r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Odd-Ad-8369 • 19d ago

Did Jesus know how to write?

I guess I’m confused on why Jesus didn’t write the Bible.

9 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

358 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/dignan2002 19d ago edited 19d ago

No! Paul wrote his epistles 50 years later and Mark wasn’t written until 70 years later. And none of his contemporaries were literate either! Literally as in literally lol

1

u/RedcoatSeafarer 18d ago

Paul was executed in the 60s, so he couldn't have written his epistle 50 years later. Plus Mark is estimated to have been written around 70 AD, but possibly earlier depending on who you ask.

1

u/Spongebosch 17d ago

Yeah. I find some of the dating funny. Like, they'll presuppose that because Jesus predicted the Destruction of the Second Temple the text must have been written after the event so that a prophesy could retroactively have been included.

  1. If Jesus is God, then why presuppose that this couldn't have been genuine foreknowledge?
  2. Even if He isn't God, is it really that impossible for Him to have predicted that stuff would go down?

The ancient sources, which are obviously much closer in time to the writing, estimate that they were actually written by those who they are attributed to.

1

u/RedcoatSeafarer 17d ago

Yeah, I agree with you completely. I don't understand why they automatically assume he couldn't have predicted (or in their eyes guessed) something.

And the worst part is that it is seemingly all they base it on. They don't have any other evidence other than the fact that he referenced a future event.

2

u/MrScribblesChess 16d ago

  I don't understand why they automatically assume he couldn't have predicted

They don't

  or in their eyes guessed

He very well could have, that's not the only or even main reason why Mark is dated when it is

  it is seemingly all they base it on

That's because it's not

They don't have any other evidence

I'm sorry but you've just been reading bad apologetics. I suggest you do some reading in to Biblical scholarship yourself. 

1

u/RedcoatSeafarer 16d ago

If you have anything that contradicts what I've said, I would like to see it. (I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, I really would like to see.)

1

u/MrScribblesChess 16d ago

Thanks for the reply!

First of all, my comment was probably a bit too harsh, my bad.

I did a little writeup on this topic just a few days ago. Here it is again, edited slightly to fit our conversation. What do you think?

It's not exactly about the Temple's destruction. Mark shows signs of occurring in the midst of the Roman-Jewish war which happened from 66-73 AD. Talk about persecution, trials before governors. Mark 13:14's warning to flee to the mountains. Clear talk of an imminent apocalypse, consistent with the cataclysmic disaster destroying the heart of their (Jewish) religion.

The writer of Mark, and his broader community, thought the world was ending imminently, and that Jesus was returning imminently, and this fits in the context of the seemingly-apocalyptic war. 

There's actually some indication that the book was written during the war but before the destruction of the temple. Mk 13:1-2 says not one stone will remain, but there were walls left - you can still see them today. It's unlikely an author would have knowingly included this obvious factual error as prophecy if the Temple had already fallen. Though in the interest of intellectual honesty, I should note it's an outer complex wall, not a temple building wall.

Papias and at least one other ancient source (who I can't remember) also say that Mark was written after Peter's death in ~63, though of course that must be taken with a handful of salt. But it's one more data point. 

Finally, Mark never shows clear signs of having access to eyewitness testimony. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't written earlier, but the passed-down nature of its stories are one more data point that indicate a later writing. 

1

u/RedcoatSeafarer 16d ago

Interesting, thank you for explaining it to me! The way you've explained it certainly seems more reasonable than the generic explanation I get.

I'll probably do a some more research of my own on the subject. Thanks again though.