the events and he also could have left information regarding his teachings that would have cleared up a lot of questions. ------------------------------------------------- This however STILL wouldn't tell us whether his predictions came true. The great claim of the Gospels is that the witnesses on whose testimony they were based were claiming that the death and resurrection happened. ______________________________________________-__- quote: 3)had Jesus written anything, there would be no way many centuries later to verify that HE was indeed the author: the given work would be in the same gloom of doubt by disbelievers as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are today. ------------------------------------------------- This may be true in a sense, but it would seem that if Jesus had written anything it would certainly have been commented on by Paul in his letters only 20 years after the fact. On top of this, believers would have a document that they could at least plausibly claim was from Jesus himself, I don't see how this could do anything but help the cause. ------------------------------------------------- But Paul's ACTUAL testimony ('I was struck down by God/Jesus on my way to Damascus and this Jesus spoke to me') is, to my mind, MUCH more powerful than 'Oooh, I read this book written allegedly by Jesus and it made a great impression on me'. The latter would have been far less compelling to the audiences that received Paul. _________________________________________________ quote: 4)since His human/divine Presence was the important thing for his earthly followers, his teachings, even in written form, would have been terribly overshadowed. It was only when He left the earth bodily that written works began to be important. Yet even THIS took decades: as long as the LIVING witnesses to Jesus' life were around, written documents were an afterthought. ------------------------------------------------ So you don't think Jesus knew it would be 2,000 years or more before his return? Again, it would seem that this is hard to reconcile with the picture of Jesus given in the NT. ------------------------------------------------- No, there doesn't seem to be any indication He knew the chronology. _________________________________________________ quote: 5)since ancient parchments were not made to last centuries, a permanent record of his life (even if written by Him) would depend on diligent copying of same. This dependence on a FUTURE class, scribes meant that there was for His purposes little difference who wrote the Gospels: if people wouldn't trust the copiers/translators (almost all of whom were faceless monks, at least during the Middle Ages) then they probably wouldn't trust that a Jesus-written Gospel was indeed Jesus-written. -------------------------------------------------- Your assuming again that documents written by Jesus would only be useful for non-believers, when this is clearly not true. The exact same argument your making could be given for all of the NT documents, and the documents we currently have are very important for the church. ------------------------------------------------- Well before Pentecost Sunday just about EVERYONE was a non-believer in Jesus except for perhaps a few hundred people in Galilee and Judea. I "read into" the original post, perhaps falsely, the idea that a Jesus-written Gospel would be somehow "better" than the ones we have. It would have to be better in certain ways and one of those ways, theoretically, could be credibility. ________________________________________________ quote: 6)the Gospels contain (and this is most explicit in John) an element of WITNESS: hey, I saw this guy raise Lazarus with my own eyes! If Jesus had written a Gospel it would have been one guy "witnessing" to himself. Not so persuasive; what if he really WERE loco? ------------------------------------------------- Your assuming what the content would be. It could just as easily have been Jesus simply relating his teachings and philosophy first hand. ------------------------------------------------- Yes I had to make certain assumptions about an entirely hypothetical work. _________________________________________________ Honestly, I don't think these are very strong arguments unless your saying that Jesus was just a typical 1st century peasant who became a teacher and then by chance a religious figure. ------------------------------------------------- I don't follow how his not having written a Gospel makes him a "typical 1st century peasant". Cheers! [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

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

09-10-2002, 07:11 PM	#23
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	How humble can you be if you want other people to write about you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.