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

[nmgauss]

Socrates of Athens was probably the most influential person in Western Civilization. Yet he wrote nothing. Everything we know about Socrates and his teachings was written by others, especially Plato.

 

[RCCB]

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?

The most most likely explanation is that whatever the insight or wisdom Jesus revealed, it was taught and explained as a private oral tradition. Thus there has never been a clear record of a complete revelation, only the scriptural remnants, collected and assembled as a theological interpretation of what an all too human and fallible reason hopes is a true reflection of that teaching. History has yet to judge!

 

[bertybeaufort]

We don’t know that Jesus never wrote anything.

Jesus wanted to break with the Book religion (Judaïsm) and teach through his acts, and behavior. The apostles wrote gospels to transmit his teaching.
(Socrate never wrote anything too but Platon did)

 

[dennyboo]

Exactly!
Its not because it is no where mentioned in the Bible that he wrote something down that we have to believe he never wrote something down.
In Acts 20:35, Paul repeats a saying of Jesus not mentioned anywhere in the gospels.
So its possible that Jesus wrote many things down but they were not mentioned in the gospels because the bible is not the fullness of truth. (the Church is)
Also, the gospels give us his spoken word, which, at the time He walked the earth, was more relevant for our salvation than anything written since at that time most people could neither read nor write.

“Because the Bible is not the fullness of truth.”
Really? Opposing the “Church” to the Bible is error plain and simple.
Pope Benedict xvi quoted Saint Jerome “If you don’t know the scriptures you cannot know Christ.” Jesus declared that He is" the truth and the life." “The scriptures testify of Him.”
Opposing the scriptures to the “tradition” as Paul defines it is also error pure and simple.
Opposing the scriptures and tradition to the church is also error. We are to think of the Church, scripture, and tradition as we think of the Triinity analogically speaking.

 

[VikenCatholic]

There is a legend that Jesus wrote to the ancient Armenkan king Trdat. So that’s a possibility.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Jesus’ job was not to write things down a gospel because he IS the Gospel!

Writing/Preaching was more assigned to the Apostles.

 

[RCCB]

“Because the Bible is not the fullness of truth.”

I tend to agree with that statement. The early church assembled a specific group of material we now call the Bible from a much greater collection to impose an institutional, theological orthodoxy where many conflicting views existed, many still unresolved today. And then there are recent scriptural discoveries. The Gnostic Gospel and Dead Sea Scrolls. And still untranslated some new lead codices. How much more might be discovered? So it is clear the scriptural record is incomplete and thus in spite of the claims of tradition, so is our understanding of both Christ and God.

 

[patrick457]

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.

So?

Anyways, to take your advice, about Antiquities 18.19. Here’s what it says:

The doctrine of the Essenes is wont to leave everything in the hands of God. They regard the soul as immortal and believe that they ought to strive especially to draw near to righteousness. They send votive offerings to the temple, but perform their sacrifices employing a different ritual of purification. For this reason they are barred from those precincts of the temple that are frequented by all the people and perform their sacrifices by themselves.

Now here’s the thing. The manuscripts of Josephus are divided at this point. The Greek manuscripts provide the reading above, but the Latin versions and the so-called Epitome Antiquitatum (basically the epitome or a condensed version of the work) have a negative: “they do not perform sacrifices.” That is the reading followed in the 18th-century William Whiston translation: “and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own.”

To sum, the problem is as follows:

(1) On the one hand, no Greek manuscript except the Epitome Antiquitatum have the negative.
(2) On the other hand, the 6th-century Latin text, which contains the negative, is 500 years older than the existing Greek manuscripts.
(3) The Greek text of book 18 is more corrupt than any other portion of Josephus’ works.
(4) But there is no real critical Latin edition of book 18.

But even if you accept the “not” as authentic, it still leaves a question. What did Josephus mean by the Essenes offering sacrifices eph’ autou “among themselves”?

 

[steve53]

Interesting.

The Essenes were not vegetarians, which would argue that they would not automatically be against animal sacrifice.

Just the gruesome reality of animal sacrifice I think would be off-putting to the Essenes, especially if they had to do it themselves with their own hands.

The Second Temple was a big place and there could have been special niches for the Essenes to congregate. The commercial nature of the Temple and the associated bustle might have been off-putting, however. Did God actually dwell in the Temple? No where in the Torah is that suggested, so the Essenes did not have to buy into that belief.

As very spiritual people, their “anchor” to places like the Temple might have been tenuous.

 

[patrick457]

Not exactly related, but it might interest you to know this about the “Community” at Qumran. No altar was found there, but there were deposits containing animal bones - mostly sheep, goats and their young, with some calves, cows and oxen; kosher animals - placed between large potsherds or inside jars on the spaces around the outside of buildings, the significance of which is unclear. Apparently, though, they had some significance for the people who lived there: who’ll go all the way to gather scraps of meals in pots and then bury them? (Deposits like the ones you have in Qumran aren’t found in other sites.) Common people didn’t eat meat much in those days, so were they the remains of sacrificial animals? Or ritual meals perhaps meant to substitute for animal sacrifice?

The Community’s documents is also confusing: in some places, the members are said to atone for their sins by the offering up of prayer; the Community is to be the “most holy dwelling for Aaron” where prayer was offered to God in atonement for Israel “without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice,” indeed the sacrifice which would atone for Israel’s sins (Community Rule 8.1-10; 9.3-6). In the Damascus Document (11.18-21) prayer is considered to more effective than an impure sacrifice, but at the same time it assumes casually that members of the Community will go sacrifice to the temple. The same work also makes explicit reference to sacrificial regulations (16.13-17a). The Community apparently wasn’t so much against sacrifice per se but held that it should be foregone for now. Prayer is the current substitute for sacrifices; it is only at the end of days, when the Community will be able to control (or rather, ‘regain’) the Temple and the priesthood that proper sacrificial ritual will be reinstated.

P.S. The mention of the Essenes being vegetarian come from Porphyry (De Abstinentia 4.3) and St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus 2.14).

 

[nmgauss]

Not exactly related, but it might interest you to know this about the “Community” at Qumran. but there were deposits containing animal bones - mostly sheep, goats and their young, with some calves, cows and oxen; kosher animals . Apparently, though, they had some significance for the people who lived there: who’ll go all the way to gather scraps of meals in pots and then bury them? Common people didn’t eat meat much in those days, so were they the remains of sacrificial animals? Or ritual meals perhaps meant to substitute for animal sacrifice?

Why were sacrifices made up of animals rather than plants? If you look at the nature of subsistence living, especially of nomads, animals were the mainstay. Even today, sheep, goats, and cattle are the way people get something to eat. For the Dead Sea area, cultivated agriculture is impossible without sophisticated irrigation. Also, the forage available in nearby hills was acceptable for animal feed but not for humans. Thus, it made sense to let animals make human food by eating the native plants.

Where are plant foods going to be grown in a hilly rocky area with only seasonal rains?

 

[steve53]

The High Priesthood made huge amounts of money off the Temple sacrifices, and got to keep the meat, leather, and whatever else was of value in the slain beasts.

Josephus reports that many became very very wealthy off the rituals.

In fact, when people took to holding back on their sacrifices and tithing in the decade before the revolt, the Priests themselves organized gangs to steal from the wealthy Jewish class.

Tacitus called the Jewish nation under Hyrcanus, before Herod the great, a Theocracy that enslaved the Jewish people. Temple ritual evolved out of that.

Also…all the bones at Qumran argue against it being an Essene stronghold, of course. I didn’t know about it. Josephus doesn’t report on it, and it does not fit their character. The Essenes lived and worked within the community.

 

[patrick457]

Where are plant foods going to be grown in a hilly rocky area with only seasonal rains?

There’s an oasis in a place called Ein Feshkha (Arabic for “springs of the cliffs;” later renamed in Hebrew 'Einot Tzukim) only around three kilometers south-southeast of Qumran. In the place were the remains of a farm, with a large building primarily for storage, a hangar probably used for drying dates, and an enclosure north of the large building, that is contemporary with the Qumran settlement (somewhere after 37 BC). The water at Feshkha is brackish (although it was probably sweeter once) and the farm seems to have utilized it for growing specific, salt-tolerant crops, mostly date palms (main crop of the area). The reeds growing nearby might also have been used, and salt and bitumen might have been produced as well (asphalt was found in both Qumran and Feshkha).

The Community actually had a developed, self-reliant economy and sophisticated organizational skills. Aside from Feshkha there were workshops in Qumran itself: a potter’s workshop, one containing a large furnace and water supply, and a wheat/barley mill. There was also a stable for animals and an installation for date honey production. There were also storage areas for grain below the plateau on which the Qumran buildings sit.

Coins were found in Qumran, but members of the Community didn’t really need money to operate. Newcomers pledged their money and possessions to the Community. The treasury, which was the result of such donations, was of course needed for relations with the outside world and to allow for the Community to regulate their internal economy without cash. Essentially the people of Qumran worked without pay and did not own anything privately, since the Community provided for their needs.

Also…all the bones at Qumran argue against it being an Essene stronghold, of course. I didn’t know about it. Josephus doesn’t report on it, and it does not fit their character. The Essenes lived and worked within the community.

Actually, the animal bones were one of the reasons why some people think the area was occupied by the Essenes or an Essene sect/faction or a related group. That, and stuff such as the fact that there were quite a number of ritual baths or miqvaoth within the settlement - ten of them (which granted, doesn’t mean much by itself, but note; the available sleeping space in the whole settlement is for twenty individuals), the existence of an assembly hall and a pantry containing more than 1,000 dishes (which again is disproportionate with the available sleeping space), and the fact that Qumran is the only suitable settlement in the area where Pliny has Essenes live in (the west shore of the Dead Sea).

 

[sennincatholic]

“Because the Bible is not the fullness of truth.”
Really? Opposing the “Church” to the Bible is error plain and simple.
Pope Benedict xvi quoted Saint Jerome “If you don’t know the scriptures you cannot know Christ.” Jesus declared that He is" the truth and the life." “The scriptures testify of Him.”
Opposing the scriptures to the “tradition” as Paul defines it is also error pure and simple.
Opposing the scriptures and tradition to the church is also error. We are to think of the Church, scripture, and tradition as we think of the Triinity analogically speaking.

What are you talking about?
I am not opposing anything but simply stating the truth that the Bible “is not the fullness of truth”
Tradition completes this “truth” but in no way opposes scripture.

 

[steve53]

What’s up with the small type, Patrick?

I bet a massive dig all around the area that Pliny referenced would turn up all sorts of interesting things.

Pliny could have been mistaken, of course, about who lived there, getting information second-hand.

 

[fred_conty]

Some one said earlier in the thread, “The question posed here is could Jesus write, not could He read.”

The question is not COULD Jesus write, but rather DID Jesus write.

Yes Jesus could have written if he had desired, but did Jesus write anything?

The reason he could write is that Jesus was only one person, a devine person, which meant that he had a divine intellect to do anything he desired to do. Jesus was that devine person tho he had a human soul. (He was not a human person, tho he was a man).

Now maybe Jesus decided he did not need to write or that it would be better not to write. But even as a man he could have learned to write, whether poor or rich. He read/spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. If he had decided to write, he would have.
And he could have done so without going to school because as divine person he could use his divine intellect.

But the original question is DID he write? And there is no way to say he did or didn’t, because he could do them both whatever he chose to do. But I don’t think we can say that he couldn’t write because as a divine person he could use his divine intellect. And if he did not write, it was only that he chose not to.

As far as Jesus as a boy gaining in wisdom and knowledge and age, he did gain in experimental knowledge, that comes from physically doing things, such as seeing and hearing thru human organs, and experiencing these thru human powers. Jesus wept at a funeral, at seeing a mother who had lost her only son. He could weep, for this is a human experience of sorrow and empathy for someone else’s loss. It could be that Jesus was thinking of his own mother and her future sorrow over his own death that she would experience.

An even more important question than “did Jesus write?” is the question, “suppose noone wrote”.

 

[nmgauss]

In the days of Jesus there was a strong oral tradition. In fact there was an oral Torah and a written Torah. The two traditions were finally combined by rabbis during the Midrash and Talmud periods.

One reason that written scripture was avoided by some dedicated clergy is that it was too inflexible for current issues. In other words, in some circles, religion was meant to meet the needs of the people trying to deal with current problems. If the written form was so static that it could not address current issues, it was ignored or discarded. The same goes for inflexible religion.

 

[ProVobis]

I quote the entry for “Rabbi” the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (p. 731):

In modern Judaism the rabbinate is an ordained office. Formerly, however, rabbi was only a title of respect, sometimes adressed to learned laymen, sometimes distinguishing a master from servants, but most often distinguishing a teacher from his pupils. In the Talmudic era [AD 70-AD 500], the term “rab” was used chiefly of Babylonian teachers and “rabbi” of Palestinian teachers.
In the NT rabbi was simply an honorific title which did not indicate any official appointment; it was applied to teachers of the Law in general. The term occurs only in Matthew, Mark, and John. Jesus asserted that the scribes and Pharisees loved to be called rabbi, and that his followers were not to be so called (Matt 23:7-8). John the Baptist’s disciples called him rabbi (John 3:26), but in all other instances the term is ascribed to Jesus. The Gospel of John interprets rabbi to mean teacher (John 1:38; 3:2; “rabboni,” 20:16).
Jesus being called rabbi by his disciples and others indicates that he conducted himself in a manner similar to the scribes. He based his teachings on scripture, and his disciples regarded him as their teacher. However, he differed from the scribes in that he did not teach or develop traditional material, but instead taught as one who had intrinsic authority. His disciple did not become rabbis themselves, instead they remained as disciples with Jesus as their teacher and Lord.
Other early Christian writings do not call Jesus rabbi; as the Palestinian tradition became less prominent, other christological titles supplanted the term rabbi.

From Henry Wansborough’s Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (p. 186):

In all four Gospels Jesus is addressed as διδάσκαλε (didaskale), ‘teacher!’ As the synonymous parallelism in Mt. 23.8 hows, the vocative of διδάσκαλος (didaskalos) translates the Hebrew/Aramaic address רבי (rabbi), which originally meant ‘my great one’. In an explanatory statement Jn 1.38 expressly makes this identification, which is corroborated by some epigraphical evidence (CII, II, 1266, 1268/9) from pre-70 AD Jerusalem. In the first century AD rabbi was not a fixed title for an academically trained and ordained scribe as it became later and has remained until the present day. The actual address, rabbi, was used mainly, though not exclusively, for a teacher. The Gospels reflect accurately this usage, which apparently began to change with the rabbinic reconstruction of Judaism after the end of the first century AD. Rabbi as a formal title with the personal suffix losing its significance is first attested in the Jewish necropolis of Beth Shearim starting in the second century AD. So, which term was used when Jesus was spoken of as ‘the teacher’ (e.g. Mk. 14.14 par.) with the definite article? Since מלמד (malmad) was rather used for an elementary teacher it seems after the discoveries in Qumran that here the appropriate equivalent is המרה (ha-Moreh).

Also note pp. 170-171 of Sigalit Ben-Zion’s A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony Among Priests, Sages and Laymen and Catherine Hezser’s The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, particularly p. 59:

Since Jesus was called “Rabbi” but did not conform to the traditional image of post-70 Jewish rabbis, and since pre-70 sages do not bear the title “Rabbi” in the Mishnah, most scholars assume that the meaning and usage of the term “Rabbi” at the time of Jesus differed from the meaning which it acquired after the destruction of the Temple: in pre-70 times, “Rabbi” was used as an unofficial honorary address for any person held in high esteem; after 70 it was almost exclusively applied to ordained teachers of the Law.

Good thing Christ didn’t give the world the English language.

 

[dennyboo]

What are you talking about?
I am not opposing anything but simply stating the truth that the Bible “is not the fullness of truth”
Tradition completes this “truth” but in no way opposes scripture.

What am I talking about?
Whenever the word “fullness” is used it is necessary that we distinguish its theological nuances from its secular usages.
Your statement does not stand alone nor can it.
“Fullness of truth” is not a mere quantitative expression.
I refer you to two reference works: Verbum Dei and Sacramentum Dei You will likely find both publications address the issue we disagree on much better than I could hope to.
I don’t intend to offend you.

 

[sennincatholic]

What am I talking about?
Whenever the word “fullness” is used it is necessary that we distinguish its theological nuances from its secular usages.
Your statement does not stand alone nor can it.
“Fullness of truth” is not a mere quantitative expression.
I refer you to two reference works: Verbum Dei and Sacramentum Dei You will likely find both publications address the issue we disagree on much better than I could hope to.
I don’t intend to offend you.

:doh2: I probably misused the term “fullness of truth” as you suggested and I will read the documents you’ve referred me to.Maybe I am missing out something.But the point I wanted to make earlier is Christ did not leave us a Bible.He left us a Church.I hope you have no problem with that.