(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Here’s a question I have gotten repeatedly over the years: Could Jesus read? I received a form of the question in a comment recently:
QUESTION:
My question is: Could Jesus read? I thought I had read in your books or heard in one of your videos that you thought he, along with his immediate followers, were illiterate. But recently in one of your Sunday lectures you either stated or implied that he could actually read, and at least some of the instances in the gospels where he was reading from “the scrolls” were likely true. Please straighten me out on this topic.
RESPONSE: I’ll begin with something that I’ve talked about on the blog several times before literacy in Roman Palestine. The reality is that the vast majority of people then and there could not read or write. This comes as a surprise to many people who have heard the modern myth that all boys in Palestine went to Hebrew school and became literate there. Turns out, that’s not true.
This is a rather important issue — whether you are a Christian or simply someone interested in the Bible or the past in general. And I give here information that most people don’t know. Want to know? Keep reading! How? Join the Blog! Click here for membership options
Could Jesus Read? My Thoughts
First, the broader picture: modern studies of literacy have shown that in antiquity most people in every time and place were illiterate. The most influential study has been by Columbia University professor of ancient history William Harris, Ancient Literacy. Harris shows that at the best times and places in the ancient world (say, Athens in the days of Plato), maybe 15% of the population was roughly literate. In most times and places, it was more like 10%. Of that number far more could read than could write. That’s because, as scholars like Raffaella Cribiore have shown, in her books on reading and writing/education in the ancient world, reading and writing were two different skills, and writing composition is still another. Almost all those who *could* read and write, or even just read, were upper-crust urban elites. Jesus, of course, was none of the above.
Literacy in 1st Century Palestine
Now, the more narrow picture: literacy in first-century Palestine (i.e., in the days of Jesus) was almost certainly lower than in the empire at large. This has been shown in an influential article by Meir Bar-Ilan and in the full and authoritative study Literacy in Roman Palestine by Catherine Hezser. Anyone who wants to engage in this topic needs to read this book. Bar-Ilan and Hezser both argue that in the Roman period, probably only 3% of the population of Palestine was literate. And again, those who were were primarily the rich and well-off folk living in the cities. So what are the chances that someone like Jesus could read and write? Well, not good. But it’s still possible.
And now on to the NT itself. First, there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that Jesus could write. The only account of him writing is the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8, which, as most readers of this blog probably know, was not originally in the NT but was added by a later scribe. Chris Keith has another book – one that I *have* read (since he published it in a monograph series that I edit for E. J. Brill) – that this story was in fact added to the Gospel of John by a scribe who wanted to show that Jesus *could* write. I’m not completely convinced by that, but it’s a very interesting argument and Keith makes a good case for it.
Could Jesus Read? Probably Not
My strong sense is that Jesus could not write. I think he certainly could not compose, and he was probably never trained to copy (for example, the Scriptures). That kind of training took years, and I doubt if the kind of hand-to-mouth existence he and his family had in the little hamlet of Nazareth would have afforded him the time or leisure to get it.
But could he read? As it turns out, there is some conflict over that matter just within the pages of the New Testament. In Mark 6, we learn that Jesus’ own townspeople – the ones he grew up with, cheek by jowl (Nazareth was a very small place) – are flabbergasted that he has learned of any kind and can’t understand how he came by it (Mark 6:2-4). This is based on his teaching in the synagogue, and the passage does not indicate that Jesus actually read the Scriptures before he started teaching about them. But the clear implication from this, our earliest account of the matter, is that Jesus was not known by the people who would have known to have had an education.
There is Some Evidence in Luke 4 that Jesus Could Read
This view is at odds, however, with the way the same story is told in Luke 4:16-21. This is the one passage in the entire NT that indicates that Jesus could read. He does read. And the people are not amazed that he suddenly seems educated when they knew he wasn’t; they are instead taken aback at the “gracious words” that he spoke.
Luke 4, then, is our only solid evidence that Jesus could read. It is based on a story in Mark where Jesus is not said to read. So could Jesus read?
Many people have thought that since he was acclaimed as a Jewish teacher, he surely could read the Scriptures that he taught about. That may well be right, and I slightly lean-to that view – that Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible (well? fairly well? not so well?). But I don’t think that it’s necessarily the case: a teacher does not have to read, and it is possible for very smart people to acquire their knowledge of texts – even accurate knowledge of texts – from hearing them read aloud (which is how most people “read” in the ancient world: by hearing a text read aloud in a public context).
Rabbis Weren’t Always Highly Educated
I should stress that we cannot say that “rabbis” were always highly educated, that Jesus was a “rabbi,” and that Jesus was therefore highly educated. That’s precisely what we don’t know. The technical term/office of “rabbi” came about long after Jesus had passed from the scene. To call Jesus a rabbi in his day was not to say that he belonged to the rabbinic office or participated in a rabbinical school. It simply was to say that he was a teacher, back in the days when that did not require special training.
Still, I am slightly inclined to the view that Jesus could read. How did he learn? I’m afraid we can only guess. The best guess is that if it’s true that he could, he must have been taught by someone who had access to books (of Scripture) and who took the time to teach him. And that would suggest that it was the local leader of the local synagogue. If that’s the case, then that unknown person turns out to have been one of the most important figures in the history of western civilization: if Jesus had not been taught (either orally or to write), we would not have had Christianity![/mepr-show]
If Mark, Matthew and Luke were students at a university and they turned in their Gospels, would Matthew and Luke be on the hook for plagiarising Mark?
Actually no. Plagiarism is when you take someone else’s work and and represent it without acknowledgement in your own name. Matthew and Luke are anonymous, and so aren’t claiming anyone’s work under their own name.
Is it possibile Jesus read Aramaic Targums instead of Hebrew Scriptures? Are there traces of Targumic Influence in the NT?
We don’t know of any Targums that early. It’s usually understood that Jews quoting the Bible at the time were quoting the Hebrew.
A related question: Did Nazareth really have its own synagogue? Sure, the larger towns & cities did (e.g., Capernaum), but did every small (tiny?) village have its own synagogue, and a local educated person to lead it, and a copy of the scriptures to read from?
Not a synagogue building, in the days of Jesus. Archaeologiest have dug the place up. There are no public buildings of any kind. The “synagogue” would have been simply the gathering of Jewish men, not a building.
Can we really say for sure there was no synagogue?
Archaeologists have dug up parts of Nazareth, but the modern city is fairly dense, and excavations cover only a small fraction of the first-century village.
Jonathan Reed’s book estimates first-century Nazareth at no more than 5 hectares (12.5 acres) and no more than 400 inhabitants. It probably ran just next to modern Paulus ha-Shishi Street.
There is a bit of area excavated under and around the Basilica of the Annunciation.
If you go up Al-Bishara Street just a bit, you’ll find one first-century house excavated at the Mary of Nazareth International Center.
And if you go up 6166 Street to the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, there’s a first-century house far below the street level, which Ken Dark has published some work on.
So these are three data points with no synagogue, but there’s still a whole lot left unexcavated.
There might be many surprises, but it’s just not feasible to excavate them.
It’s good to remember that quite a bit of Magdala was excavated in the 1970s, but nobody dreamed there was a first-century synagogue just a stone’s thrown to the north. It was discovered a couple of feet below the surface in 2009.
You may want to check out the archaeological reports themselves. It’s been years since I read them. What they say, at least, is that there is no evidence of any public buildings of any kind. I don’t recall specifically, but I believe they looked in the places where one would find one. I suppose that seems weird only if we expect every town to have a synagogue; but in most small places “synagogue” just meant the place where a sufficient number of Jewish men were gathered for the occasion. But maybe you’re right: I’d have to look it all up again.
I’m sure your memory is accurate that the reports say they found no public buildings. (This would be around the Basilica of the Annunciation, right?)
The only question I would have is just how much of the ancient village they actually excavated.
I once did a blog post that estimated the median village size in Galilee in the first century at around 200 people, and the 80th percentile village at around 400 people. (Based on a standard Pareto distribution and the usual estimate for the populations of Sepphoris and Tiberias at about 10,000 people.)
If you reckon 100 people per hectare in an unwalled village, this gives you an area estimate of 2 to 4 hectares, which is 5 to 10 acres, which is in accord with Jonathan Reed’s estimate of Nazareth as “no more than 5 hectares.
Even 5 acres is a sizable area to excavate, especially in a built-up area like modern Nazareth.
It’s clear that the excavators didn’t dig anywhere around the Sisters of Nazareth Convent or the Mary of Nazareth International Center.
So if I had to bet money, I’d say that the excavation could not possibly have covered the whole village.
I stand with the fact the most people today cannot read or write. That’s why they ask these questions.
I suppose Didymus the Blind would be an example of someone who was educated but whom physically could not read.
Yes indeed. And could quote Scripture with the best of them.
I suppose that this is like most things in history. You deal in probabilities. Would Jesus have been married by age 30? Probably. Would Jesus have died a long agonizing death on the cross over days instead of several hours as indicated in the gospels? Probably. Would Jesus’ body have been left to rot on the cross? Probably. Would Jesus have been illiterate? Probably. But you can never entirely discount the improbable if the possibility no matter how unlikely it is exists.
Yup! And if you want to go with the improbable, you simply have to have a convincing case to make. It happens!
What would a literate citizen of first century Nazareth have to read? You mention religious texts housed at the local synagogue. Would there have been other books around in that village? Early printed books were very expensive, beyond the reach of the poor. Manuscript books must have been even more expensive. We think of pen, paper and ink as cheap. Was it so then? What about letters? Would a villager have distant friends, relations, business associates that he needed to contact regularly? What benefit would an inhabitant of such a village derived that would have repaid the effort of learning to read?
No, no books. Just Hebrew Scripture. Possibly the town had a copy of some of it?
Early printed books were very expensive, beyond the reach of the poor
And no printed books in Palestine for over a thousand years afterwards, anyways!
Do you mean actually “printed” books? Of course the printing press wasn’t invented until the 15th century….
There would have been a lot of writing about, even in first century Nazareth. Coins, for example, always carried a written inscription, and every container of wine, oil or baked fish would have a written label attached to the stopper stating who had produced it. Without which, you would not get paid. When you paid your taxes, you would get a written receipt; if you took out a loan, this would be recorded as a written contract. When you walked over to a nearby city, you would find graffiti on every accessible wall – in Greek, Latin and Aramaic. And of course, the Temple in Jerusalem was liberally provided with public notices; stating where you could go, and where (on pain of death) you might be forbidden to go.
Only a very small minority were formally educated; but that did not mean that the everyday population could get by day-by-day without at least some capability in reading.
Little of this writing was on papyrus, of course; the most common material for everyday writing – goods labels, receipts, and even short notes and letters – were ‘ostraca’, reused broken pottery.
Where are you getting this information about labels on containers and written receipts for business and tax transactions?
Have you read the research on ancient literacy? It’s normally argued that writing everywhere (for example the word “Caesar” on a coin) does not indicate literacy everywhere. All you needed was someone around who *could* read. One out of ten is the usual guess for most of antiquity. That would have been more than enough.
Chiefly frrom Roger Bagnall (again). I have quoted his book elsewhere on this thread; but each of his chapters is a ‘case study’ demonstrating the ubiquitous use of writing in everyday life for the populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. Especially informal writing – as grafitti and ostraca; and also as essential tokens for everyday transactions in written form – receipts, contracts (and seals), stopper-labels, entry tickets at the city gates for goods to be traded on market day.
As such, Bagnall engages with – and substantially corrects – a number of the unwarranted inferences that William Harris (and others) had drawn from the surviving archeological record; that even in Egypt (where vast amounts of fragmentary documents survive), functional use of writing was largely confined to a literate elite; but also that use of writing was nevertheless more common in Egypt that in the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. As he also corrects counterpart ungrounded assertions by some of Harris’s critics.
“arguments from silence, those based on the absence of some body of documentation that would have been created by such everyday writing, deserve the very most rigorous scrutiny before being given any credence.” p140.
Thanks.
Fascinating. And another instance of Luke “improving” on Mark. Thanks.
I believe I have responded to this issue on the blog before, but for those who may not have seen it, here it comes again. As a former teacher, I have noticed that there is a great range of abilities to learn to read. Some students take to it almost as easily as breathing, while there are others who never get it no matter how much teachers try to help them. If Jesus were among the first group I mentioned, he would not have needed many opportunities to become a very competent reader, and if there were scrolls of the scriptures in his local synagogue, he could have had opportunities to practise.
Your last sentence seems to conflict with the earlier statement that a good teacher doesn’t need to read to be able to teach.
“little hamlet of Nazareth”– isn’t that a little controversial? Some argue that there was no Nazareth, as a place or hamlet or specific location in the Palestine of that time, and that the idea of a town called Nazareth came about due to confusion over a term like Nazarite, which actually referred to someone adopting a specific way of life, of austerity and piety, being set apart by their extreme purity. If Jesus was a Nazarite in this sense, no need to suppose that he came from a Nazareth that might not have existed then. I guess there’s no consensus on this issue. Also, supposing that Jesus WAS God, and could work miracles and predict the future (destruction of the temple, though stones WERE left standing on top of each other– missed that one, eh?) then anything is possible! He knew Mandarin! Russian! He knew all of mathematics, including the proof of Fermat’s theorem! Of course he was literate! He could have reproduced every novel ever written in every language that ever was or will be! It gets really silly, is what I’m trying to say.
No, I don’t thikn it’s controversial. Archaeologists have dug it up and there are full reports about it. the only ones who say it doesn’t exist, that I know of, are mythicists who (on this point at least) don’t know what they’re talking about. I try to show that in my book Did Jesus Exist.
Something has been dug up but did they find anything that would pretty firmly establish that the thing dug up was called “Nazareth” when Jesus was around? I’m sold on the idea that Jesus existed. I’m not sold on the idea that the historical Jesus bore more than a very faint resemblance to the gospel Jesus. Like, the gospel Jesus had feet. And he said things. Yeah, most likely true as well of the historical Jesus.
But where, precisely, did those feet carry him, and when, and what, precisely did he say? If the historical Jesus was not at all very much like the gospel/Pauline Jesus, we are almost on the same page as the mythicists, but not quite.
Yes, I don’t think there’s any doubt they dug up Nazareth. You can read the reports as I cite them in my book did Jesus Exist.
I don’t have that book in my collection, so… the collection gets bigger!
Looking at a later era, I’ve always had the impression that during the middle ages Jews had a higher rate of literacy than surrounding Christian communities, at least within Europe, and that while the literacy was at its core tied to religious studies, it was secular in the sense that it was practiced widely throughout the community, not just by clergy. Is this indeed the case, or is this a misconception? If it is indeed the case, and it’s indeed the case that literacy in jewish communities was much less widespread in the classical era, there must have been a process in late antiquity / the early middle ages where Jewish communities adopted a tradition of greater literacy. Is it possible to trace this historically at all? Or is this misguided and Jewish and Christian literacy rates in the middle ages more comparable to each other?
Im afraid I don’t know much about Jewish education in the Middle Ages in Europe; but of course on any terms it would have been very very different from Jewish education in Roman Palestine. Among many other things, there was no rabbinic Judaism in Jesus’ day.
Was Paul a member of the upper crust elite? Or was literacy rate unusually high in cosmopolitan cities like Tarsus, hence Pharisaic families with Roman citizenship typically received high level of education? Were all students of Gamaliel in Jerusalem from upper elite families?
The idea that Paul is from Tarsus, that he had Roman citizenship, and that he studied with Gamaliel all come from the book of Acts, and I’m suspicious of all of them, in particular the final two. If he were a Roman citizen, he surely would have given some hint of it, and givenhis apparent back ground, that would have been extraodinary. And it appears that he does not read Hebrew, so the Gamaliel thing is certainly wrong, I should thin. He was definitley not upper crust elite, in any event. He was highly educated, but social elites had money and status, and he had neither.
How did Paul become highly educated without having money and status?
I wish we knew. Did he come from a family or higher status and renounce it all? (He clearly has no money or status in his letters) If so, how was he trained as a leather worker? NOrmally a person would be apprenticed as a young person. BUT, the main point is that we have plenty of examples of ancient people who were highly educated who had no money or status. One of the greatest Stoic philosophers was Epictetus; he was a slave.
Thanks, Dr Ehrman. This is a fascinating post. On the slightly related matter of whether Jesus spoke some Greek and Latin, Mel Gibson’s film notwithstanding, I would be very surprised if he spoke any Latin at all. But I think Jesus could have spoken some Greek given that the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, was just up the road from Nazareth and had a significant Greek speaking community. Jesus would have been in a similar position to modern anglophone Canadians living close to French speaking townships. Do you have any thoughts on this, please, Dr Ehrman?
I think if he were alive today and lived in a small town just a few miles from a major city, he would have probably been influenced by the culture there. But not in antiquity. He shows no evidence of having any interest in cities in the Gospels (notice that Sephoris itself is never mentioned). Canadians living in a bilingual place are very different. IN Quebec, everyone can speak French. Even in Sepphoris, only the elite folk would have, not the impoverished folk (which, of crouse, would have been most people)
Sorry to press the issue Dr Ehrman, but if Joseph and Jesus were carpenters or craftsmen in a tiny hamlet with limited work opportunities, wouldn’t they have been compelled to ply their trade further afield occasionally, say in Sepphoris? And wouldn’t that have necessitated some interaction with Greek speakers and a basic ability to converse in Koine?
If they worked a 40 hour job/week in carpentry, yes. But all the term “tekton” signifies is that they were the ones someone would go to in order to have their gate fixed. Most people would have spend a lot of time working on their plots, growing food etc., even though they would do other things that required more skills.
Indeed Bart; but the ‘more skills’ for a tekton would include; skills in measurement, capability of recording those measurements (likely on a wax tablet), and calculation of quantities for the job in hand. Every carpenter has to be able to measure, just as every shepherd has to be able to count.
Supposing that Joseph and Jesus were to be offered the job of replacing a door in Sepphoris; that door would have to fit the doorway; and would have to be fabricated from wood of the specified quality and origin (which the client would pay for, but the tekton would likely obtain). All of which would be specified in a written contract; as a sizable sum would be payable up-front.
Seasoned timber was not a local product in Galilee; it was costly, and had to be imported by sea (and duty would be payable). So Joseph and Jesus would also have to retain the customs docket for the duration of the job and the receipt for the timber; and also factor-in camel transport from the port to Nazareth.
The village tekton might not do much ‘reading’; but the job used writing every day.
No, I don’t think carpentry was like that at all.
Maybe not, Bart, ‘tekton’ could be one of several skilled trades in fabrication; but measurement (and recording measurements) would be an everday occurrence in most of them.
But take a less uncertain case; that of Cephas as a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee? We know this was predominantly an export trade. Cephas and family would have baked their catch (to preserve it), packed it in large baskets, sealed and labelled the baskets, carried them across the lake from Capernaum to Tiberias (presumably) – where they would have been inspected by the customs point at the city gate. Once duty was paid, and a customs docket issued, the baskets of fish could be sold on to a trader in Tiberias (who would give a receipt); and who would load them on a camel-train for Damascus.
Did Cephas expect his baskets back, and label them accordingly? It does seem possible; at any rate there was at least one such big empty fish basket handily around in Damascus when Paul needed to escape over the city walls at night.
Cephas the fisherman may not have read; but he used writing every day.
That’s an interesting reconstruction, but I’m not sure what ancient sources it’s based on and I would say that is far more than we know about Cephas. Lots of people were fishing for their small communities.
The fishing trade out of Galilee described in Strabo and Pliny.
But just from the Gospels:
Matthew 13: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad.”
– note that it is the fishermen themselves who sorted the fish and packed the baskets for dispatch. What is left out of the parable is the actual processing – gutting, cleaning, baking and salting.
Mark 2: “Jesus went out again beside the sea; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the customs post, and he said to him, “Follow me.”
– note that Levi’s customs post is at the lakeside; hence collecting fish duty from
fishermen, not from merchants along the highway.
Customs ostraca have been excavated in Berenike (on the Red Sea). In Egypt it seems the customs collectors (as unpaid office holders) also provided loan finance for the exporting producers (there vinyards). Which generated documentation itself.
I’m not denying that fish were exported. I”m denying that most fishermen were involved with that kind of business and that there’s any evidence Jesus’ followers were. There are certainly farmers in Iowa who are involed with massive business ventures connected with coin, and the modern day Strabos describe them. But those descriptions have little bearing on the realities of subsistence farming in rural areas of the sub-Sahara.
May I recommend to you, Raimo Hakola; “The Production and Trade of Fish as Source of Economic Growth in the First Century CE Galilee: Galilean Economy Re-examined”?
Hakola surveys all the recent archeology on the fish trade across the Roman Empire – which is considerable – with extensive findings in Magdala/Taricheae, as well as in Capernaum. He makes the point that the premium status ‘Galilean pickled fish’ which Strabo recommends to his Roman readers, came from Taricheae; production having been boosted by heavy capital investment there in fish processing facilities (recently revealed).
Capernaum was definitely not in the same league; but nevertheless there are clear indiations of increased prosperity in many houses found in Capernaum in exactly this period – the high commercial profile of the Taricheae fisheries spilling over to other producers around the lake. That Caperneum could support a customs post, does demonstrate that, here too, fishing was generating a significant external trade.
“It is likely that some rural fishermen families who had organized the practice of their trade collectively were able to benefit from the development of the Galilean fishing economy and gain a moderate livelihood from their profession”
Thanks. But I’d say that last paragraph is telling.
I read Chris Keith’s book Jesus Against the Scribal Elite shortly after it came out a few years ago. I’d never even considered the notion that Jesus might have been illiterate and at first found it rather scandalous. But the more I read, the more convincing I found Keith’s case. I now think it not only entirely plausible but indeed quite likely that Jesus was, in fact, illiterate.
I think we take literacy so much for granted these days that we tend to anachronistically assume that the same norms applied in the ANE, whereas in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Are there specific factors that make you lean toward the view that Jesus could read the bible? Is it primarily that he was acclaimed as a teacher?
Yeah, I lean different ways on different days, but if he was a teacher who knew Scripture well, it would make sense. Still, I wonder how it might have been possible. So I waffle.
Professor, I have to lean toward his learning scripture from hearing it read. Case on point is I attended Shabbat several times with a friend at Judea Reform near you. On one Friday eve the service was led by a junior Rabbi. A really nice young man who struggled not a little with the unpointed Hebrew of the Torah – and that no doubt after years of training! This is Hebrew we’re talking about… aaaggghh. Yes I should not let my own failings at language sway me.
I am skeptical, but if even half the teachings attributed to Jesus go back to him, he must have been a clever fellow. If his work as a craftsman took him to neighboring cities maybe he had the chance to develop some level of literacy there. But don’t you think by the time of the Gospels that the disciples would simply have assumed that a great teacher, divine in fact, would be literate?
All four gospels record Jesus as regularly being invited to “teach in synagogues”. I quite agree that this may not demand that he could read; but I does make it more likely than not.
Roger Bagnall. ‘Everyday Writing in the Greaco-Roman East’, makes a strong case that at this date in the Eastern Mediterranean; “Even in a world where many people could not read or write, the use of written languages was not something restricted to a small, high-status group. Writing was everywhere, and a very wide range of people participated in the use of writing in some fashion”. And this appears to be the world of Jesus’s parables too – as in Luke 16:1-8 ( the dishonest steward), where it is assumed as a matter of course that all the rich man’s debtors will all be able to read and write well enough to ‘adjust’ their accounts.
In Mark 12:10 Jesus upbraids the Pharisees and Herodians with “have you read the scripture”; and then again in 12:16 where he challenges them to “read this inscription”, I think it is a fair presumption in both instances that he could read the words himself.
What Bagnall means is that people participated in writing to the extent that they were influenced by written texts because they *heard* them read. THat was how most people “read” in antiquity: by “hearing” someone else reading in, say, a public context.
“… he must have been taught by someone who had access to books (of Scripture) and who took the time to teach him. And that would suggest that it was the local leader of the local synagogue.”
Anyone in Nazareth or surrounding areas in the historical records that would fit this description?
No one we know of. But we don’t know of anyone from there at the time.
You don’t have to go far to find kids memorizing large parts of the Koran by repetition, then listening to the Imams sermon. I do find it interesting that Nazareth is a suburb of Sephora a key Roman town with a library thus academics. Just listening to them in the forum and such would have been of great value.
I have to agree that it is very unlikely that Jesus would have been able to read. As for him being able to quote scripture, we have to remember that the culture at the time was much more efficient at passing knowledge orally and that there are Jewish rabbis even in modern times that can recite the Torah from memory.
When I was in the Mormon church, one of the church’s divine revelatory affirmations was to describe founder Joseph Smith as an illiterate and uneducated young boy. We know today from authors, like Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman, that he was well versed in scripture and taught by his brother, Hyrum. Do you think Professor, that there is a more divine/spiritual intervention asserted, when a person is pronounced illiterate and not educated by his followers? That somehow a chosen prophet/person could not know what he knows without God guiding him.
Yes, there is!
Even if people from another time/culture learned reading and writing separately, and differently than how people are taught today, would some ability to write not naturally come along as a person’s ability to read increases?
I’ve known people with minimal education who could read only a little. If you asked them to follow a set of instructions, say if they purchased something that required assembly, they would be lost. But they could get by at the grocery store, manage the bills, and send letters to their friends. If someone was capable of reading passages from scripture, would they at least not be able to string together a few sentences? Send a letter to someone or jot down their thoughts, even if their grammar wasn’t the best?
Prof Ehrman,
What of the disciples of Jesus, do you think they probably could read someway somehow?
No, I absolutely don’t.
If Levi/Matthew was a customs collector (as the synoptics assert); he must certainly have been able to read, write and figure sums – likely in several languages.
I don’t think that’s likely at all. He may just as well have been the guy who would break your kneecaps if you don’t pay up. There were far, far more of that type.
Are you sure. Bart? Luke calls Levi ‘teliones’; that is, very much the guy in charge, not the hired heavy.
Plus; all the synoptics have him sitting at (or in) the customs post. Who gets to sit, and where, is never a neutral matter in Gospel narratives. Acting while seated is for judges, teachers, rulers and figures of authority. Any bully-boys would only have been allowed to sit on the ground outside ; that is assuming they had been given permission to sit at all.
For the synoptic authors, Levi/Matthew the customs collector was a person of considerable secular status (and presumably education) ; albeit a status that brought with it popular and religous condemnation.
I”m afraid you’ve got me confused here. Levi is not one of the twelve disciples in Luke (or in Mark, from which Luke is getting his story). So what does his profession have to do with whether any of Jesus’ disciples was literate?
But directly to your point, you’re right, Levi is called a τελώνης, but what does that have to do with his administrative abilities within the tax collecting “corporation”? What makes you think that means he’s a higher up? I’m not aware that the word means anything other than the guy who gets the money off of you. Do you have some reasons for thinking so? BEcause of how the word typically gets used in otehr authors (not from what I can see). Because he’s sitting at a table?
It looks to me like you’re making all sorts of assumptions, e.g.: Matthew = Levi = τελώνης =a highly placed tax official = literate; and all based on an account written 55 years after the fact by someone who didn’t know any of these people, when what you’re responding to is my views of the actual historical Jesus and his followers.
I confess that I had read clerrance’s question as referring to Jesus’s disciples in general; not just to the twelve. Levi son of Alphaeus is not listed among the twelve in Mark, although James son of Alphaeus is. And as the Alphaeus family treat Jesus to a ‘great feast’ in their house that evening (Luke 5:29) it is a reasonable assumption that both were men of substance – and plausibly education.
These accounts were indeed written-up years later; and not by eyewitnesses; nevertheless these writers were familiar with ‘telonai’, and I would venture that the social association of the actual historical Jesus with ‘prostitutes and tax gatherers’ is undisputed. Would you agree?
From my reading, I don’t think we can talk of a ‘tax collecting corporation’ – certainly not in Galilee and hence outside the Judean census of 6-7 CE. The ‘telonai’ rather formed local consortia of private contractors, who were engaged by the ‘publicani’ (the Roman tax farmers financing the system) to collect taxation – chiefly in kind (not money) – and convert it for public use as funds or army supplies. This necessitated a lot of documentation.
My bigger point is that the word doesn’t mean “a higher up in the tax corporation” (not sure where you’re getting the translitation telonai from?) Obviously any terminoology we used for the tax collector organization is going to be anachronistic since both “corporations” and “private contractors” in our usage presuppose a capitalize economy. The structure as I understand it was that the province was put up for bids and the Romans chose which bid to take, and the bidder employed tax collectors at all levels, from head administrators down to the knee-buster. All of them were tax collectors. There were, of course, far more “workers” than “bosses” just as in modern corporations.
Thanks for your explanation Bart; my understanding shades perhaps differently – especially for Galilee at this date. The Roman state invited bids from publicani for each tributary province; who then contracted with local consortia for collection, conversion and delivery of the various taxes. It is the these private consortia who are commonly termed ‘tax collectors’ in the gospels; and, as you say, any dirty work will have been done by their servants. Levi sitting in the fisheries customs post is likely not to have been at the bottom of the food chain.
Two key points:
– firstly, all Roman taxes were levied on producers; vinyards, quarries, farms, fishing families. Traded goods had to be labeled with the name of the producer, and accompanied by a tax-docket to prove that taxes due had been paid; to be read and checked at subsequent tax-points.
– secondly, the taxpayer covered collection expenses. When a fisherman presented a labelled basket of fish at their local customs post; they would also present a potsherd (usually) for recording a receipt both for duty paid, and expenses.
Reading and writing were ubiquitous at all levels.
I appreciate your views — but I’d like to know where you’re getting them from. Is this common sense for you, or do you have sources of information?
For Roman taxation in general; the main source is “The Roman Economy” by A.M.H Jones.
there is a good recent on-line review article by Sven Günther; who summarises the evidence for tax collection in this period being primarily through private contractual consortia. And – in respect of the matter on this thread – outlines the rationale for ubiquitous written customs documentation.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935390-e-38?rskey=RVJJ5o&result=1
“the issuing of receipts (for a fee?) had not only the purpose of keeping the taxpayer from having to pay double for goods he had not sold at the local market but also of accelerating the customs measuring procedure, of supporting controls by circitores (circulators) and, last but not least, of having a legal document for both parties in case of a legal action.”
In respect of surviving documents themselves; Bagnall analyses tax receipts and goods labeling. I am unaware whether any actual customs dockets have been identified; what have survived (from Berenike) are notes from the telones to named personnel on the customs point, certifying that duty had been paid so that a docket could be issued. It appears that, in Berenike, only the customs point itself could create the official document.
Since you don’t believe that Paul was a Roman citizen then I should assume that you don’t give any credence to the theory that Paul was beheaded (given a quick death) instead of crucified because he was a Roman citizen?
Nope. THe only account, as you probably know, comes in the Acts of Paul, where he is beheaded and instead of blood spurting from his neck, it’s milk. ON the whole that doesn’t inspire confidence in the report…. (The tradition he was beheaded almost certainly appeared precisely because it was believed he was a citizen, based precisely on the book of Acts)
So do you believe that the Letter of James is pseudopigrapha? As Jesus’ brother, James would have had about the same exposure to reading and writing as Jesus. Do you think James was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek? I have read that one argument against it being written by James is that the Greek is too polished.
I think the author was claiming to be Jesus’ brother and I am absolutely convinced he was not!
Dr. Ehrman:
Thank you for this post, a topic I’ve found myself very interested in. Given the low level of literacy in first-century Palestine, could you comment on any perspective you might have as to the historicity of the “INRI” placard at the crucifixion? That is, it would seem to me that such a tri-lingual posting would have limited value in rendering a warning to the populace if most people couldn’t read in one language let alone others. Thus it seems like it may not be the most historically likely detail of the accounts. But I’d be very interested in any thoughts you might have on it.
Writing was common back then, even though reading was not. But if ten people are looking at some letters and only one of them can read them, he simply told the others what they said. So the placard is not inherently problematic at all….
Hadn’t thought of it that way, thank you very much!
It would not be improbable for a young country kid, whose parents are very religiously traditional, and who has a gifted mind, to hear and absorb the oral teachings, remember them and be able to repeat them specifically. The more he practices recitation and reflection (remember, he’s gifted), he probably developed his own perspective on the teachings, influenced by whatever underlying philosophy he has personally developed based on experience and exposure, as well as hearing the perspectives of those around him both more and less traditional, as you might find in that geographical area. 1 could give him the benefit of the doubt that occasionally somebody from the city would pass through or someone from the town would go to the city in comeback and exchange ideas overheard or engaged in. This would provide fuel for his intellectual fire. Regardless of his cursory ability to understand small bits of writing, he would largely remain illiterate, but be conversationally very capable of teaching and thinking. Or not!
I’ve read that the LXX was the most commonly used version of the Jewish Scriptures in Jesus’ day, and it was in Greek. And I’ve read that Jesus spoke Aramaic and was probably illiterate. So, if he learned the Scriptures by hearing them read, was the LXX the version that was read aloud? In that case, how did common people understand what was being read to them? Did the person reading translate as he read?
The Septuagint was indeed the most commonly used version, but that is because the vast majority of Jews at the time (as today) did not live in Israel. In Israel the Scriptures were read in Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic but could probably understand written Hebrew. For those who didn’t, yes, on the spot translations (into Aramaic in Israel) were sometimes made by someone present.