By Keith Thompson
Could
Jesus’ disciples read and write? In assessing if they wrote the gospels and
epistles attributed to them, this question is of paramount importance. Critics
claim first century Jews were illiterate and thus the Jewish disciples could
not have written the gospels. Robert Price asserts Acts 4:13 actually teaches
the disciples Peter and John were illiterate (Robert M. Price Jesus is Dead, (Parsippany, NJ: American
Atheist Press, 2007), p. 230). The text says, “Now when they saw the boldness
of Peter and John, and perceived that they were ἀγράμματοί and ἰδιῶται, they
marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus”
(Acts 4:13). But here Price is guilty of committing “the false assumption about
technical meaning fallacy.” When this exegetical fallacy is committed “an interpreter
falsely thinks that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical
meaning” (D. A. Carson, Exegetical
Fallacies, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2nd
edn, 1996), p. 45). Ehrman has also committed the same mistake concerning the
verse (Ehrman (1999), 45). The problem is in Acts 4:13 ἀγράμματοί should not be
understood in this strict technical sense.
Obviously
from a small conversation the Jewish
leaders would not be able to discern if Peter and John could read and write. That makes no sense. Instead, what was
being said was Peter and John were not formally apprenticed by a rabbi in
Jewish law, scripture interpretation and legal opinions. That, on the other
hand, could be discerned by a
theological conversation. The Jewish leaders referred to lack of advanced study
under a Jewish scholar, and also to lack of secondary Jewish education. First century Palestinian Jews were first
educated in their homes by learning Torah and literacy. Then they often went to
primary school in a synagogue memorizing Torah and reciting liturgy. This
school was known as a beth sepher
(“house of reading” or “house of the scribe”). Afterwards some went to
secondary school at a beth midrash or
beth talmud to learn rabbinic
commentary on scripture (i.e, midrash) and topically arranged oral law (i.e., mishnah).
After this some were then formally apprenticed by a Jewish scholar in exegesis
and legal opinion for advanced studies aimed at training future religious
leaders (Everett F. Ferguson, Background’s
of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 3rd edn, 2003), p. 112; cf. Deuteronomy 6:7; m. Aboth 5.21; Sirach 51:23; Galatians
1:14; Philippians 3:5; 2 Timothy 3:15; Luke 4:20; Acts 22:3; y. Ketub. 8.32c; b. B.Bat. 21a; p. Ket.
8.11, 32c; b. Sanh. 17; Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, 210;
Josephus, Against Apion, 1.60; 2.204).
That
ἀγράμματοί has a broader semantic range than is assumed by Price and Ehrman can
be seen in the fact the Greek philosopher Epictetus talked about men who were
ἀγράμματοί still nevertheless being able to write (Epictetus, Discourses, 2.9.10). And Plato employed
the word with the broader meaning of a lack of general education (Plato Timaeus, 23A). So, the word does not
always refer strictly to illiteracy. In light of the aforementioned
considerations, most lexicographers and NT scholars
who address the issue cast doubt on the interpretation of Price and Ehrman
here:
“Acts iv. 13 (i.e.,
unversed in the Jewish schools)” (Joseph, H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), p. 8).
“Some persons have
assumed ἀγράμματος in Ac 4.13 means
‘illiterate’ in the sense of not being able to read and write, but this is
highly unlikely in view of the almost universal literacy [of Jewish men] in NT
times, and especially as a result of extensive synagogue schools. Evidently, ἀγράμματος in Ac 4.13 refers to
a lack of formal rabbinic training” (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
Vol. 2, (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988), p. 239).
“. . .the Sanhedrin was amazed by
the scriptural knowledge and courage of the ‘unschooled’ Peter and John (Acts
4:13)” (William D Mounce (ed.), Mounce’s
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand
Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2006), p. 18).
“theological disputations
required rabbinic training. . . . Aγράμματοί. . .here. . .undoubtedly means
‘uneducated’ or ‘unschooled’ in rabbinic training” (Longenecker (1981), 306, 307 n. 13).
“they were not
trained as interpreters of Scripture and rabbinic tradition” (Peterson (2009),
194).
“here it means rather
‘uneducated’ in respect to rabbinical training” (Bruce (1988), 94-95 n. 27).
“These terms are
probably not meant to be taken literally as though Peter were unschooled and
could not write or read” (Robert W. Wall, Acts, (NIB, Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 2015), p. 70 n. 184).
“In view of such texts as John
7:15 and the religious context it probably has a more limited meaning here,
namely, one not trained in the Law” (Witherington (1998), 195).
“The term more broadly indicated
simply lack of formal education” (Keener (2013), 1154).
“It need not mean ‘unable to
read’ but simply that the person lacks a certain level of skills. Kraus (1999)
has a careful study of both terms in this phrase. In this context, it is
religious instruction that is primarily meant” (Bock (2007), 195).
“To be agrammatos does not necessarily mean to be unable to read” (Evans
(2012), 81).
In sum,
the Greek terms in Acts 4:13 were not employed to indicate Peter and John could
not read or write. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence the disciples could
not have wrote gospels. The dynamic equivalence NLT translation has a great
rendering: “they could see that they were ordinary men with no special training
in the Scriptures.”
Doherty
claims “a rough and simple man” like John could not have written the fourth
gospel (Doherty (2001), 15). He also claims had Jesus existed he would have
been illiterate because he was allegedly a Galilean peasant (Doherty (1999), 245. For
refutations of Crossan’s claim Jesus was a Mediterranean peasant see
Charlesworth (2008), 94; Witherington (1995), 85-86). Similarly, Carrier claims if
Jesus existed, he would have been an “illiterate Galilean” who could not have
been responsible for the literarily advanced Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s
Gospel (Carrier (2014), 465). But the idea first century Palestinian Jews like
Jesus and his disciples were illiterate is not supported by the evidence.
Mythicists
and other critics frequently cite (e.g. Richard Carrier, Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story; Ehrman, (2012), 47-48) the low
literacy estimates put forth by William Harris and Catherine Hezser. Harris
estimated a literacy rate of 10-15% for the ancient Greco-Roman world (William
Harris, Ancient Literacy, (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 328). Hezser affirmed Harris’s statistic
and argued Jewish literacy was even
lower in first century Palestine
(Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in
Roman Palestine, (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 496ff). Harris’s methodology was more of a
comparativist approach than an epigraphic or literary one. So, instead of
closely examining the relevant epigraphic and literary evidence bearing on the
subject, he preferred to come up with conditions he believed were necessary for
ancient literacy. Then he examined ancient Greco-Roman society for them and
asserted they were found wanting. Yet, the theses of Harris and Hezser have
been strongly challenged by scholars (For critiques see Nicholas Horsfall, “Statistics or
States of Mind?” in Literacy in the Roman
World, ed. Mary Beard (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), pp.
59-76; James Franklin, “Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii,” in
Beard (1991), 77-98; Eddy and Boyd (2007), 241-243; Harlow Snyder, review of Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, by
C. Hezser, Review of Biblical Literature
(2002); and for a good summary of such critiques and others see Michael Owen
Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman
Judea, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), pp. 24-36).
As regards early Jewish education and its bearing on literacy, Josephus
informs us parents taught children both letters and the Torah: “γράμματα παιδεύειν ἐκέλευσεν καὶ
τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόμους” (Josephus, Against Apion, 2.204). Unlike in Acts 4:13, here γράμματα is being used in
the strict technical sense of “letters” (i.e., literacy). It is not being used
in the broader sense of “learning.” We know this because such child “learning”
in the Jewish education context would be the learning of the Law (Josephus, Against Apion, 1.60; Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, 210; Kent L.
Yinger, “Jewish Education,” in Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (eds.) (2013), 327: “For Jews,
God’s Torah was the controlling center of all education, as both Philo and
Josephus emphasize”). Yet, the learning
of the Law is also mentioned in the same sentence as a different aspect of
education (νόμους
means “laws”). Hence, to avoid redundancy we must
interpret Josephus as saying children were taught both letters (literacy) as
well as the theological content of
the Torah (Bruce N. Fisk thus understands this passage as saying “the law enjoins
parents to teach children to read and to know both the laws and the deeds of
their forefathers” in Bruce N. Fisk, “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural
Knowledge among the Christians of Rome,” in Stanley E. Porter and Christopher
D. Stanley (eds.), As it is Written:
Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2008), p. 179). This Josephus evidence is crucial since he was born and raised in
Jerusalem and so is reflecting the practice of Jerusalemites and, given his
very broad language, most likely those in broader Palestine too (Larry Hurtado,
“Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: Critical Assessment of Werner
Kelber’s The Oral and Written Gospel,” Bulletin
for Biblical Research 7 (1997), p. 96 n. 15: “Josephus' statements likely
reflect cultural values characteristic of first-century Jewish society.”). This is
confirmed by another important Jewish work from the late Second Temple period
called The Testament of Levi which exhorts Jewish parents to “teach your children letters, that they may have understanding
all their life, reading unceasingly
the law of God” (The Testament of Levi,
13.2). What is more, 4 Maccabees 18:9-19 indicates average Jewish men were able
to read the Law and the prophets to
their children.
Josephus’
Life further demonstrates common
first century Galilean men could read and write. In Life, 46 he wrote, “Jonathan and his partners . . . took counsel
together by what means they might attack me. John's opinion was, that they
should write to all the cities and
villages that were in Galilee; for that
there must be certainly one or two persons in every one of them that were at
variance with me, and that they should be invited to come to oppose me as an
enemy.” Life, 55 then says, “And as
they were discoursing thus, they produced
four letters, as written to them from
some people that lived at the borders of Galilee,
imploring that they would come to their assistance.”
The first
century Palestinian pseudepigraphal work 4 Ezra
contains a crucial passage bearing on the literacy of the Palestinian
population Hezser neglected. It makes little sense if we assume the author and
audience believed Palestine was around 90 percent illiterate as Hezser claims.
4 Ezra 14.45 says, “Make public the
twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read
them.”
In the
Mishnah the first century Rabbi Akiba indicated it was common for storekeepers
to write on ledgers as a way to keep track of credit borrowing (m. Aboth. 3.16). First century Jewish males
knew the ancient sages exhorted them to “study the words of the Torah” as
opposed to engaging in too much conversation with women (m. Aboth 1.5). In fact, Hillel said “whoever does not study the Torah
deserves death” (m. Aboth 1.13).
Rabbi Shammai also said, “Make your study of the Torah a matter of established
regularity” (m. Aboth 1.15). These
kinds of instructions help establish broader literacy rates among first century
Jews.
In m. Aboth 5.21 and 1QSa
1:6-8 of the Dead Sea Scrolls we read of early systems of Jewish religious
education for children. In y. Ketub.
8.32c Simon ben Shetah (100 B.C.) commanded all Israelite children to go to
school. The traditions in b. B.Bat.
21a, p. Ket. 8.11, 32c, and b. Sanh. 17 affirm the existence Jewish
schools for children in Palestine
from the first century B.C. to the second century A.D. Hezser claimed the rabbinic
literature supports the idea first century Palestinian Jewish education
involved reading but not writing (Hezser
(2001), 89). However, this position is refuted by the existence and content of the first century Jewish and Christian literary sources
we do possess. Hezser neglected this evidence (see below the passages from them
bearing on population literacy). Her position also contradicts what we know
about the education processes of the larger Greco-Roman world and what papyri
from Greco-Roman Egypt tell us about education (writing was involved in both
systems). Although the rabbi’s who actually comment on the matter failed to
mention writing being part of education, Greco-Roman authors sometimes did too,
even though we know their Greco-Roman education involved writing (Wise (2015),
30-31).
Sectarian
Dead Sea Scroll documents dating from the first century B.C. to the first
century A.D. also have passages bearing on the literacy of the Palestinian
population. The War Scroll commands
that an incredibly large amount of writing (e.g. slogans, prayers, names, etc.)
be inscribed on a large quantity of war trumpets, banners, and shields for an
anticipatory eschatological battle. Many people would have to be involved in
such a massive literary project. Moreover, The
Rule of the Community 1QS 7.1-3 says, “Anyone
who speaks aloud the M[ost] Holy Name of God, [weather in . . .] or in cursing
or as a blurt in time of trial or for any other reason, or while he is reading a book or praying, is to be expelled, never
again to return to the party of the Yahad.” The Qumran
document 4QMMT affirms writing-skills among young Jewish disciples of teachers
(ancient disciples were very often teenagers). For, it contains notes of rulings of an unnamed authority
(Alan Millard, “Literacy in the Time of Jesus -
Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime?,” Biblical Archaeological Society, (July/August 2003)).
The existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls
themselves also establishes high literacy among first century Palestinian Jews.
These documents were not composed by some isolated, small group. We have
uncovered over 930 manuscripts, they lack signatures of scribal schools, there
are five different scripts, over 500 individual hands, over 350 extrabiblical
writings, over 210 manuscripts of scriptural books, and certain scrolls are not
as well-written as others (Wise (2015), 32-33. There was continued
copying of both scripture and extrabiblical material, as well as production of
many new materials (Alan Millard, “Literacy in the Time of Jesus -
Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime?,” Biblical Archaeological Society, (July/August 2003)). There is no reason to separate
this evidence of high literacy from the practice of broader first century
Palestine. Hezser’s assumption these documents were produced by a small sect
(Hezser (2001), 426) on the
shores of the Dead Sea is based on antiquated and incorrect scholarship.
Quantity, diversity, and internal studies instead suggest the documents come
from different towns and villages in Palestine, thus demonstrating the Qumran
material is but a “cross-section of what existed, a glimpse into the broader
literary culture of late Second Temple Jewry” (Wise (2015), 33-34; Evans (2012), 74: “analysis of
the scribal hands has shown that most of the scrolls were composed elsewhere in
Israel and then brought to Qumran”). Wise et al explain in their translation of the
Dead Sea Scrolls how an important document helps confirm this: “According to
the standard model . . .this work [“The Rule of the Community” in 1QS] is
supposed to have governed a community living in Qumran.
But this idea is at least partly wrong; the work itself refers to various
groups or chapters scattered throughout Palestine.
Therefore it did not attach specifically to the site of Qumran.
. . . This text does not merely reflect a small community living there”
(Michael Owen Wise et al (trans.), The
Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation, (New
York, NY: HarperOne,
2005), p. 113). Indeed, Josephus informs us the Essenes settled in large
numbers in many Palestinian villages (Josephus, War
of the Jews, 2.124; Cf. Philo, Every
Good man is Free, 75-76). Dunn notes: “. . .Qumran was only one branch of the Essenes and that
the other Essene groups lived in various towns, including possibly Jerusalem.
And the disparity of the material in the scrolls is becoming steadily clearer,
with only some representative of the Qumran community’s own beliefs, and
probably the Covenant of Damascus
(CD) representative of the more widely dispersed Essenes” (Dunn, (2003),
271-271). Thus, the Qumran writings show Jews from around Palestine wrote a lot
of material.
As regards Jesus, in synoptic tradition he was said
to read from an Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:17-20. Also, to debate biblical
interpretation with literate scribes and Pharisees, one had to at least have
home and beth
sepher education which involved
reading and writing (Josephus, Against Apion,
2.204; The Testament of Levi, 13.2; m.
Aboth 5.21). As a tax collector (Mark 2:14;
Matthew 10:3; Luke 5:27), Matthew required the skill of literacy. He needed
education in accounting and literacy for managing his records. Tax collectors
wrote notes on pinakes as part of
their job, as well as receipts and registers (On the use of pinakes
among tax collectors see Alan Millard,
Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001), p. 28. On the use of both shorter and longer detailed receipts
among tax collectors see Mark D. Roberts, Misquoting
Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), pp. 115, 165 n. 19; Roberts mentions the
Elephantine and Egyptian ostraca receipts, and the papyrus receipt P.Oxy.
51:3609). Peter
and John were fishermen (Mark 1:16, 19; Matthew 4:18, 21; Luke 5:2-4, 10). This
trade likewise required the ability to read and write. As businessmen they had
to deal with tax collectors, toll collectors and business records (J. A. L. Lee, ‘Some Features of
the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel’, NovTT
27 (1985), pp. 1-36, esp. p. 6; Ben Witherington, Bart Interrupted: Part Four). As a physician (Colossians
4:14; The Muratorian Canon, The Anti-Marcionite
Prologue to Luke) Luke had to study medical works during his education and
write reports on injuries and deaths for law-enforcement and slave owners. This
was a common practice of ancient doctors (Roberts (2007), 117). That Paul was a
former Pharisee means he was literate. In texts like Mark 2:25-26 the Pharisees
are asked “have you not read . . . ?“ We have evidence ancient Jewish and
Gentile disciples, including first century ones, took written notes of their
master’s teaching (e.g.
4QMMT; p Maas 2.4; b Men 70a; b Shab. 6b, 96b, 156a; b Bab.
Mes. 92a; b Hul. 60b; b Shab. 89a; p Kil. 1.1; Quint. Inst.
11.2.2, 25; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.6;
Arius Didymus. Epit. 2.7.11k; Lucian Hermot. 2). This of course demands literacy of young
disciples of rabbis which is what Paul was when he trained to be a Pharisee
under Gamaliel (Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:5; Acts 22:3). This applies to Jesus’ original disciples as
well.
Although Zechariah lived in the rural
hill country of Judah (Luke 1:39-40), concerning his son in Luke 1:63, he still
nevertheless “asked for
a writing tablet and wrote, ‘His name is John.’” Mark
10:4 indicates it was common for men to be able to write divorce certificates
in first century Palestine (We have some examples of ancient divorce certificates from this time.
They were a somewhat lengthy paragraph long. See e.g. m. Git. 9 and papyri BGU 1103 in C. K. Barrett (ed.), The New Testament Background: Writings from
Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire that Illuminate Christian Origins, (New
York, NY: Harper Collins, 1987), p. 41). The Parable of the Shrewd Manager in Luke 16 is
an early pre-Lukan “L” tradition. It shows it was normal to assume common
debtors could read and write (Luke 16:5-7). John 19:20 says many Jews read a titulus inscription placed near Jesus’
cross. The fact this inscription was created for the masses assumes commoners
in Jerusalem
were expected to be able to read it (cf. Mark 15:26; Matthew 27:37; Luke
23:38). In fact, it was most likely created as a warning to potential and
actual disciples of Jesus (Evans (2012), 81). In the context of the Jerusalem
Council, Acts 15:19 assumes early Jewish Christians could write letters. 2
Corinthians 3:14 states first century Jews read
the OT. In Acts 8:30-35 a Galilean disciple named Philip (Mark 3:18; John 1:43)
was able to read and interpret the OT better than an educated Ethiopian. Now,
even if one is skeptical about the historicity of some or all of these
accounts, the first century authors of them still nevertheless show knowledge
of a certain literacy climate of first century Palestine that should not be
overlooked by the historian. What is more, the very
existence of the numerous Palestinian gospels and epistles of the NT
demonstrate lots of writing took place among first century Jewish Christians.
Luke’s prologue also mentions other
written Jewish-Christian accounts created prior to his gospel (e.g. probably
works like Q, M, L, etc.). Also important to note is how the hundreds of OT,
apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal quotations and allusions in the NT presuppose
its Jewish-Christian church audience was widely literate and well-read in those
sources to be able to detect them.
No comments:
Post a Comment