Why no scribes with Jesus?

[in_servitude]

A thought occurred to me today. For some religions, all must be found in scripture - except for the trilogy, and maybe a few more things. If scripture was going to be the sole foundation for His church, it would make sense that he would have scribes taking notes along the way. Why ascend without a text to lead His people forward?

in servitude to our Master

 

[TimothyH]

Scribes were the ancient equivalent of modern day bookkeepers and paralegals. Scribes were not free. They were paid employees.

Prophets did not have scribes.

-Tim-

 

[bmullins]

I think it’s also important to note that Jesus was trying to get them out of hollow law, and into the law of the spirit. The Scribes in a way were the epitome of what Jesus was trying to get them to avoid.

 

[Little_Mary]

I think it’s also important to note that Jesus was trying to get them out of hollow law, and into the law of the spirit. The Scribes in a way were the epitome of what Jesus was trying to get them to avoid.

Never looked at it that way. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[bmullins]

Never looked at it that way. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

First I want to quantify that not all scribes were bad people. There were likely very spiritual people who fell into this category as well. The scribe, however, was someone who was known for knowing the exact letter of the law. They were counted on for making determinations, knowing the law well enough to help make judgement, and for copying and transcribing documents. Much of their major concern was not the ‘heart’ of the law, but knowing exactly, word for word what the law says.

There was no concern for the motivation behind something, solely that the law said “This in this situation, this in another.” The scribe was often less concerned with spiritual aspects of the law, and only concerned with legal aspects. Today we would call them ‘lawyers’. They were extremely concerned with accuracy in documents, to the point if a letter touched, or if there were three errors in the entire document it must be scratched and started over.

While we likely owe a great deal of the transmission of the Torah accurately to the scribes, we also see that this particular method of viewing God’s word as a strict, legal document often leads one to see only the law, and not the Spirit behind it.

A point to note, in the story of the Epiphany (how apropos that this is the week of that) the magi come to Herod, who then consults the scribes and Pharisees. They immediately can quote word for word the prophecy concerning Jesus. These legal scholars, studied men who can quote word for word with amazing accuracy their religious texts do not notice that it’s being fulfilled. While the magi, gentiles from the east find it being displayed right before them.

 

[rebeccanew]

If it would have been the best way to spread the word you can be sure that Jesus would have had a scribe as a disciple. Jesus, I trust in you.

 

[Crumpy]

A thought occurred to me today. For some religions, all must be found in scripture - except for the trilogy, and maybe a few more things. If scripture was going to be the sole foundation for His church, it would make sense that he would have scribes taking notes along the way. Why ascend without a text to lead His people forward?

in servitude to our Master

Trilogy? maybe you meant the “Trinity” – ?

Exactamundo. Jesus didn’t write a book or tell anybody to write anything. Good observation. Instead, he formed the Church which was the vehicle for spreading the Gospel.

He said that he would not teach the apostles everything, but that when he was gone, he would send the Spirit who would teach them all they needed to know.

This is explained in very good fashion in a book called Tradition and the Church, by Msgr George Agius. Agius points out that the church was spreading and the gospel was being preached without the new testament books.

The new testament books were icing on the cake, to record some of the teachings of the apostles and the early church. Agius says it was God’s will to give us the New Testament, but that it surely wasn’t needed to get the Church started.

What Jesus started was a tradition, a holy tradition, a Sacred Tradition (as the Church calls it). In a tradition the teaching is passed from one person to the next. The mark of authority in the infant church was who you listened to and who you followed.

So, apostolic preaching was the most authoritative and then was followed by the teaching of those who learned directly from the apostles, etc.

Your initial observation is correct and it was a deliberate thing that Jesus did. Always remember, the will of God is perfect.

 

[in_servitude]

Trilogy? maybe you meant the “Trinity” – ?

…

What Jesus started was a tradition, a holy tradition, a Sacred Tradition (as the Church calls it). In a tradition the teaching is passed from one person to the next. The mark of authority in the infant church was who you listened to and who you followed.

So, apostolic preaching was the most authoritative and then was followed by the teaching of those who learned directly from the apostles, etc.

Your initial observation is correct and it was a deliberate thing that Jesus did. Always remember, the will of God is perfect.

RE: Trilogy - yup - massive egg on face - sorry about that.

RE: Sacred Tradition - I like this perspective. Therefore, I seems that it was most critical that Jesus was establishing His Church and Sacred Tradition. When we subtract the Church and just go with the Word - we perhaps lose much of what Jesus built with His time among us. Also, I think that the Church teaches that everyone is given the Word even if they do not receive it through reading or hearing the Bible. That would add weight to your observations.

 

[Ranp]

A thought occurred to me today. For some religions, all must be found in scripture - except for the trilogy, and maybe a few more things. If scripture was going to be the sole foundation for His church, it would make sense that he would have scribes taking notes along the way. Why ascend without a text to lead His people forward?

in servitude to our Master

The Catholic Church is based not only upon the teachings of Jesus Christ but also upon the authority received from Jesus Christ. Such authority cannot come from written text, it had to come directly from God. That is why Protestants don’t have the same authority as the Catholic Church. Protestants have read the Bible for the last 450 years but the authority is just not there. I love the following quote from the late Monsignor George Agius.

Ultimately, the Church is what it is, not because Matthew, John, or Paul or any Apostle has written it, but because Christ commanded it. The Apostles had their authority and were using it, and the Church was doing its work, years before a word of the New Testament was written
-Monsignor George Agius, Tradition and the Chruch, 1928.

Ran Pleasant

 

[AmbroseSJ]

A thought occurred to me today. For some religions, all must be found in scripture - except for the trilogy, and maybe a few more things. If scripture was going to be the sole foundation for His church, it would make sense that he would have scribes taking notes along the way. Why ascend without a text to lead His people forward?

in servitude to our Master

If you were a king, and were leaving your kingdom for a little while, would you leave a person in your place until you returned or a book?