Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §9.9
have seen, Second Temple Judaism put a great emphasis on the study of Torah.
The writing prophets could already assume a reading and writing public. 278
According to Josephus (Ap. 2.204), it was expected that children should be
taught to read (grammata paideuein). 279 And the Testament of Levi similarly
sets forth the ideal of the father teaching his children their letters, so that they
may 'unceasingly read the Law of God' (T. Levi 13.2). Consequently, even a
Galilean villager (of some ability) might well have learned to read. 280 Jesus'
quite widely attested challenge, 'Have you not read?', 281 probably presupposes
his own reading ability. 282 And alongside the implication of considerable dependence
on scribes, 283 we should note that the parable of the dishonest steward
assumes a widespread if basic ability to write (Luke 16.6-7). 284 Moreover,
Traditions', in Dewey, ed., Orality and Textuality 37-65 (here 37-47). C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy
in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) concludes that average Jewish literacy
in the first century was more likely lower than the average Roman rate (496-97).
278. Riesner cites Isa. 8.1; 10.19; 29.11-12; 30.8; Hab. 2.2-3; Isa. 28.9-10 as reflecting
the child's effort to learn letters by repeatedly speaking them out aloud (Jesus als Lehrer 112-
15, 190-93); but too much should not be made of texts like m. Yad. 3.2-5 or of the evidence of
widespread use, e.g., of phylacteries.
279. Pace Horsley (n. 277 above) more than 'public oral recitation' seems to be in view;
see also A. Demsky, 'Literacy', OEANE 3.368. But Jacobson goes much too far in the opposite
direction when he asserts that 'Palestine in Jesus' day was not an oral culture. It was in fact a remarkably
literate society with a strong orientation to texts' (First Gospel 10).
280. Riesner marshalls what evidence there is in favour of an elementary/primary school
functioning in Nazareth at the time of Jesus (Jesus als Lehrer 228-32). It is unclear how much
weight can be put on Luke 4.16-21, since it appears to be an elaboration of the brief Markan account
(6.1-6), which contains no reference to Jesus reading. Luke does tend to transpose his account
into Hellenistic idiom, but it may still be significant that Luke could assume that Jesus
was able to read. In John 7.15 surprise is expressed that Jesus does 'know letters' (grammata
oiden) despite lack of formal education. But this may be no more than the ruling elite's contempt
for the uncouth northerner. Similarly with the description of Peter and John in Acts 4.13
as agrammatos, 'unlettered' (see further in vol. 2). The portrayal of James, brother of Jesus,
elsewhere in the NT implies a similar level of literacy (see again vol. 2). See also C. A. Evans,
'Context, Family and Formation', in Bockmuehl, ed., Jesus 15-21.
281. Mark 2.25 pars.; 12.10 pars.; 12.26 par.; Matt. 12.5; 19.4; 21.16; Luke 10.26. But
Harris points out that the question is posed (in Matt. 12.3; 19.4; 21.42) to Pharisees or chief
priests and scribes; 'they presumably had read' (Ancient Literacy 281-82).
282. The great number and range of scrolls at Qumran presumably implies a substantial
reading ability among its members.
283. See above §9.3c.
284. But we should observe Kloppenborg Verbin's caution: '"literacy" itself admits of
various levels: signature-literacy; the ability to read simple contracts, invoices and receipts; full
reading literacy; the ability to take dictation; and scribal literacy — the ability to compose' (Excavating
Q 167). It is hardly clear that John 8.6, 8 indicates an ability to compose in writing;
see, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew 1.268-69.
314