Jesus as an opponent of the rich

[All-American]

Wait a second...it would be impossible for a man to gain a following at the time of Christ without being literate? Is that what you're saying? Was John the Baptist also literate?

I think the evidence of proof texting is pretty abundant, no? The scriptures Jesus quotes are very different in John vs Mark.

Impossible? No. But highly unlikely, especially given the way our best sources depict him.

Who knows about John the Baptist. We know almost nothing about him (though, as the son of a priest, he may very well have had his chances to learn).

John and mark are different in so many respects, seeing him quote different scriptures isn't very surprising. And who knows how many times somebody has out words into his mouth, figuratively speaking. But all of the gospels show him as familiar enough with the scriptures to quote them in his teachings.

[Harry Tic]

It's a damn shame that so many cougarboard types infiltrated what was once a vibrant community with plenty of smart discussion.

Sorry, SC, but with this kind of thread you have done nothing to improve the situation. You just now noticed that Jesus had something to say about wealth? Good job. And you're going to extrapolate from what we know generally about the level of literacy of craftsmen in Christ's day to draw inferences about the case of one particular craftsman who is clearly represented in the earliest source texts as being an outlier in every way?

All-American and others have given you more than you can handle. Kudos on using the word 'tekton' and checking out the WSJ interview, though.

Other commenters have maybe raised some worthwhile questions about the stigma we attach to illiteracy, but that's just a fortunate byproduct of a not-very-interesting thread. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can do better than this if you're interested in raising the level of discussion on this board.

[ERCougar]

So if I consult Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), it looks like the literacy question isn't as settled as the sources I had read indicate, but it isn't nearly as settled as what AA claims either. In short, it appears that there are good reasons to believe both.

I don't really see how it matters at all. I do wonder why the possibility seems so offensive/distasteful. Maybe KL is right.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Does it matter if Jesus was literate or not? Would it influence your ability to have faith in him as the savior?

[wuapinmon]

Does it matter if Jesus was literate or not? Would it influence your ability to have faith in him as the savior?

As a learned man, no.

[ERCougar]

Does it matter if Jesus was literate or not? Would it influence your ability to have faith in him as the savior?

Exactly.

That's what I enjoyed so much about "The Heart Of Christianity". It does a really nice job at pointing out that the historical details of Jesus' life aren't really what people have faith in--it goes much deeper than that. Really, you could say the same thing about all of the scriptural stories, which makes it much more interesting to read about floods that cover the entire earth, Ammon cutting off every arm of an attacking horde, and a prophet spending three days in the belly of a whale. A great quote from Joseph Campbell: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." I think the Church would do well to move away from literalism.

[All-American]

So if I consult Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), it looks like the literacy question isn't as settled as the sources I had read indicate, but it isn't nearly as settled as what AA claims either. In short, it appears that there are good reasons to believe both.

I don't really see how it matters at all. I do wonder why the possibility seems so offensive/distasteful. Maybe KL is right.

You're giving the anti literacy camp a very generous reading, I think. That same article not only says that most scholars agree that he was literate, but that most even think he knew Greek, a trait exhibited by the upper class.

As a religious question, the literacy of the mortal Jesus doesn't matter much, no. But this was framed as a question of history, not theology. The study of history is not limited in scope to things that actually matter.

[SoonerCoug]

You're giving the anti literacy camp a very generous reading, I think. That same article not only says that most scholars agree that he was literate, but that most even think he knew Greek, a trait exhibited by the upper class.

As a religious question, the literacy of the mortal Jesus doesn't matter much, no. But this was framed as a question of history, not theology. The study of history is not limited in scope to things that actually matter.

Yes. A Tekton from Galilee knew Greek. You're nuts.

[Northwestcoug]

Exactly.

That's what I enjoyed so much about "The Heart Of Christianity". It does a really nice job at pointing out that the historical details of Jesus' life aren't really what people have faith in--it goes much deeper than that. Really, you could say the same thing about all of the scriptural stories, which makes it much more interesting to read about floods that cover the entire earth, Ammon cutting off every arm of an attacking horde, and a prophet spending three days in the belly of a whale. A great quote from Joseph Campbell: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." I think the Church would do well to move away from literalism.

But at the end of the day, something has to be literal, right? The most basic faith in Christianity deals with the real saving power in the atonement, that we are helplessly lost without Christ's sacrifice. The whole basis of this faith rests on the assumption that the gospels have that one fact right, that it is literal.

I get the healthy skepticism about the historicity of scripture. It just becomes messy very quickly when you begin to pick what's 'real' and what isn't.

[All-American]

Yes. A Tekton from galilee knew Greek. You're nuts.

I didn't say that he knew Greek. I only said that most scholars think he knew Greek. I suppose you think they are nuts, too?

[ERCougar]

You're giving the anti literacy camp a very generous reading, I think. That same article not only says that most scholars agree that he was literate, but that most even think he knew Greek, a trait exhibited by the upper class.

As a religious question, the literacy of the mortal Jesus doesn't matter much, no. But this was framed as a question of history, not theology. The study of history is not limited in scope to things that actually matter.

That's a generous interpretation of:

Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.

[YOhio]

If this is true then why is he always helping wealthy and middle class Mormons find their wallets?

[Topper]

But at the end of the day, something has to be literal, right? The most basic faith in Christianity deals with the real saving power in the atonement, that we are helplessly lost without Christ's sacrifice. The whole basis of this faith rests on the assumption that the gospels have that one fact right, that it is literal.

I get the healthy skepticism about the historicity of scripture. It just becomes messy very quickly when you begin to pick what's 'real' and what isn't.

There is no easy, satisfying answer in regards to literal versus metaphorical approach. Clearly, many aspects cannot be taken literally. Once, that aspect is dispelled, then which aspects may be taken literally, if any, the course of "faith" becomes very difficult.

[All-American]

That's a generous interpretation of:

I don't think "most scholars think he knew greek" is all that different from "most scholars think he may have spoken greek," but if you want that inch of ground, it's all yours. I hereby revise my earlier statement: most scholars think he may have spoken aramaic, hebrew, and greek.

[ERCougar]

But at the end of the day, something has to be literal, right? The most basic faith in Christianity deals with the real saving power in the atonement, that we are helplessly lost without Christ's sacrifice. The whole basis of this faith rests on the assumption that the gospels have that one fact right, that it is literal.

I get the healthy skepticism about the historicity of scripture. It just becomes messy very quickly when you begin to pick what's 'real' and what isn't.

Sort of.

My personal interpretation: I put a lot of stock in things that have staying power. Christianity is one of those things. If it were just about some guy that lived and performed some miracles a few millenia ago, well, that's not very interesting or unique, and it would die off quickly, just as it has in the case of so many others. But there's something about Christianity that has given millions of people something and made them better, and I think that's really difficult, and even arrogant, to just brush aside as some self-deluding myth. But when I get down to the actual things that really have power, it's this concept that I have in my head of what Christ is and what he represents. It may or may not have anything to do with what actually happened or what the real historical Christ did, because when i really think about it, his turning water into wine has never entered into my daily decisions or actions, while I think about certain teachings of his all the time (whether or not he actually even taught them). There are certain things he said that don't resonate with me at all, by the same token. So is Christ my Savior? Well, yeah--the image of Christ, that is some combination of what I've been taught, what i've read, and what I deeply believe through experience, has saved me from being a worse person than I am, and hopefully will make me a better person than I would otherwise be. It doesn't particularly matter whether this image has much to do with the reality.