M
marymary1975
Guest
But the Babylonian talmud was written before jesus and the aboth was already written.
What could be the possible reasons why Jesus never wrote anything down?
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
Whether or not he wrote anything, if it had been part of His mission to do so, He would have done so.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It isn’t clear to me that rabbis did write, at all, at the time of Jesus. My understanding is that scribes were specifically trained to write. No one else did because there was no need for them to do so.
It appears to me that you are reading a “modern” view of literacy back into Jesus’ time as if not being trained in a specific skill meant some kind of “lack” on his part. The fact that Einstein was not computer literate (for example, did not know anything about using a mouse or trackpad or saving documents) says nothing about his capacity to do so. He may have had the capability to pick up all of those skills very quickly, but the mere fact that he didn’t actually have or use them says nothing about his humanity.
Being able to write, or read, for that matter, do not make you a “better” human being. These are incidental skills. Whether a person actually does possess them or not does not make that person more or less human. Reading and writing are not among the “cardinal virtues”
The fact Jesus learned carpentry (Jesus’ occupation was τέκτων or tekton which could possibly be more like stone masonry or building) rather than animal husbandry does not make him less human. Why should not possessing the skills involved in the task of writing make him any less human? It says nothing about the capacity to do so, merely determining whether he was actually trained to “write.” Why would a lack of training make any difference, whatsoever? Why stop there, then? Did Jesus know how to drive a car, fly a jet, play the piano, etc.? Why would those even be requisite?
This is not to say Jesus actually didn’t write. He may have been trained to, even as a rabbi and not a scribe. The point is, though, it makes absolutely no difference to his humanity.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No, it could merely mean he never claimed the title. The Pharisees could not accuse him if he never made such a claim to begin with.
Did Jesus ever claim to be a rabbi?
Others may have called him that, but did he ever “appropriate” the name, which would have been necessary for a charge of misappropriation.
Where does he say, “I am a rabbi,” in a way that confirms that he claimed that title?
The words, “You have heard it said… But I say to you…” do bring with them an implicit claim to be God, (i.e, possesses the power to expand on God’s commandments) but please point out where he claimed to be a rabbi."
M
marymary1975
Guest
Yes he claimed the title because according to jewish law if you were refered by others as Rabbi and you did not hold that position, you were obligated to correct that person. Silence indeed meant that you were claiming the title. Another fact that shows that he was claiming the titlewas that he started his ministry at 30. Per Jewish law that was the age when Rabbies were autorized to teach publicly. His sstarting at 30 shows that he was following the law as applied to Rabbies. Besides that there are multiple position that were considered as claiming the title and Jesus adopted them all so he did claim the title. The Jewish law does not say that one claims the title by saying oh I am a rabbi. It is claimed by following the law as applied to them, by taking posituins and gestures and by silence which is exactly what jesus did. Look at the Aboth and the Babylonian Talmud if you need more references.
As to scribes, you seem to be missing that I am talking specifically about Jews. You are right as to scribes in Jesus’s time as to the non jewish population. Within the jewish, the scribes were the judges who wrote the law, basically the Sadducees and also some Pharisees. Scribes were rabbies who got the particular job of writing the law. not all rabbies dedicated themselves to write, in fact many Sadducees had scribes of their own, but in their training as rabbi they would learn to write as in the future they might become elders and j udhes, and they would have to deal with pharisees and Sadducees. Again writting is not a skill for Jesus mission but it was was a basic skill for being a rabbi in general.
P
patrick457
Guest
Wrong. What you had were ordinances and legal opinions that were passed down orally from teacher to pupil. These set of oral laws were only codified as the Mishnah during the 3rd century AD - well after the time of Jesus. (The Pirkei Avot AFAIK is also only formally codified around that time.) In the three centuries following the redaction of the Mishnah, Rabbis (note that I capitalized the word: I’m referring here to the Jewish scholars of the period after AD 70) throughout Palestine and Babylonia analyzed, debated, and discussed that work. This is what we call the Gemarah. The Mishnah was then paired with the Gemarah along with a few other things such as Baraitot (traditions not incorporated in the Mishnah); taken together, these elements comprise what we call the Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud - the fruit of the analysis of the Rabbis of Babylonia - was compiled at around the 6th century AD (ca. AD 500), although editing continued for some time after that. Its Palestinian counterpart and the older compilation, the Jerusalem Talmud, is older by a century.
Here’s the thing. Oftentimes the Rabbis of the Mishnah presented some things as if they are already long-standing tradition: the Mishnah claims to preserve an accurate memory of actual practices and legislations before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Some at least have historical credibility, but the problem is that in many other cases, what you had wasn’t actual historical memory but most likely Rabbinic fantasy - or at least Rabbinic exaggeration. Between the 1st century (the time of teachers and sages) and the 3rd (the codification of the Mishnah by the Rabbis) a hundred or so years elapsed wherein much of the oral teachings were altered, adapted and recast.
The Mishnah portrays the Rabbis as being charge of the Temple, that the Sanhedrin is a rabbinic operation (the Aramaic term is really from the Greek synedrion “council;” it most likely originally simply referred to the high priest’s ad-hoc advisory councils as opposed to the formal organization envisioned by the work), and that high priests and kings obey Rabbinic instructions. In other words, what you have in the Mishnah was the Rabbis imagining how they would have run the Temple and Israel had they been in charge. The Mishnah really describes how things “ought to have been” (as opposed to “how they were”) using shards and remnants of historical reality. As Rabbi Jacob Neusner (The Classics of Judaism: A Textbook and Reader, p. 30) said, “the Mishnah tells us something about how things were, but everything how a small group of men wanted things to be.”
M
marymary1975
Guest
But still there was a law at the time, the fact that was oral doesn’t mean that there was no existance of the law. They had laws is just that they didn’t write them down. Still I find it hard to believe that no law at all was written because the Sadducees were scribes and they had judges who would write the law. I cannot see how Sadducees and the elders would perform their duties without writting at all, if their job was precisely writting the law. Wouldny you mean that the Laws were “compiled” i.e. put together in one particular book after Jesus? Because again I find hard to believe that they had people to write tge law and that their job was do nothing.
P
patrick457
Guest
True. But you also have to make allowance for the fact that until the time these laws were codified they still underwent adaptation, development modification. One can’t simply take the Mishnah at face value and assume that the ordinances existed as they are written in the 1st century.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Sorry i am having autocorrect problems and my post wasn’t clear. My question is what you are refering, isn’t a formal compilation of the book as it is today. I cannot really believe yhings were that loose because you had Judges at the time and the Pharisees and Sadducees were enforcing the law to the point of abuse. So how come things could be that loose if you had a system created by Sadducees and Pharisees that was strictly enforced? And how would the law be not written if you had Judges writting the law?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Except that in the time of Jesus, Rabbi was a very informal word for one worthy of great respect as a teacher, it could have been used to describe a formal office, but not necessarily. The exclusive use of the title to describe the formal office only came about after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
It would not have been possible to misappropriate a title that was bestowed by others because of their great respect. It would have been an affront to them to “correct” them. It would have been their “right” to show that level of respect.
Also the fact that Parisees and Scribes also used the title when referring to Jesus meant that they did not see it as wrongly applied, even though they used it insincerely. Why would they accuse him of misappropriating the title when they called him by it? They, who should have known better, would have been just as wrong to misapply the title as Jesus would have been to misappropriate it, if it was an actual formal position, which it wasn’t.
If Jesus did actually go through the formal education available in the area of Galilee it is not inconceivable that he could read and write. Sure, that is entirely possible, but to claim not being able to write compromises his humanity is not true. His ability to write is really irrelevant in that regard.
P
patrick457
Guest
To sum, there is what we would call “common Judaism,” the beliefs shared by all Jews (the Temple, the Torah, the one God worshipped in the Temple and obeyed in following the Torah, the election of Israel as His covenant people to whom He had given the Temple and the Torah). Then there’s the groups like the Pharisees or the Sadducees or the Essenes or the sectarians at Qumran or the ‘Samaritans’. Generally speaking, not every Jew belonged to any of those groups but simply believed in ‘common Judaism’, and not everyone who belonged to any of those groups considered their special teachings to be binding on everyone else, especially those outside of their party. (The ‘Pharisees’ Jesus met? Probably radicals.
)At least, that’s one way of looking at how ‘Judaism’ was in the second Temple period: Jews with different particular beliefs and groups who are nevertheless united together under one “common Judaism.” Another model is to propose that there were really different, diverse ‘Judaisms’: where various groups distinguished themselves from another to the extent that they didn’t really see much in common between themselves and other Jews.
BTW, another quote (Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence by Jonathan Reed, p. 11 - wow, I’m quoting more people than I used to?
):The rabbinic literature anecdotally supplies information about Jewish daily life in antiquity, but its late date renders it problematic for first-century Galilee. Certainly, the Mishnah contains judgments of first-century rabbis, but these were codified in the second century C.E. and combined with third- and fourth-century C.E. commentaries in the Talmud. The opinions and pronouncements to first-century sages such as Hillel or Shammai may be subject to later accretions. Opinions attributed to later rabbis or cited without any attribution might in fact originate in the first century. These chronological problems caution against accepting the rabbinic literature at face value for the first century, as does the kind of literature it was. Although the rabbis were respected and viewed as authoritative, rabbinic pronouncements were neither a law book nor a constitution that governed daily life per se. They were an intellectual enterprise that speculated on, discussed, and debated living the ideal live from the rabbis’ perspective, which lacked civil and legal backing under Roman rule. The rabbinic corpus contains many descriptive examples or anecdotes about daily life, but they were not legally prescriptive for first-century Jewish life, nor are they clear about when they are especially descriptive of a particular (likely upper-) class practice.
Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the by Terence C. Mournet (p. 110):
There is strong evidence to suggest that ancient cultures, and in particular the Greeks and Jews, had a clear notion of the difference between oral and written collections of laws and traditions. Writing began as a novel way by which one could make visible and accessible the laws which were previously heard only within the context of oral communication and from the public performance of a king before his people. Over time the growing collction of laws did not immediately lead to the dismissal of the antecedent oral corpus. Both collections of laws and traditions existed alongside one another for many centuries, and in the case of the Jews, culminated with the writing down of the Mishnah in about 200 C.E.
M
marymary1975
Guest
If you notice that is what I am discussing right now with Patrick. The fact that the law was not formally compiled does not mean it didn’t exist. Patrick mentions it was oral law (i havent seen his other answer yet though I think it there was some writing maybe what we are talking is the issue of being compiled, but still let’s take Patrick’s position, it was an oral law) so it means it was in existance, hence it wasn’t a title that anyone could use. And exactly the fact that pharisees themselves called jesus rabbi shows that he was an actual rabbi. And I have never said that jesus not being able to write compromises anything, I never said that. What i am saying is that jesus was a rabbi hence, because rabbies knew how to read and write jesus must have had to know how to read and write.
M
marymary1975
Guest
As to your last quote, it seems that is what I was pointing out, that the laws were just compiled after many years of being written. Hence again there was a law to follow.To sum, there is what we would call “common Judaism,” the beliefs shared by all Jews (the Temple, the Torah, the one God worshipped in the Temple and obeyed in following the Torah, the election of Israel as His covenant people to whom He had given the Temple and the Torah). Then there’s the groups like the Pharisees or the Sadducees or jessenes or the sectarians at Qumran or the ‘Samaritans’. Generally speaking, not every Jew belonged to any of those groups but simply believed in ‘common Judaism’, and not everyone who belonged to any of those groups considered their special teachings to be binding on everyone else, especially those outside of their party. (The ‘Pharisees’ Jesus met? Probably radicals.
At least, that’s one way of looking at how ‘Judaism’ was in the second Temple period: Jews with different particular beliefs and groups who are nevertheless united together under one “common Judaism.” Another model is to propose that there were really different, diverse ‘Judaisms’: where various groups distinguished themselves from another to the extent that they didn’t really see much in common between themselves and other Jews.
BTW, another quote (Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence by Jonathan Reed, p. 11 - wow, I’m quoting more people than I used to?
The rabbinic literature anecdotally supplies information about Jewish daily life in antiquity, but its late date renders it problematic for first-century Galilee. Certainly, the Mishnah contains judgments of first-century rabbis, but these were codified in the second century C.E. and combined with third- and fourth-century C.E. commentaries in the Talmud. The opinions and pronouncements to first-century sages such as Hillel or Shammai may be subject to later accretions. Opinions attributed to later rabbis or cited without any attribution might in fact originate in the first century. These chronological problems caution against accepting the rabbinic literature at face value for the first century, as does the kind of literature it was. Although the rabbis were respected and viewed as authoritative, rabbinic pronouncements were neither a law book nor a constitution that governed daily life per se. They were an intellectual enterprise that speculated on, discussed, and debated living the ideal live from the rabbis’ perspective, which lacked civil and legal backing under Roman rule. The rabbinic corpus contains many descriptive examples or anecdotes about daily life, but they were not legally prescriptive for first-century Jewish life, nor are they clear about when they are especially descriptive of a particular (likely upper-) class practice.
Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the by Terence C. Mournet (p. 110):
There is strong evidence to suggest that ancient cultures, and in particular the Greeks and Jews, had a clear notion of the difference between oral and written collections of laws and traditions. Writing began as a novel way by which one could make visible and accessible the laws which were previously heard only within the context of oral communication and from the public performance of a king before his people. Over time the growing collction of laws did not immediately lead to the dismissal of the antecedent oral corpus. Both collections of laws and traditions existed alongside one another for many centuries, and in the case of the Jews, culminated with the writing down of the Mishnah in about 200 C.E.
I am not fully sure of your point in your first paragraph but it seems that you are saying that there was some kind of cafeteria judaism at the time and because of that laws were not followed. I highly doubt that mary and joseph were cafeteria jews as the bible portrays them to be very faithful and practicing jews so we can clearly eliminate the idea that judaism was not binding on Jesus or that he, mary and Joseph were not following the law. Then if we follow the bible and all the encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees it doesnt give the impression that we are talking about a group and circumstances where Judaism was not binding. Everything points to a particular group where Pharisees had great power and people who was being affected by the abuse of power of Pharisees.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The problem here is that you are smuggling in as an aspect of that unwritten law that calling someone a “Rabbi” was in fact a part of that law just because an oral tradition of obedience to the law generally existed. Nowhere did you show that using Rabbi as an official title was an actual part of the oral law. If the word rabbi functioned as an honorary title of respect before it became more formal, then there is no reason to think it had any unwritten sanctions to go with it. You haven’t shown which titles specifically did bring with them legal or social ramifications. Just because some did does not mean they all did. What have you got besides a general impression concerning titles that proves “Rabbi” was one that had serious implications concerning its use or misuse?
P
patrick457
Guest
I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. Let me repeat it - hope I make myself clearer this time:
There are basically two possible ways of looking at how Judaism was during the Second Temple period: the “common Judaism” model hypothesized by folks like E.P. (Ed) Sanders, and the “many Judaisms” model, proposed by people like Rabbi Jacob Neusner. The former emphasizes the beliefs and practices that all Jews - the priests, the teachers, and the people - had in common regardless of their affiliation to a given group (or none, since most Jews did not belong to any party). The latter, meanwhile, emphasizes the diversity and the actual lack of any definitively fixed, monolithic structure (as modern Rabbinic Judaism is) in those days - so much so that adherents of this model argue that we shouldn’t be looking at the different parties like the Pharisees or the Essenes to be sub-groups within ‘common Judaism’, as the “common Judaism” model thinks them to be, but full-fledged ‘Judaisms’ in their own right. The “common Judaism” idea holds that all the Jews of the time and all the different groups are linked by a common core, while the “many Judaisms” model rejects the idea of an essential unity of Judaism, historical or religious.
What both sides agree on is the rejection of the assumption of one single Judaism being divided into parties; both acknowledge that there was not one Judaic system but many. The difference lies in whether you think 1st-century Jews thought that they had some things in common with all other Jews (which is what the “common Judaism” model presupposes) or not (which is what the “many Judaisms” model presupposes). Note that I’ve never said anything about a ‘cafeteria Judaism’ or the common people not following the Torah.
The Pharisees were respected by the people because of the precision with which they interpreted the Torah and the strictness with which they kept it (though they were hardly the most ‘legalistic’ - the sectarians at Qumran are far stricter than the Pharisees in almost every conceivable way), but at the time of Jesus they had no actual political power. And no, for the most part they didn’t try to impose their own special customs to everybody. For the most part - which doesn’t preclude the existence of annoying radicals (there’s always one in every group).
P
patrick457
Guest
I’ll try to make an analogy. Keep in mind though that this is only a very rough analogy and is not totally accurate:
We can compare some aspects of the “common Judaism” model to something that we have in the Catholic Church. Within the Church you have orders and movements like Jesuits or Dominicans or Franciscans or Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbus. Each of these orders and societies are not a separate religion or denomination from Catholicism (obviously). Some groups (particularly religious orders) might have laws and customs and emphases that are peculiar to them and is not shared by other Catholics at large. Not all Catholics belong to any of the above orders. But everyone, whether Franciscan or Benedictine or a member of the Legion of Mary or a simple layman, all have something in common: they believe the same faith and hold the same doctrines. They may even have some similar practices.
On the other hand, I see the “many Judaisms” model as faintly close to when you put a Catholic side-by-side with, say, a Mormon and a Jehovah’s Witness. Catholicism, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are ostensibly grouped together under the ‘Christianity’ category, and they might occasionally say nearly-similar things and use the same keywords (“God,” “Jesus,” etc.), but if you ask the three whether they think they are of the similar faith, they might answer in the negative.
S
steve53
Guest
Josephus is very clear on this and I would encourage everyone to re-read his sections on the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes for their information.
He is far and away the best source on first century Judaism.
All three groups followed the Torah to the letter. That made them Jews.
But the Pharisees believed in an afterlife and heaven and hell, the Sadducees did not. A very big difference considering that they belonged to the “same” religion. And the Essenes had their own mystical view of things, and abhorred animal sacrifice so they stayed away from the Second Temple completely, though they did attend their local town Synagogues.
Bringing in all these other experts merely obfuscates the issue.
Re-read Josephus.
He is far and away the best source on first century Judaism.
All three groups followed the Torah to the letter. That made them Jews.
But the Pharisees believed in an afterlife and heaven and hell, the Sadducees did not. A very big difference considering that they belonged to the “same” religion. And the Essenes had their own mystical view of things, and abhorred animal sacrifice so they stayed away from the Second Temple completely, though they did attend their local town Synagogues.
Bringing in all these other experts merely obfuscates the issue.
Re-read Josephus.
M
marymary1975
Guest
I thought that we already mentioned it on the sources you can see in the discussion above. Also Steve is right, another accurate source is Josephus. You can also consult with Josephus
R
Rugbeia_Vitae
Guest
bingo!
B
Barry_Gabriel
Guest
He read in the temple, the parts he wanted the audience to hear. Therefore, he knew how to find the citation. If he could find and read what he wanted, surely he could write.
As there was no-one in Palestine at that time taking the poll on literacy, then how can you say this is accurate?
I never heard this one before. Citation please?
- Status