Why was Jesus not educated...?

[dogsgod]

Socrates had known contemporaries, Jesus did not. You're comparing apples to oranges and you should know better, or maybe you just simply don't know better.

 

[Oberon]

Socrates had known contemporaries, Jesus did not. You're comparing apples to oranges and you should know better, or maybe you just simply don't know better.

Paul was a known contemporary. He probably didn't know Jesus, but he did know Jesus' family. That alone is enough to determine historicity.

And how exactly can you determine that Socrates had contemporaries who knew him? After all, the sources are so vastly different. Will the real Socrates please stand up? How is it likely that, if Xenophan and Plato really knew him, they painted such different pictures of him? Not to mention Aristophanes (and we can't count Aristotle, he was just Plato's student). And furthermore, it isn't as if they were writing biographies. Plato has Socrates engaged in full dialogues for which Plato isn't present. And Aristophanes was writing plays, for crying out loud. So not only do our sources clearly disagree (which is strange, if they really knew Socrates), they aren't even histories!

When you look at all of history using the methodology of the mythicists, evidence for anything and everything quickly evaporates.

 

[dogsgod]

we might as well discard any historicity of the man then. the question was obviously posed about Jesus of the Christian scriptures, 'the son of god' as it were.
furthermore, its possible that your brand of scholarship of early Christianity downplays the fierce passion for Torah study. which I believe Jews always had.

You don't have to accept all of the evidence concerning the life of Jesus to construct a historical Jesus. That's the point of the quest for the historical Jesus - to find a glimpse of him in literature that is divorced from him.

One quite obvious thing about the historical Jesus is that he was a poor person in Roman Palestine. As such, when we see ancient or modern interpretations of the historical Jesus which deviates significantly from the historicity of any other poor person in Roman Palestine, then we can disregard that piece.

OK, so we have this profile that an historical Jesus should fit might there be one, and then as we read of this Jesus in the gospels we discard information about the gospel Jesus that does not fit this profile. Is there a point to this exercise? What does it prove if anything? It seems like a backwards way of going about discovery, like chasing someone's foregone conclusion.

FBI agent talking, "Well, he doesn't fit the profile of the guy we're looking for, but if we discard the fact that he can read, and a few other details, he's our man."

 

[Oberon]

OK, so we have this profile that an historical Jesus should fit might there be one, and then as we read of this Jesus in the gospels we discard information about the gospel Jesus that does not fit this profile. Is there a point to this exercise? What does it prove if anything? It seems like a backwards way of going about discovery, like chasing someone's foregone conclusion.

FBI agent talking, "Well, he doesn't fit the profile of the guy we're looking for, but if we discard the fact that he can read, and a few other details, he's our man."

Had you spent more time reading historical Jesus scholarship, you would know that this isn't how it is done. One starts with standard historical methods (criterion of multiple attestestation, criterion of coherence, etc) and uses these to examine the sources. The criteria are used to determine what is more likely to be true. For example, we know that miracles are, by definition, highly improbable. So we can safely conclude that the historical Jesus didn't walk on water. We also know, however, that throughout time various people have done things interpreted as magic and miracles, and have been historical, so this isn't precluded. It is also attested to independently in Josephus, Mark, and John. Such a figure would also cohere well within first century judaism. Hence, that Jesus was thought to cure the sick and cast out demons is highly likely.

In other words, you don't start with a sketch and then see what fits. You start with methodology.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Does Myth not mean untrue?

Why do certain myths exist in the first place?

Myths are a kind of narrative, I think.

 

[dogsgod]

Why do certain myths exist in the first place?

Myths are a kind of narrative, I think.

Humans by nature tell stories, it's a big part of who we are. Fairy tales and myths are a means of expressing truths about the human condition, and far more effective than simply rattling off a list of facts.

 

[dogsgod]

Had you spent more time reading historical Jesus scholarship, you would know that this isn't how it is done.

I was criticizing angellous evangicall's method, if you spent more time honing your comprehension skills you might have picked up on that.

 

[Oberon]

I was criticizing angellous evangicall's method, if you spent more time honing your comprehension skills you might have picked up on that.

Oh I did. But either you didn't understand what he said or don't care to actually address it. He was referring to a common criterion: once you establish something about a historical figure given particular methods, then what doesn't fit is likely not to be historical. It is clear from multiple attestation and other criteria that Jesus was a first century jew living in what is now palestine. So, as angellous said, what doesn't fit into this picture is a priori likely to be false.

What angellous did not say is "construct a historical Jesus then look at the sources."

 

[dogsgod]

Oh I did. But either you didn't understand what he said or don't care to actually address it. He was referring to a common criterion: once you establish something about a historical figure given particular methods, then what doesn't fit is likely not to be historical. It is clear from multiple attestation and other criteria that Jesus was a first century jew living in what is now palestine. So, as angellous said, what doesn't fit into this picture is a priori likely to be false.

What angellous did not say is "construct a historical Jesus then look at the sources."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

um you stated he was only talking to those around him...
I would argue he was discussing things that would be relivant generations later
so really your proposal was false.... given the context it was in

I think as far as biblically speaking it can be interpreted as a little of both. The biblical Jesus' message appears to be for the benefit of those whom he considered lost. It appears his message was directed at those in his day and time. He explicitly says this (Mark 15:24) but there are verses throughout the 4 gospels where he speaks of things that are set in the future that will happen.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Does this have to be another debate as whether the biblical or supposed 1st century Yeshua existed or not...? This thread starts out with the premise that he does.

 

[Oberon]

This thread starts out with the premise that he does.

Not really. At least not from the view of the member starting the thread:

Obviously Jesus never existed...

 

[dogsgod]

Does this have to be another debate as whether the biblical or supposed 1st century Yeshua existed or not...? This thread starts out with the premise that he does.

I think that references to the gospels in this thread demonstrated that the Jesus of the gospels was educated, but the question as to why he didn't feel the need to write is difficult to answer. Aside from that, it appears someone or a number of people did write a collection of sayings referred to as Q.

 

[Oberon]

I think that references to the gospels in this thread demonstrated that the Jesus of the gospels was educated, but the question as to why he didn't feel the need to write is difficult to answer.

Even if one accepted that Jesus could read and write, the fact that he likely did not would hardly be difficult to answer. He lived in a primarily oral culture where, even amongst the roman or greek elites, writing had been viewed with suspicion for centuries (at least as far as a valid way for transmitting truth) whereas oral transmission was a tried and true method for passing along one's message.

Aside from that, it appears someone or a number of people did write a collection of sayings referred to as Q.

It is still unknown whether or not Q was ever written. See e.g. Jeremias, J. (1980). "Zur Hyothese einer schritlichen Logienquelle Q." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29.

 

[dogsgod]

From the passages we read in the gospels this Jesus certainly did not view the written word with suspicion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Even if one accepted that Jesus could read and write, the fact that he likely did not would hardly be difficult to answer. He lived in a primarily oral culture where, even amongst the roman or greek elites, writing had been viewed with suspicion for centuries (at least as far as a valid way for transmitting truth) whereas oral transmission was a tried and true method for passing along one's message.

I think this has some weight to it. This has never really been a concern to me whether he wrote anything or not and I wouldn't expect him to have. If the "historical" Yeshua was on the move spreading his message from city to city and from isle to isle I wouldn't expect him to chronicle his journeys.

 

[dogsgod]

I think this has some weight to it. This has never really been a concern to me whether he wrote anything or not and I wouldn't expect him to have. If the "historical" Yeshua was on the move spreading his message from city to city and from isle to isle I wouldn't expect him to chronicle his journeys.

You would think that someone in his entourage would have felt the need to write his words down. Tradition has it that the gospels were written by disciples though not the case and considering the number of gospels as well as the numerous non canonical gospels, a lot of people felt the need to write things down, just not Jesus himself nor any one else while he was alive.

 

[search the scriptures]

"Why was the son of god not educated? Or do you beleive he was?"

Job 36:22 Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?

Isa 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

"Also why did he not see or feel the need to record his teachings?"

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which isthe Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

he did.

 

[Oberon]

You would think that someone in his entourage would have felt the need to write his words down.

Why would they?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You would think that someone in his entourage would have felt the need to write his words down. Tradition has it that the gospels were written by disciples though not the case and considering the number of gospels as well as the numerous non canonical gospels, a lot of people felt the need to write things down, just not Jesus himself nor any one else while he was alive.

Yep this is why it's not surprising to me the "he" never wrote anything but does strike me as kind of odd that none of his contemporaries did.