Do you think Jesus read Plato or some other greco roman philosophers?

Do you think Jesus read Plato or some other greco roman philosophers?

No but the author of the gospel of "John" certainly read Philo, who was a Middle Platonist and a scholar of Plato.

Possibly
He wasn´t an illiterate, lived in a roman occupied country and close to greek colonies and trade routes

>do you think an illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasant from rural Galilee read greco-roman philosophers?
Gee, I wonder.

>illiterate
Read the entire Hebrew scriptures when still a child.
>peasant
Carpenter.

Why are fedoras so retarded his?

What evidence do you have he read the entire Hebrew Scriptures while a child?
>inb4 but how would he be able to quote them so often?
>inb4 but the story in the temple and how his mom couldn't possibly believe the kid she conceived without having sex, after being visited by an angel, could possibly have such wisdom at a young age

>Read the entire Hebrew scriptures when still a child.
Only higher-class Jews did this in the first century AD, overall only the top 2-5% of the population could read. Besides, being able to read Hebrew doesn't mean you can suddenly read Greek philosophy. Paul could read and write Greek, but he was a prosperous merchant from a wealthy family.
>Carpenter.
I mean peasant as in a social class, not a profession. The only people below him in the social hierarchy were slaves, and Judea being a poor province, we don't hear about a lot of them.

he spoke with Pilate in greek didn´t he

>17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written Luke 4:17

Fedoras are such insufferable fags. Why don't you even bother to research your shit before making your "arguments"?

Why would you think so? No source says so so it's more logical to assume Pilate had an interpreter with him. It has an additional benefit of explaining how the Gospels knew that they were talking about.

>tfw bothered to research and by jumping down the rabbit hole found myself saved

>illiterate
He was a Rabbi and held sermons in synagogue, you dumb fedora

>"Stwike him centurion vewy woughly!"
>"And throw him to the floor again, sir?"
>"Yeesss, thwow him to the floowa."

He wasn't a Rabbi, he was a carpenter. He was called a "Rabbi" by his followers because it literally means "teacher" and he assumed this role in this little sect of his. In general, you don't need to be literate to be able to preach, plus, it still has nothing to do with being able to speak and read Greek.

Kys

Assuming that a.) Jesus existed and b.) he was literate in Greek there still isn't an evidence he had received a proper education including the works of Homer or Plato. He might have known the dirt scribbling of his fellow desert people but he was completely ignorant to the wider world of philosophy and reason.

I personally think this is an unhistorical part because it's highly improbable for a person of his class in this historical context to be literate. It's just like that bit about him writing on sand, which was inserted sometime in the 2nd century.
>B-but you can't just cherrypick the parts you like from the Gospels!
Actually, I can, it's called being critical about a source. By the same logic, I don't believe in Pilate offering the Jewish crowd to choose whom to spare, because he was a Roman official who wouldn't have allowed local superstitions to obstruct his execution of justice. Nor do I believe in miracles, obviously.

But say I assume it for the sake of argument, we still have no sources on him speaking or reading Greek.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;

26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.

27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.


>Actually, I can, it's called being critical about a source.
Actually, you cant. Its called an interpretation and distorting.

There was no need to post it here, I've read the piece. As I've said, I consider it unhistorical for the reasons I've described. But even if it's historical, it says absolutely nothing about him being able to read Greek, which is quite different from being able to read Hebrew, especially if your native language is Aramaic and you're a peasant carpenter whose family can't afford a formal education.
>Its called an interpretation
Yeah, this is that historians do, no source is accepted in its entirety unexamined. For examples, Roman sources are full of omens and signs, yet no historian take it seriously.
>distorting
Distorting the sources - yes, but by doing this you actually clear up the historical truth behind it.

>Actually, you cant.
huh, that's funny. how did he manage to do it then?

>Its called an interpretation
any act of reading is an interpretation, simple minded one. taking something completely at face value is still he one chooses to interpret something.

>Actually, I can, it's called being critical about a source.
>Actually, you cant.

lol peak &humanities

Actually the whole point of historians are to critically look at documents and ascertain and separate bias from primary and secondary sources in order to reconstruct an accurate telling of events and people.

If you're going to argue that we can't look at the Bible critically as a reliable source (Often it can be assumed to be more allegorical than completely factual) then why are you even on Veeky Forums instead of some Christian forum if you don't want amateur historians looking at it in a professional historical manner who aren't going to take faith as the reasoning for the Bible's veracity?

no but bible scholars since Jesus times did. Life is not imitating art.

Was he even literate?

He may have been exposed to cynics as a major cynic centre was within walking distance of Nazareth.

It doesn't matter because he didn't write anything. All we have is by pseudo-Matthew, pseudo-Mark, pseudo-Luke and pseudo-John, Paul and pseudo-Paul(s).

He could read and speak Hebrew despite being born in an Aramaic enclave of the Levant and was well versed in the knowledge of Jewish tradition and script. He wasn't "uneducated."

Lets ignore the evidence that he can read....sure... so how does an illiterate person with no education display a vast knowledge of scripture?
Many actual historians and scholars ACTUALLY contest that Jesus was learned you fucking dipshit.

It's been discussed already: giving his socio-economic status, it's highly unlikely he was literate even in Hebrew. But even if we assume it, being able to read Hebrew doesn't make you able to read Greek, a language he probably couldn't even speak. You have to keep in mind that while Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages from the Semitic branch, Greek is completely different Indo-European language.
>how does an illiterate person with no education display a vast knowledge of scripture?
The same way many people today learn their scripture: by attending a synagogue and listening to a Rabbi reading it during a service.

your understanding of the region in the first century is terrible...just terrible.

Not an argument.

Considering your shitty little prophet """"Jesus"""" stole and plagiarised Buddhist teaching, I'd say he did more than read men with greater vision than himself.

>peasant carpenter family cant afford to give jesus formal education, but they can afford to waste even more time by sending him to the synagogue to learn the scripture solely through word of mouth

First, they couldn't have afforded to give him education because it cost a lot of money, not because he had no free time, they had no free public schools back then.
Second, he would have attended a synagogue as part of his everyday life, something every Jew did in his historical context, and listening to a rabbi reading the scripture was a part of the service. I have no idea where you get the notion of him being "sent to learn the scripture".

Jésus read the Tripitaka

Related question, did Jesus speak Latin so he could speak to the occuping Romans?

possibly being God he knew them because he knew everything anyway

>The Bible says he's a peasant carpenter so he must be a peasant carpenter.
>The bible says he knows scripture BUT NO THE BIBLE IS WRONG CAUSE LIKELIHOODS AND FACTS AND STUFF!!!!

>Its been discussed already
Yes, by actual scholars and historians, and many agree that Jesus was likely educated. This is not universal but it is also not very controversial.
>Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages
that doesn't make them mutually intelligible or even remotely similar.
>The same way many people today learn their scripture: by attending a synagogue and listening to a Rabbi reading it during a service.
So then why wasn't everyone else as learned as him? Why are non-learned religious observers are with-out exception, almost completely ignorant of scripture. People don't learn about scripture from sitting in sermons, it just doesn't work that way.