There are many different levels of literacy.  Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, most scholars now believe.  Was John the Baptist literate?   John the Baptist was probably an Essene.  Obviously some Essenes were literate, since they left us quite a lot of writings.  It is hardly improbable that Jesus had some ability to read and (perhaps) write Aramaic and Hebrew, closely related languages.  Hebrew would have been particularly important, given his evident desire to know God’s will through the scriptures.  

Given the chance to learn, any intelligent person can learn to read and write.  But it’s time-consuming, and most poor people, in societies lacking schools, don’t have a chance to learn, and are not encouraged to do so, since all are expected to support the family.  

Jesus was not a carpenter.  He had devoted himself to what was, in essence, a scholarly life–the life of an intinerant rabbi.  He was clearly of exceptional intelligence.  He was expected to know more than the average person in order to speak with authority, and there is some evidence that people he talked to were impressed by his knowledge of scripture.  Unless you believe he just memorized it from hearing it read out loud, obviously he could read.  

There are numerous examples of Native Americans who, in the early days of European colonization, taught themselves to read and write English and other languages.  I see no reason why Jesus couldn’t.  The only real evidence he wasn’t literate is that he left no writings.  (By which reasoning, we must assume Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, and Socrates were all illiterate).  

The story of the woman taken in adultery can’t be confirmed to have happened, but it’s hard to explain why such a story would have survived, and then be added to the John gospel, if it wasn’t based on a real event.  It’s problematic on a number of levels for early Christianity.  The woman never expresses any penitence for her sin (sexual morality mattered no less to early Christians than it did to Jews), and is not said to become a follower of Jesus–and the Jews who bring her to Jesus are shown to have a pang of conscience when he confronts them with their hypocrisy.  There is also the implication that Jesus is saying no on there–himself included–has any right to stone her, because all are sinners themselves.  

Roger David Aus, in his article “Caught in the Act–With Whom and By Whom?” thinks Jesus was writing the beginnings of two bible verses–that the leaders of the group confronting him would recognize, and understand the relevance of.  He thinks they were Malachai 2:11 and Hosea 4:14.  The latter of which has God telling Israel that He will not condemn the women for committing acts of fornication, because the men have committed them as well.  And of course, Jesus was not alone among Jews of that time in believing that lustful thoughts were no less sinful than the actual deed.  And since Aus believes the man caught in adultery was not a Jew (that’s why he’s not there), but rather a Roman (the city is full of soldiers at Passover), the former verse would be to remind those present that Jewish men have likewise consorted with gentiles.  They were not stoning her for adultery, but disloyalty, consorting with the enemy.    

There are other things he could have written.  But Aus’ argument is pretty tight.  I highly recommend the piece.  

Nobody made this story up to prove Jesus could write.  There was no need to do that.  Nor does the story, as preserved, tell us what Jesus was writing (possibly Jesus’ followers who were present were themselves illiterate, or not well-schooled enough in scripture, so they simply didn’t know).  So it’s a rather odd thing to have him do, without explaining it.  It makes the story more compelling, more mysterious.  As does Jesus’ brief admonition to the woman, which seems incomplete–unless he wasn’t trying to teach her, except perhaps by example.  He was trying to teach her accusers, some of whom were literate, and not immune to reason or deaf to conscience.  (This is how we can be sure John didn’t include it, since he considered educated Jews hostile to Jesus to be both those things).

In any event, Jesus died a few days later.

Question–if any of you had witnessed this, would you be able to forget it?

I most certainly do not believe Jesus was a great scholar, nor do I think he knew any languages besides Aramaic and (some) Hebrew–enough to study the Torah and other available religious texts.  The scenario you describe is perfectly reasonable, but there are other possibilities.  

As to why he left no writings–for whom?  For what posterity?  To what end?  He believes the world is going to be utterly transformed in the lifetimes of those he preaches to.  That God will lay low the kingdoms of men, and only those of good will–those who need no holy books to teach them how to behave–will remain.  No more sin, no more ignorance–no more need for books.  (Personally, I think they might have gotten bored after a while, enjoyed a good novel here and there, but it’s a moot point, since the novel hadn’t been invented yet.)

Socrates was certainly educated.  We have not one word or idea of his that wasn’t preserved by Plato or Xenophon.  Mixed in with a lot of things that never came from him.  And while I do tend to think that had Jesus written anything down, it would have been preserved by his followers, we shouldn’t assume too much–Alexander created an empire that (in various parts) lasted for centuries after his death.  We know he could write.  We have nothing written by him either.  (Offhand, I don’t even know of any writings of his that were said to exist once, though one assumes there were things like military dispatches, correspondence).  

I think he could read quite well, and write at least a bit.  I think he wrote something in the dirt when they brought that woman to him.  I think some of them read it.  I think it made them ashamed.  I can think that if I want to.  Try and stop me.  😉