Why didn't Jesus write anything down?

[TimothyIgnatius]

Yes, I know all about early Christian oral tradition. Yes, I know the vast majority of people during the time of Christ were illiterate. That being said, I’m wondering about a few things.

Since Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man, wouldn’t he have knowledge of how to write, because of his divinity?

If not, why didn’t he choose a literate scribe to be one of his disciples? They (literate persons) may have been in the minority, but there were scribes and historians who could have recorded Jesus’ teachings as he said them.

Part of the reason why I’m wondering about this is I’m confused as to why Jesus would leave his message to such chance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we understand that the Bible was written at least a couple decades after Jesus had died and been resurrected. I’ve often heard the description “eye-witnesses” or “near eye-witnesses.” What I can’t wrap my head around is why God would leave his word up to the interpretation of men. Assuming that it was feasible (and by all accounts it should have been) it would have been logical to record Jesus’ words as they were spoken, so as to avoid corruption.

Another way to pose my question might be why animating the writers of the Bible with the Holy Spirit was a better way of preserving the teachings of Christ than actually having someone write down what he said as he said them.

 

[bzkoss236]

What I can’t wrap my head around is why God would leave his word up to the interpretation of men.

He didn’t… God gave us the Church, founded by Christ, as the pillar and foundation of truth. It was this Church that gave us the Bible, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church’s interpretation of scripture is an interpretation of its own book. And its interpretation is also guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

He didn’t… God gave us the Church, founded by Christ, as the pillar and foundation of truth. It was this Church that gave us the Bible, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church’s interpretation of scripture is an interpretation of its own book. And its interpretation is also guided by the Holy Spirit.

Another way to pose my question might be why animating the writers of the Bible with the Holy Spirit was a better way of preserving the teachings of Christ than actually having someone write down what he said as he said them.

 

[PJD1987]

If not, why didn’t he choose a literate scribe to be one of his disciples?

He did choose literate disciples. Matthew was a tax collector, certainly a literate man, and guess who wrote a Gospel? Many were fishermen and presumably had enough knowledge to sell their goods in market, which requires some degree of literacy.

I think to presume all disciples were illiterate is selling them short. Sure they were not “successful” worldly men, but I think they were literate enough to get by, and some more than others (i.e. Matthew), clearly at least John and Matthew were literate enough to write Gospels and Epistles.

 

[allhers]

He wrote on the ground once and everyone left.
After that He just told people and they remembered and passed it along. Oral tradition.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

He did choose literate disciples. Matthew was a tax collector, certainly a literate man, and guess who wrote a Gospel? Many were fishermen and presumably had enough knowledge to sell their goods in market, which requires some degree of literacy.

I think to presume all disciples were illiterate is selling them short. Sure they were not “successful” worldly men, but I think they were literate enough to get by, and some more than others (i.e. Matthew), clearly at least John and Matthew were literate enough to write Gospels and Epistles.

He wrote on the ground once and everyone left.
After that He just told people and they remembered and passed it along. Oral tradition.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but these posts do little to satiate my desire for understanding.

So some of the disciples may have been literate; why were none of them staked to write down transcripts of Jesus’ sermons as he gave them? Also, I’m not sure that Matthew the disciple is the author of the book of Matthew. Please provide a source for this claim, if you are to maintain that it is true.

Why was oral tradition enough, especially considering the facts that a) Jesus had divine knowledge and was therefore literate, and b) Jesus had access to those who could scribe his words for him (really, it would have been for us).

 

[GWright]

At the time of Christ, Jewish literacy rates were very low, the best estimates are only about 3%, mostly concentrated among urban centres.

It makes sense then that Christs ministry was therefore often spent travelling, meeting people and spreading his message via speech and example. Writing a book would have not been a successful way to convert people, as mostly they would have been unable to read it.

And if he wanted to record something for future generations, then his reputation would have been far less, as he would have had less time to be among the people, (busy writing / editing), and so then who would even want to read the book?

For me, it makes perfect sense that early Christianity was an oral tradition.

Some of the apostles later wrote the gospels; it makes sense that at least some of they would have been literate, as their former occupations included a tax-collector and fishermen (collecting tax obviously requires literacy/numeracy, and working in a family fishing business implies the same, in order to run the business properly. Also, a self-employed (small business) persons wealth could have meant they could have bought access to education.)

See here for the literacy info:

(I cant vouch for the origin or Catholicity of these links, I only quote them for the literacy info alone)

blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/bart-ehrman-on-literacy-in-the-first-century/

faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

 

[bzkoss236]

That would be a question for God to answer, since it was His will to do it that way.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

It makes sense then that Christs ministry was therefore often spent travelling, meeting people and spreading his message via speech and example. Writing a book would have not been a successful way to convert people, as mostly they would have been unable to read it.

And if he wanted to record something for future generations, then his reputation would have been far less, as he would have had less time to be among the people, (busy writing / editing), and so then who would even want to read the book?

For me, it makes perfect sense that early Christianity was an oral tradition.

Hmm, this is interesting, you make good points. But I’m still struggling. He could have had someone else record his words for him. I mean, this is God incarnate we speak of, he could have snapped his fingers and had the book done in an instant (much less miraculous, I would imagine, than raising his friend from the dead), and left the book to his disciples.

Can someone provide me with sources for the claims that some of the apostles were actual writers of the gospels? I may certainly be wrong (I am often) but it was always my understanding that we only have vague ideas and much uncertainty about the authors of the Bible, and that it may have been a collaborative effort, etc.

 

[PJD1987]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but these posts do little to satiate my desire for understanding.

So some of the disciples may have been literate; why were none of them staked to write down transcripts of Jesus’ sermons as he gave them? Also, I’m not sure that Matthew the disciple is the author of the book of Matthew. Please provide a source for this claim, if you are to maintain that it is true.

Why was oral tradition enough, especially considering the facts that a) Jesus had divine knowledge and was therefore literate, and b) Jesus had access to those who could scribe his words for him (really, it would have been for us).

I’m sorry that my response does little to satiate your desire for understanding. However, the Tradition of the Church has always been that Matthew the Apostle is the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Just as it is stated that the Apostle John is the author of the Gospel of John, The Letters of John, and The Apocalypse.

As with everything since the 19th Century Kulturkampf and “Enlightment” periods trying to “rediscover” the “historical Jesus” there is plenty of “scholarship” that has bones to pick with the idea of authorship of certain books of the Bible. The Tradition of the Church, however still is what it is. The idea that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by Matthew originated in the early 2nd Century, many centuries before these more “enlightened scholars” began to come up with their theories, and much closer to the source in time and space.

Also, the Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written by a company of Peter and Paul who wrote very much like a court stenographer would as he listened to Peter preach. This accounts for the “choppiness” and brevity of Mark’s Gospel.

At a certain point it comes down to faith, and one is free to believe whatever one wants to believe. As for me, I believe those closest to the source rather than those in the 19th and 20th century with a political agenda.

In any case, I do not see any credible evidence to believe that the words recorded by the Gospel writers, whether they be eyewitnesses or not, are NOT the words of Jesus as He spoke them.

 

[georget]

Such a mystery, is it not? I think he did leave his wishes behind though, written in our minds and hearts, It’s up to us whether we listen or not.There is enough written in the gospels for us to follow I believe. It use to bother me a bit but not anymore,I figure if this is God’s will, who am I to question the creator of the universe. I’m sure there are folks here who can answer your questions better. Good look on your search.
God Bless

 

[GWright]

He could have had someone else record his words for him.

True, but then the apostles followed him to be made fishers of men, not secretaries or PAs! I don’t think following Christ to be a scribe would have appealed, and in any case surely the Apostles had to be a full and active part of ministry (not scribbling on the sidelines) - in order to learn themselves - if they were to carry on and spread the tradition?

Ultimately other people did record His words for Him, after his death, in the gospels.

I mean, this is God incarnate we speak of, he could have snapped his fingers and had the book done in an instant (much less miraculous, I would imagine, than raising his friend from the dead), and left the book to his disciples…

I agree, but what is notable about Christ lifetime is that none of his miraculous works were ever carried out for His own advantage, or simply to impress people / make a point, or to make life easier for Himself. What you describe would have been too easy.

He knew the difficulties and trials He would face in his lifetime, and yet never shirked any of them. Nor did He ever use his power for an easy life or to take short-cuts. The challenge of winning people over had to be accomplished through meeting them face-to-face and giving them teaching and example, not by simply miraculously “making it so”.

As for simply just ‘leaving them a book’ - if that is sufficient, why the need for the life Christ at all then? Why not just have the book drop down from heaven?

Interesting discussion, but I am off to bed for now (late here),
Cheers
Gwright

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I’m sorry that my response does little to satiate your desire for understanding. However, the Tradition of the Church has always been that Matthew the Apostle is the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Just as it is stated that the Apostle John is the author of the Gospel of John, The Letters of John, and The Apocalypse.

As with everything since the 19th Century Kulturkampf and “Enlightment” periods trying to “rediscover” the “historical Jesus” there is plenty of “scholarship” that has bones to pick with the idea of authorship of certain books of the Bible. The Tradition of the Church, however still is what it is. The idea that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by Matthew originated in the early 2nd Century, many centuries before these more “enlightened scholars” began to come up with their theories, and much closer to the source in time and space.

Also, the Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written by a company of Peter and Paul who wrote very much like a court stenographer would as he listened to Peter preach. This accounts for the “choppiness” and brevity of Mark’s Gospel.

At a certain point it comes down to faith, and one is free to believe whatever one wants to believe. As for me, I believe those closest to the source rather than those in the 19th and 20th century with a political agenda.

In any case, I do not see any credible evidence to believe that the words recorded by the Gospel writers, whether they be eyewitnesses or not, are NOT the words of Jesus as He spoke them.

Thank you for fleshing our your thoughts, indeed your posts have been helpful, I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.

I want to ask you something in regard to what I’ve bolded of your post. I admire your faith, truly it is strong. Part of the reason doubt has crept into my mind is because of how oral tradition functions. Over time, the story can changed, based on who’s telling it. For example, have you ever played the game “telephone,” with a large group of people? For those unfamiliar, you get in a circle or a line and the person at the beginning whispers some sort of statement into the ear of the person standing next to them. Then the person who got whispered to does the same, until we reach the end of the line. Then it is revealed to the group what the statement started as and what it ended as. Often, it starts with something like “apples are red and delicious” and ends with “oranges are filled with citrus juice.”

I also wonder about things like the fact that Peter and Paul famously disagreed, Peter having been an eye-witness disciple and Paul never having met Jesus at all.

Such a mystery, is it not? I think he did leave his wishes behind though, written in our minds and hearts, It’s up to us whether we listen or not.There is enough written in the gospels for us to follow I believe. It use to bother me a bit but not anymore,I figure if this is God’s will, who am I to question the creator of the universe. I’m sure there are folks here who can answer your questions better. Good look on your search.
God Bless

Indeed it is a mystery. Perhaps your humbleness is the best example on how to properly conclude my search.

 

[LittleDavid]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but these posts do little to satiate my desire for understanding.

So some of the disciples may have been literate; why were none of them staked to write down transcripts of Jesus’ sermons as he gave them? Also, I’m not sure that Matthew the disciple is the author of the book of Matthew. Please provide a source for this claim, if you are to maintain that it is true.

Why was oral tradition enough, especially considering the facts that a) Jesus had divine knowledge and was therefore literate, and b) Jesus had access to those who could scribe his words for him (really, it would have been for us).

You would enjoy reading “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman, and “Forged” by the same author. Read the books, or listen to his lecture about them on YouTube, tell me what you think.

 

[allhers]

Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible, He left us His Church. The Catholic Church compiled the writings that became the Bible.
He choose those men for a reason.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus didn’t write anything or use any other means to communicate His message because the truth shines by its own light. If an atheist like Richard Dawkins can recognise the value of the Sermon on the Mount why do we need further evidence?

 

[PJD1987]

Thank you for fleshing our your thoughts, indeed your posts have been helpful, I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.

I want to ask you something in regard to what I’ve bolded of your post. I admire your faith, truly it is strong. Part of the reason doubt has crept into my mind is because of how oral tradition functions. Over time, the story can changed, based on who’s telling it. For example, have you ever played the game “telephone,” with a large group of people? For those unfamiliar, you get in a circle or a line and the person at the beginning whispers some sort of statement into the ear of the person standing next to them. Then the person who got whispered to does the same, until we reach the end of the line. Then it is revealed to the group what the statement started as and what it ended as. Often, it starts with something like “apples are red and delicious” and ends with “oranges are filled with citrus juice.”

I also wonder about things like the fact that Peter and Paul famously disagreed, Peter having been an eye-witness disciple and Paul never having met Jesus at all.

I think it’s important to remember that we’re not talking about a 2,000 year old game of telephone. These were devout followers, the first Christians, many of them martyrs who died for the faith. The would want to accurately preserve what their Messiah had said. So I find it very unlikely that a 2,000 year old version of the telephone game is what transpired here. It’s hard to make a comparison, but I suppose if you try to remember the most important thing anyone ever said to you, a mentor/teacher/parents/relative, or whatnot, obviously that is embedded in your memory and you’re not likely to forget it, they are transformative encounters and events that leave a mark on you, I think that is a more likely comparison than the telephone game.

Also, the disagreement between Paul and Peter is one of the favorites of anti-Catholics or non-Catholics to point out, and has been discussed ad nauseum on many different occasions so if you’re looking for more information on that particular situation, I would suggest searching for it on the forum and finding a thorough discussion of it that has already taken place (rather than rehashing it all here).

In any case, as I said, it comes down to faith as many things do and thus anything I say may or may not be helpful. The best thing to do and what I always tell everyone else is to look for the answers. The Catholic Church doesn’t hide from anything, all the answers are there for one who searches with a humble heart.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Charlemagne_II]

He was too busy preaching and teaching! The main message was recorded by others for posterity.

 

[miguel]

…Part of the reason why I’m wondering about this is I’m confused as to why Jesus would leave his message to such chance…

Jesus is God. “Who is he that the wind and sea obey him?” If he wants his message to get out correctly, he’s God…not a problem. If he entrusted the human authors of sacred scripture to “write what he wanted written and no more,” why is that a problem? If he entrusted his church to the human apostles and their human successors, who are we to question? Our job is to have faith that he knows what he’s doing. “Be still and know that I am God.”

 

[Fisha]

I used to wonder that too…

But then I said I would follow Christ. And then I saw how busy He and the Apostles were!

I believe everything happens for a reason through God’s Will.

I wish it would’ve stayed oral. Then there wouldn’t be so much confusion with language. But then again. Maybe Deus wanted it that way.
Pax