Ben Witherington has written a short series of blog posts (part 1, 2, and 3) on the question of literacy in first-century Israel. He makes an important point that is often overlooked in these discussions: There is a difference between being able to converse in a language, read a language, and write a language. By today’s standards, literacy in a language refers to the ability to both read and write a language. But if we apply this standard to antiquity—particularly to the Jewish people— we will minimize the number of people who were truly literate since many could read, but few could write.
Could Jesus read? Yes. The Jewish literacy rates were higher than the Greco-Roman world because of the Jews’ strong emphasis on male education for purposes of Torah-reading. Furthermore, Jesus was not a peasant. His family were artisans, and they owned land. Evidence that Jesus could read is as follows:
- Luke 4 records Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue at Nazareth.
- Jesus upbraids the scribes and Pharisees, asking them, “Have you not read…” (Mt 12:3,5; Mk 2:25; Lk 6:3). He does the same in Mt 19:4 when discussing divorce, and in Mt 22:31 and Mk 12:26 when discussing the resurrection, and in Lk 10:26 when discussing eternal life, and to priests and scribes in the Temple (Mt 21:16,42; Mk12:10). Jesus assumes that these people could read these texts. And it would be inappropriate for Jesus to upbraid them for not reading something they were unable to read, and that even He Himself had never read.
He also addresses the question of whether Jesus or any of His disciples would have known Greek. He argues:
- Greek was so pervasive in segments of Jewish society from years of Hellenization and Roman occupation that most Jews were familiar with the language.
— Cave 7 at Qumran will filled with nothing but scrolls written in Greek, proving that the Qumran community of Jews were familiar with, and could read and write in Greek. Another cave had a Greek copy of the Minor Prophets.
— A cave south of Qumran contained an archive of 35 papyri (letters, deeds, marriage contracts, etc.) belonging to a lady named Babatha, dating between AD 93-132. Two dozen of these documents are composed in Greek.
— A dedicatory inscription at Tel Dan in northern Israel was composed in Greek with an Aramaic translation below, demonstrating the bi-lingual nature of the region.
— The Jewish leader, Alexander Janneus, struck coins in 78 BC that contain both Greek and Aramaic inscriptions on them. Herod the Great only used Greek for his name and title on the coins he struck. When the Romans took over administration of Judea, the Roman governors struck all bronze coins in Greek. “The coins the priests in Jerusalem required every Jew to pay the annual temple tax with, the Tyrian shekel and half shekel had the Greek inscription–’of Tyre, the holy place and sanctuary’. Even the weights used by Jews in Jerusalem were marked in Greek– one reads ‘Year 32 of Herod the King, pious and loyal to Caesar. Inspector of markets, 3 minas’…. The same sort of thing was found near Tiberias reading ‘under Herod the tetrarch, 34 Gaius Julius the inspector of markets, 5 talents’.”
— Ossuaries have inscriptions on them written in Greek, Aramaic, or both.
— In the town of Gezer in the first century BC an inscription was carved in a stone block to indicate the borders of an estate. Part of the inscription is in Greek, and part of it is in Aramaic. One would have to know both languages to read the entire inscription.
— There are many other inscriptions, potsherds, and literary texts from this time that are written in Greek, Aramaic, or both.
— The Theodotus Inscription is a first century AD inscription written in Greek, commemorating Theodotus bar Vettenus’ rebuilding of a synagogue and its adjoining rooms.
— At Masada potsherds have been discovered with both Greek and Aramaic writing on them.
- Jesus most likely would have spoken to Romans (such as Pilate and centurions) and other Gentiles (such as the Syrophonecian woman, the residents in the region of Gerasene) in Greek.
- Jesus’ spoke of hypocrites. This was a Greek loan word taken from the Greek theatre.
- As a tax collector, Matthew surely had to know some Greek to carry out his business with the Romans.
- Peter may have needed to know some Greek (at least conversant Greek) to do business with the border-regions.
Any argument leveled against the NT which says the authors could not have possibly known Greek is ignorant of the facts. It is highly likely that some, if not all of Jesus’ disciples knew conversational Greek. Some would have known how to read Greek, and perhaps a few could even write in Greek. For those who could not write in Greek, they could employ a scribal secretary to dictate their words as they spoke in Greek (as we know Paul did for the book of Galatians and Romans, even though Paul could probably write in Greek).
November 17, 2011 at 11:13 am
“Jesus was not a peasant, his family owned land”
What biblical passage do you support this conclusion with?
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 17, 2011 at 11:31 am
Chad,
That’s not my claim. It’s Witherington’s. This is what he says to justify it: “Let us first eliminate the old canard, which suggests ‘since Jesus was a peasant, he was very likely to be illiterate’. First of all, Jesus was not a peasant. He was an artisan, a ‘tekton’ which means one who carves and molds stone and wood, more often stone than wood in many cases in the Holy Land. Jesus’ family had a trade. They had a home in Nazareth, and in the town just over the next hill, Sepphoris, you have a ton of building going on. Jesus’ family were engaged in a trade, had a home, and so far as we can tell should not be classified with landless peasants, or tenant farmers.”
He seems to be reasoning that since only peasants and farmers were typically landless, and Jesus’ family were artisans and owned their own home, then they probably owned their own land as well.
Jason
LikeLike
November 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Since Aramaic was the language of the region, it seems unlikely that Jesus would have spoken Greek to the Syrophoenician woman. Aramaic is also called Syriac and the name implies that she was Syrian, living in Phoenicia.
Nor is it clear to me that Peter would have had to speak Greek. The heart of the Capernaum trade was with the south, selling salted fish in Jerusalem and environs ( a translation of a Talmudic(?) reference I saw years ago).
On the other hand, Judas(not Iscariot) is called Thaddeus(Latin) and Lebaeus(Greek) rough translations of Yehuda(Judah), meaning, roughly, praise giver, in both languages, suggesting more than casual understanding of both language by the Galileans.
A short distance outside of Nazareth proper, a community of stone workers has been found. Quarrying rock, shaping and facing it would have been the principle occupations of the community. With the constant building of Herod and the Romans in Caesarea and other locals, they would probably had all but continuous work, especially since the preparation time for stone block would have been much longer without modern equipment and much more arduous. One would think that some, if not all the men of this community would require a knowledge of koine Greek, the lingua franca of business of that time, to conduct business with the Romans and their Greek underlings.
LikeLike
November 19, 2011 at 12:41 am
As I understand it, the Syrophoenician region was a Gentile region, and thus they would not have spoken Aramaic. But I could be wrong about that.
Peter was from Galilee, so why would he travel to Jerusalem to sell fish?
I think what the evidence shows is that while the primary language of Jews was Aramaic, they were not unfamiliar with Greek because it appeared everyone around them. Indeed, it’s clear that some of the Jews used Greek enough that they would even choose to write inscriptions on their ossuaries in Greek. I think this evidence gives us good reason to believe that Jesus and His disciples were familiar with the language. What we can’t be certain about is whether they just knew how to speak it (and if so, how good), read it, or write it.
Jason
LikeLike
November 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm
I appreciate the conversation thus far, and think the insights are interesting and plausible. Yet are we not over looking the fact that the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek, and that Jesus quotes from the source? Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me.” Obviously then it would follow that most young Jewish boys would have schooled to read from either the Hebrew Torah, and probably also from the Greek Septuagint. This would have gone on for quite some time, as the Septuagint was a well established and authoritative translation in Jesus’ day. Therefore, although the greater community may not have written in Greek, most Jewish boys who had received religious tutelage were probably exposed to both enough to the extent that they could understand, read, and even quote it as Jesus demonstrated.
LikeLike
November 23, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Nick,
That’s another good piece of evidence. I wonder, however, if it is possible that Jesus did not actually quote from the LXX, but the Gospel writer used the LXX instead of the Hebrew since that is what his audience was familiar with. It would be like me quoting from the ESV, but when someone “translates” my talk, they have me quoting from the KJV because that is what their community is more familiar with. Your thoughts?
Jason
LikeLike
November 24, 2011 at 4:52 am
Actually that’s a great point. I thought that as well to some degree, but I can’t quite shake the idea that the Septuagint has been “normalized” and accepted as an authoritative translation (that the Jews themselves commissioned) for such a long time even in Jesus’ day. That part is what causes me to wonder, and lean towards the idea that at least those who received religious instruction would have been able to read it because it was so standardized. Furthermore, after visiting Israel this last summer, our guide suggested that the Helenizing of the Jews was quite accepted especially by the Sadducees who began to view culture of the Greeks and Romans as a way of ‘improving the quality of life,’ while still remaining Jews. All this to say that if Jews, who were very protective of their Holy Scriptures were so gladly approving to have them translated into Greek that says a lot about how well accepted it was, and no doubt temples even in Israel could have easily contained some of these with which Jesus would have been exposed.
And one more side note for thought. When Jesus is crucified did Pilate not have a sign posted above his head in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Thus Pilate and the government expected people to be able to read at least one of these three languages, and it is highly likely that learned Jews like the Rabbis who studied the Scriptures would have been able to read all three. Of course there are many other thought I have on this, but just wanted to briefly visit them here. Cheers –
LikeLike
November 24, 2011 at 4:56 am
Quick edit to my last post: I meant to say “and no doubt SYNAGOGUES even in Israel could have easily contained some of these with which Jesus would have been exposed.”
LikeLike