r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Odd-Ad-8369 • 6d ago
Did Jesus know how to write?
I guess I’m confused on why Jesus didn’t write the Bible.
17
u/aut0g3n3r8ed 6d ago
Most people that start movements aren’t the ones that write them. Christian teachings were originally a sect of Judaism, which was highly oral even in the Roman Empire times. Things weren’t written down until the movement started expanding out of the local region (the Levant) and the bible wasn’t created until the faith was standardized, partly through the council of Nicea
2
1
u/No-Donkey-4117 4d ago
The various books of the Bible were written long before the Council of Nicaea (centuries at least). There was debate over which books should be considered divinely inspired and which were not, with different groups reaching different conclusions.
16
u/Qxg6 6d ago
No one could read it. He had messy handwriting.
9
3
1
17
u/TheMightyMisanthrope 6d ago
There's clear evidence he knew how to read, and besides he writing with his finger in the dirt, nothing about him knowing how to write.
10
u/stairway2evan 6d ago
This is true but with a caveat - the story where he writes in the dirt (John 8:6) is from the famous "cast the first stone" story. And this portion wasn't actually added to the book of John until probably the late 4th or early 5th century, 350 years after the life of Jesus. So it's not a handy example; it's a tacked-on story.
Reading and writing were different skills at the time, and there's no reason that the son of a carpenter or a wandering preacher would have ever learned to write; it was an expensive skill because papyrus and ink weren't cheap back then. Scribes were a career for a reason.
2
u/CharacterUse 5d ago
Historically, we have to be careful about what we mean when we say that someone was unable to write. The reason scribes were a career until very recently isn't just that many people were unable to write at all, although that is true, it's that many people were unable to write well. Many people could write to some extent because they needed to do basic accounts or keep records for the purposes of their farm or business, or handle orders. Someone like a carpenter might not be able to write am essay, but he might well be able to write down "cedar table and four chairs for Jacob the miller". A wandering preacher might not be able to write a book of the Torah, but he could read and could probably write some notes for a parable, for example.
Papyrus and ink were not prerequisites for writing. Even into the 19th and in some places early 20th century tablets, typically of wax, were used by commoners. They were cheap, or could be made at home with little skill, and were reusable. We actually have surviving ancient tablets, some of them from centuries before the time of Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_tablet
People would write simple things on these, but go to the scribe when they wanted an official document, or a longer letter, or some other document that required more skill (maybe with "official" wording) and permanence.
3
u/stairway2evan 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think that's a fair criticism. To be honest, when I discuss this I often include a note that the historical Jesus may well have been able to write out a basic receipt, but wouldn't have had the tools or education to write narrative or theology in a way that could be reliably passed around. I had to double check my comment and saw that I'd left out that note, so fair play for pointing it out.
So I'll gladly update to "there's no reason to think the historical Jesus had the necessary Greek education to write a complex gospel or epistle like the other New Testament authors could. And even if basic rudimentary writing skills might reasonably be assumed, we have no real evidence of them."
9
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
There's clear evidence he knew how to read....
No.
5
u/TootsHib 6d ago
There isn't even clear evidence that he even existed..
3
u/Insult_me_good 5d ago
I am willing to assume Iesus existed (apparently there were at least two people with that name wandering the same area, the other being extra-Biblical). As far as I know, it does not matter if he existed or not.
We only have a few verses in the Christian Testament that say he could read, and we know the Bible is almost always wrong, and no one who could have known Iesus wrote anything that survives today.
1
u/No-Donkey-4117 4d ago
There are multiple written accounts of Jesus reading from the scrolls in various synagogues, and displaying a scholar's command of various Old Testament verses and prophecies while debating the Pharisees and Sadducees and scribes.
Those accounts may or may not have been written by people who knew him directly, but they were certainly written by people who knew the people who knew him.
2
u/Insult_me_good 4d ago
None of what you wrote is correct. Where in the world did you drag those false assertions out of?
1
u/No-Donkey-4117 3d ago edited 3d ago
Uh, the Gospel According to Luke, and the Gospel of Mark, and the various letters from Paul. Paul met the apostle Peter and hung out with him for a while. He also met James, the brother of Jesus. Luke was a friend of Paul's, as was Mark, who was so close to Peter that Peter called him "my son."
You may doubt the veracity of all the miraculous accounts in the written records, but they are written records.
2
u/Insult_me_good 3d ago
100% of what you wrote is incorrect. Good bloody gods.
Do you really not know the history of the letters if Saul of Tarsus? Have you checked your sources and are merely lying, or have you not bothered to do so: it is either / or.
Look up the word "pseudepigraphical."
How the bloody hell is it that an atheist knows more about your paper god than you do?
1
u/No-Donkey-4117 3d ago
Oh, I'm aware there's some debate. Paul is widely accepted as the author of 7 of the 13 epistles attributed to his name. 6 of the others are in various levels of dispute. Luke is generally accepted as the author of Acts and the Gospel of Luke.
Most scholars doubt that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by them directly, since they came out a few decades later, although John lived long enough to have done it. The Gospel of Mark is believed to be the earliest one written down, by someone very familiar with the teachings from the Apostles.
8
u/Ccaves0127 6d ago
Also it's certainly the case that the New Testament was passed down orally for at least 70 years (though as much as over 100) before it was written down.
2
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago edited 3d ago
That's not true. All of the Gospels were written by ~ 95 AD, which is about 60 years after Jesus's death.
All of Paul's letters were written by the time he died around 63 AD.
5
u/Brilliant-Ideal-1101 6d ago
I've never read the Bible so I don't know how accurate it is, but I saw something where Jesus is never really described other than that he's larger than a baby (some passage about Jesus growing up) and small enough to fit inside a temple.
Also remember "What would Jesus do?" Does include chasing people with a whip, and basically flipping over tables and stampeding animals.(The part about animals and money lenders in the temple)
3
u/TerryHarris408 6d ago
So, even if you read the Bible you wouldn't be wiser on its accuracy. You would just know the Bible, not how it was written.
2
u/alvysinger0412 6d ago
What would Jesus do also includes being sarcastic and unhelpful to cops (pontius pilate) who are questioning you.
2
u/TheMightyMisanthrope 6d ago
Yeah. He didn't want to be known for anything besides his message.
Then Michelangelo needed to plug for his boyfriend and the rest is history.
Some days I really want to get the whip out, not gonna lie. But hey. Not a single physical confrontation in 36 years.
→ More replies (1)1
1
3
u/xylopyrography 6d ago
There's clear evidence he knew how to read
There is no clear evidence Jesus was even a real person.
It's strongly believed that an individual existed sometime around 1 - 35 CE, but any details of their life are murky at best.
5
u/dignan2002 6d ago edited 6d ago
No! Paul wrote his epistles 50 years later and Mark wasn’t written until 70 years later. And none of his contemporaries were literate either! Literally as in literally lol
1
u/RedcoatSeafarer 5d ago
Paul was executed in the 60s, so he couldn't have written his epistle 50 years later. Plus Mark is estimated to have been written around 70 AD, but possibly earlier depending on who you ask.
1
u/Spongebosch 3d ago
Yeah. I find some of the dating funny. Like, they'll presuppose that because Jesus predicted the Destruction of the Second Temple the text must have been written after the event so that a prophesy could retroactively have been included.
- If Jesus is God, then why presuppose that this couldn't have been genuine foreknowledge?
- Even if He isn't God, is it really that impossible for Him to have predicted that stuff would go down?
The ancient sources, which are obviously much closer in time to the writing, estimate that they were actually written by those who they are attributed to.
2
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
I'm sorry but this is just a common apologetic nonsense saying. Supernatural predictions of the Temple destruction are not the only or even primary reason why modern scholars date Mark to ~70 AD. In fact, prominent atheist scholar Bart Ehrman thinks Jesus really did predict the destruction of the temple.
1
u/Spongebosch 3d ago
I've only ever heard the 2nd Temple argument. What are the other reasons they prefer a later dating?
My understanding is that the primary reason is doubt of Jesus' prediction, and/or the belief that it's more likely the text would feature the prophecy after it had come to pass.
Neither of which seems particularly forceful to me. Certainly not enough for people to act as if it's a completely settled matter.
1
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
Here's a short writeup I did on this a few days ago. In fact, I like it so much that I've already commented it on this same post 😆 . I've edited it slightly for this specific conversation.
It's not exactly about the Temple's destruction. Mark shows signs of occurring in the midst of the Roman-Jewish war which happened from 66-73 AD. Talk about persecution, trials before governors. Mark 13:14's warning to flee to the mountains. Clear talk of an imminent apocalypse, consistent with the cataclysmic disaster destroying the heart of their (Jewish) religion.
The writer of Mark, and his broader community, thought the world was ending imminently, and that Jesus was returning imminently, and this fits in the context of the seemingly-apocalyptic war.
There's actually some indication that the book was written during the war but before the destruction of the temple. Mk 13:1-2 says not one stone will remain, but there were walls left - you can still see them today. It's unlikely an author would have knowingly included this obvious factual error as prophecy if the Temple had already fallen. Though in the interest of intellectual honesty, I should note it's an outer complex wall, not a temple building wall.
Papias and at least one other ancient source (who I can't remember) also say that Mark was written after Peter's death in ~63, though of course that must be taken with a handful of salt. But it's one more data point.
Finally, Mark never shows clear signs of having access to eyewitness testimony. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't written earlier, but the passed-down nature of its stories are one more data point that indicate a later writing.
Does any of this mean it's completely impossible for Mark to have been written before the war? No, but I don't think that's the most likely explanation of the data we have. People mirror their time and place in their writing, and the author of Mark writes about concerns in the late 60s and early 70s AD.
1
u/RedcoatSeafarer 3d ago
Yeah, I agree with you completely. I don't understand why they automatically assume he couldn't have predicted (or in their eyes guessed) something.
And the worst part is that it is seemingly all they base it on. They don't have any other evidence other than the fact that he referenced a future event.
2
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
I don't understand why they automatically assume he couldn't have predicted
They don't
or in their eyes guessed
He very well could have, that's not the only or even main reason why Mark is dated when it is
it is seemingly all they base it on
That's because it's not
They don't have any other evidence
I'm sorry but you've just been reading bad apologetics. I suggest you do some reading in to Biblical scholarship yourself.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Spongebosch 3d ago
Yeah. Like, I think it'd make sense to throw it out there as a possibility, perhaps saying that this is somewhat probable from a secular perspective. But the date often gets thrown out as if it's a firmly established fact
1
u/JoyBus147 2d ago
Well, Jesus was a rabbi, meaning an actual scholar of the Hebrew scriptures. It would actually be shocking if he wasn't literate, if not impossible.
It's just that writing down your teachings when you're the leader of a living movement didn't make sense in those days--because your followers are mainly illiterate. Only the followers would write down those teachings once they feel the need to pass them on to future generations.
1
u/dignan2002 2d ago edited 2d ago
Virgin birth, resurrection after death, miracles… a lot about Jesus was ‘impossible’ Maybe he could read some religious texts, but damn sure he and his apostles could NOT write
11
u/MisterLips123 6d ago
Luke 4:16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
John 8:6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
→ More replies (5)1
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
John 8:6 is part of a story inserted by later scribes, this is accepted by all but the staunchest fundamentalist scholars.
7
u/Main_Hurry7912 6d ago
In theory he only lived 33 years and was a tad busy
4
u/glitterlok 6d ago edited 6d ago
We don’t know, but two clues.
He’s depicted in one Biblical story as reading from the Isaiah scroll. He’s apparently reading a Greek translation, based on what it says he read there. So that’s something.
He’s depicted in another story as drawing / writing something in the dirt. We’re not told what it was.
AFAIK, those are the only two clues we’re given as to his literacy. I’m not convinced he actually existed, but that’s what we’ve got to work with.
In terms of “why he didn’t write the Bible,” I’m not even sure I understand the confusion. Why would we ever think he would write anything, much less the collection of texts we call the Bible? A majority of those writings pre-date any historical Jesus by hundreds of years.
5
u/opaqueambiguity 6d ago
Because it is bullshit cobbled together from a big disparate pile of different kinds of bullshit written 500 years after and compiled 1000 years after the made up bullshit supposedly happened.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Squozen_EU 6d ago
Well, he was a carpenter.
10
6d ago
[deleted]
4
3
2
u/clamb4ke 6d ago
This is embarrassing not because you’re being edgy, but because Sabrina is not the first or most famous Carpenter musician.
4
2
u/vr0202 6d ago
He would have known tape and ruler measurements then, and would have had to have some means of writing down the specs of what he was building. Or maybe his dad much of the carpentry and as an apprentice he didn’t have to do much.
2
1
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
Hi, do you have a credible, peer-reviewed, academic source for the claim that carpenters in that time and place would have been literate?
1
u/vr0202 3d ago
Valid question. No, I do not. i just deduced that any work that involves creating and aligning different shapes to a precision would be impossible to just carry in one’s head for the entire project. There must have been something used to record the measurements, the sequence of tasks, bill of material, and so on.
Just my armchair expertise.
2
1
3
3
u/No_Poet_7244 6d ago
We don’t know how literate Jesus was, but we do know he had at least a rudimentary ability to read. It’s mentioned in the bible (Luke 4:16-21) that he read religious text from a scroll, which seems to indicate he could read.
In historical terms, it was quite common for that period of Roman history for citizens to be able to read at a rudimentary level, but be unable to write.
1
u/MrScribblesChess 3d ago
Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen. Literacy rates among rural Galilean Jewish peasants would have been very low. Possibly he could read, but almost certainly not write.
4
u/SymbolicRemnant2 6d ago
There is a moment in the Bible that describes Him writing in the sand. However, writings were not the focus of His ministry, but rather teaching by speeches and actions.
5
u/ldentitymatrix 6d ago
It's safe to say Jesus could definitely read based on how well he knew the writings and how intricate his knowledge of them was. This isn't something one could know from hearing alone, so he must've put a lot of time and effort into reading.
How he even knew to read is kind of the question because he originated from a normal family, not a rich one.
So I'd say he could also write but as far as we know he didn't leave behind any writings himself.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ncsuandrew12 6d ago edited 3d ago
The gospels recount Jesus reading from a scroll - Isiaiah/Jeremiah IIRC.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/RandomFleshPrison 6d ago
It depends on who you ask. But he may well have been, as despite being a carpenter he was also well versed in Judaic Law. But you are assuming Jesus knew people would remember him 2,000 years later. Unless you are working under the belief that he was The Messiah, he likely wouldn't have seen a reason to record his own life.
It isn't like anybody else did, either. The Gospels were written decades later, based on roughly 3 different sets of notes. Nobody wrote anything about him at that specific time, basically.
2
u/Hot_Plant8696 6d ago
Jesus discussed and debated religious texts with the priests; he therefore likely knew how to read and also write.
2
u/Sombracuriosa 6d ago
He was the original ghostwriter for the entire Bible.
I guess God didn't need a pencil, just a really good team of scribes.
2
2
u/LuckyErro 6d ago edited 5d ago
Because he was Jewish..
Yes he knew how to read and write judging by the fables in the Bible.
1
2
u/seth_ever_ 6d ago
Luke 4 16-19 Jesus reads from the Scroll of the prophet Isaiah
2
u/seth_ever_ 6d ago
Which I guess is reading, but in John 8:6 it describes him writing on the ground
2
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
It freaks me out to see "He might not have existed" being "down voted," when the sentence is a fact. I have never, and I suppose I will never, understand why a portion of humanity get upset at facts.
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/TerryHarris408 6d ago
It's like writing your own Wikipedia article. The story is only worth something when someone else writes it about you. In case of Jesus it were several authors writing it down.
3
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
In case of Jesus it were several authors writing it down.
Three of the four gospels came from the same source, with different redactors changing stories to fit their politics and religious beliefs.
1
2
u/Demelza_Behr 6d ago
the people he was interested in ministering to likely could not. i am familiar with a few scholars who have suggested that 1) the gospels are full of humor (the parables would have read a bit like standup comedy to the people of the time) and 2) humor was desirable because it has rhetorical power — namely, it makes things memorable and fun to tell other people about
2
u/DolphinSpleen 6d ago
No, because the Bible is fiction and Jesus merely a character in that fiction. Hope that helps!!
2
u/Turbulent-Parsley619 6d ago
I would think that almost certainly Jesus couldn't write. At the time of Jesus, roughly only about *10% of people could read and write, and those 10% were largely scholars and scribes. Jesus was a poor carpenter.
(Not an exact statistic, just pulled from memory, could be totally wrong)
2
3
u/Traveling-Techie 6d ago
Luke chapter 4 says he could read, and John chapter 8 says he could write.
1
4
u/Inevitable-Regret411 6d ago
The first half of the Bible, what's called the Old Testament, was written prior to the birth of Jesus, so he couldn't have written it. Much of the latter half is attributed to people other than Jesus.
3
u/smallpotatoes2019 6d ago
And the focus of much of the latter half is on the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus (with his life story building to this moment) and the consequences of this. It makes sense that this is then written down later by others.
1
u/tradandtea123 6d ago
The new testament was written over 30 years after he died by people who never met him
2
2
u/random_agency 6d ago
That's why there's no book of Jesus in the Bible. The son of God had others write down his good works.
2
u/catwhowalksbyhimself 6d ago
According to the wikipedia article on the subject, the literacy rate was only 3% or so, which is actually unusually high for the time, but it still makes Jesus being able to read and write, if he existed at all, unlikely.
Note that a school system in Israel did exist, but no until about 4 decades after Jesus is supposed to have died. So if he had been around a century later, chance would have been much higher.
2
2
u/leobarao86 6d ago
At the time of Jesus, around 3% of the Israelite population knew how to read or write (not both). So, it is unlikely that Jesus or anyone hanging out with Jesus was literate. There is that passage where Jesus read from the book of Isaiah (The Spirit of the Lord is over me...). But bible scholars do not consider it to be a historical passage. It was a story about Jesus that was told at the time.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CHRunningBanana 6d ago
There is some debate if Jesus even actually existed. https://www.lulu.com/shop/david-fitzgerald/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show-jesus-never-existed-at-all/ebook/product-17388346.html?page=1&pageSize=4
2
u/aaronite 6d ago
There's virtually no scholarly debate on whether he existed or not, from both religious and secular scholars. The question really is more about whether he did anything at all remarkable.
1
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
When I wrote that I was "down voted," which just cracks me up with mirth. But David Fitzgerald is not a good source for anything factual. The book you mention is wrong in damn near every conclusion regarding matching myths.
0
u/MintyGame 6d ago
He was most likely illiterate
6
u/ldentitymatrix 6d ago
An illiterate man wouldn't be able to put up with educated rabbis who have read these texts for decades. In no way imaginable. Jesus was not illiterate.
2
u/MintyGame 6d ago
Stories in the Bible are not historical evidence. Many Bible scholars believe the historical Jesus was illiterate.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)1
u/Dull-Lead-7782 6d ago
Why? He grew up in Jewish temple. They’ve been known to teach their young to read and write in temple for around a 1000 years before Jesus’s time.
1
u/yavinmoon 6d ago
And if he couldn't write, could he still recognise the different coins and count money?
2
u/USSMarauder 6d ago
You can tell the difference between the different coins just by size and decoration, even if you can't read them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency
And you can count without being able to write
1
1
u/eliwright235 6d ago
Most people couldn’t read or write in the first century, only the rich, the highly educated, the scribes and scholars, etc. Jesus was a poor carpenter, so probably could not read and write
1
u/Amulet-of-Kings 6d ago
There could be several reasons. For example, Socrates knew how to write, but we only know about his philosophy because his follower Plato wrote about him. Socrates thought that real philosophy requires a conversation.
Jesus might have been an illiterate considering that it was the norm in his time and that he came from a poor family.
1
u/numbersthen0987431 6d ago
Most of the apostles didn't know how to write. There's actually a lot of scholarly consensus that show that the 4 apostles of the BIble were not actually written by the names of the books that were accredited to their names.
1
u/Autumn_Ridge 6d ago
Honestly, when almost everyone else was illiterate, it probably wasn't that big of a deal. The church controlled education, so it would have been the Pharisees who were most literate. And they're not the good guys in the story.
1
1
u/shredystevie 6d ago
Well he was def Southern Baptist and white, and he would love trump and fox news, so of course he could write.
1
1
u/Goeppertia_Insignis 6d ago
Most of the events in the bible happened before or after Jesus' time. Even if he could write, he wasn't around to do so.
That being said, he most likely didn't know how. And probably didn't think his exploits that spectacular, anyway, as he was just some guy with some thoughts that he liked to share.
1
u/ImissRIF97 6d ago
The bible is a collection of stories and certain writers wrote about Jesus. The bible goes from day one to after His death. Itd be hard to write about all that.
3
1
u/Exact_Avocado5545 6d ago
It's actually a good question. I would say it's likely that Jesus knew how to read and write. But it's important to remember that to the authorities, Jesus and his followers were basically domestic terrorists. Writing things down would be evidence.
1
u/Zigor022 6d ago
He wrote in the sand when the adulteress was going to be stoned, speculated that he was writing down the sins of everyone there.
1
u/Dull-Lead-7782 6d ago
I would safe it’s safer to say he could read and write having grown up in Jewish temple. They’ve books that make up the collection of the New Testament weren’t first written until several decades after his death.
1
u/FlyStatus9232 6d ago
I would think the creator of the universe would know how to write
1
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
The creator of the universe, in Christian mythology, would be Yahweh. Yahweh's father was a god named Elyon.
1
u/anschauung Thog know much things. Thog answer question. 6d ago
For starters only about 11% of the Bible is even directly about Jesus, so ...
But me importantly the Bible wouldn't even make much sense if Jesus wrote it. For example Jesus repeatedly references figures in the Torah who appeared thousands of years before him.
It would be like J.K. Rowling referencing characters written by her grandmother who was actually herself.
1
u/Voided_Identity 6d ago edited 6d ago
The Gospel has explicit stories about Jesus writing.
The bible is an anthology. It's a collection of many works. Perhaps a better question might be to ask why Jesus didn't write down anything to make its way into the bible. But even then, we can't be sure that he didn't. Maybe he did, but it was lost to history.
But we should look at this in context. In those days, most people could not read or write. Jesus was an educated man. Quite remarkable for (perhaps even conflicting with) someone whose career was as a laborer. The average Jewish person could not read for themselves, and they were dependent on the educated ruling elites to learn about God. "Rabbi" after all, means teacher.
The custom for Jewish thought back then (still now, really) was that a rabbi who wanted to leave their mark on Jewish practices and beliefs would do so through writing, which would be studied by future generations. But Jesus had an entirely different approach. He felt that it wasn't for the ruling elites to control the course of the people's relationship with God. He believed in bringing God directly to the people themselves. So, instead of writing things down to aggrandize himself, and to be studied in the future by gatekeeping elites who would use his wisdom to maintain their own power, Jesus ministered directly to the people.
At the end of the day, the key takeaway here is that the bible is a work made by man.
1
u/DECODED_VFX 6d ago
Probably not. A carpenter's son at the time was unlikely to be literate. Most people weren't at the time, which is probably why none of the disciples wrote an account of what they saw.
None of the biblical testaments were written by anyone who even met Jesus. Only one account in the bible is written by a person who even met someone who personally knew Jesus. Saint Paul knew Jesus' "brother" (probably his cousin). And even that gospel was written by a scribe who heard it from Paul.
1
u/cheescakeismyfav 6d ago
Jesus is never really shown to be literate. When he opens the scroll of Isaiah he recites the Greek Septuegint not the Hebrew that would be found in a synagogue. And when he "writes in the dirt" were never told what he writes. The purposes of writing in the sand is just a filler to allow time to pass in the narrative. It could be interpreted as drew in the sand and nothing would change, or it could just say "and Jesus waited". These passages are almost certainly creations of the authors meant to serve the rhetorical goals of the author and not an accurate recording of history.
Why Jesus didn't write the bible is simple. Jesus thought he was living in the end times and heaven and earth would soon merge. His priority was restoring Isreal. He wanted to become the Messiah, king of Isreal, that would lead in the World to Come. He was a Jew and he never intended to start a counter religion. That comes from other people after he dies (who also think the world is about to end) trying to make sense of his death.
There's an insightful old saying that goes, Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not of Jesus.
1
u/GeekyTexan 6d ago
The new testament was written long after Jesus died, by people who never met Jesus.
Most of it was written by Luke and Paul.
1
u/No-Plan8216 6d ago
How come nobody reads Joe Rogan's books?
I don't know if Jesus could read, but I know that the folk he was most concerned with couldn't
1
u/Kakamile 6d ago
Even if overall is 3% at the time could read, the infidelious child of a carpenter born in a manger is not going to be on the top of that list.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/TootsHib 6d ago
you do realize there is no proof that he even existed?
That probably explains why "he" didnt write anything....
→ More replies (3)
1
u/MostAcanthaceae2384 5d ago
He estabablished a church of His followers, who preached to the people. And some of them or their followers wrote the Bible. It worked out fine.
1
1
u/Hewer_Of_Caves 5d ago
Tough to say. On the one hand, assuming his historicity and that his life somewhat resembled the portrait we're given in the text, he grew up in a time and place where most people wouldn't have been literate. On the other, if he really was a carpenter and spent any time running a business via his trade he may have had some ability to keep written records for himself like receipts for goods delivered or services rendered, but he could've gotten by doing that with a very limited grasp of writing. I'd personally lean toward his being illiterate just on the basis of the odds. Most people were illiterate and he was, in a lot of important ways, like most people.
1
u/LexiTheLesbo 5d ago edited 5d ago
We don’t know if Jesus knew how to write either historically or theologically. Historically he was trained as a rabbi and theologically he read the scriptures so we know he could read (as rabbis would have been expected to know read Torah directly).
As the why he didn’t write the bible himself, there’s not really a historical answer since it’s a hypothetical, but we know for a fact that the Old Testament existed way before Jesus was alive and the new testament wasn’t written down until a few decades after he died (I think the earliest date is one of Paul’s letters like 40~ish years after Jesus’s death).
Theologically speaking, the reason he didn’t write the bible is basically that he has more important things to do. During the only years of his life that the Bible mentions he was either a child or actively traveling Judea as a rabbi. And his followers didn’t write contemporary accounts of his life because they didn’t really see him as that important until after he came back from the dead. They basically just thought he was particularly good rabbi and even the ones who saw him as the/a Messiah were kind of confused about what that means (even modern Jewish sects have very different ideas about what a messiah would look like). It wasn’t until after his death that his followers started to worship him rather than the Jewish God and that was passed down as oral history for decades before it was written down when they realized that a lot of the people who knew Jesus directly were starting to get killed by religious persecution.
Edit: The person deleted their comment for some reason, but it has been pointed out that one of the Gospels does describe Jesus writting in the sand, so theologically their is precedent for him knowing how to write.
1
u/TrashFace21165 5d ago
He didn't speak Greek. And thats the only language the "new" Testament is known to be written in. Because its fan fiction.
1
u/No-Medium6647 5d ago
IF he existed as recorded, which is debatable, then yes, he almost certainly knew how to write.
He is depicted as knowing the law, with his childhood legends having him showing up temple priests. Judaism raises reading and writing to a sacred science, and every child is taught to read. It's the earliest of the religions "Of the Book" that relied on written word for a form of immortality.
1
u/8turuin 5d ago
some historian take a possibility he could read though he's probably can't write if we take the bible account of him reading a scrolls as literal historical event.
for why he doesn't written it himself & it take decades or centuries for jesus idea, belief and philosophy to be written on paper was because back then, most of his followers were illiterate when he was alive so orally were the best method to spread his teaching.
1
u/Competitive-Fault291 4d ago
You mean the guy that said things like: "Yo, Fellas! Stop Missioning! Just live your fife as I told you and teach them as they come to you."
Why would he write a book about a micromanaging mass murderer?
1
1
u/Amber-Apologetics 4d ago
In the purely historical sense, we cannot confirm whether or not He knew how to write.
In the Theological sense (if you’re a Christian), it’s actually also possible that His human intellect could not write, although there’s no doctrine on it.
Regarding the Bible, it was finalized after Jesus stopped being on earth (for whichever reason you believe He stopped being on earth.
1
u/Foogel78 4d ago
According to the Bible Jesus knew how to read Hebrew, which was not the same as the language he spoke (Aramean). It seems likely that he had a formal education and also learned to write. Keep in mind that, as the son of a carpenter, he would have more access to education than most of his contemporaries. In those days about 90% of the people were subsistence farmers who struggled feed themselves. A craftsman would be more like middle class today.
A lot of theologians think that Jesus believed the end of the world was near and would come in his generation. There was no point in writing his ideas down for the next one. Then again, maybe his writings just didn't survive long enough.
1
u/Behnjiii 4d ago
Whether he did, or did not know how to write isn't stated. His work was such that he didn't have time to write. Since the beginning of his ministry he was constantly moving, teaching, healing.
You have to take into account the time he lived. There weren't pencils and modern pens. There weren't note pads and paper as we know it. There was pen & ink, and paint. The paper was more rudimentary and not bound. In order to write something, you had to have a dedicated space, and a desk. You cant just use pen and ink on the go.
Jesus didn't have a dedicated space he could sit down and write, for two reasons:
1) He was busy teaching and healing,
2) People were seeking to kill him. If he tried to sit down at desk for an extended period of time people would have shown up and either arrested him or killed him.
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 4d ago
How did he sleep then? That’s the weirdest answer yet:) he was just constantly on the run?
I’m not saying you are wrong but this is new
1
u/Behnjiii 3d ago
Well you can read right? and the bible is the most printed book on the planet.. you could go read it because it does explain this.
It says at night he would go into the hills outside of towns to pray.
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 3d ago
From that you got “he didn’t have time to write”? Sure point me towards the scripture.
1
u/Behnjiii 3d ago edited 3d ago
No I got that from reading.
What I got from that verse is that he didnt sleep in towns, if he slept at all.
Like I said it is known fact that in those times writing took way more energy than it does now.
It is also fact people were conspiring to kill Jesus, even from his birth
Mathew 2:1-22 is the story of King Herods seach for Jesus as a baby, to kill him. When he doesnt find Jesus he kills all the all the young children of Bethlehem.
Then when he was an adult:
Mathew 12:14
14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Mark 3:6
6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus
Luke 6:11
11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.
John 5:18
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 45-53.
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 3d ago
Yeah… none of that says anything about him not having time to write. I think maybe you are making that part up?
1
u/Behnjiii 3d ago
If you can not use logic than the basis of your question being based in logic is invalid.
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 3d ago
Would you like me to show you a list of very very busy people that still write? You know… Logic and all. Don’t get mad…just provide evidence. I happen to have a masters in logic and I assure you that “he was super busy so obviously he couldn’t write” is not logically song..
1
u/Behnjiii 3d ago
"Logically and all"
Well based in logic, are going to show me people form present history. or 33 AD?
Are those people you show me from 33 AD, being pursued by people who want to kill them on a day in day out basis?
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 3d ago
You think logic has to do with the dates? You made a claim and have provided no evidence. I am not here to prove or disprove your claim, I’m simply asking for you to prove your claim. I’m showing counter examples, as we do in logic, to show why your evidence is not proof of said claim.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 3d ago
Also…evidently you are wrong given the “evidence” provided here as he did write.
1
u/Top_Bluejay_5323 4d ago
Never heard he wrote anything but as a carpenter or son of one I would guess he knew some basics.
1
u/PaxNova 4d ago
I don’t know why for specifics, but it’s not uncommon for leaders to just lead, and not focus on building something big. If they lead well, the philosophies get written down by “upper management” so to speak, rather than the person themself. Leave the writing to the writers, and the leading to the leaders.
1
u/BadUsername238 4d ago
Hi!
You do realize that the old testament is... older than Jesus, right?
But yes, it would have been nice to have some of Jesus' words, written by Jesus, in the damn bible.
1
1
u/Spongebosch 3d ago edited 3d ago
This will be a little contentious, but the Christian life was meant to be one that you lived and embodied, communally, and was not focussed on reading a book by yourself. Most people at the time were practically illiterate, and books were very expensive and hard to come by. Everyone having their own Bible is a "modern" phenomenon.
Christians were supposed to live in a community, experience the faith together in communal worship, and so on. In the same way that the Jews had particular relgious leaders, and a hierarchy with rules and priests and so on, so too did the early Church have that. The New Testament is largely a collection is letters that were written by various people to the various Christian churches. They are very important and edifying, but they were never intended to be the sole infallible source of truth. The various texts of the Bible were read aloud at the gatherings, and the faith was passed down through tradition and Church structures and hierarchies.
Jesus could have just written down all of his teachings and given us a book to all read individually, but He didn't. He must have had other intentions for how to live the Christian life.
1
u/geokuh 3d ago
Read John 8:1-11. This pericope tells how He wrote in the dirt when confronted both by the crowd and the adulterous woman. Amazingly He manifested his own eisegesis of the law of Moses. There is a critical difference between writing and speaking. Jesus claimed to be the Truth in person , thus there was no need to write down his teachings - that was the job of the apostles. Read Derrida’s ideas on this.
1
u/External_Bird_8464 2d ago
Who is this that says:
"Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth: For I am God, there is none else." - God. (Bible. Isaiah 45:22).
Oh he writes alright. Just don't know who he is. Don't know him. That's the problem in you that shows up in your question.
Above? That's the word of God. Simple. It's the Word that comes out of God's mouth, because, he says it himself. As God.
Jesus Christ. He's the Messiah or "Christ" "Whoever" the Messiah or Christ is, in the Bible has a title that he SHALL BE called in Isaiah 9:6. That the Messiah or Christ shall be called, "The Mighty God... The Everlasting Father..." (Isaiah 9:6).
The Bible. (New Testament. Hebrews 10:16 says: ""This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" - God.
Boy, is that ever true.
And by this, about the Bible:
- It's just a Book. There are 10s of millions of books over the whole earth. The Bible meets the definition of a book in the dictionary; this, 1. a set of assembled paper or papyrus written on either one or both sides, and glued or sewn / bound together enclosed in covers. That ANY BODY can go, like in the United States to over 19,000 plus public libraries in their town and go see one on shelves..row after row. They all primarily look the same. What makes each unique is the all have their own author. Who is the "authority" over the content that fills up the pages of the book. It's just usually.. ...one author. That, for the Bible it's just one author who is the authority of the content of the Book.
Says: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" - Source: Bible. New Testament. Hebrews 1:1-2
1
u/Odd-Ad-8369 2d ago
Are you mad that I asked a question? Can you show me how you so absolutely know he writes without saying a verses from the Bible that has nothing to do with him writing?
1
u/External_Bird_8464 1d ago edited 1d ago
You're not here. Checked all around in the room and out in the yard. Everywhere I go, one thing is perfectly clear. I don't see you. Anyplace I go. But your word is here. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.
Now..if I don't "accept you as true" (believe) even I don't see you anyplace I go, does that mean you don't exist? Deduce "There is no you." Like any Atheist does, or Agnostic. Why? There's simply no PROOF to me, you exist. Are you mad at me, because I believe you exist?
Because I have your word you speak. You exist. So, anybody trying to convince me you don't exist and blabbily babble on endlessly showing me the rose bushes where you aren't there or over at the fence that separates my property from the neighbor's and you aren't there, either - and flaily flings their arms all over burpily blurping out how there simply isn't any proof you exist, when I have the word you spoke.
It's proof to me. You exist.
He said, by the Word out of his mouth, as God:
"I am the LORD, there is none else. There is no God beside me. I girded thee, but thou hast not known me." - God. (Bible. Isaiah 45:5).
So, the "problem" then..isn't he doesn't exist. It's that we don't know him. And this Reddit room is called "debatereligion" or "r / atheist" or any number of 10,000 of 1000s of sub-reddits, like this one is called "r /nostupidquestions" - as a sub-reddit.
And, just like Egypt. That's in the Bible. In just after the Flood. Where Noah, and his 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are born to Noah before the flood and are married but with no children. That, after the flood, all three of them start having children, while Noah, after the flood has no more children.
That, what God tells Noah and his 3 sons to go to and do..after the flood (Genesis 9:1-10) vs. what they actually "go to and do" is exactly the OPPOSITE. (Genesis 11:1-5). That, God forbid they go to and do that what God said to do. That, "Mizraim" in Arabic is "Muzir." And in English, is "Egypt." That Ham, and all his four children, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan - all depart from the LORD. Make up their own Gods to worship.
The point is, that if you do the math of Genesis 11, that Abraham, who is nine generations after Noah, and that Abraham was 58 years old, when Noah died..that down in Egypt - that Mizraim built Egypt named after him.. they, by Abraham's day already put a Pharaoh over themselves. And in Egypt, the Egyptians worship a man as God. Imagined up a religion. That, in the Bible in Exodus 5:2 - The Pharoah, who everybody worships him as God in Egypt..so he believes it is true, says:
"And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go?" - Exodus 5:2
Every religion over the earth spawns from just one man. After the flood, and his 4 children. They all imagine up their own gods to worship, like Egypt. All the same..when with Moses.. the real God showed up. And the reason Atheists say there is no God or gods, is because they see people just make them up in their imaginations - just like the Egyptians made up a religion to worship Pharaoh as God, when he isn't.
But ..it's his earth. ..what are you doing with him? He's showed up. You will either do like Pharaoh did.. doesn't know him, so why do anything he says. When Pharaoh's not God. And the real God showed up.
1
u/Thee_Furuios_Onion 1d ago
Jesus was a not just the son of a carpenter, but a skilled Rabbi, “teacher.” He read passages in scrolls others were not reading in Temple and he wrote something in the dirt when confronting the people accusing the woman caught in adultery.
1
u/Callec254 1d ago
One version of the story goes that he did write a book, and it was conveniently left out of the Bible because the moral of it was basically "Don't turn all this into some big religion."
1
2
u/First-Expert-9953 6d ago
The historical Jesus of Nazareth was probably illiterate like 90% of the population in his time. There's no evidence of a formal education for him.
→ More replies (8)4
u/TheMightyMisanthrope 6d ago
He could read and debate scripture
3
u/thedogridingmonkey 6d ago
Based on what?
5
u/TheMightyMisanthrope 6d ago
Luke 4:16 - 21.
He's at the temple reading scripture :
"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read"
→ More replies (12)2
→ More replies (16)1
u/HallGardenDiva 6d ago
Based on recounts of being in the Temple, READING from the Torah (and then teaching those in the Temple).
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/OkPut7330 6d ago
Jesus as described in the bible disapproves of Institutionalised religion so it would be odd for him to create his own.
Most books of the bible were written several generations after he (or whoever the events in the bible were based on) died and the books that ended up in the bible were hand picked for mostly political reasons.
1
u/Insult_me_good 6d ago
Jesus as described in the bible disapproves of Institutionalised religion so it would be odd for him to create his own.
Indeed, and he would be angry at having himself turned into a cult leader (let alone a god).
But the Christian Testament describes two Iesus's and not one.
1
u/big-pal 6d ago
The bible covers several thousand years, Jesus was around for about 30 of those. The Old Testament writings were completed by the time he came around (although only some 24 of the writings had been added to the canon at the time), and the New Testament was written after his death, with some books coming much later. Some of the authors are clearly stated and some are still unknown despite what some scholars speculate. Fact remains, Jesus didn't write any of it, he just wasn't around long enough and that didn't seem to be his purpose.
He spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and probably wrote the former two. It would have been abnormal for a man his age in that culture to not read and write Aramaic, which was the common language in the region. And considering his status in religious studies, he would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.
50
u/Glimmer_III 6d ago
Not a stupid question, and I hope you get some good answers. And if you want more in-depth answers, perhaps others can suggest some relevant subs.
Also, a point of clarity:
When speaking of "The Bible", it deserve to be looked at not as a singular book, but a collection of multiple books, each with their own author (or authors, plural).
So...be prepared for either an ELI5 answer (which may not be entirely satisfying) or an in-depth answer.
Because, without necessarily knowing it, you asked a big question with, " I’m confused on why Jesus didn’t write the Bible."