Loading...When it comes to the question of whether Peter, the disciple of Jesus, was likely to have written 1 Peter, as I indicated in my previous post, a major issue to consider is the fact that in antiquity MOST people could not read, let alone write, let alone compose a sentence, let along a five-page essay, let alone in a foreign language. But weren’t Jews the exception? Didn’t Jewish men all know how to read and write? It turns out, the answer is no.
Again, this is taken from my fuller study, Forged (HarperOne).
The fullest, most thoroughly researched, and widely influential study of literacy in Palestine during the period of the Roman empire is by Catherine Hezser.[1] After examining all of the evidence Hezser concludes that in Roman Palestine the best guesstimate is that something like 3% of the population could read, and that the majority of these would have been in the cities and larger towns. Most people outside of the urban areas would scarcely ever even see a written text.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I think a plausible scenario (one we do have lots of examples of) is this: after Peter’s death, his companions composed a letter that captured the essence of his teaching and issued it under his name. In the ancient world, it was common for authors to record the speeches or teachings of notable figures after their death in order to preserve them, and these accounts were often written in the author’s own literary style.
I don’t think it’s fair to call such writings “forgeries,” especially if the audience knew they were composed after the person’s death, and perhaps even requested them so that the teachings could be preserved by the individual’s followers soon afterward.
Hello Bart/ Dr Ehrman. Just curious have you ever read or heard of the book released in 2006 by Elijah called
“The Underground Bible” ? Thanks.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman.
What do you think of 1 Corinthians 3 which Catholics believe tells of purgatory?
Thanks.
Off topic but no too far afield, I hope.
I understand that some manuscripts of Mark lack “-and Peter” in verse 16:7, But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee… Now I can understand why someone might add it since without it Peter is rather left in a despairing limbo at the end of ch 14. On the other hand it’s hard to see why someone would deliberately remove Peter given his importance.
Which is the earlier reading do you think? Was this a later attempt to “rehabilitate” Peter perhaps? (Interesting that John still feels the need to do the same thing in ch 21.) What is your opinion?
Thanks
I don’t know of any manuscripts that lack “and Peter,” and looking it up can’t find any. Do you know which manuscripts those are?
I was under the impression that neither Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus included it but looking back at my source it may be that they confused this with the absence of 16:9 and following. Misinformation on the internet. Who could imagine?
If most people were illiterate it seems to me that dictating letters to someone who could write would be a common practice. No? (Not that this applies to 1 Peter.)
Didn’t Rabbi Hillel learn to read only at age 40? Or is that just a story? (From. . . oral tradition)
I don’t know. If there are ancient sources that say so, it is certainly a story!
Can i ask you what you make of this argument by Andrew Perriman? https://www.postost.net/2017/11/21-reasons-why-coming-kingdom-god-not-end-world
I’m afraid I haven’t read it. But if you will summarize the argument for me I can respond.
First of all thank you for posting my comment, it forgot to stay on topic. Perriman argues argues that the New Testament’s “kingdom of God” is not about the end of the world but about God’s historical rule over nations through Christ. In the Old Testament, eschatology looks to YHWH’s vindication of Israel and judgment on surrounding powers (Ps. 82:8), not a cosmic new creation. Abraham begins a priestly people tasked with obedience in history, not the redemption of all creation. Israel’s monarchy arose to preserve both internal integrity and external security (1 Sam. 8:20). Apocalyptic texts use cosmic language—floods, fire, collapsing heavens—to describe political upheaval, not the annihilation of the cosmos (cf. Sib. Or. 4:115–92). The prophetic “new creation” (Isa. 51:3; 52:7) is metaphorical, pointing to restoration of Jerusalem. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom continues this line: healings and exorcisms signify Israel’s forgiveness and renewal (Matt. 11:1–5; Isa. 35:5–6), not universal cosmic transformation. The “regeneration” (palingenesia, Matt. 19:28) refers to the restoration of Israel, with the disciples judging the twelve tribes.
Yes, this was once a pretty standard argument, and others make it still today. I’d say that there certainly is metaphor in apocalyptic language, but you can’t really use passages weritten hundreds of years earlier (most of the Hebrew Bible) as guidelines for understanding apocalypticism, since it developed out of and away from traditional understandings of God, his people, and the coming deliverance. I used to think Jesus was speaking metaphorically, but then realized my main reason for thinking so was that what he predicted didn’t come true and so he must not have meant it. But that doesn’t seem to be a good way of understanding a text, to treat it figuratively because you think it has to be true but literally is not true. One big argument for thinking that Jesus really meant it is that his immediate followers almost certainly thought he really meant it — since they thought he was coming back in judgment to wipe out the current order and bring in a new kingdom. It’s not that that the world would explode and there would no longer be any cosmos. There would still be a world. But the forces of evil would be destroyed and God would rule the earth, as originally planned. So Jesus was not, for example, talking about Israel once again being a Sovereign STate, but an entire new world order and the destruction of the powers of darkness at the cosmic level. Or so I read him.
part 2 of my summary
When Jesus and the apostles speak of heavenly signs (Matt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24–25), these are symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of empires. Paul’s vision concerns the vindication of believers, Christ’s reign over hostile powers, and the subduing of all enemies, including death itself (1 Cor. 15:24–28). His speech in Athens (Acts 17:31) predicts judgment on the pagan world with its idols and temples, not a final dissolution of creation.
Even Revelation, though apocalyptic in form, depicts judgment on Rome and the eventual renewal of history, not the end of the world(Rev. 20–21). The coming of God’s kingdom should be read according to perriman as God’s intervention in history to establish Christ’s rule over nations, rather than the obliteration and replacement of the world. I hope i’ve got the general argument he’s making across adequately. Thank you for your time Dr Ehrman
I don’t think Jesus is speaking only of the destruction of Jerualem, but that certainly is part of it. I don’t think I’ve ever talked about teh apocalyptic view entailing the “end of the world” in the sense that there will be no more earth. It presupposes that there cetainly will be earth. So to that extent it sounds like I agree with him.
A comment and a question.
I would assume that a well educated person of antiquity would be as reluctant to transcribe and promote the “teachings” of an illiterate and uneducated person as they would today.
My question is, if Jesus was the illiterate laborer/peasant that it appears he was, where did his ability to “read from the book of Isaiah “ and the wisdom of his teaching recorded in the gospels come from? Was he educated or was all of this made up?
The passage is only found in Luke and I very much doubt if it is historical. It’s Luke’s additoin to a story found in Mark (and Matthew) and it coincides perfectly with Luke’s own distinctive agenda both about Jesus and a concern for those who are suffering and marginalized. So I think it’s a Luke touch, not a historical event as described.
When Peter was in Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14 he ate with the gentiles and Paul spoke to Peter in front of them when Paul rebuked him. Wouldn’t they all be speaking in Greek? How did Peter speak with the gentiles he was eating with if it wasn’t in Greek?
My guess is that he would have had an interpreter. There would likely have been bi-lingual Aramaic-Greek speeking Christians there, I should think.
Bart wrote: “It is theoretically possible, of course, that Peter decided to go to school after Jesus’ resurrection.”
According to legend, Simon Peter eventually became the first bishop of Rome. If he was preaching in Rome, presumably to Romans, would he not have been preaching in Latin? And if he had picked up some Latin as an adult, could he not have also picked up some Greek as an adult? It would not have been necessary to learn them as a child, and he would not have been fluent, of course, but there are many modern examples of missionaries who learn a foreign language in order to be able to teach in it.
Did the ancient scribes have much better eyesight than we do now? I find it hard to imagine anyone approaching 40 to be able to see clearly enough to write anything. How did they do it?
I wonder what you think Dr what you thought visiting the ancient Mediterranean lands of ancient history. Recently I asked what a neighbor thought visiting Greece & specifically NT areas [forgot answer].
When I was in Wuhan, Shanghai & Beijing living from 1995, I was barely verbal but chatty & illiterate. I can’t recall how I felt there. But I was utterly alarmed until Feb 2020, when Kaoshiung airport passport control ?ed my entrance, a huge layer of stress went awAy [like how I imagine Pentecost is described in the Acts].
I was safe in China [supportive community], not in SF Bay Area.
Yes, I always love trips to Greece, Israel, Turkey, Egypt … name your spot with ancient culture. If nothing else, it makes you think about how different it all was back in the period you’re interested in. (The big mistake that some people make is thinking that it would have been the same!)
The last and only time I went to Greece was over 30 years ago.