Was Jesus educated?

[Aidan K]

does anyone know whether or not Jesus was literate and to what extent, if any, was He educated? What evidence is their regarding this? Thank you my brethren
Aidan

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as a reader in the local synagogue. I don't know if there's much more direct evidence than that.

Literacy was something Judaism put quite a bit of emphasis on. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that every family had the means to have their children educated; so the question was to what end Mary and Joseph would have been able to have Jesus educated is completely open. Given Luke's account that Jesus was able to read, well that might be able to indicate for us that the Holy Family was able to do well enough financially for Jesus to get a basic education, at least the ability to read. Jesus also shows a great deal of rabbinical knowledge, He is--for example--able to paraphrase Hillel the Elder when He says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; Hillel had said many years earlier "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." So Jesus certainly seems well enough versed in rabbinical teaching and argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MishSill]

does anyone know whether or not Jesus was literate and to what extent, if any, was He educated? What evidence is their regarding this? Thank you my brethren
Aidan

Jesus is God

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus is God

And man.

As both God and man He is the God-Man. Truly God and truly human. We can recall that though being Himself entirely God he said in the Olivet Discourse that not even He knew the day and hour of His return. This is, of course, the Mystery of the Incarnation.

He who is God was able to suffer, was mortal, experienced grief and pain, and could not know some things.
He who is man had the authority to forgive sins, could make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk, and knew the hearts of all men. Both infinite and finite, both unlimited and limited.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nasrani]

does anyone know whether or not Jesus was literate and to what extent, if any, was He educated? What evidence is their regarding this? Thank you my brethren
Aidan

The evidence is Biblical, we see him read, he quotes Daniel, Isaiah, Psalms, Jonah, etc and he teaches elders at a synagogue at a young age, perhaps 12. He speaks Aramaic, Hebrew and likely Greek.

There are non-biblical accounts of him speaking from the cradle, found in gnostic writings. Some religions such as islam uses this material and believes in it. But we know these writings contain a array of errors, consisting of historical errors, placement errors, context. For example, in the same book, it names Jesus as "Jesus Christ" but later the book denies Jesus is the Messiah. That is in direct conflict with what the book affirms as his name, Christ, because Christ is greek for Messiah. Obviously the author had no idea that Christ means Messiah.

In addition, the correct name is Jesus of Nazareth or also, Jesus the Christ.
Christ is a title, not a last name.

 

[MishSill]

And man.

As both God and man He is the God-Man. Truly God and truly human. We can recall that though being Himself entirely God he said in the Olivet Discourse that not even He knew the day and hour of His return. This is, of course, the Mystery of the Incarnation.

He who is God was able to suffer, was mortal, experienced grief and pain, and could not know some things.
He who is man had the authority to forgive sins, could make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk, and knew the hearts of all men. Both infinite and finite, both unlimited and limited.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe the point I was making in my three simple words was that Jesus was most certainly knowledgeable and educated. He was already going about His Father's business when He was a child.

 

[Catherineanne]

does anyone know whether or not Jesus was literate and to what extent, if any, was He educated? What evidence is their regarding this? Thank you my brethren
Aidan

Educated yes, certainly. Literate, no. The two are not the same.

He could read Hebrew, but that does not mean he could understand it. There is no evidence that he could write.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe the point I was making in my three simple words was that Jesus was most certainly knowledgeable and educated. He was already going about His Father's business when He was a child.

Right, but it seemed to be suggesting that Jesus, being God, did not need to learn; Scripture shows that "He grew in wisdom before both God and men". It, indeed, is remarkable that He could at twelve years old stand His ground with learned people at the Temple; but this needs to be tempered with the fact that He was (and indeed still is) a human person.

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union means that there is an intrinsic mystery and paradox about the Incarnation. Because it means that God, who cannot die, did in fact die. It also means that a human being, who cannot make blind people see, made blind people see. We can never separate His divinity from His humanity, that would be Nestorianism; we can never confuse His divinity and humanity, that would be Eutychianism. Instead we confess one Jesus, God-and-man, inseparable and unconfused: As laid out in the Definition of Chalcedon by the Council of Chalcedon in 450 AD.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Catherineanne]

The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as a reader in the local synagogue. I don't know if there's much more direct evidence than that.

Literacy was something Judaism put quite a bit of emphasis on. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that every family had the means to have their children educated; so the question was to what end Mary and Joseph would have been able to have Jesus educated is completely open. Given Luke's account that Jesus was able to read, well that might be able to indicate for us that the Holy Family was able to do well enough financially for Jesus to get a basic education, at least the ability to read. Jesus also shows a great deal of rabbinical knowledge, He is--for example--able to paraphrase Hillel the Elder when He says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; Hillel had said many years earlier "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." So Jesus certainly seems well enough versed in rabbinical teaching and argument.

-CryptoLutheran

Literacy in first century Judea is not what it is today. A relatively affluent family would want their son to be able to read Hebrew in the Synagogue, but this does not equate to teaching him to read and write for everyday purposes. Writing was carried out by Scribes, not ordinary people.

We always assume the Lord's family to have been of relatively modest means; either they were more affluent than we thought or else they did what a lot of poorer families do today; they invested whatever means they had in their son's education. They must certainly have been fortunate in their local Rabbi when the Lord was growing up.

The Lord had considerable knowledge of the Scriptures, and often quoted from it. To that extent he had an education which was probably above average for his day.

 

[MishSill]

Right, but it seemed to be suggesting that Jesus, being God, did not need to learn; Scripture shows that "He grew in wisdom before both God and men". It, indeed, is remarkable that He could at twelve years old stand His ground with learned people at the Temple; but this needs to be tempered with the fact that He was (and indeed still is) a human person.

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union means that there is an intrinsic mystery and paradox about the Incarnation. Because it means that God, who cannot die, did in fact die. It also means that a human being, who cannot make blind people see, made blind people see. We can never separate His divinity from His humanity, that would be Nestorianism; we can never confuse His divinity and humanity, that would be Eutychianism. Instead we confess one Jesus, God-and-man, inseparable and unconfused: As laid out in the Definition of Chalcedon by the Council of Chalcedon in 450 AD.

-CryptoLutheran

Just needing to clarify here.

Are you saying you believe that Jesus was not omniscient?

 

[Catherineanne]

Just needing to clarify here.

Are you saying you believe that Jesus was not omniscient?

The historical Jesus, the man, was not omniscient, no. He did not have what we would call superpowers; whatever power he had was from God at a specific time or place, and often he was not aware that he had access to it beforehand. He stepped out in faith, and God honoured that faith.

Fully human means he shared our frailties.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just needing to clarify here.

Are you saying you believe that Jesus was not omniscient?

No. I'm saying that the Mystery of the Incarnation involves a paradox. So, let's take an example: Was Jesus omnipresent? Well as God He certainly must have been omnipresent correct? Yet Jesus, being human, is clearly limited to time and place, He doesn't apparently exist beyond His own body. Can God suffer? Well no, yet Jesus suffers, not just physical agony as on the cross, but emotional agony as we see in the story of Lazarus or in the Garden of Gethsemane. How can God die? He can't. Yet Jesus died.

Now some will try and argue, "No, God didn't suffer, it was only Jesus' humanity that suffered." That's a problem because it separates the Divine Jesus from the Human Jesus; this is what the ancient Church called the heresy of Nestorianism. It seemed to most in the Church that what this was doing was suggesting a kind of double-Jesus. In the years following some seemed to go too far in the opposite direction, what we call Eutychianism (sometimes called Monophysitism); according to Eutyches Jesus' humanity was effectively swallowed up or drowned out by the divine; this too was rejected as heretical. In response to both of these positions the Christian Church drafted a basic confession of faith at Chalcedon, the Definition or Creed of Chalcedon. It is a very articulate statement of Christology that asserts both the total unity of Christ's hypostasis (His Person if you will) as well as the complete distinctiveness of His two natures (God and man).

What is left is, fundamentally, a mystery and a paradox. The God who cannot suffer suffered, because He was human. The God whose voice spun the galaxies into existence was the helpless and voiceless infant suckling at Mary's breast. A mortal man limited as men are could speak and cause the wind and waves to calm, He could make lame men walk and heal lepers of their affliction, with but a word He commanded the dead to get up and walk--and they did. This is the mystery and the paradox of the God-Man. He who knew all things did not know the timing of His return, He who filled all things sat in agony sweating blood in the anxiety of His own death and hang on the cross crying out, "My God! Why have you forsaken Me?!".

This is the profound mystery of our faith: God became man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

Just needing to clarify here.

Are you saying you believe that Jesus was not omniscient?

I will add here for the sake of it, that I do make the assumption that Jesus was not omniscient. I say this because Jesus is a human, with a brain, with eyes and ears in one place at one time. But God is beyond that, He has eyes and ears in all places. For the human to be omniscient is not possible, Jesus knew things that others did not know (eg, catch a fish, there will be a coin in it's mouth). This, I expect, is knowledge not available to any human, but only able to be manifested by a human acting in real faith to God. Jesus was always obedient to God, His father, and as God His father is omniscient, Jesus had reliable access to omniscience through faith. I would like to be corrected about this, and welcome gracious correction.

 

[MishSill]

No. I'm saying that the Mystery of the Incarnation involves a paradox. So, let's take an example: Was Jesus omnipresent? Well as God He certainly must have been omnipresent correct? Yet Jesus, being human, is clearly limited to time and place, He doesn't apparently exist beyond His own body. Can God suffer? Well no, yet Jesus suffers, not just physical agony as on the cross, but emotional agony as we see in the story of Lazarus or in the Garden of Gethsemane. How can God die? He can't. Yet Jesus died.

Now some will try and argue, "No, God didn't suffer, it was only Jesus' humanity that suffered." That's a problem because it separates the Divine Jesus from the Human Jesus; this is what the ancient Church called the heresy of Nestorianism. It seemed to most in the Church that what this was doing was suggesting a kind of double-Jesus. In the years following some seemed to go too far in the opposite direction, what we call Eutychianism (sometimes called Monophysitism); according to Eutyches Jesus' humanity was effectively swallowed up or drowned out by the divine; this too was rejected as heretical. In response to both of these positions the Christian Church drafted a basic confession of faith at Chalcedon, the Definition or Creed of Chalcedon. It is a very articulate statement of Christology that asserts both the total unity of Christ's hypostasis (His Person if you will) as well as the complete distinctiveness of His two natures (God and man).

What is left is, fundamentally, a mystery and a paradox. The God who cannot suffer suffered, because He was human. The God whose voice spun the galaxies into existence was the helpless and voiceless infant suckling at Mary's breast. A mortal man limited as men are could speak and cause the wind and waves to calm, He could make lame men walk and heal lepers of their affliction, with but a word He commanded the dead to get up and walk--and they did. This is the mystery and the paradox of the God-Man. He who knew all things did not know the timing of His return, He who filled all things sat in agony sweating blood in the anxiety of His own death and hang on the cross crying out, "My God! Why have you forsaken Me?!".

This is the profound mystery of our faith: God became man.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with you it is certainly a paradox. I simply believed that Jesus was/is 100% man and 100% God.

Ministers in the church had taught something that rather stuck with me.

When Jesus was dying on the cross He took sin upon Himself. He never knew sin and that was why He cried out "My God my God why hast thou forsaken me". It was put to me that He experienced for the first time, separation from God. That makes a lot of sense to me.

In going back to the original question was Jesus educated? I don't see how that was necessary given who He is.

I'm going bonkers thinking about this. I'll come back to it.

 

[South Bound]

does anyone know whether or not Jesus was literate and to what extent, if any, was He educated? What evidence is their regarding this? Thank you my brethren
Aidan

How could He have written in the dirt if He was illiterate? How could He have astounded the elders in the temple if He was not educated? How could He have been a rabbi if He was illiterate and uneducated?

 

[South Bound]

I will add here for the sake of it, that I do make the assumption that Jesus was not omniscient. I say this because Jesus is a human, with a brain, with eyes and ears in one place at one time. But God is beyond that, He has eyes and ears in all places. For the human to be omniscient is not possible, Jesus knew things that others did not know (eg, catch a fish, there will be a coin in it's mouth). This, I expect, is knowledge not available to any human, but only able to be manifested by a human acting in real faith to God. Jesus was always obedient to God, His father, and as God His father is omniscient, Jesus had reliable access to omniscience through faith. I would like to be corrected about this, and welcome gracious correction.

This is what Indians call "heap big heresy".

But don't worry. Nestorius would love your post.

 

[Isaacsname]

In the NT he quotes the OT, so by that one might assume he was at least familiar with some of the scriptures

Whether or not he was proficient with both oral and written Torah is a matter of debate

 

[South Bound]

In the NT he quotes the OT, so by that one might assume he was at least familiar with some of the scriptures

Whether or not he was proficient with both oral and written Torah is a matter of debate

The Old Testament is His Word. How could He not be familiar with it?

 

[Isaacsname]

whatever you say buddy

 

[South Bound]

whatever you say buddy

Actually, it's whatever the Bible says.

And I'm not your buddy.