Over at his blog Christianity in Antiquity, Bart Ehrman answers a reader's email about my monograph, Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (T&T Clark, 2011), a link to which is below. He speaks positively of the study (and my first book, which he and Eldon Epp published in their Brill series) and gives a useful overview of some of the pertinent issues surrounding this complex, interesting, and controversial issue. Bart and I are largely on the same page, as he notes, but he holds out some possibility for Jesus being able to read Hebrew. So much of this issue must remain unknown ultimately, but I think that's very unlikely. Ossuary inscriptions from the Second Temple period indicate that some level of familiarity of Hebrew existed even at the popular level. But knowing a few words and using them in a funerary context is a far cry from being able to read sophisticated scriptio continua Hebrew documents. Even in our own context, we wouldn't conclude from tombstones with Latin inscriptions that people in our culture can generally read Virgil's Aeneid, much less read it publicly. These types of literary skills--reading and writing and/or copying lengthy Hebrew texts (and remember that not everyone who could read could also write)--resided mainly among the scribal-elite circles who had the leisure time to pursue such an education. The vast majority of Second Temple Jews living off the land were illiterate, as they had no real use for literate skills and no time in which to acquire them. Bart rightly cites the influential works of William Harris and Catherine Hezser in this regard, who both show that there was nothing like a public education system that reached the majority of the populace. But even among the minority scribal elite who did receive an education, not all attained complete proficiency in reading Hebrew. One of the documents from the Qumran community, 4Q266, includes a statement that members were not allowed to read Torah publicly unless they could do so without having to "sound out" the words. And despite what many people say, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that reading and writing education occurred in synagogues in the first century. That is a projection of our own literate society onto the world of Jesus. There is no solid evidence that there was an elementary school in the synagogue at Nazareth, much less that Jesus attended it.
The New Testament showcases a disagreement between two Gospel authors as to whether Jesus resided in the scribal-literate class. I've published in great detail on this issue in Jesus' Literacy and Bart cites this important Gospel disagreement in his post. Mark 6.3 has Jesus rejected in the Nazareth synagogue as a teacher because he's a carpenter. Luke 4 also has Jesus rejected, but not because he's a carpenter. Luke even attributes public reading of the Scripture to Jesus. So Mark thinks Jesus is outside the scribal-literate class and Luke thinks he's inside it, though both agree that Nazareth wasn't the highlight of his teaching career in the eyes of his contemporaries. Interestingly, John 7.15 simply reports that one of Jesus' audiences was confused about his scribal-literate status. I've argued extensively in Jesus' Literacy that the most likely historical scenario is that Jesus did not hold scribal literacy, but that some of his contemporaries probably thought he did. This is the launching point also for my newest book, Jesus against the Scribal Elite.
Let me state two others things quite clearly. First, saying that Jesus could not read the Hebrew Scriptures is not the same as saying he did not know them. I think he clearly did know them, even intricately, but this type of knowledge acquisition was available through the public reading of Scripture in synagogue. Second, saying that Jesus was a scribal illiterate is not the same as saying he was stupid. This is another projection of our world onto the world of Jesus. Most people in industrialized societies today receive an elementary education. This simply was not the case in the ancient world and the vast majority (90% to 95% or even higher) were illiterate. If you're interested in these issues, here's a link to the paperback (and cheaper) edition of my book. If nothing else, I hope that Bart's discussion and this post indicate that the issue of Jesus' literacy is not simply a novelty topic. It relates directly to what type of teacher Jesus was and thus how he was received by his audiences (hostile and friendly). All the Gospels agree on that.
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteWhen historians try to decide questions such as these, do they takie into account the uniquenes of the individuals they are dealing with? Or do they just assume that these individuals are typical and average for their generation? It looks like the latter, which strikes me as incredibly naive. Take a look at Wiki's list of child prodigies, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies
Given such a list, would it be unreasonable to expect Jesus to be a child prodigy, also? Perhaps one capable of learning to read and understand foreign languages quickly? Or must historians reject exceptional expectations, even when dealing with obviously exceptional personalities? And if they must, why should we laypeople pay them any heed?
Bilbo,
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think it's the case that historians "must" do any one thing. And laypeople can heed or not heed them at their discretion. Working on a particular set of historical questions for years on end and in multiple sources and languages doesn't guarantee that a historian is right, but it does mean that the margin of error resides on a greater wealth of knowledge than someone who just thought about the problem for ten minutes or so.
I don't think that anything I've said above simply assumes that Jesus is "average" in general or even unique for that matter. So I resent the accusation of naivete. The real question is not what we can assume about Jesus vis-a-vis the category of "average" but what we can assume about him vis-a-vis the category of "average" on this particular issue. There is no evidence to suggest that someone in Jesus' social class would have had access to a scribal-literate education. Could he have been an exception? Absolutely he could have been. But we have no early Christian texts that show how he was an exception or why we should assume that he was. Even Luke's Gospel, which places him in the Temple at 12 and reading in the synagogue later in life, doesn't describe an education for him and even states that his parents were astonished to hear him speak in a learned manner among the teachers of the law in Luke 2.
If you'll forgive my frankness, what we need for an opinion to the contrary is evidence that Jesus was unlike around 90% or so of the population when it came to elementary education, not a Wikipedia site.
What you need is evidence that not even a child prodigy can learn to read without an "elementary education."
DeleteActually, I don't need that because I'm not pushing the child prodigy argument; you are. And if you want to go down that road, have right at it. Make sure to let us know what studies you turn up on the literate education of first-century Palestinian child prodigies.
DeleteYou're pushing the argument that Jesus was illiterate because he didn't have an elementary education. In order for this argument to work, you need to show that the only way people can learn to read is by having an elementary education. But the existence of child prodigies who have learned to read without the aid of an elementary education falsifies your premise. So now, in order to show that Jesus was illiterate, you need to demonstrate that he was not a child prodigy.
DeleteBilbo, it is difficult to imagine how Jesus could have learned to read in a backwater village like Nazareth where no one (or nearly no one) could read. Prodigies are children who are quick learners, but even the best student needs a teacher. By "teacher", I don't necessarily mean someone in the profession of teaching. I mean someone who himself or herself knows how to read well enough (and who is inclined) to teach at least the basics to others.
DeleteBut the problem you're facing goes beyond the question of instruction. Consider that in order to learn to read, people need things to read. A child in 21st century America hopefully grows up in an environment full of text. Jesus grew up in a place and at a time where encounter with the written word was considerably less frequent than it is now. It is likely that Jesus' house did not contain a single book. What, exactly, do you figure Jesus taught himself to read?
Look at a prodigy like Mozart, who was composing and performing in public by age 5. He grew up in a house full of music, with a father who was a skilled musician. Mozart did not learn to play piano in the absence of a piano, any more than Jesus could have taught himself to read without having access to a book.
In Nazareth, learning to read would be something like learning to weave today. Imagine that your child was a weaving prodigy -- how would he or she learn to weave without a loom, in a household (a neighborhood, a city) where very few people know how to weave? No ... Chris is right. Even if Jesus was a prodigy, he would have needed an elementary education to realize his prodigy abilities.
Hi Larry,
DeleteThen besides the argument that Jesus did not receive an elementary education, Chris needs to make the additional argument that Jesus would have had no exposure to literature of any kind.
As far as how much exposure a child prodigy needs to their specific skill set, I think that's a matter of debate. For example, the chess master Capablanca was said at the age of four to have watched for the first time only a partial game that his father was playing, when he commented after one of his father's moves, "That was a bad move."
I suggest that we know far less about the human mind than we think we do, and one should approach questions such as whether Jesus was literate with much more humility than Chris and other historians exhibit. Perhaps Jesus was illiterate. Perhaps not. We have Luke's testimony that he wasn't. We can reject Luke's testimony, but I suggest that we do so with much more trepidation. After all, he was closer to his sources than we were. Both Mary and the people in Nazareth express shock at Jesus's apparent literacy, which is what we should expect them to exhibit, given its improbability. So in that sense at least, the stories fit their context. Now is it improbable that Jesus was able to learn to read on his own? Given his exceptional character, it shouldn't surprise us if he turned out to be prodigious. Are we sure that he had no exposure at all to any literature? On what basis do we make that claim?
Bilbo, have you read Prof. Keith's monograph "Jesus' Literacy"?
Delete-anthony
Biblo, no. Chris need make no such argument.
DeleteI am reading Chris' book as we speak. But the arguments against Jesus' literacy are very strong. Few 1st century Palestinian Jews could read, and those who could were predominantly or exclusively in the upper strata of society. Moreover, assuming that we place Jesus' early life in Nazareth, that means he grew up in a cultural and religious backwater, where fewer Jews could read than in, say, Jerusalem. You yourself acknowledge it: Jesus' literacy was so improbable that we'd expect even his kin and neighbors to express shock if Jesus could read scripture.
When you brought up the question of prodigies, I pointed out that even Mozart needed access to teachers and a piano ... and as you pointed out, even Capablanca needed access to a chessboard and a father who knew how to play. Again, it is improbable that Jesus had ready access to a book, or for that matter, to text of any kind, let alone a teacher.
This is all we can discuss: what is probable, what is likely, what is plausible and what is impossible. Can I rule out that Joseph had a few books in his house? Can I rule out that Nazareth had a literate citizen or two willing to teach Jesus some aleph bet? While Jesus would have been expected from an early age to work and help support his family, can I rule out the possibility that his parents found a way to let him spend a hour or two in pursuit of literacy? Of course not. It's not impossible. It's just highly unlikely, not plausible, IMHO.
I think it is obvious that Bilbo has not read the book and is therefore speaking from ignorance, ironically asserting that he is in the position to tell me how to write my own argument.
DeleteYou're right, Chris, I haven't read your book. If your argument does not include the consideration of child prodigies, then yes, I am asserting that I am in a position to tell you how to write your own argument.
DeleteBilbo, I think that your suggestion that social outliers should be considered is an interesting point. But your point is ruined by packaging it in hostility. This seems to be a repeated theme in your posts. Unfortunate - I thought we had a budding rapport a while back.
DeleteThe bottom line is that you've made a couple wrong assumptions about Prof. Keith's book in this thread. Unless you're willing to read the book (now reasonably priced), I think we've heard enough from you on this topic.
I hope that future comments from you will demonstrate a bit more civility.
-anthony
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteScriptio continua Hebrew documents? What texts do you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of them of which we have knowledge. I here mean either un- or lightly-demarcated texts; texts that would have required familiarity on the part of the reader for eloquent public reading.
Delete"Them" being scriptural texts.
DeleteRespectfully, I don't think that's correct. The DSS are not generally referred to as SC, are they? Unpointed, yes--and indeed that would require knowledge of a vocalization tradition---but not SC. West Semitic, generally, used word dividers if not spaces even as far back as Ugaritic and Old Aramaic (e.g. Tel Dan). A quick look at KAI will yield similar findings for epigraphic Hebrew, too (though not without exception).
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
Even the Nash Papyrus (definitely "light"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Papyrus
I'm not trying to nit-pick (and I realize that this is tangential---your point still stands), I've just never heard of Hebrew literary texts referred to as being written "Scriptio Continua". And since there existed a tradition of word division from very early on in W. Semitic (spanning several scripts) which continued into the Masoretic tradition, it struck me as strange that that terminology would be used.
See Allan Millard (JSS 1970) and Joseph Naveh (IEJ 1973).
DeleteSo you may wish to emphasize the need to vocalize unpointed texts rather than distinguish word division. Clearly your argument remains strong (and from my POV, quite convincing) either way.
Most Qumran Bible texts seem to have word division (e.g. 4QSam; 4QDeut; 1QIsa (both)). (I appreciate this is a bit of a red herring, but it is worth getting the facts right)
ReplyDeleteYes, Pete, you're right that it's good to get these things right. See below.
DeleteChris, I'm perplexed. I thought we had this same kind of discussion about "scriptio continua" and the Hebres mss a while back...the DSS biblical texts DO NOT use scriptio continua as rule...the square script texts use word spacing (though certainly, crowding can occur, making reading difficult), while the paleo-Hebrew manuscripts still used the word divider dots that were typical of Old Hebrew. Tov details all this, but just look at the mss (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah; http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls). The spacing is not always dramatic, but it is still clearly not "scriptio continua" either. I don't think this undermines your point, by the way...reading biblical texts still required particular skill, as vowels were unmarked and section markings lacking.
ReplyDeleteAdam, woe unto me for having perplexed you. See mea culpa below. But, also tell me, is it not the case that on p.196 Tov states clearly that some Judean desert texts attest scriptio continua?
DeletePage 196 of which, Chris? He has a good summary on 123ff of _Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert_. It is true that on p. 145 he does only say "The overwhelming majority of the Judean Desert texts use one of two systems for separating words in Hebrew and Aramaic..." so you have perhaps some leeway there. (He has this free online, btw: http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/books/scribal-practices1.publ.books.pdf)
DeleteSorry, p.196 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. I noted the spot in Scribal Practices, too, but he actually uses the phrase on p.196 of TC.
DeleteAnd to add to your perplexed state, I think from our original conversation that I then also reminded you that the Genesis scroll in Cambridge seems to have a lack of spacing.
DeleteYou did not point that out, I am sure, nor would I consider that late of a mss quite as indicative of earlier Hebrew scribal practices. Still, there are a few earlier exceptions to the norm, hence my original hedging of "do not as a rule use scriptio continua" (no totalitarianism here!). Our pagination is different apparently for Tov's TC, but I'm looking at Ch. 4.2.a ("Writing Practices: Word Division"), where he gives arguments for and against an _original_ use of scriptio continua for biblical texts, concluding against.
DeleteAlas, I must recant! You did indeed cite that very mss in our earlier email exchange! Mea culpa, friend.
DeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteWill you be revisiting the whole education issue in your forthcoming book?
Judas Priest. Holy Hebrew. Ok, ok. I concede that using "scriptio continua" was less precise than I could have been. I'm not going to change the post because otherwise all these responses would be confusing. I too have read Tov and am aware that most Hebrew MSS use spacing of some sort. My only point is that even these were not aids to the uninitiated and that texts such as 4Q266 indicate that even among the especially learned not everyone could read publicly. Are you ANE people happy to agree with that?
ReplyDeleteJohn, I do revisit it a bit in the new book. That book mainly concerns the origins of Jesus' conflict with the learned teachers, so I deal with those issues in order to set a background to the hostility.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteYour correspondents on this topic may find this article by Craffert and PJJ Botha fascinating to read.
“WHY JESUS COULD WALK ON THE SEA BUT HE
COULD NOT READ AND WRITE: Reflections on Historicity and Interpretation in Historical Jesus Research.” Neotestamentica 39.1 (2005) 5-35.
https://neotestamentica.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/391abotha-craffert.pdf
I haven't read your book yet, but I suspect you probably cited this in it.
-Jack
Jack, thanks for this. I do discuss Craffert and Botha in the monograph. I'm pretty unconvinced, as interesting as the article is. Botha's argument (the relevant section of the essay is written by Botha) is that Luke 4 describes a cultural event where Jesus "performed" the text but didn't really read it. In other words, he could "read" the text but only in a sense that didn't really mean read. I don't think this is the case. Luke clearly thinks Jesus did read the text, as his reference to Jesus finding a particular reading indicates. Both does draw our attention to some important issues about the perception of literacy more generally, though.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of this whole comment thread is that I have a lengthy footnote in the manuscript I just submitted that criticizes scholars who argue that no one AT ALL could read texts and that all texts were in scriptio continua. In response, I cite all the readers' aids like space division, ekthesis, etc., that appear in some ancient manuscripts (for this point, NT). My only point above is that these reader's aids were intended for people who already held familiarity with the manuscripts.
The comment thread is how it is partly because of the moderation policy. Hence post makes error, fourteen commenters comment on error (not seeing any other comments), then comments get approved and appear. Then poster confesses to the error (well, he calls it a lack of precision, but this is a blog, so we don't expect straight talking) in the original post.
ReplyDeleteThank you for narrating the process, Peter. And we prefer jive talking to straight talking on this blog.
DeleteIn case the reference isn't clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0j2dVuhr6s. Go to about 1:00.
DeleteChris I haven't read your book as yet. I just wondered where you would fit Rabbi Hillel into the Jesus literacy question?
ReplyDeletePasquino, I don't discuss Hillel much in this book given the late date of the evidence for Hillel and the fact that, well, the book is about Jesus and not Hillel. But I do discuss him briefly in a footnote in my more recent one. If the later rabbinic discussions of Hillel are correct, then he represents someone from outside the scribal class who was able to gain a scribal-literate education, much like Akiva. This was no small feat in my mind, as the author of Sirach, e.g., considers this type of social move virtually impossible (Sir 38-39). It's here that the parallel with Jesus would break down, since we have no claims for Jesus managing to attain a scribal-literate education despite being from the manual-labor class in the first-century texts; we have only claims that put him in different classes (Mark 6.3//Luke 4.16-30).
Delete