Reasons for thinking that no notes were taken while Jesus and apostles were teaching?

[Longfellow]

What are some reasons for thinking that it's possible that no one was writing notes about the teachings of Jesus and the apostles while they were teaching, or that it's possible that those were not recopied as needed, until the gospels were written? Considering what I've read about writing practices at the beginning of the first century, that seems inconceivable to me.

 

[Longfellow]

Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, by Alan Millard, argues that written reports about Jesus could have been made during his lifetime and that some among his audiences and followers may very well have kept notes, first-hand documents that the Evangelists could weave into their narratives. Here's a list of arguments that I've found against that:
- Low literacy rate.
- Dominance of oral tradition.
- Weakness of archaeological evidence.
- Writing not mentioned in first-century traditions.
- Rabbinic prohibition against writing oral law.

If anyone can think of or find any other arguments against Millard's view, please post them.

 

[EricPH]

If God has the power to create the universe and life, he should also have the power to have the Bible written in the way he intends. However the Bible was written, it is still relevant two thousand years later. My only conclusion is that God had the power of edit. What is written, is written.

 

[Longfellow]

Update on my thoughts about this: What seems most likely to me now is that the sources for writing the gospels were mostly written, and accurate reproductions of notes written by disciples during the time that Jesus and the apostles were teaching. That says nothing about the accuracy of those notes when they were first written, or about how well the gospels represent them, but it might put some limits on how much people can honestly think was fabricated.

 

[wil]

Millard, argues that written reports about Jesus could have been made during his lifetime

When it comes to conjecture, i reply sure...."could have been made" but if there had wouldn't someone also write that down "recorded by Isaac at the time Yeshua spoke"

A quick ask of Ai...

Two thousand years ago, people primarily used wax tablets and papyrus scrolls to record information.
Wax Tablets (Tabulae): Romans used wooden frames filled with wax, inscribing notes with a metal stylus. These were ideal for drafting speeches or taking quick notes because the wax could be smoothed over and reused.
Papyrus: For permanent records, scribes used reed pens and ink on papyrus scrolls.
Shorthand: To keep up with live speeches, Romans developed Tironian notes, an early system of shorthand that allowed scribes to record spoken words in real time.

No direct physical evidence or contemporary manuscripts exist of anyone taking live notes during the Sermon on the Mount. Most scholars believe the teachings were preserved through oral tradition and later compiled by the Gospel writers decades after the event.
While the Romans used shorthand (Tironian notes) during that era, there is no historical record of a scribe being present to document the sermon in real time. The Beatitudes appear in different forms and contexts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, suggesting they were gathered from shared oral sources or a lost written collection of sayings known as the Q source.

.....

Back to me...recording of planned speeches or events would have been insuring your scribes (not only literate but ttained in shkrthand) brought their metal stylus and wax tablets (how many do we need, bring them all) that task is not one person but many. And then take it back home before it is lost to the heat, and get the crew with papyrus scrolls to record it.

Idk what world history is but ours say in 1776 the tech had advanced so far as they were still resharpening feather tips and dipping them in ink to try to record...

 

[Longfellow]

When it comes to conjecture, i reply sure...."could have been made" but if there had wouldn't someone also write that down "recorded by Isaac at the time Yeshua spoke"

A quick ask of Ai...

Two thousand years ago, people primarily used wax tablets and papyrus scrolls to record information.
Wax Tablets (Tabulae): Romans used wooden frames filled with wax, inscribing notes with a metal stylus. These were ideal for drafting speeches or taking quick notes because the wax could be smoothed over and reused.
Papyrus: For permanent records, scribes used reed pens and ink on papyrus scrolls.
Shorthand: To keep up with live speeches, Romans developed Tironian notes, an early system of shorthand that allowed scribes to record spoken words in real time.

No direct physical evidence or contemporary manuscripts exist of anyone taking live notes during the Sermon on the Mount. Most scholars believe the teachings were preserved through oral tradition and later compiled by the Gospel writers decades after the event.
While the Romans used shorthand (Tironian notes) during that era, there is no historical record of a scribe being present to document the sermon in real time. The Beatitudes appear in different forms and contexts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, suggesting they were gathered from shared oral sources or a lost written collection of sayings known as the Q source.

.....

Back to me...recording of planned speeches or events would have been insuring your scribes (not only literate but ttained in shkrthand) brought their metal stylus and wax tablets (how many do we need, bring them all) that task is not one person but many. And then take it back home before it is lost to the heat, and get the crew with papyrus scrolls to record it.

Idk what world history is but ours say in 1776 the tech had advanced so far as they were still resharpening feather tips and dipping them in ink to try to record...

Tell me: Do you honestly and sincerely think that it’s at all possible that during the entire time that Jesus and the apostles were teaching, *no one * was writing down what they thought that Jesus and the apostles were saying and doing, and what was happening around them?

 

[wil]

Tell me: Do you honestly and sincerely think that it’s at all possible that during the entire time that Jesus and the apostles were teaching, *no one * was writing down what they thought that Jesus and the apostles were saying and doing, and what was happening around them?

What have we got with your note takers?

We got a pretty infamous stories about frankincense and myrh....of course those stories are about following a star...and while the implication to most they showed up at birth in a manger...and scholars say not really.

We got a few other stories between birth and 13...those obviously not taken at the time but made up / recalled later....then what 30?

And in three years the Son of G!d got a couple chapters....upgraded to four when Q turns into 3 of the four and then the claim for years was that was proof of truth since the synoptics had so many similarities!

Me thinks the sin is the optics or disinformation based on conjecture declared as gospel so much of which later discredited with investigation.

Don't get me wrong, the beatitudes and gospel of Thomas have some great thought which have helped our world progress (albeit slowly) the past couple thousand years.

 

[Longfellow]

What have we got with your note takers?

We got a pretty infamous stories about frankincense and myrh....of course those stories are about following a star...and while the implication to most they showed up at birth in a manger...and scholars say not really.

We got a few other stories between birth and 13...those obviously not taken at the time but made up / recalled later....then what 30?

And in three years the Son of G!d got a couple chapters....upgraded to four when Q turns into 3 of the four and then the claim for years was that was proof of truth since the synoptics had so many similarities!

Me thinks the sin is the optics or disinformation based on conjecture declared as gospel so much of which later discredited with investigation.

Don't get me wrong, the beatitudes and gospel of Thomas have some great thought which have helped our world progress (albeit slowly) the past couple thousand years.

I agree that if there were notes about the wise men or about his childhood, they probably were not taken at the times that they allegedly happened.

 

[Longfellow]

I see now that what I'm saying is actually not controversial. No one is willing to even say that it might possibly not be true. There were people taking notes about what Jesus and the apostles were saying and doing, as it was happening, and those notes were recopied as needed, until the gospels were written. "Oral only" does not actually mean oral only. When pressed, scholars say that it actually means mostly oral, with some written memory aids.

 

[wil]

I see now that what I'm saying is actually not controversial. No one is willing to even say that it might possibly not be true

I pretty much believe there were as many notes taken at the events as there were pictures taken.

While someone may have gone home and got out their quill and papyrus to write down what they remember was said or done... I dont believe there were live note takers at the event.

Judas may have had some method to record where he spent money.

 

[Longfellow]

I pretty much believe there were as many notes taken at the events as there were pictures taken.

While someone may have gone home and got out their quill and papyrus to write down what they remember was said or done... I dont believe there were live note takers at the event.

Judas may have had some method to record where he spent money.

Thank you.

 

[Longfellow]

When I first started posting about this, it was only to find out if there were any reasons to doubt it, not to try to convince anyone. Now I’ve decided to try to explain my reasons for what I’m thinking, that some disciples were taking notes all the time that Jesus and the apostles were teaching, and that those notes were recopied as needed, until the gospels were written.

The lowest estimate that I’ve seen for literacy js 3%. That’s 3 out of every hundred. Sometimes people say that was only the elite, as if no one who could write ever became a disciple, but Paul was obviously able to write, and he was a disciple. Besides that, anyone who wants to can learn to write in a phonetic language in a few months at most, well enough for anyone who can read to be able to read it. There were writing materials that would certainly have been available to some disciplines. That means that it was certainly possible for some disciples to write notes, and if they could, certainly some of them would, not only because of how important it would be to them to have them in writing, but because disciples writing notes about what their masters were teaching them was part of the culture.

I’m currently organizing some documentation for writing practices at the beginning of the first century, and all the arguments that I can find against what those authors have said. None of the arguments that I’ve seen are actually arguments against what I’m saying, and half or more actually confirm it.

 

[Thomas]

When I first started posting about this, it was only to find out if there were any reasons to doubt it, not to try to convince anyone.

It seems to me we've offered good reasons to doubt it, whilst you've offered none in support of your claim?

... but Paul was obviously able to write, and he was a disciple.

But Paul was writing of necessity, to address established churches that he had founded, and that he was not able to visit.

You can't argue equivalence between Paul and 'the disciples'. Nor does Paul reference any written materials in defence of his own claims.

There were writing materials that would certainly have been available to some disciples.

Doesn't mean they made notes, though.

That means that it was certainly possible for some disciples to write notes ...

Yes, it's possible. It's also possible that they didn't. Or they did, and those notes were never broadcast, and were lost.

... but because disciples writing notes about what their masters were teaching them was part of the culture.

Evidence?

+++

The received tradition is that the transmission was oral, and then later written down. You're proposing an early written tradition. Allowing that such might be the case – we don't know – what difference does it make?

Why does it matter that someone wrote what Jesus said, or said what Jesus said, as the author could be wrong or mistaken ... it could be that an oral transmission is more accurate than an individual written transmission ...

 

[EricPH]

There were people taking notes about what Jesus and the apostles were saying and doing, as it was happening, and those notes were recopied as needed, until the gospels were written.

If there is no God, then the Bible is a total fabrication. If, and only if there is a God who created the universe and life, then God has the power to oversee what is written in the Bible. Even if some all powerful emperor wanted to corrupt the Bible, he would have to fight against God.

 

[Longfellow]

It seems to me we've offered good reasons to doubt it, whilst you've offered none in support of your claim?


But Paul was writing of necessity, to address established churches that he had founded, and that he was not able to visit.

You can't argue equivalence between Paul and 'the disciples'. Nor does Paul reference any written materials in defence of his own claims.


Doesn't mean they made notes, though.


Yes, it's possible. It's also possible that they didn't. Or they did, and those notes were never broadcast, and were lost.


Evidence?

+++

The received tradition is that the transmission was oral, and then later written down. You're proposing an early written tradition. Allowing that such might be the case – we don't know – what difference does it make?

Why does it matter that someone wrote what Jesus said, or said what Jesus said, as the author could be wrong or mistaken ... it could be that an oral transmission is more accurate than an individual written transmission ...

Now you’re just blowing smoke.

 

[Longfellow]

I’m organizing documentation for this, and arguments against what the authors have said. Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to do their own research, one way might be to search for writing practices in the time of Jesus.

I’ll say again what my reasoning is. At the beginning of the first century, in the areas where Jesus and the apostles were teaching, the lowest estimate that I’ve seen for literacy is 3%. That’s 3 out of every hundred. Besides that, anyone who wants to can learn to write in a phonetic language, I would think in a few months at most, well enough to write notes that they and others could read. Also, it was part of the culture for disciples of master teachers to write notes about what their masters were teaching. Those would include lists of sayings and descriptions of activities. There were forms of writing that anyone could use, and materials for them available everywhere. There have been books written about all this. I’ve already named two, and I will list some more later. None of the criticism of those books denies anything that I’m saying, and most of the criticism confirms it.

I think that all of this is well known to well informed scholars. When they say that the transmission was only oral for a few decades,”only oral” doesn’t actually mean only oral. It means mostly oral with some written “memory aids,” which is a euphemism for reproductions of notes written by disciples during the times that Jesus and the apostles were teaching.

 

[Longfellow]

You're proposing an early written tradition.

I’m not saying anything about anything that I would call “tradition.” Now that I think of it, there might have been people writing stories, but that isn’t what I’m saying here. I’m saying that almost certainly there were witnesses to Jesus and the apostles teaching who wrote notes about what they saw and heard, and that those notes were recopied as needed, until the gospels were written.

Why does it matter that someone wrote what Jesus said, or said what Jesus said, as the author could be wrong or mistaken ... it could be that an oral transmission is more accurate than an individual written transmission ...

Not authors. What I’m discussing here is not about people writing stories. It’s about witnesses to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles writing notes about what they saw and heard. Yes, they could have heard it wrong, or remembered it wrong when they expanded their notes later.

It isn’t either/or, only oral or only written, and it wouldn’t be only one person writing notes.

I’ll ask you again, do you honestly, sincerely think that it’s possible that there weren’t any witnesses writing notes? Do you honestly, sincerely think that it’s possible that those would not have been recopied as needed, until the gospels were written? What have you read about writing practices at the beginning of the first century?

 

[Longfellow]

Evidence?

You keep demanding evidence, and saying that there is none, which I take to mean that you have not done any reading about writing practices at the beginning of the first century. Is there some evidence that you would expect to have, that we don’t have, for a few witnesses to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles writing notes about what they saw and heard?

 

[Thomas]

I’ll say again what my reasoning is.

OK.

At the beginning of the first century, in the areas where Jesus and the apostles were teaching, the lowest estimate that I’ve seen for literacy is 3%.

OK. I would happily go higher.

"And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and, as he was accustomed to do, he entered the synagogue on the day of the Sabbath and stood up to read. And a scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him ... " (Luke 4:16-17)
So Jesus could read Hebrew sufficiently to read from the Scriptures. Does this mean everyone could? Well, men only, obviously. But this is after Jesus' sojourn with the Baptist, and on His return to Capernaum after his testing in the wilderness. We've had hints that before, Jesus displayed an audacious intelligence: "And it happened that, after three days, they found him in the Temple, sitting amid the teachers, both listening to them and posing them questions; and those listening to him were astonished at his intelligence" (Luke 2:46-47) and this when He was 12 years old!

So I would suggest the sons of the (ahem) better families were taught at the synagogue school, to read and write, their numbers, etc., and of course Scripture reading would have been central to that. So we can dare to suggest that Jesus read Hebrew, spoke Aramaic ... and just to muddy the waters, exegetes point out that both Paul and the Gospels seem to use the Greek LXX as their Scripture reference! So three languages in the mix.

Turning to the disciples, then Matthew was a tax collector so he'd have to know how to read and write. If "James the brother of Jesus" was not a complete brat, or from a dysfunctional family, he probably went to synagogue school, too.

Fishermen they might have been, but James and John were the sons of a successful fleet owner. Peter was probably successful as well. So I'd put them among the Middle Classes (to use the English system), certainly at the top end of Working Class. They weren't illiterate peasants.

The Jerusalem elite listened to Peter and John preaching in the Temple, "And, seeing the audacity of Peter and John, and perceiving them to be unlettered and common men, they were amazed, and recognized them as having accompanied Jesus" (Acts 4:13) – the term is agrammatoi, 'uneducated', but this doesn't mean illiterate, rather that they showed no sign of a formal exegetical training. That was the realm of the grammataeus, the 'scribe' (as in 'scribes and pharisees')

Galilee was a cultural mix, as well, I believe. Four of the twelve, Philip, Andrew, Thaddeus and Bartholomew, had Greek names, so we can see a mix of culture and influence here.

Going back to scribes – this was an important profession in the Ancient World. Allowing that at least some of the disciples were sufficiently literate to manage their own affairs, they would have engaged scribes to draft documents.

Paul used scribes. One of them even slipped in his own name in the Letter to the Romans: "Timothy, my fellow laborer, greets you, as do Lucius and Jason and my kinsman Sosipater. (I, Tertius, who am writing out this letter in the Lord, greet you.)" (Romans 16:21-22).

So did Peter: "I wrote to you briefly through Silvanus... " (1 Peter 5:12)

Also, it was part of the culture for disciples of master teachers to write notes about what their masters were teaching. Those would include lists of sayings and descriptions of activities.

OK – Paul studied under Gamaliel the Elder in Jerusalem. There were philosophical schools in Athens, Alexandria and elsewhere – but one can't assume a correspondence between them and an itinerant preacher in Galilee-Judea. You have to admit it's a bit of a leap?

There were forms of writing that anyone could use, and materials for them available everywhere.

Were there?

None of the criticism of those books denies anything that I’m saying, and most of the criticism confirms it.

I don't necessarily deny the book references, I'm just suggesting that there might not be any evidence that what's in those books refers to the particular situation we're talking about.

... It means mostly oral with some written “memory aids,” which is a euphemism for reproductions of notes written by disciples during the times that Jesus and the apostles were teaching.

Is it, or is that how you choose to interpret it?

 

[wil]

Well, men only, obviously

Me thinks archeologists will tell you there is more evidence of women reading and writing 2000 years ago than there is anyone bringing wax tablets and metal styluses (taking notes) with them to Jesus's speeches or crucifixion.