(23 votes, average: 4.74 out of 5)
Loading...In this post I continue to dig down into whether a poor Aramaic-speaking fisherman in rural Galilee could compose a highly sophisticated Greek treatise such as 1 Peter. In my last post I dealt broadly with the question of how many people in antiquity could write. In this post I turn my attention to Peter’s own historical context, Roman Palestine. Is it true that boys were consistently taught literacy there and that it’s plausible that one of them could write rhetorically effective Greek compositions?
I take the discussion, again, from my book Forged.
******************************
It is sometimes thought that Palestine was an exception, that in Palestine Jewish boys all learned to read so that they could study the Hebrew Scriptures, and that since they could read they could probably write. Moreover, it is often argued that in Palestine most adults were bilingual, or even trilingual, able to read Hebrew, speak the local language Aramaic, and communicate well in the language of the broader empire, Greek. Recent studies of literacy in Palestine , however, have shown convincingly that none of these assertions is true.
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 …
To see the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. It costs less than fifty cents a week, and for that you get five posts of 1000 words or so. Each and every week. Going back for years. Big bang for your buck. And all proceeds go to charity. It’s a no-brainer!
What about memorization? I have heard that many of the illiterate Palestinian Jews memorized large parts of the Torah- do you find that to be true?
No, that was very rare. And even so, that wouldn’t make someone able to compose a rhetorically effective essay in a foreign language. (I know many, many college students with 15 more years of education tahn Peter who have learned foreign languages; none of them could write a rhetorically effective letter like 1 Peter in a foreign tongue.)
I have to agree with Bart here. The Mishnah and Talmud in the tractate of Brochos discusses many daily things like prayers and blessings over food and how one person can say it for someone else who doesn’t know it. The impression we get is that there were a lot of people who didn’t know these things, which could be learnt orally and did not require reading.
A Jew who learned Hebrew and then learned Greek was someone who could be trusted, because a Jew who couldn’t be trusted wouldn’t be taught Hebrew in the first place. Hence, a Jew who learned Greek and then sought to learn Hebrew could easily be rejected for further education out of fear or jealousy. And that stone that the builders rejected could still become the foundation somewhere else.
All we know of Simon comes from the New Testament. There are some details about where he was and what he was doing when he met Jesus. He was in a small town but doing a skilled job (boats were not cheap even then, and ropes and nets still take fingers and lives). There’s nothing about where he came from, what education, if any, he had, or why he would find a calling as part of a traveling ministry.
If we accept all that the gospels say about Peter, why then reject what else the New Testament says about Peter: that he wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter? But don’t stop there.
Jesus was smart and could not only read but also write. Peter was the first to see who Jesus was (or is, depending upon your faith). Jesus said Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. Why would Jesus choose an illiterate, unsophisticated person as his right-hand man? Why would Jesus, a controversial revolutionary, trust someone who could be co-opted by the establishment? How could a fisherman have succeeded running a new religious sect in a foreign city (Rome)? Finally, 2 Peter tells everyone to cool it with the apocalypse and study the scriptures. Those are two clear differences between early and modern Christianity — less The-End-Is-Near and more Bible Study.
Now there is the issue of stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter. A clue is found in the exhortation to study the scriptures. It’s the first time anyone refers to the hodge-podge of circulating codexes as works that are permanent, inspired, and revered. The author of 2 Peter may have known he was writing something important, and used greater effort.
The archeological and historical probabilities can be swept aside with a simple fact about Jesus and his disciples — they are the most unique, improbable historical figures ever.
Being an important historical figure does not make you literate in Greek.
I mean, it’s possible that Jesus had a conjurer and a mariachi band at the last supper. Do you have any *evidence* that Peter could write? Any evidence that isn’t circular, such as “well, he wrote 1 and 2 Peter, didn’t he?”
Dr Ehrman.
If Jesus spoke Aramaic and Pontius Pilate the Roman procurator spoke Latin (or possibly Greek0 how did they communicate? According to the bible they were alone, or my interpretation of it, at his trial.
I assume that either there was a translator or that they infact did not actually talk to each other.
Your evidence, to me, seems overwhelming as your arguments usually do. I would not be surprised, however, if, somehow, many whom I know would not be convinced in the least. I find that discouraging. They would probably say “Let’s get back to THE Bible and it says Peter wrote First Peter and Second Peter. That pretty well settles it”
Yup, some views cannot be argued with….
Reading and writing are hard work.
Thinking is hard work.
True scholarship is priceless!
THANK YOU, Dr. Ehrman, that you “dig down into” your field of investigation so sacrificially!
I feel thoroughly enlightened by your work! God bless you!
So if the Bible writings are supposedly inspired by God, couldn’t God “empower” Peter with this skill just for these writings? (Playing devil’s advocate, and I realize this is not a historical question)
Sure, if you believe in miracles then literally anything is possible.
As I tell anyone who’ll listen, once you step off the Reality Boat you can go anywhere!
DR EHRMAN:
Your Question:
Were First-Century Jewish Boys Taught to Read and Write?
My Response:
My answer to your question above is yes, the Jewish boys were taught to read and write.
In John 19:19-20. Many of the Jews READ the inscription that Pilate has put on the cross of Jesus. It’s also very interesting that the inscription was written in only three languages, Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. So in what language do you think these Jews read the inscription? Hebrew,Greek, or maybe Latin?
“John” tells us about the inscription. “John” tells us a lot of things, but since it is unlikely that John wrote John, we have no reason to believe much of what is in John, written long after the events in question, by someone who was not “John” or THAT John. Your evidence is questionable and amounts to a circular argument, assuming the truth of a document in order to demonstrate that other parts of the document are true. Odds are, the inscription is pure fantasy. Odds are, much of what we read in “John” is pure fantasy.
Were there any discussions among the early Christians about whether the apostles were literate? I’m wondering if the Pentecost scene in Acts was perhaps a way of suggesting that the Holy Spirit could gift Peter and others to communicate in other languages, as a way of explaining this problem.
I’m not aware of any discussions like this, no, though apologists like Origen did make a big deal out of the major impact made by the uneducated apostes: it must have been because of the power of the Spirit. So too, Pentecost is mainly being used to show that the gospel preached in foreign lands is empowered by the spirit…
I’ve read that Simeon ben Shetach introduced public schooling in Palestine in 75BC, and that in the absence of a school building, smaller settlements used the local synagogue to educate their children.
You argue that even if there were some schooling arrangements in place in Capernaum, that Peter would probably be fishing than attending school. I have some sympathy with that view – but I’m not convinced – what reason would his parents keep him out of school? Was it the economy? I do think you’re right that he was illiterate in Greek, and even if he could read Hebrew, I doubt he could write it, or in his native tongue for the reasons you outline above.
Did you notice what the evidence for this is?
Peter’s parents didn’t keep him out of school. There probably *wasn’t* a school. It’s not like America in the 1960s!
I understand the source for this is the Palestinian Talmud.
I never imagined (or suggested!) 1st century Palestine was comparable to the US in the 60s.
If Capernaum didn’t have a school building, then wouldn’t the synagogue have been used to educate children?
Yes, that’s the point. The Palestinian Talmud is centuries later. One of the major finds of 20th century scholarship on rabbinic texts is that these later texts, when referring to earlier times, are often not at all accurate. When I meant “comparable to 60s” I meant that we today think that if a child doesn’t go to school, his parents are “keeping him out” for some reason. That’s not at all applicable to the first century. Also, no, synagogues did not have schools connected with them in the period. All of these are precisely the problem!
Bart
The parable of the wicked tenants is clearly presupposing a situation within the life of the church after the death of Jesus.
Steefen
It appears in Mark so it is clearly presupposing a situation before AD 67, before it could be picked up by Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. That is a hard sell.
The vineyard is Jerusalem. The tower of the vineyard becomes the temple and the vat the altar of burnt offering in front of the temple. The parable indicts not Israel but the leaders who opposed Jesus. C. H. Dodd says the parable is a non-clairvoyant prediction from Jesus. I guess Jesus is hoping God would pass judgment upon his slayers.
Before the destruction of the Temple, the Idumeans started killing the opponents of “Jesus” at the Temple itself.
Sacrifices at the Temple stopped which in effect dis-empowered Temple authorities who had once opposed the Biblical Jesus. The writers of Mark then would have the timeline so it could say the Temple establishment which rejected Jesus and James was rejected by the Father who destroyed them. But He throws out the baby with the bath water because He loses His Temple and more.
This produces a Gospel at face value without integrity. Below that, we have the gospel authors writing the true powerlessness of the Hebrew God and his Son-Messiah, ripping the heart out of Jewish violent messianism.
The prophecy of this parable must link to the prophecy of Tribulation followed by the entrance of the Son of Man because they come from the same person, the Biblical Jesus, who gets his God of Moses to turn his Face away from him by declaring how he wants to be remembered (in the gospel of John, this happens even before the Last Supper).
But there is no hoping the Hebrew God would let his own Temple get destroyed and a great loss of faith into atheism by people who suffered through it with starvation, cannibalism, the Idumeans, and the Romans.
Question: You want us to accept 1) Jesus had no hopes his God would punish those who rejected him but later forgave them on the cross and 2) Jesus did not predict AD 70?
So we go with Mara Bar Serapion and move the historical Jesus from 30 CE up a few decades to his wise king, “King” Menah-em (Em-Manu as in Em-Manu-El, sort of reversed without the El). Then the prediction of Tribulation sticks as non-clairvoyant.
What advantage did the Jews gain from {being against} their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished {by Rome, in the year after Rome had four emperors}. … [He is not dead]
because of the new laws he laid down.
–Mara Bar Serapion, circa 170 C.E.
“far more people could read than could write.”
Dear Prof!
Life has brought it, that I gained nearly ten years of experience various in developmental and learning disorders diagnosis and therapy. Based on my experience and the authentic letters of Paul I realized that Paul’s speech was disability and written language disorder. The reading and writing: the written language. Paul’s was a strong articulation disorder, or speech disabilities, and/or dyslexia and dysgraphia could. (2Thes3:17; 2Cor 11:6; 2Cor 10:10).
So Paul, in the 3% of that was in it 🙂
It is important to see, because these disruptions same neural based, and generally affects the reading comprehension. Paul always refers to the writings. What he did not understand. Thus became of Abram: Abraham (in Roma4:3), He uses the book of Hosaeas, or the psalms, but something completely different sense (Rom9:25; Rom3), because he did not understand exactly what he read.
Finally: Paul usually (almost always) dictated his letters. Just in the end he wrote greetings, with his own hands. Exception is the letter written to Philemon, written in jail. But this is a very short letter. He had difficult to write (2Thes3:17; Gal6:11). This are a sign of writing disorder (dysgraphia).
If Josephus could learn to read and write Greek in later life why not Peter also?
Both had time on their hands, both had wealthy patrons, both had the motivation and both had access to the upper echelons of the educated elite in Palestine.
Peter may not have been able to write the Antiquities but why not 1 Peter?
Precisely because Josephus was in the upper 0.1% of the elite (higher, actually) and Peter was at the very lower end. No resources or opportunities in his world, unlike that of Josephus, living in the court of the Roman Emperor!!
Peter began at the very lower end and began with no opportunities in his world. But he got catapulted into the 0.1%
How many day laborers from Capernaum got to hang around Jerusalem all day discussing theology with sophisticated greek speaking theologians.
If he wanted to convert the Gentiles he must have been capable of composing a theological argument and must have made at least some attempt to learn Greek.
How many day laborers could do that? Precisely none. Including Peter. There is zero record of him having any contact with a sophisticated Greek-speaking theologian. Even if he did have (he didn’t) that wouldn’t enable him to write his own sophisticated theological tractate. Trust me on this. I have students who hear me lecture on complicated topics all the time, but they can’t write an essay themsleves on the topic. Hearing someone who is sophisticated doesn’t make you sophisticated! And listening to someone who is literate doesn’t make you literate..
But Paul is the sophisticated Greek speaking theologian.
Early christians, including Peter and Paul, undoubtedly discussed which scriptures supported christian teachings and which didn’t.
With less than a dozen bible quotations in 1 Peter you wouldnt need any deep understanding of the septuagint to produce it – just put down all the verses used in debates between 1stC christians and jews.
Then just get a native speaker to polish up your broken Greek.
When Paul had a scribe “write” his letter for him, it means he was dictating it and the scribe wrote down what he said. That’s precisely *not* what is being imagined about Peter and 1 Peter, since he could not dictate a letter like this in Greek (let alone highly rhetorical Greek). If you want to follow up on this, see my earlier posts by searching for “secretary” on the blog.
Talking to a sophisticated theologian does not make you able to write sophisticated theology, and more than talking to Charles Dickens would make you able to write a Victorian novel.
How about the apostle’s letter to the gentiles in Acts 15?, presumably written in Greek.
Were the apostles capable of writing this or should it be concluded that acts 15 isn’t historically reliable?
Yes, I don’t think there was any such letter. If there was, then one of the members of the church who happened to be literate would have actually written it (someone who wasn’t a lower-class fisherman!)
Bart.
“…the Gentiles in Galilee were almost exclusively located in the two major cities: Sepphoris and Tiberias.”
Who were these Gentiles? Soldiers, civil servants, and the like, who were there because of the Romans’ overlordship of the general area, or regular folk who had put down roots in those cities? Were they Semites who weren’t Jews (in the religious sense), or people from further afield who were neither Semites nor Jews?
Yes, not Jews. People from other langds who settled in that area for one reason or another, probably involving getting jobs!
Beyond the question of whether someone like Peter _did_ learn to read/write, perhaps an equally important question is _why_ would he have learned to do so?
Viewed purely from a (vastly richer) 21st cent. American perspective (where we could argue that widespread public education is essential to the smooth workings of a modern society) such a policy might make sense. But what advantage would such an education bring to either Peter or the society in which he was born? What would it “buy” them?
More to the point recall that we are dealing with a rural, peasant, subsistence agrarian society. The cost (in terms of the resources needed, and the diverting of manpower away from daily agricultural work) needed to support this sort of training (to even a handful of individual, let alone to large fraction of the populace) would surely have been catastrophic, at least in terms of any minimal advantages that it might have supplied to the society at large.
I hope whatever you decided with your cat that all is well! You gave condolences back in March for my family’s dog that we had to put down, which upset us greatly. Thanks. I know we do not know each other but it was surprisingly helpful for me at that time.
Thanks. We have one cat remaining of the three. A skittish little thing. The beloved dog, alas, has bladder cancer. But has already outlived the prognosis by four months and is doing remarkably well.
It seems that Jesus was traveling rabbi at least in last year of his life,and it seems that he travels almost in rural Galilea not in cities.If apostles was probably illiterate,Jesus seems that he could write and read if he could cited from hebrew scriptures and preach in synagogues.
Dr.Ehrman Is there any article on blog about John the Babtist and his relation with Jesus ? Rabbi/disciple.
Sorry for my awful english,Im probably in that case when I can read an foreign language and cant write in it.
A new book is coming out soon by my friend Joel Marcus on John the Baptist. It will be teh definitive account available.
Are there any mythicists in respect of John the Baptist?!
I wouldn’t be surprised, but I don’t know of any. He’s talked about in Josephus (more than Jesus is).
I got this book the other day. I’ve only just started it, but it’s awesome so far!
It’s out. I received my copy from the publisher a couple days ago. I admire Prof Marcus’ two volume Anchor commentary on Mark and I have been looking forward to this one for a while. I find John the Baptist to be one of the most fascinating figures in the NT and am curious as to what scholars can really say about him.
“In short, Peter’s town was a backwoods Jewish village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education. Everyone spoke Aramaic. Nothing suggests that anyone could speak Greek.”
I totally disagree with this. Paul says he spent two weeks with Peter. If there’s a bilingual interpreter hanging around for 15 days, then Peter is having conversations on a regular basis about Jesus that’s being transmitted orally to Greek-speaking people. If a Greek-speaking believer is learning all he can about Jesus from Peter, then there’s no reason to believe that someone, somewhere wasn’t writing down his words in Greek as well.
Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him TO HIS FACE…I SAID to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Paul was either speaking in Aramaic or Peter could understand Paul as he was speaking in Greek. But even before that, Paul says he met with Peter, James, and John PRIVATELY and had a conversation about the gospel he was preaching. He claims false brothers spied on them while they were there. How did they figure out what he said? Paul doesn’t say one word about a language barrier hindering these conversations in any of his letters even though he stresses the need for interpreting tongues, the need for understanding. It’s a detail that he feels is extremely important, so I can’t see him failing to include the use of an interpreter, something he would have seen as a problem.
Just because Jesus and his disciples were impoverished doesn’t mean they didn’t have the mental capacity or motivation to learn more. They weren’t cognitively impaired due to lack of funds. They’re not given credit for anything. I mean, according to scholarship Jesus and his disciples barely made it ten feet from the front porch they were so dang poor. There’s really no evidence Paul used an interpreter in any of the exchanges he had with Peter, James, and John. In fact, the evidence in Paul’s letters points to him being bilingual and/or Peter being bilingual.
If it was an interaction between Jesus an John at all.
And sorry for offtopic.
Isn’t a thousand people rather a large settlement? Or was that number total inhabitants in the area?
Cities of course didn’t have “limits” the way they do now: but I think that’s the number in the community with houses clumped together. It would not be considered “large” though.
Jesus Himself spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. Yet He apparently never wrote anything, and I rarely if ever encounter any claim He did! I wonder why…He certainly had a lot to say. Where did His education come from? Could He have been educated by Hillel, became dissatisfied, and began His own “sect”? If so, one would think, if He could write, He would have done so. Possibly He didn’t think it was necessary in light of His apocalypticism (why write His teachings for future readers if there was to be no future?).
Dr. Ehrman, once again, I must take issue with your binary approach to this question. You’re making it sound like there are only two possibilities. Either Peter et al were highly educated litterateurs, or they must have been totally dumb, ignorant rubes who couldn’t tell an aleph from a tav. I seriously cannot tell if you see any daylight between these two options.
What I’m trying to get at is that what you’re saying doesn’t even make sense statistically. You’re basically making the two outliers at the extremes the only possible modes! It’s like if I were to say that either you can play the violin like Itzhak Perlman or you wouldn’t be able to tell a violin from a bassoon. This is what logicians would call a False Dilemma. You knock down the possibility of one alternative, making the only other alternative the default. In other words, since the evidence clearly points to Peter not having a formal education, then he must have had a literacy level just above sea cucumber.
But you must admit that this is absurd. And once you admit the absurdity, you have to look at the evidence coming from the other direction. That is, you need to look at the evidence that supports Peter’s possible literacy (i.e. above sea cucumber level). Well, for starters, Peter seems to have really known his scripture. He must have learned all that scripture somehow, somewhere. There are only two possibilities: A) someone read it too him and he memorized it, or B) he read it himself. Either way, the amount of time needed to learn all that scripture is the same, regardless of whether it’s read to him, or he reads it himself. And if Peter has enough time to devote to hearing it read, he could just as easily have learned to read it for himself.
My speculation is that Peter learned scripture informally, yet communally, where he took turns reading and listening within a group of other “disciples”, not unlike how one might informally learn Hindu scripture from a guru. Sometimes the guru recites the scripture out loud. Sometimes other “disciples” read it out loud. Sometimes you read it out loud or to yourself.
My point is that there’s a middle ground somewhere between the extremes that’s not only possible, but more probable even. Could Peter compose in Greek? Probably not. Could he read Hebrew? Probably.
You are completely misunderstanding me if you think I’m imagining there were two options: highly rhetorically trained and completely illiterate. There were fantastic numbers of variations between the two (and above the first). Josephus was at one extreme end of the spectrum; Peter at the other. But that is depending on, not denying the existence of a very broad spectrum.
I feel bad for the folks who really want to believe that Peter wrote 1 Peter. I was once a conservative Christian, and I know how hard it was for me to even consider the evidence that went against what I wanted to believe.
Good evening, Bart. When you get done with this thread and the hell and damnation series, are you ready for some Christmas questions? After all, ’tis the time of the season.
Even before I’m done! Any time.
Regarding whether Jesus and his followers could speak Greek, here are a few excerpts to consider. Taken from from Hezser’s book, Jewish Literacy in Ancient Palestine:
Language acquisition—“In places with relatively clear-cut geographical boundaries inhabited by people who all share the same mother tongue, a phenomenon which is especially prevalent in rural communities, contact with native speakers of another language tends to be very limited and is often restricted to trade situations only. Only if the real community is dependent on its geographical environment for other than business reasons do language contacts increase.” (Pg. 244)
Language usage—“One such fact is the increasing number of Greek cities with Greek constitutions founded in Palestine in Roman times. ‘These Hellenistic cities dotted the countryside of Palestine for several centuries prior to the first Christian century and were clearly centers from which the Greek language spread to less formally Hellenistic towns, such as Jerusalem, Jericho, or Nazareth.’ Another fact is that Greek was the language in which the Romans communicated with and issued decrees concerning the local Jewish population, not only in the Diaspora but in Palestine as well.” (Pg. 231)
“Sevenster believes that ‘a knowledge of Greek was in no way restricted to the upper circles,…,but was to be found in all circles of Jewish society, and certainly in places bordering on regions where Greek was spoken, e.g. Galilee’…Sevenster refers to the New Testament as an additional source for the estimation of Jews’ knowledge of Greek in the first century. He assumes that even Jesus, whose native language was Aramaic, would have spoken Greek at least on some occasion, namely when he traveled to regions in Roman Palestine where many people spoke Greek.” (Pgs. 232-33)
The information is conflicting. On one hand, Nazareth would have been considered a remote village with very little exposure to Greek. On the other hand, the idea that remote villages really existed is questioned. As far as I can tell, Galilee would not have been considered all that remote. Social status, geopolitical issues, education, and location were factors in determining the prevalence of the Greek language spoken but so were attitudes and motivations. Hezser thinks a separate study is needed to understand the language habits of Jews in Roman Palestine. Her main focus dealt with reading and writing.
But again, Paul’s letters give no indication that an interpreter was necessary. He met with Peter on at least two different occasions, one of which was in a private conversation.
These are good points. Nazareth was less than 4 miles from Sepphoris which was a metropolitan area known as the Ornament of the Galilee after being rebuilt at the start of the first century by Herod Antipas after it had been sacked in 4 BCE by Judas, son of a local bandit, Ezekias. The population was loyal to Rome.
Maurice Casey writes that, although Sepphoris during the early first century was “a very Jewish city”, some of the people there did speak ancient Greek.A lead weight dated to the first century bears an inscription in Greek with three Jewish names. Casey and Eric Meyers have suggested that Jesus, while working as a craftsman in Nazareth, may have traveled to Sepphoris for work purposes, possibly with his father and brothers. Casey states that this is entirely possible, but is likewise impossible to historically verify. Jesus does not seem to have visited Sepphoris during his public ministry and none of the sayings recorded in the Synoptic Gospels mention it.
The inhabitants of Sepphoris did not join the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman rule of 66 CE. Josephus had been sent north to recruit the Galilee into the rebellion’s fold but was only partially successful. He made two attempts to capture Sepphoris, but failed to conquer it, the first time because of fierce resistance, the second because a garrison came to assist in the city’s defense.
Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching
Eric M. Meyers,’Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67-68 C.E.): Archaeology and Josephus,’ In Eric M. Meyers,Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, Eisenbrauns, 1999
Would an aramaic speaking common man be able to understand Hebrew Bible texts, read aloud by some synagogue principal? Or would it have been interpreted in Aramaic by someone present so that the gathering could understand it?
No, there was a tradition of having hte Hebrew translated orally into Aramaic. This is the beginning of the Targums.
As far as Peter writing a detailed, eloquent Greek treatise you are correct in your post.
The latest archaeology, however, confirms Talmudic injunctions as far as basic reading and writing ability of peasants in the region which is counter to the statistics often cited today.
The founder of the system of elementary education was Simon ben Shetah (Yer. Ket. viii. 11, 32b). The school was not in immediate connection with the synagogue, but sessions were held either in a room of the synagogue or in the house of the teacher.
Between 63 and 65 C.E. Joshua ben Gamla reformed the system by constraining every community, no matter how small, to provide instruction for its children (B. B. 21a).
From the first century have been found remains of at least six synagogues with the oldest, discovered 2004, being in Magdala. Among others are at Capernaum, Wadi Qelt (adjacent to Jerico at the south), Modi’in Ilit, Khibet Wadi Haman (a mile and a half west of Magdala) and the first rural synagogue has been found at a Jewish farmstead five miles SE of Mount Tabor in Tel Rekhesh. (Hachlili. 2015 “Synagogues Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple.” In: Biblical Archaeology Review 41:03, May/June 2015.) This is significant because after 2000 years it is reasonable to assume that many more existed–the remains of which have subsequently perished. *About one hundred have been found in Palestine from late antiquity.*
At Deuteronomy 6:6-8, for example, it states:
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.
Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
We have to remember that Aramaic, then, was a simple pictographic script.
Numerous magic glyphs have been found on walls, window and door lintels in peasant Christian homes in Syria. These have been written by the inhabitants rather than professionally–sometimes covering many areas of a single house and include verses of scripture..These are from late antiquity as are the many hand-written magic amulets and incipits that have been unearthed but, again, this suggests that the ability to write at least basic sentences was not uncommon among ancient peasant populations.
Sorry, I’ve just noticed I should have added that during the Jewish-Roman war and Bar Kokhba revolt synagogues would have been targeted for destruction.
The problem is using rabbinic texts from centuries later to determine what life was like in teh 20s-60s CE. And the existence of synagogues does not have any bearing on literacy levels. These were places of worship, not schools.
Synagogues were always multi-functional community centers even after 70CE when their function moved more towards being a place of worship. That they were also used for teaching is attested by Josephus and Philo. The latter called them “schools of wisdom”. That is what the word itself means: ‘teaching together’. This is becoming commonly accepted by scholars in what is being described as a ‘new paradigm’ in the evaluation of ancient Judaism.
Also, the whole debate hinges on the sacred nature of the written word which was an important part of many ancient religions.
Although the Talmud was compiled centuries later it was compiled from previously written sources such as Sandhedrin texts which I am sure you are aware of so it is a bit cynical to say that something cannot be accepted just because the text we have it from is a later copy. You are also aware that Jews were more meticulous in copying their writings. I was led to believe by my state university professor that the rabbinical writings such as the Midrash and Mishnah are considered to offer us a great historical window into Judaism. Perhaps he was mistaken but it seems that many scholars agree with this view.
The fact that Syrian Christian peasants could graffiti verses from LXX on their walls is not without significance. That these are later examples is not a point against them because I doubt if anyone would try to say that people, in general, were less educated in late antiquity than the first and second centuries. The evidence suggests that people were generally less educated in the latter part of the empire. The decline in artisan quality is attested in the Arch of Constantine for example.
It is hard to make m case in 400 words but here are just two examples of contemporary scholarship that agree with the Talmud writings and the accounts of Josephus and Philo regarding the synagogues being educational centers (among other roles). The links will take you straight to the salient pages.
https://books.google.de/books?id=HQyxvmYV-50C&pg=PA186&dq=school+education+ancient+synagogues&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0I2Dgv3eAhXhsaQKHTl5CnIQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=school%20education%20ancient%20synagogues&f=false
https://books.google.de/books?id=ke5pM7EryagC&pg=PA490&dq=school+education+ancient+synagogues&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0I2Dgv3eAhXhsaQKHTl5CnIQ6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=school%20education%20ancient%20synagogues&f=false
If you are seriously interested in pursuing these issues, I would suggest you read what scholars who have devoted their lives to such matters have learned about them. The problem with internet sources is that just anyone can write them, whether they know anything (such as ancient Hebrew) or not. One of the most significant devleopements of ancient Jewish studies in the 20th century was the realization that later rabbinic texts (that come down to us, say, from the fifth century) cannot be used uncritically to know what Judaism was like in earlier times (e.g., in 1st century Palestine). The most famous scholar to recognize this is Jacob Neusner, who wrote many, many, many books about the matter, some of which are completely accessible to lay people. Many of his specific claims are open to critique, but this basic point is widely shared by people who spend their lives studying such things.
Thnaks Bart but the references Ive given are not “Internet Sources” but scholarly books which allso happen to be available online. The important Point, for me, is that synagogues were multifunctional and were used as Schools and this is not denied by scholarship now. That this happen sto agree with the Talmud merely gives us more Detail to pad out the archaeology.
Intersting. What evidence do they cite for synagogues in the early first century being used as schools?
I’m not trying to annoy you or criticize you or waste your time but the scholars I’m referring to are Levine, Lee I. & Hachlili, Rachel–both professors of archaeology. There are also contemporary attestations outside the Talmud (which I agree needs to be read with a question mark). Philo is the strongest evidence for me The matter is not clear and I don’t think anyone is in a situation of saying “this is definitely the way it was”. Anyway thanks again for your reply.
Good! That’s better. What evidence do they cite to show that synagogues in the early first century were used as schools?
I have a question. You often mention that people were trained to remember things in oral societies. I am very interested in knowing any primary sources that you have found that describes this training. Thanks.
Also, for future reference, if I give you any more links it will only be to scholarly work. The link I sent you in a message regarding memory was a paper written for a peer-evaluated psychology journal. I don’t want to get into this political hot potato more today apart from to state that as far as memory (while we are on the subject,) I think that the best and hardest evidence is coming out of stem cell research. I am not sure how much you have read in this field but it revolves specifically around memory and it is based on very detailed clinical evidence including the latest neurology. The best introductory work is Black, Ira B. (1991). Symbole, Synapsen und Systeme: Die molekulare Biologie des Geistes. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. This book provides everything one needs to understand how it is possible for Jesus’ nearest disciples to have had graphic experiences of seeing him after he died. It is all tied into the power of memory and memory “documents” that are hard-wired into the brain.
I discuss them at some length in my book Jesus Before teh Gospels (which is about oral traditions and memory). Among the most impressive anthropological studies are those by Albert Lord, Jack Goody, Jan Vansina, and Walter Ong.
Thanks for the references. I was meaning Roman sources for training but that’s ok. In case you didn’t notice I made my reply to your question below under Pattycake’s comment because I didn’t see the reply button to yours at the time and she made some points I wanted to address. I think the inscriptions are pretty firm evidence in the larger context but it is all open to critique on both sides of the divide.
Hezser used both of the sources you linked here. According to her, Philo doesn’t mention any schools? She says sources that state synagogues were used for learning are historically unreliable or exaggerating and idealizing an earlier time period before 70 AD.
I do think that assertions of universal teaching are exaggerated but Philo mentions the synagogue as places of learning in several places including “Life of Moses” (2.28-32) and “Every good man” is free (xii,82). Also in “On the Contemplative Life” there are references to the general teaching although he doesn’t mention synagogues specifically.
As far as archaeological evidence, This is just a small set of examples from the book: “The Ancient Synagogue”, The idea that synagogues were used solely as ‘places of worship’ is now countered by evidence from archaeology where auxiliary rooms and structures have been found that bear inscriptions as having provided the function of hostels for travelers. The archaeologist Lee I. Levine mentions that many Inscriptions have been found in synagogues from the second temple period. These include Torah readings, sermons, scriptural readings and, most importantly for our present discussion, targumim. These latter are didactic, or educational, extracts translating Hebrew to Aramaic and expounding on the nature of the texts in a (usually) allegorical fashion. (Levine: 1999.5). The Gamla synagogue is the oldest to have been unearthed so far and dates from the first half of the first century with, possibly, a foundation that could be dated even earlier. It was the only public building excavated by 1999 and may well be the only one that existed. The entire building measures 21.5 meters long and 17.5 meters wide with the hall itself measuring 19.7 by 15.3 meters. East of the synagogues’ main hall are several rooms, one of which may have had some sort of opening into the main hall. The room also contains benches, which suggests that it may have been used as a study hall. (Levine: 1999.55).
I have to state that the idea of illiterate peasants is based on an understanding that it was costly financially and time-wise and it didnt relate to the person’s occupation. The various attestations from the literary evidence suggests that the importance was placed on it for moral and social cohesion. This can be taken further to include political cohesion which is a vital point to consider in first century Palestine. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that people spent the entire sabbath engaged in study together so there was no time impediment and also the teachers were paid back by the community.
DR EHRMAN:
Questions.
If Jews were illiterate, why did Pilate write the inscription in Hebrew also? (In John 19:20, it states that MANY of the Jews READ the inscription because Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem).
Why do YOU think that Pilate also wrote the inscription in Greek? Were the Hellenistic Jews visiting Jerusalem? Also how can an illiterate Jew learn the Greek language?
Final question. If Jews spoke Aramaic, why didn’t Pilate write the inscription in Aramaic?
I doubt if the inscription is historical, but even if it was, it would have been written only for those who could read — e.g., read it out loud to all the others who couldn’t read.
If the account of Pilate writing the inscription in three Ianguages was not also found in John, I would be inclined to agree with you that perhaps it’s not historically factual. However, it is recorded in John, and John also points out in 19:20 that MANY of the Jews read this inscription, John does not say, that most Jews couldn’t read, so the inscription was read aloud to them.
Question: Why do you think that the inscription was also written in Greek,… who spoke Greek in Jerusalem? And If Jews spoke Aramaic, why didn’t Pilate write the inscription in Aramaic?
Lots of what we find in John is not historically accurate; that’s one of the reasonably well assured results of modern scholarship. But yes, there were people in Jerusalem who could read Greek. The highly educated, at least.
I agree and I understand that John has been redacted, that some accounts were added later on to John, that still the original meaning of other stories in John were altered to favor a certain persuasion, by those responsible for maintaining the integrity of the text…
Is as Jeremiah said, “What word of the Lord? The lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie!
But as you stated DR EHRMAN, Lots of what we find in John is not historically true… What percentage is ‘LOTS OF JOHN?… Of course, your statement implies that some of what is written in John IS historically true.
Question: Can you DR EHRMAN, as a historian, ascertain unambiguously that it was NOT TRUE that the disciple whom Jesus loved, as John 21:24 states, ‘was testifying, and also wrote the original accounts that were used as the source by the publisher(s) of John?
____________________________________________________
John 21:24-This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Yes, I think the author of John was indeed claiming that some of his traditions were originally told by a companion of Jesus.
Hi Bart! Hope you and your family are doing well!
I’ve read Gamble’s book “Books and Readers in the Early Chuch” and one thing stuck with me. Gamble claims that both rabbinic material and Josephus mention that in the first-century Judaism it was a duty, indeed a religious commandment, that Jewish children be taught to read. Also he mention that there was in Jerusalem before 70 AD 480 synagogues, each with both a “house of reading” (bet sefer) and a “house of learning” (bet midrash) attached-the former providing young children with instruction in basic skills to read scripture, the latter offering older children instruction in the oral Torah. He cites, among the other things, Contra Apion. 2.204, Ant. 4.211; cf. T. Levi 13.2; Philo, Ad Gaium 115, 210.
I know that rabbinic materials are problematic (J. Neusner wrote about that), but what about Josephus and Philo?
What would be your response to these claims? Thanks for helping me again.
Kind regards.
Yes, this is a good example of the older scholarship based, for understandable reasons, on the uncritical acceptance of scattered comments made by the literary elite of antiquity, done before the actual research on the topic was undertaken by scholars such as Bar Ilan and Hezser. If you want to pursue the latter, you might want to look at Hezser’s thorough analysis.
It’s actually something that I find quite often in the studies on the topic of early Christian history. One quick observation (if I can). It seems to me that the main problem with older studies lies in the fact that most of the people involve in it were primary theologians, not historians. Consequently, they used old methodology based on the 19th century scholarship (Leopold Von Ranke’s version of history) which claimed that historical sources are pure reflection of the reality and the job of a historian is just to pull out these sources and show what history was really like.
As I historian, I was trained in the theory of history (especially postomdernism): authors like E. Carr, Keith Jenkins, Elizabeth Clark etc. Furthermore, we were required to read a lot of social scientific studies (Peter Berger etc.) regarding the social construction of reality. When I came into the area of early Christianity (especially historical Jesus studies) I was a bit surprise when I noticed an underlying methodology of so many studies done by theologians. Anyways, things are now looking much better and it’s a shame that there are still people who are stuck with the old paradigm.
Whish you and your family all the best for holidays and a happy new year!
Kind regards,
Marko.
Bart, I’ve recently read an article by Pieter J. Botha “Schools in the World of Jesus: Analysing the Evidence” (Neotestamentica, vol. 33, No. 1, 1999). It is available on JSTOR. It’s a very good work. Botha lays out all the arguments against the existence of the educational system in the 1st century Palestine. He deals with rabbinic literature as well as with Philo, Josephus and archaeological evidence (or lack of it!) Look it up. It’s a good piece if you want to refresh your knowledge on primary sources regarding this particular question.
Kind regards!
Excellent! I haven’t seen it, but it your summary coincides with what other serious studies have argued as well.
Dr. Ehrman – I don’t recall the book I originally read it, but a google search for ‘literacy in first century signs grave robber’ give some examples of it – examples of grave sites with warnings to grave robbers in Aramaic, with the idea being that if a reasonable percentage of people couldn’t read at a basic level, then what would be the point of having the signs? I don’t see any reason to doubt the overwhelming studies indicating that only very, very few could write, but it doesn’t seem crazy to me for people who were very proud of their ‘divinely given law’ and were referred to by others as ‘people of the book’ that they would perhaps be an exception in terms of teaching their children at least to read. (Again, not suggesting in any way that Peter or John or Jesus, etc, could write a document, so not directly about the subject of this thread, but it reminded me of this question and just trying to be as generous to the text as possbile, ie when it talks about Jesus reading the Torah aloud.) Any merit to this reasoning?
thx!
Often these inscriptions about grave robbers function as “curse formulae,” not in order to be read by passers-by necessarily (though that happened as well, with the people who could read explaining to everyone else what they said) but in order to protect the tomb with a magical formula.
Bart, is there a book or an article by Neusner or someone else about this problem of using rabbinic sources in historical Jesus studies that is easy to read, for ordinary people who don’t have advance degree in history etc.
Thanks!
I’ve asked around for suggestoins among my expert-friends, but am not getting much of a reply. I’ll try again!
Marko071291: “Bart, is there a book or an article by Neusner or someone else about this problem of using rabbinic sources in historical Jesus studies that is easy to read, for ordinary people who don’t have advance degree in history etc.
Thanks!”
This book looks promising:
Understanding the Gospels as Ancient Jewish Literature, presents a fresh, accessible take on the Jewishness of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by Jeffrey P. García
https://hendricksonpublishers.blog/2018/10/24/understanding-the-gospels-as-ancient-jewish-literature-book-overview-excerpts/
Thanks. I’m not sure this goes into rabbinic materials and their problems for NT studies? Not sure! But my friend Joel Marcus, whom I asked, suggests these:
A couple of things come to mind. One is John Townsend’s essay, “Rabbinic Sources,” in *The Study of Judaism: Biblographic Essays* (New York: Ktav, 1972) 35-80. From what I recall, this was reasonably clear, and aimed at non-experts. For more detail, there’s H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, *Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash* (T & T Clark, 1991). But I don’t think either of these really deals with the specific question of using rabbinic sources for historical Jesus work. Maybe Ed Sanders has some discussion of this in *Jesus & Judaism*.
To these I would add trying John Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, which gives a full discussion of the possible sources for knowing about Jesus’ life.
Dr Ehrman –
Re: Galilean literacy, I have been presented with the following argument:
Supposed Fact Pattern:
1) Galileans were very devout Jews in 1st century
2) As such, synagogue training/teaching tradition was deeply entrenched
3) Avot 5:21 of the Mishnah outlines the training regimen
4) The oral tradition underlying the Mishnah gives the training regimen sufficient historical age to precede (or at least overlap) with the time of Jesus
Inference:
A) There is sufficient historical purchase to undergird that Galilean Jews were more educated than often supposed, and likely many could read/write
B) This can be specifically applied to Jesus (with “Rabbi” moniker references in gospels as supporting evidence) and certain members of the Twelve (especially those who “wrote” NT books, particularly John and Peter)
Question: Acknowledging the huge amount to unpack here and the argument standing incongruent with Hezser’s impressive and authoritative study, to your eye is there a simple place(s) where this argument breaks down factually/historically?
NB – I suspect the move from premise 3 to 4 is where it comes fatally undone, even if stipulating 1 and 2 (which also feel shaky). I’m hoping to avoid onus-shifting by just appealing back to Hezser, since the argument above was fashioned to me as a quasi-rebuttal to Hezser’s and others’ overarching point of low literacy rates.
1. Which Galilean Jews were devout, and what is the evidence? 2. What synagogue schools? 3. Why use a source from hundreds of years later? Would we use a 20th century source to decide what was going on in Colonial America; 4. The Mishnah has been shown to be highly problematic historically. If you really want to pursue it, read Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine.
Fantastic, thank you!
Mr Ehrman,
You mention a distinction between those who could read…and write.
How is this possible?
I would think everyone who could read a language, with practice, could write it. Is it because readers in antiquity lacked the utensils?
That’s because in antiquity these were taught as two different skills, writing long after reading. Seems weird to us, because in modern education they are taught simultaneously, so we think that’s the “normal” way to do it.
“There is no trace of any pagan/Gentile population in the town. There are no inscriptions of any kind on any of the buildings.”
If there were no inscriptions, how can you by the same respect claim “everyone spoke Aramaic”?
Because we know about the languages in that area. Kind of like if, in 2000 years, they discover the ruins of the small town of Burlington Kansas but no literary texts survived — they would assume that the people there spoke English. If you’re interested in pursuing it, you should read teh book on teh language in Galilee by Mark Chancey.
Happy New Year, Dr. Ehrman! Do you know of any historical person who could read but not write?
Oh yes, in the ancient world there were lots of them. Our sources regularly indicate that reading and writing were taught separately in the curriculum (reading first), so that lots of students learned to read a bit but never knew how to write.