Was Jesus Literate?

Great Debates
81

You brought him up as a accepted expert, thus his opinion must reasonable. Thereby, by the words of your own accepted expert, the Gospel of John was based upon the Apostle Johns own personal experience of Jesus.

I have as you have not given a link. Without a link I can’t verify what your context is. Provide a link so I can verify context. I have little doubt Brown said those words, but if the next line was “But I disagree with the majority scholarly view due to …” or “But that argument can be dismissed as …”

No, Kirby clearly selects for his personal bias. I reject his site as biased.

As I have said before- what is “literacy”? Clearly, almost everyone- even Senators and the like would today be considered 'functionally illiterate" (much of that was due to how letters, etc were written back in those days). I have already shown you evidence of similar graffiti in Ephesus (modern day Turkey) and Egypt, outside of Greece and Rome. That completes the cirle around the mediteranian. Do you have any evidence that graffiti is lacking in the ancient Judean area? Why would peasants in Italy, Greece, Egypt and Turkey all be literate and those in Palestine be illiterate? Actually, ancient graffiti occurs all over the Holy Land. I get over 4000 Google hits.

http://thriceholy.net/literacy.html
*Given that a priori calculations of ancient literacy rest upon doubtful assumptions, by far the best evidence is what the ancients, a voluble lot, themselves said about who could and who could not read and write. Rustics: shepherds, landless agricultural workers,-- are commonly assumed in ancient drama and literature not to be literate. … Subtracting these two admittedly large groups, rustics and slaves, leaves free-born town-dwellers. The evidence of ancient literature is that this group was generally literate…But for reasons of its own, Israel also valued literacy, and already had an elementary school system in the first century A.D.:

“So R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: May the memory of Joshua b. Gamla be blessed, for, were it not for him, Israel would have forgotten the Torah, as in former times the child who had a father was instructed by him; but the one that had not, did not learn at all. The reason is that they used to explain the verse [Deut. xi. 19]: ‘And ye shall teach them to your children,’ etc., literally–ye personally. It was therefore enacted that a school for the education of children in Jerusalem should be established, on the basis of the following verse [Is. ii. 3]: ‘. . . for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.’ And still the child who had a father was brought to Jerusalem and instructed; but the one who had not, remained ignorant. It was therefore enacted that such school should be established in the capitals of each province; but the children were brought when they were about sixteen or seventeen years of age, and when the lads were rebuked by their masters, they turned their faces and ran away. Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years…” (Babylonian Talmud, Tract Baba Bathra (Last Gate), Chapter II, p. 62)
This education was at municipal expense:

“Raba further said: The number of pupils to be assigned to each teacher is twenty-five. If there are fifty, we appoint two teachers. If there are forty, we appoint an assistant, at the expense of the town.” (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, 21a).
It is alleged that there were 480 elementary schools in Jerusalem at the time of that city’s destruction by Vespasian:

“There were 480 synagogues (batte kenesiot) in Jerusalem, each containing a bet ha-sefer, (primary school for the Scriptures), and a bet Talmud, for the study of the Law and the tradition; and Vespasian destroyed them all” (Yer. Meg. iii. 73d; Lam. R., Introduction 12, ii. 2; Pesik. xiv. 121b; Yer. Ket. xiii. 35c)." (quoted in article, Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘Bet Ha-Midrash.’
*

Bolded for you "Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years"

82

Did you mean around or across? :smiley:

83

(snipped)
[a bit of nitpicking]
Calling John Dominic Crossan a Catholic scholar is misleading. While he is (or was or considers himself to be) a catholic (i.e. a member of the Catholic Church) he is not a Catholic Scholar in the sense of being one whose ideas and interpretations fall within accepted catholic belief.
This is not a discussion on his quality as a scholar (that’s for another thread maybe), however.
[/a bit of nitpicking]

My grandma has one of them…of course the Virgin is reading a book in Latin so I wouldn’t use it a good source.:slight_smile:

84

Actually, your quote from Brown appears in ECW. Odd that.

As a perfect example of the bias in ECW, let us take the Gospel of John, one book where the consensus is that the Apostle had some hand in it’s writing.

Strangely here ECW uses quotes from only two sources, and none of the sources or quotes admit to Johns involvement.
BUT-Raymond "Brown has been described as “the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world”. And ECW has indeed cited Brown, even as you quote. Oddly however, even tho ECW uses Brown on other areas it fails to mention this "Brown identifies three layers of text in John: 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979)." in it’s list of quotes foe the Gospel of John. Hmm, ECW uses Brown to show Ep of Peter is doubtful, but fails to use Brown when Brown says something which sits against ECWs atheist agenda.
Odd that, eh?
:rolleyes:

85

Irreelvant. He is a former Catholic Priest (still a practicing Catholic) and he is a credentialed scholar. I only mention his Catholicism to counter (as I did with Brown and Metzger) the protestations that these are the conclusions of “atheist” scholars. In point of fact, there is no such thing as an “atheist scholar” either.

86

It’s from the same book. I have it right here on my desk. Would you like me to quote anything else from it? Give me a page number.

Brown is in the minority. I did not cite him because I agree with everything he says, but because he refutes your contention that I Peter is only believe to be pseudopraphical by “atheists,” as well as your erroneous contention that a majority of scholars think it’s authentic. They don’t. That ship has long sailed. The current consensus (well supported, and I can go book by book by book) is that nothing in the NT was written by a witness and that all of the autgorship traditions execpt for 7 of the Pauline letters are spurious. This is the consensus of CHRISTIAN scholars. Most of the scholars Kirby quotes are CHRISTIANS.

87

I’d like a on-line link so that I can see the quote in context. Failing that, it’s worthless.

ECW didn’t cite him, as I said. My sources show that a majority of scholars do think that John did have something to do with the Gospel. But it’s not relevant whether or not there’s a majority on either side, what’s important here is that a major NT scholar, one admitted as "the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world" and whose works ECW often cites- is NOT cited by ECW on the Gospel of John. Like I said ECW picks and chooses his quotes to support his athiest viewpoint. He does not present a balanced viewpoint, and rarely presents a opposing viewpoint. ECW may well often quote Christians, but the quotes are cherrypicked and out of context. Bogus.
Your views on the NT are colored by your sources, all well known athiest sites.

88

It doesn’t matter here. You only quoted him as a source for literacy rates. That’s extremely subjective, based upon guesstimates and a modenr definition of literacy. It’s also out of date.

See, you quote Brown for one thing, then reject him when his views go against your current opinions. Either Brown is an expert or not. He can’t be a expert only when his quote agrees with your opinions.

89

What kind of ridiculous criterion is that? The book isn’t linkable that I know of. Sorry.

Didn’t cite who? If youi’re talking about Raymond Brown, ECW cites him all the time.

Nobody thinks he wrote it, and few think it has any dependency on him at all. Even Raymond Brown doesn’t think he wrote it or dictated it, only that it has some surviving Johannine memoirs embedded in it (but Brown is outside the majority on that).

I haven’t read the ECW entry on John…and after reading it now, I fail to see any relevance in which scholars are quoted. In point of fact, though, ECW does cite Raymond Brown as an offline resource. I suspect Peter just got tired of having to copy from Brown’s book by hand.

This is errant nonsense, as anyone who cares to go to site can plainly see.

Yes he does, as much as there ever is one.

Cite? Examples?

My sources are not websites, and I can’t even name an atheist website exceot for the message board I moderate. My knowledge comes from a degree in Religious Studies and from an abundance of private reading on my owmn.

90

Come on, it’s not irrelevant. It may not be the most important thing in the history bible studies, but a guy with, to say the least, important doubts on Jesus’ physical resurrection and divinity does not have the best credentials as a catholic in matters of faith.
He may be right on every thing he says, but he’s not a guy from which to get conclusion regarding Catholic interpretation of the Bible.

91

I never said he offered a Catholic interpretation of the Bible, I said he is a critical scholar who is Catholic. Doctrinal/devotional scholarship is a separate field from critical scholarship.

And my point was only is that he’s not an atheist. Most of these so-called “liberal scholars” are not atheists, and many of them have collars.

92

Then I don’t know in what context the quote is taken from. Taken out of context it’s worthless.

Indeed, ECW does cite Brown- except when when Browns views do not agree with Kriby’s admitted and open atheist viewpoint.

I just did. "As a perfect example of the bias in ECW, let us take the Gospel of John, one book where the consensus is that the Apostle had some hand in it’s writing.

Strangely here ECW uses quotes from only two sources, and none of the sources or quotes admit to Johns involvement.
BUT-Raymond “Brown has been described as “the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world”. And ECW has indeed cited Brown, even as you quote. Oddly however, even tho ECW uses Brown on other areas it fails to mention this “Brown identifies three layers of text in John: 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).” in it’s list of quotes foe the Gospel of John. Hmm, ECW uses Brown to show Ep of Peter is doubtful, but fails to use Brown when Brown says something which sits against ECWs atheist agenda.
Odd that, eh?”

Bah, You quote Kirby/ECW all the time, and also Internet Infidels in the past. Both are well know atheist websites.

93

ECW is not an atheist website, and I rarely quote from it. I don’t have to. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever done it before today.

I have linked to a couple of articles written by Richard Carrier on Internet Infidels (which is now Free Thought and Rationalism). That’s the site I was referencing when I said I moderated on an atheist message board. The message board isn’t a cite and I don’t use it as one.

As I said, my knowledge does not come from the internet.

94

If that was the intended sense, then I withdraw the objection.

95

Going back to the OP’s question, I would say that Jesus was probably literate, but definitive evidence is lacking.

I start with the assumption that our source documents (essentially, the New Testament) are historical documents like others from that time period, neither divinely inspired nor, in most cases, fictional constructs.

In all traditions, Jesus is shown as being enormously familiar with prior scriptures. It is clear that he took a great interest in them and went to considerable lengths to familiarize himself with them. It seems highly likely that he would have learned to read in order to study the scriptures. Whether or not he was actually a carpenter/tekton (I regard the one passing reference in Mark 6:3, unconfirmed by other sources, as less than definitive), it is true that he seems to have been quite ordinary in his background. Still, he obviously had some source of information concerning the scriptures, and there were at least some ordinary persons who could read.

An offsetting consideration is that he left no writings, even though any writings he produced likely would have been revered and preserved by his followers. This could mean that he learned by memorization, but it also could mean that he deliberately chose not to leave writings, or that he could not write very well. Because there are many plausible reasons why Jesus might have chosen not to leave writings, I don’t regard this as by any means an insuperable objection, but it is strong enough to be noted.

We simply don’t know who would have taught Jesus. My guess is that it was not Joseph, simply because Joseph doesn’t seem to have been a big factor in his life. It is unlikely to have been Mary, who was probably illiterate. I also don’t think that it could have been Zechariah (the priest who was the husband of Mary’s cousin Elizabeth), because Zechariah and Elizabeth appear only in the fictional infancy narrative in Luke, if I’m not mistaken, so they were probably fictional themselves. In any case, somebody taught him the scriptures, and that somebody could also have taught him to read.

96

This would be an incorrect assumptiuon. They are demonstrably fictional documents. Perhaps with some embedded geneuine anecdotes or historical scraps - probably some authentic sayings, but essentially fiction.

An oral facility with Scripture would not have been remarkable. It’s also possible that he studied with the Pharisees or the Essenes as an adult.

97

I don’t want to get into an extended discussion of this, but it sounds like you’re trying to apply contemporary standards of reliability to documents that will not sustain them. The gospels are not simply made up in the way that, say, the History of Joseph the Carpenter was simply made up. They do, however, include nonfactual elements, such as the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, as well as John’s report of the private conversation between Jesus and Pilate. They must be approached with great caution as historical sources, but they cannot simply be ignored.

98

Virtually nothing in them can be relied on as historical.

99

Tiny hijack-Would Matthew, as a tax collector, be literate at all?

100

I actually don’t think the term “Palestine” was used until the time of the emperor Hadrian in the 2nd Century. And, further, I think, though I am not certain, that the term “Palestinian” did not come into use until much later than that.