Re: The literate Jesus

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, kevin j hopp wrote:
> The Luke ref was the first thing that stuck out to me also but I would
> assume that those who think Jesus may have not have been able to read
> have probably decided, in their search for a historical Jesus, that the
> scriptures aren't a reliable witness so it wouldn't matter how many
> verses there were to back it up if they can point to external history
> texts that say illiteracy was a cultural norm of the day. Can't reason
> with presuppositions.

Ah, well, "can't reason with presuppositions" cuts both ways -- can you
reason with someone who presupposes that every word in the Bible *must* be
factually and historically true and must therefore be believed?

In fact, we already *know* that the scriptures are not 100% reliable on
matters of historical fact because we can see that they contradict each
other on various details here and there, like when Jesus is killed on the
day *of* Passover in Mark but on the day *before* Passover in John.

If there were references to Jesus reading and writing all throughout the
gospels, then it would be a pretty certain fact about him that he could,
in fact, read and write.  But if only one or two verses make that point,
then things are not quite so certain, historically speaking.

FWIW, one of the more conservative scholars, a Catholic priest named John
P. Meier, devotes 11 pages to Jesus' literacy in volume 1 of _A Marginal
Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus_, and regarding this passage, he
writes, "If only we could take Luke 4:16-30 as a faithful report of a
historical event, we would have unquestionable proof of Jesus' ability to
read and expound the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the sources and the
historicity of the narrative in this pericope are disputed. . . .
Certainly the Lucan pericope is loaded with Lucan motifs; the highly
symbolic scene functions as a programmatic preview of the course of Jesus'
ministry, death, and resurrection, resulting in the proclamation of the
good news to the Gentiles. The clear presence of Luke's redactional hand
makes one wary. . . . Hence the very part of the pericope that is relevant
to the question of Jesus' literacy is probably secondary and cannot help
us answer the question."  Beyond that, he notes that literacy in the
Greco-Roman world was pretty low ... however, Jewish culture had a higher
regard for literacy than most cultures, and Jesus, being a firstborn son,
would have likely received some education thanks to the proximity of a
local synagogue and his own rather pious father (said piety being
evidenced in the naming of Jesus' brothers after biblical heroes).  And,
on page 278, he concludes, "It is sobering to realize, though, how here,
as so often in Jesus research, we reach our conclusions not by direct,
clear-cut, indisputable texts, but rather by indirect arguments,
inference, and converging lines of probability."

Again, for whatever that's worth.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/