What could be the possible reasons why Jesus never wrote anything down?

[po18guy]

Well, judging by how many people (Christian and otherwise) now claim that they only accept what 'the Bible actually says JESUS SAID" (otherwise known as the ‘words in red’ crowd),

Or, the more fundamentalist you are, the red-letter “Paul said” Romans road crowd! I wonder if they have red letter editions in Paul’s words?

Personally I think Jesus could not only read, but write, but living in a time and place as He did, chose not to leave anything ‘behind’ during His earthly sojourn.

Why else would his contemporaries call Him “Master”? I mean, they didn’t go around calling just anyone by that title…

He did not leave writing for a specific purpose. He left Apostles for a specific purpose. Why do so many complicate this fact today?

 

[po18guy]

He wasn’t a scholar like Paul, he was a preacher, a man of the ordinary, illiterate, men and women. He preached His message of love and salvation and it has lit up the whole world. Why would He have needed to write anything down? To prove something to the sceptics of later years? Jesus wasn’t a recorder of the Word, He was the Word itself.

Jesus, was and is God - the Living Word! Writing is less than He is. The living Word trumps the written word. Remember that He said “they will be taught by God” John 6:45

 

[po18guy]

I’m not saying this is fact, just a possible idea. My concern with it has been that it seems like a lot of writing. But the other thing about that idea is that He wrote in the sand, so He could physically brush away and erase the writings of the sins, in the same way that He can wipe away the actual sins of mankind. --Jen

Or, as is done to this day, those sins are carried away by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who blows where He will, even erasing sins written in the sand.

 

[TimothyH]

Unfortunately, I cannot. I have promised myself I won’t volunteer for anything else for a while!

LOL. I know what you mean. I need a retreat myself.

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

Exactly, I was about to write almost the same. Jesus was a Rabbi which as someone else accurately pointed above, they were the scribes at the time, also and not a regular Rabbi, one which the bible says that his wisdom surprised other Rabbis.

Saying that Jesus didn’t know how to read and write makes absolutely no sense (as if that were true he couldn’t have been a Rabbi hence a scribe). That is a deduction that comes from the common stereotype that Israelites were a bunch of illiterate troglodytes which is not true and from a lack of knowledge regarding jews and Rabbis.

I have to point out that at the time of Jesus, the title rabbi has a slightly different nuance from today. Today, ‘rabbi’ is pretty much an official academic title: you earn the title via semicha after years of rigorous study. At the time of Jesus, however, anyone who was of high social standing or anyone (regardless of origins or social rank) who could teach well - whether officially trained or not - can be called rabbi (which simply meant ‘my great one’). Think of it as like the English sir or the Japanese sensei. It was only after AD 70 that the epithet began to be institutionalized and restricted for ‘ordained’ lay theologians. (Note though that Jewish rabbis were and are not like Christian priests: they aren’t clergymen, strictly speaking, though some secular laws might consider them one.)

When people were surprised at Jesus’ lack of ‘education’, it did not mean so much that Jesus was illiterate per se but rather that He did not have a formal education to become an officially-accredited teacher. In modern terms, think of it as something like an average joe from the street who did not study to become a professor and with no degree whatsoever managing to stump professional academics.

 

[Brendan_64]

Any question as if the Lord could read or write sounds quite rediculous to me!

Why is it ridiculous to think that Jesus could not wrote? He wasn’t from a wealthy privileged background like St Paul was, Jesus was the son of a poor carpenter. First century Judea was not a meritocratic society where education was freely available for all, and all could rise to the top on merit. How many carpenters there do you think could write? It is amazing that Jesus could read, let alone write. There is no evidence to suggest that he could write, so based on his socio-economic background (as a man) it is safe to assume that he couldn’t write.

 

[sennincatholic]

Why is it ridiculous to think that Jesus could not wrote? He wasn’t from a wealthy privileged background like St Paul was, Jesus was the son of a poor carpenter. First century Judea was not a meritocratic society where education was freely available for all, and all could rise to the top on merit. How many carpenters there do you think could write? It is amazing that Jesus could read, let alone write. There is no evidence to suggest that he could write, so based on his socio-economic background (as a man) it is safe to assume that he couldn’t write.

Jesus is GOD!!! How can God not know how to write?
In the gospels, people were amazed and questioned the validity of Jesus`s miracles because he was the son of a carpenter, in thesame way you are questionning his abilty to write because he was a son of a carpenter or of a poor socio economic background.
IMO, there is no cause for debate on this matter. Jesus, who at 12 years only, stunned the rabbi in the temple with His wisdom, despite the fact that he was a carpenter s son, surely knew how to write because He knows all things and He is God!

 

[patrick457]

Jesus is GOD!!! How can God not know how to write?
In the gospels, people were amazed and questioned the validity of Jesus`s miracles because he was the son of a carpenter, in thesame way you are questionning his abilty to write because he was a son of a carpenter or of a poor socio economic background.
IMO, there is no cause for debate on this matter. Jesus, who at 12 years only, stunned the rabbi in the temple with His wisdom, despite the fact that he was a carpenter s son, surely knew how to write because He knows all things and He is God!

I guess it depends on how you interpret kenōsis (self-emptying) - in other words, the concept of the Son of God voluntarily emptying Himself when He became human (cf. Philippians 2:5-8).

Not exactly related to the topic, but I’d like to point out a few ideas some early Christians had. Some of them thought that Jesus could shapeshift - more specifically, they thought that different people see Jesus differently depending on their level of comprehension. It all might sound rather docetic (and in fact, some docetists held these ideas), but here’s the interesting thing: even a number of early ‘orthodox’ writers took these ideas seriously. In fact, there was also the idea that Jesus - being God - was impassible, incapable of feeling any pleasure or pain. His physical body was real (an idea which sets it apart from docetism), but He never really needed to do things like eating or drinking since His body was sustained by divine energy. When He did eat and drink it is only “for our sakes,” in order to prevent people from thinking that He is only an apparition or a phantom - which is what docetists thought.

 

[sennincatholic]

I guess it depends on how you interpret kenōsis (self-emptying) - in other words, the concept of the Son of God voluntarily emptying Himself when He became human (cf. Philippians 2:5-8).

Not exactly related to the topic, but I’d like to point out a few ideas some early Christians had. Some of them thought that Jesus could shapeshift - more specifically, they thought that different people see Jesus differently depending on their level of comprehension. It all might sound rather docetic (and in fact, some docetists held these ideas), but here’s the interesting thing: even a number of early ‘orthodox’ writers took these ideas seriously. In fact, there was also the idea that Jesus - being God - was impassible, incapable of feeling any pleasure or pain. His physical body was real (an idea which sets it apart from docetism), but He never really needed to do things like eating or drinking since His body was sustained by divine energy. When He did eat and drink it is only “for our sakes,” in order to prevent people from thinking that He is only an apparition or a phantom - which is what docetists thought.

Interesting!
However, there is a difference between needing to do something and being able to do something. Jesus could write but surely did not need to write for reasons He alone knows. And that’s assuming He did not write down anything because the bible indicates He didn’t write.
Thanks for the info on the docetists, I had never known people saw Jesus that way.

 

[patrick457]

I actually think Eusebius says he wrote a letter to someone.

Eusebius is our very first witness to the story of King Abgar (Church History 1.13.1-20). To summarize the story, Abgar king of Edessa (the capital of the Osroene kingdom; modern-day Şanlıurfa, Turkey), who was suffering from leprosy, heard about Jesus and His miracles and sent a messenger to fetch Him, asking Jesus to cure him of his disease and promising Him that he has enough space in his city for the both of them. Jesus replied via letter, turning down Abgar’s invitation for Him to come to Edessa, but promised that after He had been raised from the dead He will send one of His disciples to cure him of his illness.

Copy of a letter written by the Abgar the toparch to Jesus, sent to him at Jerusalem by the courier Ananias
Abgar Uchama, the Toparch, to Jesus the excellent Savior who has appeared in the region of Jerusalem, greeting.
I have heard about you and the cures which you accomplish without drugs or herbs. Word has it that you make the blind see and the lame walk, that you heal lepers and cast out unclean spirits and demons, and that you heal those tortured by chronic disease and raise the dead. When I heard all these things about you, I decided that one of two things is true: either you are God and came down from heaven to do these things or you are God’s Son for doing them. For this reason I am writing to beg you to take the trouble to come to me and heal my suffering. I have also heard that the Jews are murmuring against you and plot to harm you. Now, my city-state is very small but highly-regard and adequate for both of us.

(He wrote this letter when the divine light had only begun to shine on him. It is appropriate to hear also the letter that Jesus sent him by the same letter carrier. It is only a few lines long but very powerful: )

The reply of Jesus to the toparch Abgar by the courier Ananias

Blessed are you who believed in me without seeing me! For it is written that those who have seen me will not believe in me and that those who have not seen me will believe and live. Now regarding your request that I come to you, I must first complete everything all that I was sent to do here, and, once that is completed, must be taken up to the One who sent me. When I have been taken up, I will send one of my disciples to heal your suffering and bring life to you and yours.​

In the earliest versions of the Abgar legend, it is Jesus’ letter - which was either dictated by Jesus or, as in some retellings, written by Jesus Himself (!) - which is the main focus of the story. Eusebius claimed that the originals were kept in the archives of Edessa and that he had translated them from Syriac to Greek. He then continues to provide an account of Thaddaeus healing Abgar (which fulfilled Jesus’ promise) which “is appended to these letters in Syriac.” He concludes by dating these events “to the year 340” (of the Seleucid era, which began around 311-310 BC), which would correspond to AD 29-30.

Starting with a Syriac work known as the Doctrine of Addai (ca. AD 400), a new element was introduced into the story: Hannan/Ananias the messenger now brought with him, alongside Jesus’ reply, a portrait of Jesus which he (Hannan) had painted. A century after this work was written, however, the Syrian author Evagrius Scholasticus in his Ecclesiastical History (AD 593) referred to this image as “the divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form.” And this basically is the origin of the story of the Holy Mandylion, the image of Jesus’ face ‘not made with hands’. In later retellings, the Mandylion eclipsed the letter in terms of the story’s focus.

I wonder if one reason would be that anything of Jesus’ that was written in His own hand would be in danger of being misused as some sort of magical artifact, drawing people away from faith in Christ and toward faith in a piece of parchment.

The funny thing is that is almost exactly what happened to the letter to King Abgar - obviously because it’s supposedly dictated by Jesus or written by His own hand! The Edessans considered the letter to protect their city, and its text was carved into the city gates. In fact, in the Doctrine of Addai, a new, highly-specific clause was added to Jesus’ letter: “Your city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it for ever.’” In fact the story and the letter was so popular that copies (with variations in the text) circulated virtually everywhere; in some places it was even incorporated into the Liturgy. Some even used the letter as an amulet, considering that the protection promised by Jesus to Edessa will be extended to them as well.

That said, this letter also had its share of skeptics, mainly from the West: the Decretum Gelasianum attributed to Pope Gelasius I (pontificate 492-496) considered the letter to be apocryphal. The author of the Libri Carolini (a treatise written under Charlemagne attacking the Byzantine ‘worship’ of images which was purportedly condoned by the anti-Iconoclastic Second Council of Nicaea of 798) also attacked the story. His reason for doing so? It’s not in the Bible.

 

[patrick457]

Interesting!
However, there is a difference between needing to do something and being able to do something. Jesus could write but surely did not need to write for reasons He alone knows. And that’s assuming He did not write down anything because the bible indicates He didn’t write.
Thanks for the info on the docetists, I had never known people saw Jesus that way.

Docetism was an idea (condemned by the early Church) which held that Jesus did not really have a physical body that could feel, suffer or die but was only an apparition or a phantom. This idea is one of those attempts to solve the question: if Jesus was divine, how could He suffer? Docetists answered it by focusing on the divinity: God lacked a material body and therefore could not really die. Since Jesus is God, and God is spirit, it follows that He couldn’t have suffered as well. At best, He actually didn’t have any actual physical form but only ‘appeared’ to be a flesh-and-blood man. In other words, it was all just an act - since the human flesh in which Jesus appeared was fictitious, redemption was simple play-acting on God’s part, with a shadow for its hero. For docetists Jesus was so divine that they had a hard time picturing Him as a human being.

There were also some groups who were also called ‘docetists’ who had a slightly different conception: they believed that there were actually two separate entities - the heavenly Christ and the earthly Jesus - who fused together at His baptism. The divine Christ, however, abandoned the human Jesus on the cross - so in other words, ‘Jesus’ (the bodily shell) died, but ‘Christ’ didn’t. So it solves the dilemma of a ‘God who suffers’ by postulating that the real, divine Christ only temporarily dwelt on a human being, escaping at the last minute.

The ideas I mentioned earlier (that Jesus looking differently depending on the viewer and His physical body being impassible and not needing to eat or drink) has some similarities with docetism in that they had their origins by focusing on the divinity of Christ. It basically all boils down to: if Jesus is God, He can do anything and is not bound by earthly limits, up to and including the ability to change appearance or not feeling hunger or thirst. What set orthodox thinkers from docetists, though, is that they believed that this physical body is real - albeit by virtue of Jesus’ divinity, they believed that this physical body somehow functioned differently from other bodies. Yes, it’s a very thin line. (Now the above descriptions to us seem to fit more the glorified body Jesus had after His resurrection particularly the ‘changing appearance’ part, but the writers who espoused the idea held that Jesus had these abilities even before He was resurrected.)

The downside is, though, that people who espoused these ideas sometimes had a tendency to seemingly downplay the Incarnation or Jesus’ earthly life: they usually compared it to a dream or to a putting on of clothes (they tend to speak of the divine Logos becoming “attached” to human flesh or “clothing” Himself with a man), or simply considered it a temporary, transitory condition that the Logos put Himself into before reassuming His original state. They don’t put much focus on Jesus living as a man: emphasis is placed more on trying to see the Logos in His true condition, in the fullness of His divinity, without the wrapping of the flesh.

There were two philosophical schools in early Christianity: the school of Alexandria and the school of Antioch. The Alexandrian school had traditionally approached the question from the divine angle, on how the transcendent, omnipotent God could become a man (an incarnational Logos-sarx ‘Word-flesh’ Christology), while the Antiochian school focused on the human angle, on how the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth could be divine (an anthropological Logos-anthropos ‘Word-man’ Christology). The writers who expressed the above ideas (Clement of Alexandria, Origen) were actually from the Alexandrian school. The two schools quibbled over theological language, really: how could one speak of Jesus in a way that respected both His humanity and His divinity, without denying the other?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Why is it ridiculous to think that Jesus could not wrote? He wasn’t from a wealthy privileged background like St Paul was, Jesus was the son of a poor carpenter. First century Judea was not a meritocratic society where education was freely available for all, and all could rise to the top on merit. How many carpenters there do you think could write? It is amazing that Jesus could read, let alone write. There is no evidence to suggest that he could write, so based on his socio-economic background (as a man) it is safe to assume that he couldn’t write.

I posted on that same post a couple of reasons why, we have eveidence in Scripture that He wrote, the Gospel of John mentioning He wrote in the sand. We also have evidence that He read, because the Gospels mention that He read from the scroll from Isaiah. He obviously read well because He read in the synagogue and taught from it, which means if He read well enough to teach, then its very likey He could write, especially given the evidence that He wrote in the sand and whatever He wrote was enough to shame those condemning the woman caught in adultery. Plus, Jesus is God in the flesh, He did many things that nobody was able to do, disappear, walk on water, He had an amazing knowledge of Scripture that surpassed the Scribes and Pharisees even as a child!

 

[steve53]

In John, it said he was drawing SYMBOLS in the sand.

Which slightly more sense. Why would he write in the sand, anyway? The wind picks up or a crowd rushes in and there you go- all is lost.

Is it possible that is an allusion to the biblical reference to those who build their houses on sand, and not a literal reference at all?

Assuming that he wrote on sand, he must have wrote a LOT on papyrus, or whatever he had handy. He just had nothing handy at that time. And he had a compulsion to write.
Maybe, but I doubt it.

Also in John, Jesus is criticized for teaching even though he “did not know letters.”

Interpret this as you will, but as they didn’t have higher learning centers that awarded degrees, they probably referred to his writing skills, which were non-existent.

Possibly, those same critics read what he wrote in the sand earlier and knew he was an atrocious speller.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . in John, Jesus is criticized for teaching even though he “did not know letters.” . . .

There, I pride myself in being able to locate quotes in especially the NT, but I’m stumped. Can you please state chapter/verse. Thanks.

 

[po18guy]

In John, it said he was drawing SYMBOLS in the sand.

Which translation is that? Never heard that word used before.

 

[D_Martin]

The only time I can recall in scripture that Jesus ever writes anything down is in the parable of the adulterous women John 8:6

So what could be the possible reasons why Jesus never wrote anything down?

History wise, it is true the only thing known as far as what the Lord has written by His own hand is the Ten Commandments (twice) and what He wrote at the temple grounds at the event mentioned. Though there is no scriptural statement as such, but the grounds in that day could have been pavement stones at the time, in which case those who where standing there would had to of realize it was the Lord if He was writing in stone with His finger, and it was probably the Commandments that He was writing.

But yes there is a wisdom in that He doesn’t write documents about Himself, it was the witnesses that documented there experiences, revelations, and relationship with the Lord God of Israel, and not the Lord God Himself. In the case of the Ten Commandments it might be noted that it was an agreement (covenant) that was of God to His People with His People. And everything else was the witness of the ones He had agreements with. And it is the Lord God who initiates His agreements with men. And it was the men the Lord God was in agreement with, who documented their experiences thereof.

 

[Brendan_64]

Jesus is GOD!!! How can God not know how to write?

Jesus was God the Son incarnate as** man**, not as God inhabiting a human body. Jesus was fully human. How did Jesus refer to himself? As Son of Man.

In the gospels, people were amazed and questioned the validity of Jesus`s miracles because he was the son of a carpenter, in thesame way you are questionning his abilty to write because he was a son of a carpenter or of a poor socio economic background.

Miracles were used as signs. If Jesus used writing as a sign to get a point across, then please point me to the relevant passage in the Bible where Jesus wrote something down?

IMO, there is no cause for debate on this matter. Jesus, who at 12 years only, stunned the rabbi in the temple with His wisdom, despite the fact that he was a carpenter s son, surely knew how to write because He knows all things and He is God!

Jesus was also fully Man. He walked amongst us as one of us, completely as one of us. He wasn’t God inhabiting the body of a man, he was a man, fully. As such he assumed the frailties, insecurities of men, and this was essential in order that he suffered and died on the cross, as a man.

Jesus only used miracles as signs from God. They were not special powers that he possessed, they were signs from Heaven, and since there is no reference to him using an ability to write as a miracle, and as he is not recorded as having written anything down, then it is safe to assume that Jesus (who was incarnate as a man, fully) could not in fact write.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s a paper by Craig Evans about the topic of Jesus’ literacy. And there’s also this little more nuanced opinion from an author named Chris Keith.

 

[TimothyH]

Why is it ridiculous to think that Jesus could not wrote?

Because we can’t wrote either.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan_64]

Because we can’t wrote either.

-Tim-

Very good.