How literate were the 12 of Christ's time?

[strappinglad]

Notice I said literate and not literal. In bouncing around this forum I came upon a statement that some of Peter's writings were assumed by scholars to have been written by Luke. This made we wonder just how well educated, formally/informally each of the 12 were. Most were basic laborers , fishermen etc. They must have received some training in the scriptures while attending the synagogue but how far did it go?  What about Christ Himself? We read that at the age of 12 He was found conversing with the elders . Does that mean He read and understood the scriptures at that time or that He just was discussing ideas? We know that scribes were used for a lot of correspondence at the time as they were the ones trained in " letters ". Are scholars making assumptions about the literacy levels of the writers of the NT when they declare so and so actually ' wrote ' such and such ?

As a partial answer to my question . http://www.craigaevans.com/evans.pdf 

Edited May 1, 2017 by strappinglad

[The Nehor]

At the time the wealthy had a literacy rate of almost 100% in the Roman Empire. The rest are estimated from around 1% to 20%. The Jews may have been an exception. The Torah made a big deal about teaching the Law and learning. Josephus said that the Law taught that all children should be taught to read. Josephus was an aristocrat though and it is unclear how far down the social ladder he meant that to cover.

The idea that they were basic laborers is a bit of a stretch. Peter had his own boat. He was the ancient equivalent of a small business owner. It is suggested James and John were in a similar class and the scriptures are silent about the occupations of the rest of the Twelve. Judas Iscariot got a financial windfall at the end but it does not look like he did much with it.

[katherine the great]

Matthew was a tax collector.  That could possibly require some literary skills.  I was under the impression that most folks were illiterate and that the scribes did the majority of the reading and writing.  We know that the Savior Himself could read because he picked up the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue and read from it.

[RevTestament]

This is really a question of Jewish culture at the time. Jews definitely charged themselves with knowing the law. At the time phylacteries were already in use. This implies Jews educated their children in learning the law, and wearing it upon themselves. Some Jews were probably also educated in Greek - Matthew was probably one such person, and hence would be eligible to be a tax collector. As Jesus' brother, James also was probably literate in the Hebrew law.

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that they were basic laborers is a bit of a stretch. Peter had his own boat. He was the ancient equivalent of a small business owner. It is suggested James and John were in a similar class and the scriptures are silent about the occupations of the rest of the Twelve. Judas Iscariot got a financial windfall at the end but it does not look like he did much with it.

Most first century Jews didn't know how to read and write, let alone in Greek. None of the New Testament apostles knew how to read and write in Greek, except Paul. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-many-christians-could-read/

The New Testament gospels come from oral traditions and are not reliable history. 

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

 I was under the impression that most folks were illiterate and that the scribes did the majority of the reading and writing.  

No evidence of dictation in first century Palestine according to Ehrman. No evidence that Peter, John, and the others had scribes. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is really a question of Jewish culture at the time. Jews definitely charged themselves with knowing the law. At the time phylacteries were already in use. This implies Jews educated their children in learning the law, and wearing it upon themselves. Some Jews were probably also educated in Greek - Matthew was probably one such person, and hence would be eligible to be a tax collector. As Jesus' brother, James also was probably literate in the Hebrew law.

True, and Acts 6:7 claims that many priests joined Christianity.  The priests are most likely to have had a high literacy rate at that time.  This was particularly true of Essene priests and ordinary Essene Jews at Qumran -- who spent a great deal of time copying scrolls.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Most first century Jews didn't know how to read and write, let alone in Greek. None of the New Testament apostles knew how to read and write in Greek, except Paul. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-many-christians-could-read/

The New Testament gospels come from oral traditions and are not reliable history. 

The four Gospels are all quite late and represent a compilation by Greek-speaking editors of tradition in the form of a theological understanding of Jesus.  They constitute the belief-system of a Greek-speaking Christian church, whereas Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic.  The sources lying behind the Gospels likely include a Sayings source (such as the Gospel of Thomas) and Q (for Quelle "source").  It is also very likely that many Christian documents were lost during the first two centuries.  Only a few have survived.

15 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No evidence of dictation in first century Palestine according to Ehrman. No evidence that Peter, John, and the others had scribes. 

Yet it is highly likely that one could hire a scribe to write a document of any sort (legal or personal).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Most first century Jews didn't know how to read and write, let alone in Greek. None of the New Testament apostles knew how to read and write in Greek, except Paul. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-many-christians-could-read/

That is a guess about the apostles. People cannot even agree on whether some of them existed and I am supposed to believe that we are 100% sure on how literate they were. Please....

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

The New Testament gospels come from oral traditions and are not reliable history. 

Also a guess. Actually many New Testament scholars believe in a document referred to as Q that was used as a reference for the Synoptic gospels. If true they did not come directly from oral traditions. Also, many of the gospels are dated within the reasonable lifespan of eyewitnesses and could easily have been recorded by an actual witness.

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No evidence of dictation in first century Palestine according to Ehrman. No evidence that Peter, John, and the others had scribes. 

How do you find evidence of dictation outside of references to it (like one of Paul's letters)? If I dictated a letter and someone else typed it how would a reader know if I dictated it? There is also no evidence that Peter, John, and the others did not have scribes. Again, how would you tell that they did not have scribes if they did?

 

[strappinglad]

Does anyone know if a serious wordprint analysis has been done on the books of the Bible? I know the one on the BoM was quite illuminating. Supposedly such analysis can hold up even on translations.

[Bobbieaware]

On 4/30/2017 at 8:13 PM, strappinglad said:

Notice I said literate and not literal. In bouncing around this forum I came upon a statement that some of Peter's writings were assumed by scholars to have been written by Luke. This made we wonder just how well educated, formally/informally each of the 12 were. Most were basic laborers , fishermen etc. They must have received some training in the scriptures while attending the synagogue but how far did it go?  What about Christ Himself? We read that at the age of 12 He was found conversing with the elders . Does that mean He read and understood the scriptures at that time or that He just was discussing ideas? We know that scribes were used for a lot of correspondence at the time as they were the ones trained in " letters ". Are scholars making assumptions about the literacy levels of the writers of the NT when they declare so and so actually ' wrote ' such and such ?

As a partial answer to my question . http://www.craigaevans.com/evans.pdf 

I'm caused to wonder why on an LDS discussion board the scriptures are often not looked to for answers to questions like the ones you pose.

First, it seems hard to imagine that if on the day of Pentecost the twelve apostles were given the gift of tongues -- a manifestation of the Spirit that enabled them to speak and preach eloquently in many foreign languages of which they had no previous knowledge -- that they would have been unable to read and write, especially when one considers the fact that as apostles they were divinely commissioned to teach and preach the gospel. If the Apostles were illiterate, and couldn't even read and study the scriptures, it's hard to imagine that they could have effectively fulfilled their callings. 

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? (I.e. coarse country bumpkins)

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2) !!!

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon makes it clear the apostle John had the ability to write, just like the prophet Nephi who was taught how to read and write even though he was not a scribe.

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world. (1 Nephi 14)

in John's Book of Revelation, there are several verses like the following...

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. (Revelation 10)

 

Also since the Apostle James grew up in the same household as the Apostle John, it's hard to imagine James would not have also been similarly literate.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Does anyone know if a serious wordprint analysis has been done on the books of the Bible? I know the one on the BoM was quite illuminating. Supposedly such analysis can hold up even on translations.

You might want to see http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/download/352/352  ,  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles .

[MormonVideoGame]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a guess about the apostles. People cannot even agree on whether some of them existed and I am supposed to believe that we are 100% sure on how literate they were. Please...

No, it is about what is more probable. 

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also a guess. Actually many New Testament scholars believe in a document referred to as Q that was used as a reference for the Synoptic gospels. If true they did not come directly from oral traditions. Also, many of the gospels are dated within the reasonable lifespan of eyewitnesses and could easily have been recorded by an actual witness.

and where did Q come from? The stories come from oral tradition. 

[MormonVideoGame]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is also no evidence that Peter, John, and the others did not have scribes

 

Quote

I’m not saying that the author of 1 or 2 Peter didn’t use a scribe. But I *am* saying that scribes/secretaries did not write letters for the person who was supposedly actually writing (almost never). (That’s what’s typically argued for the letters of Peter, but I show why it doesn’t work in my books

https://ehrmanblog.org/complications-with-finding-an-original-text/

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No, it is about what is more probable. 

and where did Q come from? The stories come from oral tradition. 

An oral tradition would be an oral tale passed down through generations. It is not required because eyewitnesses could have still been around to create the text and if it is an eye witness it is not an oral tradition. We are not talking about a Native American story passed down verbally for 300 years.

[MormonVideoGame]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

An oral tradition would be an oral tale passed down through generations. It is not required because eyewitnesses could have still been around to create the text and if it is an eye witness it is not an oral tradition. We are not talking about a Native American story passed down verbally for 300 years.

Do you have any evidence that the gospel authors even knew the apostles? Did they interview the apostles like journalists do? Did they have fact-checking? Investigative journalism? 

Teachings can change very quickly, for example Jesus was not seen as God or Jehovah by early Christians. None of the authentic letters of Paul (Romans. First Corinthians. Second Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. First Thessalonians. Philemon) ever say that Jesus is God of the world, or Jehovah. Perhaps a divine being, not God. All the according to Bart Ehrman.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Do you have any evidence that the gospel authors even knew the apostles? Did they interview the apostles like journalists do? Did they have fact-checking? Investigative journalism?   

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I hope my answers succeeded as being as serious and well-thought out as the questions they answer,

~fin~

[mrmarklin]

On 5/1/2017 at 7:04 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

 

Teachings can change very quickly, for example Jesus was not seen as God or Jehovah by early Christians. None of the authentic letters of Paul (Romans. First Corinthians. Second Corinthians. Galatians. Philippians. First Thessalonians. Philemon) ever say that Jesus is God of the world, or Jehovah. Perhaps a divine being, not God. All the according to Bart Ehrman.  

Like Ehrman's an expert. Go look up the first few verses of the Gospel of John.

 

Sheesh!

[mrmarklin]

On 4/30/2017 at 5:13 PM, strappinglad said:

Notice I said literate and not literal. In bouncing around this forum I came upon a statement that some of Peter's writings were assumed by scholars to have been written by Luke. This made we wonder just how well educated, formally/informally each of the 12 were. Most were basic laborers , fishermen etc. They must have received some training in the scriptures while attending the synagogue but how far did it go?  What about Christ Himself? We read that at the age of 12 He was found conversing with the elders . Does that mean He read and understood the scriptures at that time or that He just was discussing ideas? We know that scribes were used for a lot of correspondence at the time as they were the ones trained in " letters ". Are scholars making assumptions about the literacy levels of the writers of the NT when they declare so and so actually ' wrote ' such and such ?

As a partial answer to my question . http://www.craigaevans.com/evans.pdf 

I actually googled this, and most websites that address this state that there was a fairly high level of literacy in the Roman Empire. Certainly enough that it's likely most, if not all the apostles were literate.