thormas

 

Proof? Corroborating evidence perhaps?

Do we even have a Biblical claim that Jesus was literate?

 

One of the concerns I have is that we have little contemporary historical evidence of Jesus's existence. OK we can take the various Gospels etc as evidence but the evidence is a little circular. Also a similar argument can be advanced regarding other historical characters; we might be a little circumspect about them too. So for me the questions becomes how literally should we take the New Testament ... if at all? While the historicity of the Jesus is an interesting debate, to me a more interesting question becomes what were the later scribes trying to say or were they just trying to document the history they inherited?

Rom,

Perhaps you misread. Jen believes that jesus was literate, I allow for the possibility in that we will simply never know - but given the work I cited, the probability is very slim (1% or less) that he was. I lean to the opinion that he was not literate.

As for the existence of Jesus, there are external sources and I refer you to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The answer from this agnostic, biblical scholar and historian is a resounding, Yes!

And back to me:

Jen,

My comment about referring to theologians as opposed to biblical scholars when discussing NT passages was about how I operate; I was not pointing out the difference to you. In addition, I too have a Masters in Theology and bookshelves filled with the same kinds of books.

Again, stating that Jesus was an actual (and wealthy) physician is, I believe, a misreading of the text. Therefore, because it is appears a 'reading into' what is not in the text and because I don't believe this claim has ever been heard, or hinted at, by a critical biblical scholar or historian of Early Christianity, I considered it a guess. There is scholarly consensus on some factual claims we can make of Jesus, for example: he existed, he was a Jew, he came from Galilee, he was crucified, etc. Then there are positions that come as a result of 'critical' scholarly research and scholars 'test' these positions against the work and opinions of other equally competent scholars. It is also the case that some positions seem 'more correct' than others - while other positions seem questionable and can be critiqued or even discredited by the weight of scholarly research and/or historical evidence.

As an example, a solid number of critical scholars have stated that Jesus is best understood as an Apocalyptic Prophet, others that Jesus is best understood as Savior - while other writers presented Jesus as a Myth. The first two positions, while they differ in various areas and even on the best summary understanding of Jesus are more biblically and historically based than the latter writers. In this case, most scholars or students who read these scholars would consider that some of these opinions are "more correct' than others.

What is the socio-historical research, what is the historical evidence, who are the scholars that hold the interpretation that Jesus was a wealthy physician? And what are opinions of this interpretation in the 'critical' scholarly community?

I would also be interested in how Jesus' encounters with the wealthy young man or the rich man and the eye of the needle square with a wealthy Jesus.

Where we left off at Pistis Christou.

Hi, Thormas. You raise some important points -- points that have been debated by biblical scholars and historians with no clear consensus. There are many clues in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life that indicate he was not the simple Aramaic-speaking carpenter from Galilee that we've been told to see. Paul, of course, is of no help when it comes to the life of the historical Jesus.

 

The Gospel of Mark is especially rich in small details that aren't obvious to us today, but no doubt were obvious to the audience for whom Mark wrote. Authorship and dating of all the gospels is also not as clear as we might like, but I find the evidence for an early date for Mark -- early to mid 60's -- compelling.

 

In Mark, we have Jesus described in two ways: as a physician (Mark 2:17) and as a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Theologians have chosen to see the second reference as a literal description and the first reference as a symbolic description. But are you certain the theologians are correct? If the theologians are correct, then how do they account for the family of Jesus described in Mark 6:1-5? A first century Jewish family with four surviving sons, an unknown number of sisters, and a widowed mother who had not remarried almost certainly describes a wealthy family with resources and good nutrition, since the average lifespan of a 1st century Mediterranean male was about 35 years, many children were lost to death or slavery early in life, and there was tremendous pressure of Jewish widows to remarry unless they were fortunate enough to have personal means, societal influence, and the protection of Augustus' marriage law reforms (which were all too brief).

 

This is just one example. There are other examples which, when added together, imply that Jesus was born into an educated, wealthy family -- in which case, he almost certainly was literate. Who do we imagine wrote the parables? These are short but brilliant works of literature that demonstrate an in-depth understanding of both Jewish and Hellenistic rhetorical devices.

 

It cannot be stated that Jesus didn't write anything down. Many assume Jesus was only the carpenter and not the physician (though I don't see any reason why he couldn't have been both). The case for Jesus' having been exactly what Mark said he was -- a physician -- increases the likelihood that Jesus was both educated and literate.

My response:

Jen,

Mark 2:17 - this is not a question of a Markan passage not being 'obvious' to modern people, it is a misunderstanding of the text: Jesus is not self identifying as a physician, it is about who 'He' comes for: sinners. I have actually never heard this interpretation by anyone, but especially not by critical biblical scholars. When talking about the bible, I am not referring to theologians but biblical scholars and there is no reasonable choice here, it is evident in reading the passage. This seems comparable to the Prodigals Son: the good son is already 'with the Father,' but it is the sinner, the prodigal for whom the Father (comes) waits and celebrates upon his return. So on this, I side with the scholars.

If Jesus was wealthy, what was his or the family business that produced the wealth? What is the source for the answer? If Jesus, the physician, was the breadwinner, why would the family risk everything by turning on him? Then how would that same family survive the loss of his income? He certainly wasn't working during his ministry - anywhere from 1-3 years according to the gospels.

As for the family of Jesus, your description does not automatically point to a wealthy family and 'almost certainly' is a guess not based on reliable evidence. What are the sources and supporting independent evidence in the NT or the writings of Josephus or others to support this suggestion that such a family - if accurately described - would need to be wealthy to survive? We don't know how many sisters, we know of other NT brothers who made a living as fisherman and were not rich (and don't know if they came from large family also), we don't know when Joseph died or when the other sisters or brothers were married, thus shrinking the size of the family.

This is not an example, it is guess work, and I doubt there are other examples that are reliable. Guesses are fine and your right, but these are not based on dependable research or an understanding of the history of the region during the time of Jesus. Who was invading Roman territory to take people as slaves? And the Romans would leave people alone unless they were regarded as troublemakers (evident in treatment of the Zealots, Jesus himself as a 'rival king" and the execution of other 'messiahs' and the Jewish population during the Jewish Wars). This simply does not ring true.

As for Jesus being literate, perhaps, but the odds were against it. However, this is not to say he was not a very bright, even a brilliant?, insightful man, steeped in the faith of his people and standing on the shoulders of those who came before him. As to who wrote the parables, the only ones we have are found in the NT so, the gospel writers. However, I believe scholars trace them and/or there use back to Jesus.

I refer you to Bart Ehrman's blog and this posting on literacy: https://ehrmanblog.o...-from-the-past/. He refers to a full length study, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine: total literacy in Palestine was probably around 3%; those who were literate were largely located in urban areas; some villages and towns had literacy rates of lower than 1%.

We have nothing Jesus wrote, so we cannot prove he did (didn't) write anything but given the literacy rate, the odds are against it. I think, even if he could, he was too busy especially if his ministry was only 1 year.

Jen's response:

Just to be clear so you know where I'm coming from in my statements about the historical Jesus . . . please don't feel you need to point out to me the difference between biblical scholars and theologians. I have a recent Masters degree in theological studies from a reputable Canadian university, and my bookshelves are groaning with biblical studies texts (including many of Ehrmans's), as well as theology tomes, ancient history texts, the entire 2014 5-volume New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, many issues of Biblical Archaeology Review (which is the only magazine I subscribe to!), and right now I'm eagerly awaiting the delivery of wonderful next book about the history of ancient Samaria. (I hope it arrives today!)

My statements above are not guesswork. They're based on solid socio-historical research. You may not agree with my interpretation of the information available to us at this time, but I'm not going to worry too much about that, since no one interpretation can be said to be "the one correct truth."

I do agree with you, however, when you say that Jesus was "a very bright, even a brilliant?, insightful man, steeped in the faith of his people and standing on the shoulders of those who came before him."

Absolutely.

Jen,

I will move this to the Debate section. I guess I didn't realize there were rules governing the Discussion areas especially since some of those discussions have been disagreements and I never saw a difference from one area to another.

I did what Burl did and lost the post I originally placed her. I will redo it a bit later and create a new topic under Debate, perhaps called Pistis Christou II.

Hi, Thormas. You raise some important points -- points that have been debated by biblical scholars and historians with no clear consensus. There are many clues in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life that indicate he was not the simple Aramaic-speaking carpenter from Galilee that we've been told to see. Paul, of course, is of no help when it comes to the life of the historical Jesus.

 

The Gospel of Mark is especially rich in small details that aren't obvious to us today, but no doubt were obvious to the audience for whom Mark wrote. Authorship and dating of all the gospels is also not as clear as we might like, but I find the evidence for an early date for Mark -- early to mid 60's -- compelling.

 

In Mark, we have Jesus described in two ways: as a physician (Mark 2:17) and as a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Theologians have chosen to see the second reference as a literal description and the first reference as a symbolic description. But are you certain the theologians are correct? If the theologians are correct, then how do they account for the family of Jesus described in Mark 6:1-5? A first century Jewish family with four surviving sons, an unknown number of sisters, and a widowed mother who had not remarried almost certainly describes a wealthy family with resources and good nutrition, since the average lifespan of a 1st century Mediterranean male was about 35 years, many children were lost to death or slavery early in life, and there was tremendous pressure of Jewish widows to remarry unless they were fortunate enough to have personal means, societal influence, and the protection of Augustus' marriage law reforms (which were all too brief).

 

This is just one example. There are other examples which, when added together, imply that Jesus was born into an educated, wealthy family -- in which case, he almost certainly was literate. Who do we imagine wrote the parables? These are short but brilliant works of literature that demonstrate an in-depth understanding of both Jewish and Hellenistic rhetorical devices.

 

It cannot be stated that Jesus didn't write anything down. Many assume Jesus was only the carpenter and not the physician (though I don't see any reason why he couldn't have been both). The case for Jesus' having been exactly what Mark said he was -- a physician -- increases the likelihood that Jesus was both educated and literate.

Jen,

Mark 2:17 - this is not a question of a Markan passage not being 'obvious' to modern people, it is a misunderstanding of the text: Jesus is not self identifying as a physician, it is about who 'He' comes for: sinners. I have actually never heard this interpretation by anyone, but especially not by critical biblical scholars. When talking about the bible, I am not referring to theologians but biblical scholars and there is no reasonable choice here, it is evident in reading the passage. This seems comparable to the Prodigals Son: the good son is already 'with the Father,' but it is the sinner, the prodigal for whom the Father (comes) waits and celebrates upon his return. So on this, I side with the scholars.

If Jesus was wealthy, what was his or the family business that produced the wealth? What is the source for the answer? If Jesus, the physician, was the breadwinner, why would the family risk everything by turning on him? Then how would that same family survive the loss of his income? He certainly wasn't working during his ministry - anywhere from 1-3 years according to the gospels.

As for the family of Jesus, your description does not automatically point to a wealthy family and 'almost certainly' is a guess not based on reliable evidence. What are the sources and supporting independent evidence in the NT or the writings of Josephus or others to support this suggestion that such a family - if accurately described - would need to be wealthy to survive? We don't know how many sisters, we know of other NT brothers who made a living as fisherman and were not rich (and don't know if they came from large family also), we don't know when Joseph died or when the other sisters or brothers were married, thus shrinking the size of the family.

This is not an example, it is guess work, and I doubt there are other examples that are reliable. Guesses are fine and your right, but these are not based on dependable research or an understanding of the history of the region during the time of Jesus. Who was invading Roman territory to take people as slaves? And the Romans would leave people alone unless they were regarded as troublemakers (evident in treatment of the Zealots, Jesus himself as a 'rival king" and the execution of other 'messiahs' and the Jewish population during the Jewish Wars). This simply does not ring true.

As for Jesus being literate, perhaps, but the odds were against it. However, this is not to say he was not a very bright, even a brilliant?, insightful man, steeped in the faith of his people and standing on the shoulders of those who came before him. As to who wrote the parables, the only ones we have are found in the NT so, the gospel writers. However, I believe scholars trace them and/or there use back to Jesus.

I refer you to Bart Ehrman's blog and this posting on literacy: https://ehrmanblog.org/who-could-read-and-write-a-blast-from-the-past/. He refers to a full length study, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine: total literacy in Palestine was probably around 3%; those who were literate were largely located in urban areas; some villages and towns had literacy rates of lower than 1%.

We have nothing Jesus wrote, so we cannot prove he did (or didn't) write anything but given the literacy rate, the odds are against it. I think, even if he could, he was too busy especially if his ministry was only 1 year.

 

I'm not challenging your faith or your relationship with God (the important stuff, in other words!). But I am challenging a popular belief among today's Christians about Jesus' educational and linguistic skills (or lack thereof). If you hold those same beliefs about Jesus (and you seemed to indicate that you do) then I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

It seems obvious that no one knows what Jesus 'felt' about about the need to write (or not to write) and it also seems obvious that, given the historical evidence available to critical biblical scholars and historians, that he did not write anything. Is there evidence to the contrary? Also, I thought Joseph was just making a comment.

As for the assumptions: Jesus was a 1C CE citizen of his hometown, his language was Aramaic and the probably was educated in the synagogue - are they wrong? Was he raised somewhere else, was he fluent in other languages (such as Latin and Greek), was he literate? I think the 'assumption' for the first two is no and it might be up for grabs about the literacy. If this is not the case, what is the critical scholarly research and historical evidence that shows otherwise?

 

I am not seeking to claim some sort of idiot idea ( ​) that both are the "same", just reporting the words that came to my own mind, and offered for the thoughts of others.

 

As I see it, the "contradictions" involved between Thestic and non-theistic language involve our own "either/or" mindset. Reality is more "both/and".

I don't think it is an "idiot idea" - it rings true.

I like the comment that reality is both/and. I have for quite a long time believed that the Way (for lack of a better description) is One and men find it (or it finds men) it the particularity of their circumstances. So, given those circumstances, some say, what matter is God, while others say, what matters is the goal, the end - the deliverance of mind.

Well and truly said!

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs.

 

Steve

First you say something is 'simply false' and then you attempt a clarification by stating - that it is false should be obvious or self-evident. In other words, it is 'simply false.'

As for beliefs, you have just stated one: existence is not real, to think otherwise is false and (it is obvious that) the nature of things is not supernatural or mystical. This is not a question, it is a statement, a belief statement. It is as much a belief statement as a fundamentalist saying God and his world are real, to think otherwise is false and the true nature of things is found in the supernatural, i.e. God.

As for me, I'm not a clingy kind of guy, but I am curious.

" 'That there is suffering, this I know'

So proclaimed the Buddha"

 

The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things.

 

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations.

 

If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed.

 

Steve

Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others. And the statement, "Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance..." is stated as if it is dogma and to go against it is considered ignorance and, I guess, heresy (wrong opinion).

You point to Buddha's advise for continued study and reflection and mediation but dismiss the same 'need' for other faiths as philosophical or theological speculation - although both these disciplines involve continued study, reflection and mediation or prayer.

To say one is a theist, for example, is not beside any point, it is part and parcel of their faith. It would seem that all human faiths, religions, philosophies or whatever one calls them, including Buddhism, are also 'mere speculation subject to error'

 

I tend to agree with you concerning Job's 'morality tale' and the author's views concerning God in that I am not crazy for it either. At best, to me, the story tells us that bad stuff happens but that that's just the way it is. It happens to the good, the bad, and maybe even the ugly. To think that somehow God is pulling the strings, but to back that up by only saying we can't ever understand why God does these things, doesn't offer me very much at all. Of course the other side of Job seems to be suggesting that one would be rewarded by having faith in God, so there does seem to be a bit of a bias there rather than a completely open and questioning view.

I read Job as, at least, suggesting that evil/suffering can be used by God to test us and/or that God lets evil happen (perhaps by taking a back seat to Satan) but in either case we don't have the right to question God. Doesn't offer me much either. The reward comes eventually in Job but even the faithful are not spared.

I do think there is something to the idea of suffering or evil as happenstance. If the tree falls in the forest and you're under it..................! If you get on plane A rather than plane B because it was delayed and one crashes while the other arrives safely.......................!

Possibly we all engage in the noble art of apologetics at times. To begin with a conclusion and then seek out only that which substantiates it.

 

Having said that, reading the attempts of those who accept that God has for all intents,and purposes ordered genocide and who seek to justify it, even to equate such with the word "love", is for me to witness the corruption of the intellect.

On this 2nd sentence, I pretty much agree with you, although I find it more understandable (forgivable?) in times when, for centuries, believers took the OT literally and had a more 'ancient' world view, less so when we have the tools of biblical and historical scholarship and a modern world view.

There are those who 'begin with a conclusion' insofar as they have a basic faith (for example, God is Love), shared with others, and then try to weight the 'witness' or explanations of the Bible with a modern understanding and arrive at an explanation that resonates for modern man. I do not accept any of the answers of the OT that are presented as reasons for suffering in the world. It is always interesting to me that even though we acknowledge a 'new covenant' that many look for explanation within the writings of the 'old covenant.' I don't think there are 'reasons' for evil given by Jesus - he just 'responds in the moment.' Of course, there is the shared ancient idea of possession by the evil one(s) but his response is (God's) Love and Forgiveness.

As for Luther, for me not a contradiction and perhaps not even a paradox - rather completely human.

Is the author of Job saying we can't know God or is he asking, who are we to question God? If the latter, then it seems the author can, at least, give an opinion.

Who knows if we can or can't 'know' God: some 'believe' we can, others 'believe' we can't. Both are statements of belief. Be that as it may, I for one am not crazy about the view of God in Job and don't have high regard for any of the biblical solutions or views of suffering/evil. Bart Ehrman's book, 'God's Problem' reviews all the biblical views.

.

I agree that one can never fully tap the why of evil and suffering in the world but I disagree that such efforts prevent us from opening to the world and responding in the moment.

For many, even Christians, to look with faith is also not to look with an image of God but to respond with the action of God. One could argue that Jesus made suffering his own but his reality (as perhaps opposed to mere image?) was God as Abba.

I always thought it was absurd to suggest, reflecting on Job, that we cannot question God: we question everything, we make games and TV shows and play guessing games at parties. It is in our 'make up' to question every and anything. I doubt 'God' would have an issue with such questions. And the idea that God tests man is equally absurd. Many think that Job is merely one human attempt to tap into the question of suffering - but not the only one.

As for faith, it is not in things or supposed answers, it is the response.

And so to Buddhism, Christianity and all faiths that respond to Life.

I agree with your take on Job. However I do find fault - or to put it more mildly- I disagree with the author(s) in the understanding of why there is evil in the world and thus their understanding of God.

". . . his and like minded reformations . . . is exactly what I meant by Spongishness. Not Spong personally, but his general direction.

 

Personally, I find rejection of traditional Christianity to be divisive and lazy. It is simply modernized iconoclasm, and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I prefer restoring misplaced meaning to symbols, rites and rituals. That leads to a deepening of faith and understanding between denominations and sects.

 

Read Baylor's Phillip Jenkins for background on world christianity. His classic 'The Next Christendom' is becoming dated, though.

Burl,

Pleaseeeeeeeeee! Like minded reformers in the general direction of Spong divisive and lazy? Lazy is just absurd on its face but especially after a review of some of those who have made such efforts and divisive in already part of Christianity. Not sure how you parse reformation from restoration, for me the best of the reformers are attempting to restore and give new life. I have read and enjoyed a couple of Jenkin's books.

Spongishness?? Really? Is this site, which runs Spong's site and seemingly supports or at least encourages his and like minded 'reformations,' also best characterized and dismissed with a 'ness' - as in Progressivechristianness?

I think Spong is one who is read specifically by many who are not part of any elite. Thus his appeal.

Many everyday Christians/people read Spong - and are hungry for something that will enable them to move beyond what they find inadequate (and perhaps even superstitious) in their own traditions - traditions that many still love but no longer resonate in their lives.

Now having said this, I don't agree with everything thing that Spong presents but the guy is onto something and perhaps just as important, he has the passion, discipline and will to do something about it: write.

As for Pentecostals and growth in the southern hemisphere - I wonder, without knowing or having researched it - if the time will come when this orientation needs a 'reformation' also.

Welcome!

Welcome and enjoy the conversations.

jemerson, I agree with your take on Spong. Some theologians have used the term panentheism (with some additional definition), some like Spong have moved from noun to verb, and others, like John Macquarie, have moved from 'classical theism' to what is called a dialectical theism. Referring back to rjunker's original point, I think it is okay to both move beyond theism and still use the term God. And this for simplicity sake. To use the word God, most know immediately that the writer is suggesting there is 'something' that transcends man and nature. Then, if they are not a traditional theist the onus is on them to explain. As examples, some use (again, Spong included) 'ground of Being' and others, like Macquarie, use 'Letting Be' -thinking it is more dynamic than ground of being.

To be clear, I don't accept that either Beauty or Reality are 'things' separate from us. However I do allow that Reality is 'more than' any and all things and persons and 'discloses' itself to us in the first (and all) moments of our existence when we wake to being.

is the Pope Catholic?

So too, a literal understanding of God's chosen people declaring or waging war in the name of God is blasphemy.

It comes down to whether you take the Bible as either the literal word of God or 'inspired' by God and to what degree (or not) you consider it inerrant. Although, for example, one could lift out that God is the one who empowers man (which I think is valid theologically), one still does not have to believe in any way that God 'killed' any of his 'children' - including those who were against his 'chosen' people.

The Catholic quote that Tariki gave above is spot on.

What are we to make of all this?

The OT are stories are, if I remember correctly, by different authors representing different communities told over centuries - and of course, these are the words of men trying to say something about God (also, wasn't it a 'tribal' god in some of the earliest stories?). The ones who would have real difficulties would be those who take the Bible literally as the inerrant word of God.

One question: if the only 'revelation' is Reality itself and if revelation, properly understood/defined, is disclosure are you saying that Reality disclosures 'self' to us?