education jesus

7/28/2019 Education Jesus

1/27

EDUCATING JESUS:

THE SEARCH FOR A PLAUSIBLE CONTEXT

Paul FosterUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh, Scotland

ABSTRACT

Many reconstructions of the life of the historical Jesus have tended to portray himas being born into illiterate peasant stock. By so doing, significant statements inthe Gospels, both canonical and non-canonical, are ignored. While much cautionis needed, since there is a tendency to valorize the young Jesus in early Christianliterature and to heighten miraculous events surrounding his childhood, nonethe-less there are indicators that Jesus background did not reflect the lowest echelonsof Galilean peasantry. Instead, it is suggested that internal Gospel evidence andknowledge of aspects of the social milieu of first-century Judaism give weight toseeing Jesus as a person with what would now be classified as functional on basicliteracy levels.

Key words: Alpha-Beta logion, Dead Sea Scrolls, education, historical Jesus,Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Josephus, literacy, non-canonical Gospels, Quintilian

Introduction: The Changing Attitudes Concerning Jesus Education

There was a time when New Testament scholarship knew much about the child-hood, upbringing, education and formative influences that shaped the boy Jesus.One only has to turn to the nineteenth-century lives of Jesus to read with vary-ing degrees of detail about the maturation of Jesus in Nazareth. A few exampleswill illustrate this perspective admirably.

The Nineteenth-century Lives of JesusRenan not only knew that Jesus could read and write, but could identify thelanguages which he may or may not have known, as well as informing us howfortunate Jesus was to escape from Talmudic-like education.

This aspect of nature, at once smiling and grand, was the whole education of Jesus. Helearnt to read and write, doubtless, according to the Eastern method, which consistedin putting in the hands of the child a book, which he repeated in cadence with his littlecomrades, until he knew it by heart. It is doubtful, however, if he understood the

Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus

Vol. 4.1 pp. 7-33DOI: 10.1177/1476869006061776

2006 SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks, CA

and New Delhihttp://JSHJ.sagepub.com


2/27

8 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Hebrew writings in their original tongue. It is not probable that Jesus knew Greek.

Happily for him he was ignorant of the strange scholasticism which was taught atJerusalem, and which soon was to constitute the Talmud.1

Such detailed descriptions of Jesus formative years become more speculativetowards the end of the nineteenth century. Fr. Didon describes a threefold aspectto Jesus education: the home, the synagogue and the workshop. In the househe received the counsels of his father and mother; in the synagogue he learnedto read the Torah; in the workshop he learned a trade.2 Moreover, he not onlyinforms readers that learning to read took place in synagogues, but also discloses

to the reader the origin and appearance of those religious institutions.3 In addi-tion, one learns that Syro-Chaldaean was the mother tongue of Jesus,4 but thatit does not appear that he spoke Greek.5 A few years later Henry Ward Beecher

confidently told his audience of the parents thwarted educational preferences.

It was natural that Joseph and Mary should desire to settle in Judaeaespeciallybecause, when once they believed their Son destined to fulfil the propheciesconcerning the Messiah, they would wish Him to be educated near Jerusalem.6

Beecher tells us that although this did not occur it all worked out for the bestsince, we may perceive that His education, remote from the Temple, not onlysaved him from the influence of the dead and corrupt schools of Jerusalem, butbrought Him into sympathetic relations with the most lowly in life.7 It is little

wonder that this uncritical portrait of the adolescent Jesus has been rejected. Notonly is it either speculative or based on Talmudic evidence which is of dubiousvalue for reconstructing first-century CE Jewish education, but moreover, suchpictures created by the nineteenth-century authors are a strange mix of piety,speculation and, in some cases, latent anti-Judaism.

Even D.F. Strauss, a scholar deemed to be a thoroughgoing sceptic and liberal

by many of his contemporaries, appears to be incredibly nave by modern stan-dards of historiography when he describes Jesus formative years. While Strausssought to distance Jesus from formal training in Rabbinic Schools (which in

itself may be anachronistic),8 he does nonetheless feel that the tendency in early

1. E. Renan, Vie de Jsus (Paris: Michel Lvy Frres, 1863), pp. 30, 32, 35.2. Fr. Didon,Jesus Christ(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., 1893), p. 78.3. The young Israelite was wont to complete his education in the synagogue, and from

the time of Ezra, each village had its own, often a simple chamber without ornamentation orarchitecture, pointing towards the sacred city (Didon,Jesus Christ, p. 81).

4. Didon,Jesus Christ, p. 82.5. Didon,Jesus Christ, p. 82.

6. Henry Ward Beecher, The Life of Jesus the Christ. I. Earlier Scenes (London:Richard D. Dickinson, 1897), p. 55.7. Beecher, The Life of Jesus the Christ, p. 59.8. Strauss states, the data on our present subject to be found in the Gospels, collectively

yield the result that Jesus did not pass formally through rabbinical school (D.F. Strauss, The


3/27

FosterEducating Jesus 9

Christianity would have been to downplay any human influences on Jesus edu-cation. He argues that since his wisdom was part of Jesus divine status it wasincongruous for early Christian authors to admit human influences. Thus an un-

educated Jesus was a more divine Jesus.9 Hence Strauss interprets sayings suchas Mt. 12.29, which state that Jesus did not teach as the scribes and the silenceabout his schooling, in the following manner:

[T]he consideration that it must have been in the interest of the Christian legend torepresent Jesus as independent of human teachers, may induce a doubt with respect tothese statements in the New Testament, and a conjecture that Jesus may not have beenso entirely a stranger to the learned culture of his nation.10

Hence for Strauss it is natural to assume that Jesus was educated, and moreover

that this included the ability to read.11

What remains the only contentious issuefor Strauss is whether that education was Rabbinic or private.

Crossans Peasant SageBy contrast many modern scholars have exhibited outright disagreement with the

perspective that Jesus was educated, or literate. Crossan, who is perhaps the best-

known proponent of the case for an illiterate Jesus, sees him as not only repre-senting the peasant classes, but being from the same stock, and advocating aninclusive brokerless Judaism which sought to empower the disempowered. Com-

menting on the medium Jesus adopted for this task, Crossan argues,It is not, however, the elite, literary, and sophisticated philosophical synthesis of a Philo

of Alexandria. It is rather the peasant, oral, and popular philosophical praxis of what

might be termed, if adjective and noun are given equal weight, a Jewish Cynicism.12

Thus the literary sophistications of the urban elites are cast in stark opposition tothe oral culture of rural Galilean peasantry. It is this latter category to which,according to Crossan, Jesus belonged, as a charismatic counter-cultural cynicfigure, lacking the refinements of formal education. This perspective is extendedby Ebner in his characterization of Jesus as a wisdom-teacher. Ebner sees Jesusteaching as reflecting the popularized forms of discourse that existed within theGalilean peasant culture, rather than being the product of the literary education

Life of Jesus Critically Examined[ed. P.C. Hodgson, from 4th German edition, trans. GeorgeElliott, 1840; Mifflintown, PA: Sigler Press, 2002], p. 202).

9. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that modern scholars argue that texts that depict Jesus

as being taught in the conventional manner are necessarily an attempt to heighten Jesus status.10. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, p. 202.11. See the discussion of Lk. 4.16. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, p. 201.12. J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant(New

York: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 421.


4/27


of urban elites.13 In a later work Crossan asserts even more clearly his portrayalof the illiterate Jesus.

Furthermore, since between 95 and 97 percent of the Jewish state was illiterate at thetime of Jesus, it must be presumed that Jesus also was illiterate, that he knew, like thevast majority of his contemporaries in an oral culture, the foundational narratives,basic stories, and general expectations of his tradition but not the exact texts, precisecitations, or intricate arguments of its scribal elites.14

Setting aside the logical fallacy of applying a grouped-based probability to aspecific case, one wonders at the certainty with which Crossan presents his statis-

tic of 95 to 97 per cent illiteracy without any supporting evidence.

W.V. Harris, Ancient LiteracyAlthough not acknowledged, Crossans estimate of levels of illiteracy wouldappear to draw on the major investigation of W.V. Harris into literacy in theancient world.15 Although this study has not gone unchallenged,16 it remains anagenda-setting work. Harris argues that [i]n every society which possesseswriting, a line can be drawn between the literate and the illiterate population.17

While he acknowledges the theoretical possibility of possessing the ability toread without writing, in relation to Graeco-Roman culture he asserts [t]here is,however, no especial reason to think that those who could truly read and truly not

write were numerous.18

Moreover, he refutes the claim made by C.H. Robertsthat during the first-century CE, literacy was widespread in the Near East atalmost all levels to an extent without parallel in living memory.19 Based on a

cross-cultural comparison with the rise in literacy in sixteenth-century New Eng-

land, Harris suggests that the significant factor in increased rates of literacy was

the proliferation of small towns with populations in the range 500-1,000the

reason being that such communities made schools available whereas smallerones did not.20 Thus he suggests that lack of urbanization in the ancient Medi-

13. M. Ebner,Jesusein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitlogien im Traditions-poze (Freiburg: Herder, 1998).

14. J.D. Crossan,Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994),pp. 25-26.

15. W.V. Harris,Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).16. Mary Beard et al.,Literacy in the Roman World(Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman

Archaeology, 1991).17. Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 3.18. Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 5.

19. C.H. Roberts, Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the New Testament, inP.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible. I.From the Begin-nings to Jerome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 43. Note: this is slightlymiscited by Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 9.

20. Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 13.


5/27


terranean world was the greatest hindrance to the rise and spread of elementaryeducation.

For Harris, the zenith of literacy was reached in fifth-century BCE Attica, but

even then it still did not attain a particularly high level. He states,Thus in percentage terms the level of literacy, while still to be considered impressivein view of the obstacles to popular education, was not especially dramatic. For thepopulations of Attica as a whole, it should probably be set in the range between 5%and 10%.21

This may well be the figure upon which Crossan based his estimate, lowering itbecause of the even greater lack of urbanization in rural Galilee. Two factorsmay tell against this estimate. First, although Galilee was largely rural, there

were significant urban centres. Safari estimates the population of Kefar Nahum(Capernaum) to have been between 6000 and 8000,22 although Reed suggeststhis figure is far too high and, making comparisons with Roman Pompeii, esti-mates 17002500.23 The population of Nazareth can be estimated using Safraismethod. The area of Herodian Nazareth was approximately 18 hectares (900 mby 200 m). This would give a population between 630 and 720. Using Reedslower estimate the population would be much reduced, 200 to 220. This appearsto be an underestimate in this case. Strange is more generous in his assessment,the population would have been a maximum of about 480 at the beginning of

the 1st AD.24

It is therefore feasible that a population of approximately 500could have sustained a single teacher school. Secondly, Harris gives hints thatthe estimates of literacy may differ in an ancient Jewish context. He notes thatit can reasonably be assumed that widely scattered Jewish communities some-times corresponded with each other on religious matters.25 More significantly,however, he entertains the possibility that possession of a sacred text may pro-vide a greater impetus towards literacy. Discussing early Christianity he makesthe following observation based on its Jewish heritage. [T]he sacred texts hadwide-ranging importance, and they were felt to be a powerful means of contact

with the divine. It is natural to suppose that this aspect of Christianity waslargely an inheritance from Judaism.26 This possibility is asserted even more

21. Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 114.22. Safrai estimates the size of Kefar Nahum to be about 170 dunams (17 hectares). His

calculations are based upon 10 rooms (and hence 10 families) per dunam, with each nuclearfamily having 3.54.0 members). Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London andNew York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 40-42, 65-67.

23. J.L. Reed, The Population of Capernaum,Institute for Antiquity and Christianity

Occasional Papers 24 (Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1992).24. J.F. Strange, Nazareth, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV(New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 1050.

25. Harris,Ancient Literacy,p. 220.26. Harris,Ancient Literacy, p. 300.


6/27


strongly by Millard. He states, The literacy situation in Jewish society differedfrom that in Graeco-Roman society in a notable way because there was a strongtradition of education in order that men, at least, should be prepared to read from

the Scriptures in synagogue services.27 In support of this claim Millard citesthat ruling from the Palestinian Talmud attributed to R. Simeon ben Shetach thatall children should attend school (y.Ket. 8.32c). Millard appears to accept this asan accurate portrayal of Jewish practice around 100 BCE, in the period contem-porary with R. Simeon ben Shetach.28 Yet the statement may reflect educationalpractices that were common during the fifth-century CE when the PalestinianTalmud was codified, rather than being an accurate depiction of first-centuryBCE practice. Thus the divergence between the wider ancient worlds levels ofliteracy and those found in a Jewish context necessitates looking at textual evi-dence for education, rather than basing estimates on social-scientific compari-sons which may be inappropriate since they fail to account for the importantcultural differences.

The Evidence of the Canonical Gospels

From the outset it needs to be acknowledged that none of the texts in the four

canonical Gospels that are to be discussed gives clear, incontrovertible evidencefor a literate Jesus. Rather, the evidence that does exist is either inconclusive oropen to the challenge of being a later embellishment and hence does not reflect atradition that can be traced back to the historical Jesus with a high degree ofconfidence. Moreover, all the potential evidence appears in one gospel (it willbe argued that both the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, Jn 7.538.11,and the reference to Jesus knowing letters in Jn 7.15, offer little for determining

whether Jesus could read or write). Nonetheless, these partial pieces of evidencefrom Lukes Gospel will be used as part of a cumulative case for arguing that

Jesus may have had basic literacy skills. Furthermore, it will be suggested thatperhaps Jesus did not originate in the social class of illiterate Galilean peasantryas has been suggested by a number of recent reconstructions of the historicalJesus.

Jesus Teaches in the Synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30)This text is the strongest piece of evidence in the New Testament for seeing Jesus

as possessing some level of functional literacy. According to the narrative, Jesus

engages in his customary practice of synagogue attendance on the Sabbath.

27. A. Millard,Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 2000), p. 157.

28. Millard,Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, p. 157.


7/27


When he stands up he is given a scroll containing the writings of the ProphetIsaiah and reads, according to the quotation given by Luke, Isa. 61.1a, b, d;58.6d; and 61.2a. Leaving aside the vexed questions raised by this conflated

citation such as its relationship to the LXX,29 the intrusion of Isa. 58.6d into thissequence,30 and the actual historicity of the incident,31 one can immediately seethat Luke presents Jesus ability to read in an incidental manner without anyobvious apologetic aim. Furthermore, although Riesner perpetuates the commonmisconception that writing materials were an expensive commodity,32 he sug-gests that Jesus had ability in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Zum anderen weisensie darauf hin, da Jesus seine Bibel in der Regel Hebrisch las und ins Ara-mische bersetzte.33 While this only implies reading ability in Hebrew, theability to translate into Aramaic would represent a higher level of overall literary

sophistication.

Admittedly, the representation here is that of Jesus as a pious Jew participating

reverentially in the ancestral traditions. Such a motif is present elsewhere in

Luke, especially in the form of Temple-based piety. It can be seen in the infancynarratives, when Jesus is taken to the Temple to be dedicated to the Lord and cir-

cumcised (Lk. 2.21-24); and in the book of Acts, with Peter and John continuing

to attend the Temple at regular times of prayer (Acts 3.1). By contrast, however,in the description of events at the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus piety is a peri-

pheral feature which does not attract authorial comment, as also is his ability toread. As commentators have noted, this pericope functions in the Lukan contextas a programmatic statement outlining both Jesus purpose and mission inpreaching the Gospel.34 While the ability to read was not necessarily widespread

29. The citation agrees verbatim with Isa. 61.1 apart from the omission of the wordsi0a/sasqai tou\j suntetrimme/nouj th~| kardi/a|. It then attaches Isa. 54.6d, before continuingwith Isa. 61.2.

30. tienne Samain suggests that the addition of Isaiah 54.6d is based on the principle of

linking passages that share key words, the technique know as haphtarah. Hence this intrusionis no coincidence. See Le discours-programme de Jsus la synagogue de Nazareth, Lc 4,16-30, Cahier Biblique: Foi et Vie 10 (1971), pp. 25-43.

31. A number of commentators have suggested that this pericope is a Lukan reworkingand expansion of material contained in Mk 6.1-6. For a discussion of the tradition history of this

pericope see R.C. Tannehill, The Mission of Jesus according to Luke IV 16-30, in E. Grsser

(ed.),Jesus in Nazareth (BZNW, 40; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1972), pp. 5-75.32. Riesner states Da Schriftrollen sehr viel kosteten. R. Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer. Eine

Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelium-berlieferung(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 3rdedn, 1988), p. 224. However, as Skeat has demonstrated, the actual cost of producing a manu-

script roll is usually exaggerated. See T.C. Skeat, The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll andthe Cost-Advantage of the Codex,ZPE45 (1982), pp. 169-76; and Was Papyrus Regarded asCheap or Expensive in the Ancient World?,Aegyptus 75 (1995), pp. 75-93.

33. Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, p. 227.34. See R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982).


8/27


in Galilee, Lukes portrayal of Jesus ability to read is not implausible. Thereading of scripture is known to have been a significant feature of later Jewishsynagogue worship and reading as a skill may better be thought of as comple-

mentary, rather than antithetical to the oral traditions that circulated in that soci-ety. Moreover, being raised in the milieu of a pious Jewish family, and demon-strating a fascination with the scriptures both as a set of texts to debate and toinform ethical values, the probability that Jesus was able to read is increased.Meier concurs with this observation when he states,

Yet the matrix of a devout Jewish family, Jesus own preoccupation with the Jewishreligion, and the debates over Scripture that Jesus held with professional scribes andpious Pharisees during his ministry all make his ability to read the sacred text a morelikely hypothesis.35

Therefore, the only explicit piece of evidence supporting Jesus ability to readwithin the canonical Gospel tradition can be assessed as feasibly fitting into thecontext of wider Galilean culture in the first-century CE.

Nonetheless, source-critical issues raise doubts about the historicity of thisevent as recorded by Luke. The material contained in Lk. 4.16-21 may well be aredactional development of Mk 6.1-6. As Dunn succinctly notes, It is unclearhow much weight can be put on Lk. 4.16-21, since it appears to be an elabora-tion of the brief Markan account (6.1-6), which contains no reference to Jesus

reading.36

Undoubtedly there are points of contact between these two passagessuch as the locale in a synagogue, and the temporal reference to the Sabbath.What is equally striking are the differences and deviations. The urban centre isreferred to as Jesus patri/da in Mark, but as Nazara& in Luke. Jesus teaches inMarkdida&skein, he reads in Luke a0nagnw~nai. In the Markan account he isdescribed as ou0x ou[to&j e0stin o9 te&ktwn o9 ui9o\j th~j Mari/aj (Mk 6.3),whereas for Luke he is identified as ou0xi\ ui9o&j e0stin 0Iwsh\f ou[toj; (Lk. 4.22).Such differences have led some scholars to contest the identification of Lk.4.16ff. as a redactional reworking of the Markan material by the third evan-

gelist. Thus, for instance, Heinz Schrmann proposes that Luke had access to avariant of the Nazareth pericope also known to Mark (Mark 6.1-6).37 Regard-less of the correct solution to the source-critical question, it is nonetheless strik-ing that Luke could assume that Jesus was able to read without having to justifysuch a claim.

35. J.P. Meier,A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of the Prob-lem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 351.

36. J.D.G. Dunn,Jesus Remembered. I. Christianity in the Making(Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 2003), p. 314 n. 280.37. H. Schrmann, Zur Traditiongeschichte der Nazareth-Pericope Lk 4,16-30, in

A. Descamps and de A. Halleux (eds.), Mlanges bibliques: Festschrift Bda Rigaux (Gambloux:Duculot, 1970), pp. 187-205, quotation at p. 205.


9/27


Jesus Debates with the Teachers of the Law in the Temple (Luke 2.46-47)The only story in the canonical Gospel tradition that depicts an incident from theadolescent period of Jesus life shows him involved in discussion on religious

matters with teachers of the law in the Temple in Jerusalem. The text does notallude to the skills of either reading or writing, since it portrays Jesus as enteringinto oral dialogue with those trained in the law.

kai\ e0ge&neto meta_ h(me&raj trei=j eu{ron au)to_n e0n tw~| i9erw~| kaqezo&menon e0n me&sw|tw~n didaska&lwn kai\ a)kou&onta au)tw~n kai\ e0perwtw~nta au)tou&j: e0ci/stanto de\pa&ntej oi9 a)kou&ontej au)tou~ e0pi\ th~| sune&sei kai\ tai=j a)pokri/sesin au)tou~ (Lk.2.46-47)

In contrast to the story set in the synagogue at Nazareth where the ability to

read was mentioned only in passing and without the glorification of Jesus, herethe point of relating this story is to portray the young Jesus as an astounding indi-

vidual who is more advanced in wisdom than his contemporaries and even ableto amaze those who are termed teachers. Although the content of the dialogue is

not disclosed, the setting in the Temple and the reference to didaska&loi is to beseen in this context as denoting those instructed in the law. As Fitzmyer observes,

The Jewish didaskoloi in the Temple must be understood as the scribes orlawyers of Jesus day; aside from this passage they are never again called teach-ers. Elsewhere in the Lucan Gospel didaskolos is used only of John the Baptist

(3.12) or of Jesus.38

The historicity of this pericope has been called into question by a number of

commentators partially because of the obvious motive of glorifying the adolescent

Jesus, and Bultmann has classified the story as a legend.39 Riesner see the story

as having a christlich-theologischen Motive.40 Yet, in many ways a decisionconcerning this issue is unimportant for the present investigation, since thisincident provides no direct evidence in determining Jesus literacy, since onlyoral skills are mentioned. It may, however, serve a corroborating function sinceadeptness in rhetoric may be related to reading ability. As Riesner states, Lk

2,46f zeigt Jesus als judisches Kind, das durch Fragen, Zuhoren und Antwortenlernte.41

Jesus Social Background according to Lukes Gospel (Luke 1.36)When Luke narrates the announcement of Jesus birth by Gabriel, he has the angel

tell Mary that her own situation is paralleled, to some extent, by the miraculous

38. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke IIX(New York: Doubleday, 1981),

p. 442.39. R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), pp.302-305.

40. Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, p. 236.41. Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, p. 236.


10/27


conception experienced by Elizabeth. The text states, kai\ i0dou_ 'Elisa&bet h(suggeni/j sou kai\ au)th_ sunei/lhqen ui9o_j e0n gh&rei au)th=j (Lk. 1.36a). In thiscontext Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah the priest, is described as Marys rela-tive. According toBDAG the related term suggenh&j has both a narrower designa-tion describing belonging to the same extended family or clan, related, akin toas well as a broader designation belonging to the same people group, compatriot,kin.42 The wider designation is used in Rom. 9.3, where Paul speaks about tw~nsuggenw~n mou kata_ sa&rka. The term used in Lk. 1.36a is not, however, sug-genh&j, but the related feminine form, suggeni/j.BDAG notes that this form is alate and peculiar fem. form ofsuggenh&j, rejected by the Atticists (Ps.-HerodianinPhryn., p. 451f Lob.) meaning kinswoman, relative.43 This same descriptionof the term as a pecul. fem. Is also provided by Liddell and Scott.44 This femi-nine designation does not appear to take on a wider or metaphorical meaning, asdoes its masculine counterpart, according to the discussions in the standard lexi-cons, or the examples surveyed in the TLG. Rather, it uniformly refers to afemale relative, linked by some kind of blood or adoptive bond of kinship.

Thus, it appears to be the case that Luke intends his readers to understandthat Mary is a blood relative of Elizabeth, and hence that the mother of Jesus islinked to priestly circles. The nature of this relationship cannot be determinedfrom the text of Lukes Gospel with any accuracy. In her study on John the

Baptist, Joan Taylor refers to Mary and Elizabeth as cousins.

45

This would thenmake Jesus and John second cousins. However, this understanding of the degreeof the relationship cannot be derived from Lukes Gospel or any other NewTestament writing. As Fitzmyer notes,

The degree of kinship is not stated. And Luke does not use a form ofanepsios, cousin,otherwise known in the New Testament (Col. 4.10), and thus renders questionable a

popular interpretation of this kinship. The phrase implies the kinship of Jesus and John

as well, which must be considered in the light of John 1.33, where John the Baptistsays he did not know Jesus. The traditions here are obviously mixed.46

The tradition that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, according to Plummer, origi-nates with Wycliffes translation of the New Testament.47 Although the degreeof relationship cannot be determined, it is unnecessary to conclude with Scobiethat [t]he Greek word suggenis means only kinswoman, and could easily

42. BDAG, p. 950.43. BDAG, p. 950.44. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn with a revised supplement

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), p. 1660 (hereafter referred to asLSJ).

45. J.E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 9.46. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke IIX, p. 352.47. Plummer states, Cousin, started by Wiclif, and continued until RV (A. Plummer,

The Gospel according to S. Luke [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901], p. 25).


11/27


mean that they merely belonged to the same tribe.48 As has been outlined,suggeni/j, unlike the male form, is not used to denote metaphorical or broaderrelationships of tribal groups. Thus, it may be concluded that although the degree

of relationship cannot be adduced with any certainty, Luke does intend hisreaders to view Mary and Elizabeth as relatives, and consequently to understandthat Jesus and John shared some kind of familial relationship.

It is difficult to assess the historicity of Lukes claim that Mary and Elizabethwere relatives. Apart from general suspicions about the historical value of theLukan infancy narrative as a whole, it is possible that this specific detail mayhave originated from a desire on the part of the evangelist, or his tradent, toprovide Jesus with a priestly pedigree. In this narrative the third evangelist linksJesus to the tribe of Aaron through the kinship bond to Elizabeth, who isdescribed as e0k tw~n qugate/rwn 'Aarw&n (Lk. 1.5). Thus as Green observes,we learn that she [Mary] belongs to the family of Elizabeth and may thus shareher ancestral heritage.49 Although Green does not suggest the following point,such a linking with Elizabeths Aaronic ancestry may not be motivated by con-cerns of rigorous historicity, but by the theological tendency to imbue Jesus witha more socially prominent status. While this option is a possibility, it does not

exclude the alternative that Luke was drawing on an independent tradition which

recorded Marys kinship with Elizabeth. In favour of this detail preserving a

kernel of historical verisimilitude is the observation that if Lukes purpose wasto provide Jesus with a hieratic heritage this is quite an obscure and clumsy wayto achieve such an end. Entertaining the possibility that the description of thekinship relation between Elizabeth and Mary may be correct, this then providesevidence that Jesus might not have been part of the lowest stratum of Galileansociety. Consequently this would increase the probability that he may have beenborn into a stratum of society where literacy was valued, and elementaryeducation (at least in reading the scriptures) reflected a link with priestly classesand wider Jewish religious piety.50

How Does Jesus Know Letters? (John 7.15)John 7 narrates Jesus visit to Jerusalem during the feast of the tabernacles. Histeaching in the temple once again plunges him into dispute with his opponents

48. C. Scobie,John the Baptist(London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 56.49. J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 91.50. Brown suggests that the relationship depicted by Luke is motivated by theological,

rather than historical concerns. He states, family relationship would be quite intelligible as asymbolic Lukan etiology of the historical relationship between the JBap movement and theJesus movement, and of the relationship that should exist between the disciples of the twogroups (R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, new updated edition [New York: Doubleday,1993], p. 285).


12/27


oi9 'Ioudai=oi. However, the quality of his teaching appears to evoke some levelof positive response rather than scorn (contra Barrett).51 Their perplexity resultsin the narrator putting a collective semi-rhetorical question on their lips.

e0qau&mazon ou}n oi9 'Ioudai=oi le&gontej: pw~j ou{toj gra&mmata oi}}den mh_memaqhkw&j; (Jn 7.15)

Evans states John 7.15, is taken by some to prove Jesus was in fact illiter-ate.52 However, he cites no sources that support this claim. In fact a survey ofcommentaries and studies on John show that this is rarely suggested, and if it is,it is either heavily qualified or rebutted. Most often the meaning of this comment

is considered to be Jesus lack of formal rabbinical education. Thus Bultmannsees the line of argument being advanced by the opponents in the following

terms: How can Jesus appeal to Scriptures! He has not made a proper study ofthem! He does not belong to the guild of Scribes.53 Similarly Bernard, drawingcomparisons with Acts 4.13 and LXX Isa. 29.12, argues, [b]ut in the present pas-

sage, mh_ memaqhkw&j seems to mean rather not having been the maqhth&j of arecognised teacher.54 The French commentary of Calmes also takes the sameline, Jsus ntait pas connu pour avoir t lev lcole dun Gamaliel.55 This

position has been adopted by the vast majority of scholars throughout the twen-tieth and early twenty-first centuries, including Hoskyns,56 Barrett,57 Brown,58

Schnackenburg,59 Beasley-Murray,60 Moloney61 and Keener.62

Perhaps Evanss misunderstanding is due to a misreading of Bauers sugges-tion that Jn 7.15 attempts to counter Jewish polemic that was directed againstJesus as an illiterate. Bauer states, Jedenfalls haben sie bei Jo eine Form, welche

die behauptung der antichristlichen Polemik, Jesus wre ein Analphabet gewesen,

51. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (London: SPCK, 1955), p. 261.52. C.A. Evans, Context, Family and Formation, in M. Bockmuehl, The Cambridge

Companion to Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 16.

53. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 273.54. J.H. Bernard,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to StJohn (ICC, 1; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), p. 259.

55. Le P. Th. Calmes,Lvangile selon Saint Jean (Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1904), p. 268.56. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber and Faber, 2nd rev. edn, 1947),

p. 314.57. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, p. 261.58. R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII(AB, 29; New York: Doubleday,

1966), pp. 312, 316.59. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, II (London: Burns and Oates,

1980), pp. 131-32.60. G. Beasley-Murray,John (WBC, 36; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 108.61. F.J. Maloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 245.62. C.S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003),

I, p. 712.


13/27


zuruckweist.63 MacGregor also introduces the possibility that the verse isdepicting an illiterate Jesus, but rejects this as not being the natural sense in thepresent context. According to the first reading [How can this uneducated fellow

manage to read?] the Jews considered Jesus illiterate.64 However, MacGregorprefers the second interpretation he offers, which sees this as denoting Jesuslack of training in formal scribal debating practices.65

Yet in many ways the most obvious interpretation of this passage is that itdepicts the amazement of Jesus opponents that he is, contrary to their expecta-tions, indeed literate. As Dunn observes, In John 7.15 surprise is expressed thatJesus does know letters (grammata oiden) despite lack of formal education.But this may be no more than the ruling elites contempt for the uncouth nor-therner.66 Therefore, the remark in John 7.15 cannot be construed as direct evi-dence for Jesus being illiterate, unless one adopts Bauers thesis that it is writtento correct a polemic directed at a historically unlettered Jesus.67 However, thispassage as it stands points in precisely the opposite direction, namely that Jesusknows letters contrary to what expectations might have suggested. Yet the con-

text militates against taking this knowledge of letters as denoting the ability toread, for here it appears to refer to the skills of oral teaching and rhetoric.

The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7.538.11)

The turbulent textual history of this pericope is fully evident from the survivingmanuscripts. Its absence from a large number of Greek manuscripts representingdifferent text types overwhelmingly argues that this story was not originally part

of the Johannine narrative.68 It is also absent from some of the oldest manuscripts

of the versional tradition, including the Syriac,69 the Sahidic, the Achmimic, theolder Bohairic manuscripts, a number of Armenian manuscripts, and the OldGeorgian version. Also as Metzger notes, [i]n the west the passage is absentfrom the Gothic and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q). No Greek

63. W. Bauer, Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6; Tbingen:Mohr, 2nd edn, 1925), p. 105.64. C.H.G. MacGregor, The Gospel of John (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928), p. 188.65. MacGregor, The Gospel of John, p. 188.66. Dunn,Jesus Remembered, p. 314 n. 280.67. Bauer,Johannesevangelium, p. 105.68. Some of the more significant manuscripts that omit this pericope include: P66, 75 B

L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193.Also, as Metzger comments, Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it ishighly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that

there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section alongwith the rest of the text. B.M. Metzger,A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(New York: UBS; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgessellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994), p. 187.

69. The pericope is omitted in the syrc, s (the oldest form of the Syriac text), as well asbeing lacking in the best manuscripts of the Peshitta.


14/27


Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,

and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not containit.70 Moreover, when Gospel manuscripts preserve this pericope they differ

concerning its placement. While the majority of mss that preserve it agree inplacing it between Jn 7.52 and 8.12, there are at least four other locations: afterJn 7.36;71 after 7.44;72 after 21.25;73 or after Lk. 21.38.74

Despite the widespread agreement that this story did not originally belong inits current location75 many commentators argue for the antiquity of the passage,seeing it as an early piece of oral tradition that circulated widely in the Westernchurch. In this vein Beasley-Murray states,

The saying that it preserves is completely in character with what we know of our Lord,

and quite out of character with the stern discipline that came to be established in thedeveloping church. We may regard the story as one of those incidents in the life ofour Lord that circulated in the primitive Church and did not come to the notice of ourEvangelists.76

Keener makes a similar suggestion, This story may reflect an authentic traditionabout Jesus, as many, perhaps most, scholars think.77 Furthermore, Brown sug-gests that despite the weight of early manuscript tradition for this pericopestemming from the West, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins

in the East and is truly ancient.78 If the antiquity of this story is admitted, it may

be considered as part of the evidential base for discussing the literacy of Jesus.The detail that may be relevant to the discussion is contained in Jn 8.6, o( de\'Ihsou~j ka&tw ku&yaj tw|~ daktulw~| kate&grafen ei0j th_n gh~n. Commentatorshave debated endlessly what Jesus wrote on the ground, but have seldom looked

in detail at the meaning of the compound verb katagra&fw. In the New Testa-ment this term is a hapax legomenon, although in v. 8 of this pericope CodexBezae replaces e1grafen with the same compound form of the verb.79 In the LXX

70. Metzger,A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 188.71. ms. 225.72. Several Georgian mss.73. 1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss.74. f13.75. Although for an attempt to support the Johannine authorship of the pericope see J.P.

Heil, The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7,53-8,11) Reconsidered, Biblica 72(1992), pp. 182-91. A rebuttal of this position is provided by D.B. Wallace, ReconsideringThe Story of Jesus and the Adulteress Reconsidered,NTS39 (1993), pp. 290-96.

76. Beasley-Murray,John, pp. 143-44.77. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, I, p. 736.78. Brown, The Gospel according to John IXII, p. 335.79. Thus Codex Bezae reads kai\ pa&lin kataku&yaj tw|~ daktulw~| kate&grafen ei0j th_n

gh~n (Jn 8.8).


15/27


the compound verb occurs only three times: Exod. 17.14;80 Hos. 8.12;81 andSirach 48.10.82 The first two usages refer to actual writing using an alphabet. InExod. 17.14 Moses is commanded to write down in a book the Lords declara-

tion that he will bring about the genocide of the Amalekites. In Hos. 8.12 theLord states that if he were to write down all the laws, sinful Ephraim would notrecognize them. This once again depicts alphabetized writing. The third reference

is metaphorical, declaring that the event of Gods wrath is written. This mayrefer to the notion that something written down cannot be altered, but the textgives little indication to decide whetherkatagra&fw refers, in this context, towriting using some form of alphabet, or is just a loose metaphor for an eventthat cannot be changed.

While the evidence from the LXX may suggest that primarily the term denotes

writing in some form of alphabetical script, some usages from wider Greek lit-erature demonstrate that it encompasses a wider rage of meaning. In PausaniusPeriegeta (1.28.2) Parrhasius is said to have designed (katagra&yai) the em-blems on a shield as well as designing other works.83 Here the term denotes akind of drawing or etching activity, but certainly not handwriting. The most strik-

ing comparison with the description of Jesus stooping down and kate&grafen inthe earth occurs in Diog. L. 2,127 when Menedemus the philosopher (300 BCE),in whose presence somebody behaved improperly, die&grafen ei0j tou1dafoj (=

drew a cartoon on the ground [and thereby shamed him]). Although the com-pounded preposition is different, Menedemus actions closely parallel those ofJesus, and significantly it is the action of drawing, not writing, which is employed

to shame opponents. Thus, despite the attempts of numerous commentators tospecify what Jesus wrote in the sand, the wider usage of the term katagra&fwshows that it is impossible to know whether the marks in the sand were in factmaking use of letters or if it was some other marks that Jesus made. The uncer-tainty about this primary issue means that this passage cannot be used to deter-mine whether Jesus is portrayed in this pericope as being able to write.

80. ei]pen de\ ku&rioj pro_j Mwush~n kata&grayon tou~to ei0j mnhmo&sunon e0n bibli/w|kai\ do_j ei0j ta_ w}ta 'Ihsoi= o#ti a)loifh~| e0calei/yw to_ mnhmo&sunon Amalhk e0k th~j u(po_ to_nou)rano&n (Exod. 17.14).

81. katagra&yw au)tw~| plh~qoj kai\ ta_ no&mima au)tou~, ei0j a)llo&tria e0logi/sqhsanqusiasth&ria ta_ h)gaphme&na (Hos. 8.12).

82. o( katagrafei\j e0n e0legmoi=j ei0j kairou_j kopa&sai o)rgh_n pro_ qumou~ e0pistre&yaikardi/an patro_j pro_j ui9o_n kai\ katasth~sai fula_j 'Iakwb (Sir. 48.10).

83. kai/ oi9 th_n e0pi th~j a)spi/doj [ma&xhn] Lapiqw~n pro_j Kentau&rouj kai\ o#sa a!lla

e0sti\n e0peirgasme&na le&gousi topeu~sai [Mu~n] tw~| de\ Mui= tau~ta& te kai\ ta_ loipa_ tw~ne1rgwn [Parra&sion] katagra&yai to_n Eu)h&noroj (the reliefs upon the shield, including thefight between Centaurs andLapithae, are said to be from the chisel of Mys, for whom they sayParrhasius the son ofEvenor, designed this and the rest of his works). Graeciae descriptio1.28.2.


16/27


The Evidence of the Non-Canonical Gospels

Outside the corpus of the canonical Gospels, a number of the apocryphal Gospels

provide depictions of Jesus during his infancy, childhood and adolescence.Some of these accounts appear to be inter-dependent, and it is possible either torecognize embellishments to stories known from earlier accounts, or to see themas variants of earlier shared source material. One of the earliest extant portrayalsof Jesus childhood years occurs in theInfancy Gospel of Thomas. The storylinetraces memorable events in the life of the boy Jesus between the ages of five andtwelve years old. While the dating ofInf. Thom. is problematic since the earliesttextual evidence for the two Greek recensions is no earlier than the late middleages,84 there is mss evidence for the text in other languages,85 as well asPatristic testimony supporting the circulation of various stories contained inInf.Thom. at least as early as the late second century.86

The Alpha-Beta LogionOf particular interest for this study is the fact that Irenaeus recounts a version ofthe Alpha-Beta logion, dealing with attempts to school Jesus. Mericki summar-izes the significance of this piece of evidence as follows.

The most relevant patristic testimony comes from Irenaeus (ca. 180;Haer. 1.20.1)where we find the well known Alpha-Beta logion, found twice in the Inf. Thom.(Irenaeus form is closer to that inInf. Thom. 14.2 than 6.3), giving us a date in thesecond half of the 2d century at least for this logion. Irenaeus does not specify whetherhe quotes it from an infancy gospel, but he does contrast his source for the logion with

84. Greek A, the longer recension, is based on two fifteenth-century manuscripts. GreekB, the shorter form, which among other alterations reverses the order of the miracles in chap-

ters 2 and 3 and shortens chapter 7, is known from a fourteenthfifteenth-century manuscriptdiscovered by Tischendorf on Mount Sinai. For further details see J.K. Elliott (ed.), TheApocryphal New Testament(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 70-71. The shorterform (Greek B) is not necessarily an earlier version. It is perhaps more plausibly seen as anintentional abridgement.

85. There are numerous Syriac mss of the text, with the two most significant dating fromthe fifth or sixth century. The Latin textual tradition dates to the late mediaeval period, but in

large partInf. Thom. had been incorporated into, and supplanted by,Pseudo-Matthew, a length-ier infancy gospel combining large blocks of material fromInf. Thom. and theProtevangeliumof James. In addition there are Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic manuscripts;

there is even a seventeenth-century Irish manuscript. It has been argued that the Irish versiongoes back to about the year 700 (J. Carney, The Irish Gospel of Thomas: Text, Translationand Notes,Eriu 18 [1958], pp. 1-43).

86. Apart from Irenaeus,Haer.1.20.1, also see:Epistula Apostolorum 4; Hippo.,Haer. 5.7;Origin,Hom. I in Lc; Euseb.,Hist. Eccl. 3.25.6; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4.36 and 6.31.


17/27


the true scriptures suggesting he knew it as part of a text which some (the GnosticMarcosians) apparently considered authoritative.87

Irenaeus also mentions the narrative context in which this saying occurs and thisdescription seems to align broadly with the setting inInf. Thom.88

The longer recension (Greek A) is used as the basis for the followingdiscussion. This text contains three incidents which each depict the young Jesusat school. Two are variant accounts of the Alpha-Beta logion (chapters 67 and14), and the third is a further attempt to have Jesus schooled (chapter 15). Whilethere is undoubtedly a folkloric quality to these stories, and obviously, theologi-cally, they seek to portray Jesus as spiritually empowered throughout his life,89

it should be noted that Jesus attendance at school is reported in a matter of

fact manner. Admittedly, the catalyst for Zacchaeus (the teacher) making theapproach to Joseph is his observation of the young Jesus being articulate inresponding to his fathers admonition, which stems from Jesus misuse of hismagical powers in a fit of boyish over-reaction after being bumped by anotherboy who was running. The words Jesus utters are instantly fulfilled, and theunnamed person who collided with Jesus instantly drops dead.

o( 'Ihsou~j ei]pen au)tw|~: Ou)k a)peleu&sei th_n o(do&n sou. kai\ paraxrh~ma pesw&na)pe&qanen (Inf. Thom. 4.1b-2).

Chapter 5 continues this sequence with a dialogue between Joseph and his son,

where the child verbally outmanoeuvres the parent. Chapter 6 introduces thehitherto invisible character Zacchaeus who informs Joseph that he has been lis-tening to the conversation and is impressed with the boys intellect. Conse-quently he asks Joseph to hand the enfant terrible over to him for instruction inletters, a)lla_ para&doj moi au)to_n i3na ma&qh| gra&mmata (Inf. Thom. 6.2b), andaccording to the would-be tutor this would have the benefit of removing thechilds undisciplined behaviour.

While unsurprisingly the attempt to teach Jesus is a disaster, the story mayopen a window on authentic practices in primary education during the period

when this pericope was composed. First, it should be noted that the instructionoffered is in the learning of letters, i3na ma&qh| gra&mmata. This is reiterated inInf. Thom. 6.13, dida&cw gra&mmata. Second, the mode of instruction consisted

87. P.A. Mirecki, Thomas, The Infancy Gospel of,ABD, VI (New York: Doubleday,1992), p. 542.

88. Riesner makes the following observation on the tradition that is preserved byIrenaeus, Nach Irenus (Adv Haer I 13,1) stand in einer apokryphen Schrift der Markosier,da Jesus als Junge von Alphabet unterrichtet wurde (Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, p. 228).

89. Lapham may have oversimplified the authorial intent when he states, The solepurpose of the author was to demonstrate the miraculous power of Jesus from his birth, andthat he possessed the same extraordinary wisdom and insight in infancy that he exhibited inlater years (F.D. Lapham,An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha [London: T&TClark International, 2003], p. 130).


18/27


of the instructor writing the a)lfa&bhton, although no description is given of themedium used for writinga board, a piece of papyrus, or even on the ground?Third, the teacher then pronounced the first letter of the alphabet repeatedly,h1rcato e0pithdeu&ein kai\ ei]pe to_ a!lfa pleista&kij (Inf. Thom. 6.15).Although the generally longer Greek A recension is silent about Jesus partici-pation in this exercise, the Greek B recension expands the story at this point inthe following manner:

The teacher said the letter alpha to him, and the boy responded, Alpha. Again theteacher said Alpha and the boy responded. Then yet again for the third time the teacher

said Alpha. (Greek B recensionInf. Thom. 6.15)

It is only after this initial co-operation that the child falls silent, whereas in the

Greek A recension he displays a recalcitrant attitude from the outset. This pat-tern of instruction is also evidenced in Herodas, 3.22-23, where the teacher arti-culates a letter five times before the pupil Kottalos repeats it.90

It is interesting to note that the one providing the training in elementaryliteracy is described by a number of terms used interchangeably. Initially he isintroduced as dida&skaloj in an almost titular sense.91 The primary sense of thisterm is noted byBDAG as being teacher, but within the New Testament andother early Christian literature it is noted that it is used both for addressing Jesus(in the vocative, and often corresponding to the title brA, yb@irA), and as a designa-

tion for him in Jn 11.28.92 By contrast Liddell and Scott collect a wider range ofusages, although these are broken into two groups: teacher and trainerof adithyrambic or dramatic chorus,producerof a play.93 For this study one of themore interesting usages is found in the Sophocles fragments, which refers todida&skalon labei=n ([S.]Frag. 1120.8). This clearly denotes the idea of hiringa teacher.94 In the first version of the Alpha-Beta logion inInf. Thom. the termdida&skaloj occurs four times (6.1; twice in 6.6; and 6.21). The other term thatis used more or less interchangeably is kaqhghth&j, which occurs five times(6.4, 13, 14, 16, 19). As these terms are used without any explanation of differ-

ence to refer to the same person they are best understood as synonyms. LSJunderstands the term as roughly synonymous, offering the translations teacher,professor.95 Likewise,BDAG gives the translation teacher.96

90. R.F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge,1995), p. 117, note dealing with section 6.15.

91. In the canonical Gospels the term dida&skaloj is applied to Jesus as both a title and aterm that illustrates a certain deference to his status. Cf. Mt. 22.36; Jn 3.2, 13.13.

92. BDAG, p. 241.93. LSJ, p. 421.94. LSJ, p. 421.95. LSJ, p. 852.96. BDAG, p. 490.


19/27


The second attempt to have Jesus taught according toInf. Thom. is instigatedby Joseph. His motivation is described in the following terms, pa&lin e0bou-leu&sato mh_ ei]nai au)to_ a!peiron tw~n gramma&twn (Inf. Thom. 14.1). Thus, in

an attempt to rectify a perceived non-acquaintance with letters, or illiteracy, asecond teacher is engaged. This story, which is a doublet of the earlier account,97

does however contain some significant extra details. In particular, this teacherdecides on a sequential bilingual curriculum, prw~ton paideu&sw au)to_ ta_e9llhnika&, e1peita ta_ e9braika (Inf. Thom. 14.2). A similar pattern is laid out byQuintilian,

A sermone Graeco puerum incipere malo, quia Latinum, qui pluribus in usu est, velnobis nolentibus perbibet, simul quia disciplinis quoque Graecis prius instituendus est,unde et nostrae fluxerunt. (Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.12)98

While the pattern is the same inInf. Thom. with Greek learnt before ones nativelanguage, there is no explicit statement of motivation for the desire to educateJesus in this order. This detail of Jesus being taught Greek initially appears tohave caused problems for the author of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, whoreproducing material taken over fromInf. Thom. has Jesus learn Hebrew letterswith his first teacher, but on the second attempt to school him he is asked aboutGreek letters without the rationale of a bilingual curriculum as inInf. Thom. 14.The initial story is also more developed. Zacchaeus is a middle-man who takes

Jesus to Levi for instruction in letters. The exchange between the pair occurs asfollows.

Levi bade him to answer Aleph: he was silent. Levi smote him with a rod of storax onthe head. Further he [Jesus] said to Zacchaeus, Every letter from Aleph to Thau isdiscerned by the arrangement of it. First say what Thau is, and I shall tell you whatAleph is. (Pseudo-Matt. 31)

The tension felt inPseudo-Matthew over the language in which Jesus was ini-tially instructed raises wider historical questions concerning the context that isassumed byInf. Thom. in its narration of Jesus schooling, as well as the natureof elementary education in the Mediterranean world of the first-century CE.99

97. Hock notes the specific parallel between 14.3 and 6.20 (Hock,The Infancy Gospels ofJames and Thomas, p. 133).

98. I prefer that a boy should begin with the Greek language, because he will acquire

Latin, which is in general use, even though we tried to prevent him, and because, at the sametime, he ought first to be instructed in Greek learning, from which ours is derived (Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.12).

99. Further discussion of the portrayal of Jesus education as reported in theInfancyGospel of Thomas is to be found in Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, pp. 228-31.


20/27


Primary Education in the First-century CEGraeco-Roman World

Within the geographical boundaries of Roman Judea and Galilee we have littleevidence, either of an archaeological or literary nature, for education during thefirst-century CE. The claim made by a number of the nineteenth-century authorsof the variousLives of Jesus that he was educated in the local synagogue inNazareth are not provable, nor is there even any certainty about the nature,architecture or community function of synagogues prior to the destruction of theTemple. The only hints concerning primary education among Jews in the firstcentury are contained in the writings of contemporary authors.

PhiloPhilo claims that because of the central role of Torah in Jewish religious pietyall men are trained in it from their earliest years.

qeo&xrhsta ga_r lo&gia tou_j no&mouj ei]nai u(polamba&nontej kai\ tou~to e0kprw&thj h(liki/aj to_ ma&qhma paideuqe&ntej (De Leg. 210)100

The evidence here is ambiguous and it is impossible to deduce any reference toformal education either in reading or writing. Philos statements may simplydenote recitation of Torah, or passing on of oral tradition. Yet what is interesting

is that Philo sees the Jewish adherence to tradition as being sufficiently note-worthy to mark Jews out from surrounding cultures, and that this feature meritscomment as a positive aspect of national identity.

JosephusThe most significant comments pertaining to the teaching of the young, are bothcontained in Josephus apologetic work, Contra Apionem.101 Responding to thecharge that Judaism is not an ancient a religion as is often claimed, since theGreek historians make no mention of it in their writings, Josephus makes the

following comment.

100. For as they maintain that their Laws are God-given oracles and have been educatedin this doctrine from their childhood (De Leg. 210).

101. As Rajak notes, While the first of the two books demonstrates the superiority of theJewish nation by proving its antiquity, the second book is devoted specifically to the refutation

of slanders, and in the process it concerns itself with defining, interpreting and defending thepoliteia of the Jews, in the sense of the Jewish constitution with its prescriptions for the life ofthe community (T. Rajak, TheAgainst Apion and the Continuities in Josephuss PoliticalThought, in S. Mason [ed.], Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives [JSPSup, 32;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], p. 222).


21/27


ma&lista dh_ pa&ntwn peri\ paidotrofi/an filokalou~ntej kai\ to_ fula&ttein tou_jno&mouj kai\ th_n kata_ tou&touj paradedome&nhn eu)se&bian e1rgon a)nagkaio&tatonpanto_j tou~ bi/ou pepoihme&noi (Contra Ap. 1.60).102

It is difficult to see exactly how this detail contributes to the defence of theantiquity of the Jewish faith. Presumably Josephus is claiming that the self-sufficient nature of Jewish educative practices resulted in a lack of contact withthe Greeks. While this passage tells little about the mechanics of Jewish educa-tion, the content would appear to be based upon the law and the inherited piouspractices.103

The second passage from Contra Apionem gives a clearer description of theskill which the young are taught.

kai\ gra&mmata paideu&ein e0ke&leusen kai\ ta_ peri\ tou_j no&mouj kai\ tw~n progo&nwnta_j pra&ceij e0pi/stasqai (Contra Ap. 2.204).104

The emphasis on gra&mmata paideu&ein implies at least an ability to read. Theinstruction in letters is also the central element in Jesus education accordingto the account inInf. Thom., i3na ma&qh| gra&mmata (Inf. Thom. 6.2b). There, therecitation of letters written by the teacher illustrates that this phrase denotes atleast instruction to read. Whether it also encompasses training in writing cannotbe determined from either passage. In favour of the possibility of writing beingincluded is the fact that the teacher is able to write in the account inInf. Thom.

and perhaps would have passed this skill on to his students. Secondly, thetraining of scribes may well have entailed training in handwriting from an earlyage, roughly paralleling training in reading. Against the possibility of writingbeing included is the cost factor of purchasing writing materials in order to prac-tice. Secondly, as the pericope in Lk. 4.16-22 makes clear, Jesus is able to takepart in synagogue worship in some kind of lector role because of his readingability alone. Thus, while the evidence is inconclusive, it may be safest to adopta minimalist position and say that Josephus describes only training to readTorah when he uses the phrase gra&mmata paideu&ein.

It should also be noted that Josephus statements are made for apologeticpurposes, and are likely to be exaggerated at least in terms of the inclusivity ofthe education for Jewish children. Undoubtedly, the majority of Jews remained

102. Above all we pride ourselves on the education of our children, and regard as the mostessential task in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, based thereup,which we have inherited (Contra Ap. 1.60).

103. This description seems to comport with the idealized statements in 4 Macc. 18.10-19

where the mother of the seven martyred sons recalls the teaching her sons have received fromtheir father. Admittedly, although this does not necessarily entail reading or writing, it couldrepresent oral instruction.

104. It [the law] orders that they [the children] be taught to read, and shall learn both thelaws and the deeds of their forefathers (Contra Ap. 2.204).


22/27


illiterate during the first century. Yet there are good reasons for assuming thatthe rates of illiteracy may not have been as high as the 95 to 97 per cent proposed

by Crossan.105 Unlike many of the religious movements in the Roman Empire,

Judaism (and the derivative Christian groups) was a highly text-based worship-ping community. Although this increased after the destruction of the Temple in70 CE, this was without doubt still a significant factor prior to the destruction ofthe central cultic centre. This can be seen through the fundamental importancegiven to texts at Qumran, the debates of Jesus and Paul with their opponentswhich often depend on interpretation of the sacred text, and even traditions inthe Mishnah and other early Rabbinic materials which may well have a literary

pre-history going back into the first half of the first-century CE. This being the

case, it would be unsurprising to find literacy among Jews during this period

being higher than the general population of the Mediterranean world, even though

rates of literacy were far below any type of universal benchmark.

The Qumran Community and Their DocumentsMost issues pertaining to the Qumran community and the scrolls discoveredin and around the environs of the settlement are hotly debated. A relationshipbetween the scrolls and the settlement cannot automatically be taken forgranted.106 The identification of the community and its relationship to the Essene

movement are strongly repudiated by some scholars.

107

The identity of the roomidentified as a scriptorium by de Vaux is questioned by a number of scholars.108

Despite these highly contested issues, the scrolls discovered at Qumran showthat scribal activity was occurring in Judea and that somebody (or a group ofpeople) were willing to collect and maintain this collection of writings writtenby different scribes.

More significant than the physical nature of the find are the contents of theliterary record. In the Damascus Document a number of stipulations are outlinedfor those who live outside the main community in dispersed camps.109 The

105. Crossan,Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 25-26.106. For the theory that the Qumran scrolls were the library of the Jerusalem Temple

hidden to protect them from the Romans during the Jewish War, see N. Golb, Who Wrote theDead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995).

107. See G. Vermes and M.D. Goodman, The Essenes: According to the Classical Sources(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); T.S. Beall,Josephus Description of the Essenes Illustrated bythe Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS, 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); G.Boccaccini,Beyond the Essene Hypothesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

108. R. de Vaux,Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press,rev. edn, 1973); J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

109. Although the longer form of the Damascus Document (CD) was discovered in CairoGeniza (discovered 1896, published 1910), there are a number of fragments of different parts


23/27


reference to adherents living in camps may agree with Josephus description ofa second order of Essenes.110 Significantly for the discussion of literacy, theruling in CD 13.2 states And where there are ten, there shall never be lacking a

Priest learned in the book of Meditation. While once again it is not explicitlystated that this network of priests was a literate class, more certainty can beexpressed in relation to the literary ability of the shadowy figure known as theGuardian or Instructor. This person is to instruct the priests in the exactinterpretation of the law (CD 13.6) and the job description for this poststipulates that the Guardian who is over all the camps will be between thirtyand fifty years of age, master of every secret of man and every language accord-ing to their families (CD 14.9). Again, although the ability to read or write is not

explicitly mentioned, the skill required in interpretation of the law and knowledge

of language makes it highly likely that the Guardian was a literate person, able to

instruct the priests scattered throughout the camps in halakhic matters. Moreover,

the priests themselves appear to occupy a teaching role necessitating at least anability to read the Torah.

Furthermore, the Messianic Rule (1QSa=1Q28, or The Rule of the Congre-gation) envisages the regulation of the community in the last days. Education isan important aspect of the community in the final period.

And this is the rule for all the armies of the congregation, for every man born in Israel.

From his youth they shall educate him in the book of Meditation and shall teach himaccording to his age in the precepts of the covenant. He will receive instruction in itsstatutes, for ten years he will be counted among the boys. (1Q28 1.6-8)

While this is undoubtedly an idealized vision of the messianic era, it is, nonethe-less, significant to note the centrality of education both in the Torah and thecommunitys own regulations. This text serves to highlight the importance oftext-based learning among pious Jewish groups who were roughly contempora-neous with Jesus.

The Testament of LeviPerhaps written around the time of the Maccabaean crisis,111 The Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs purport to record the farewell speeches of the Jacobstwelve sons. While the Testament of Levi is ostensibly addressed only to the

of the document in various scribal hands. This shows that more than one copy of the documentwas in circulation at Qumran although, as with all ancient documents, there are differencesbetween the manuscripts. The passages dealing with the ordering of camps are not among the

Qumran fragments, but only extreme scepticism would exclude those passages from discussionamong the wider Qumran corpus.110. Joseph., WarII.160-61.111. H.C. Kee, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in J.H. Charlesworth, The Old

Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (New York: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 777-78.


24/27


sons of Levi, A copy of the words of Levi: the things that he decreed to hissons concerning all that they were to do (T. Levi 1.1), the speech soon losesfocus on a specific Levitical context and presents ethical exhortations that are

applicable to all members of the nation. The central concern for observance andknowledge of Torah stands behind the injunction to teach children contained inthe Testament of Levi.

Teach your children letters,So that they might have understanding throughout their livesAs they ceaselessly read the Law of God. (T. Levi 13.2)

The significance of training children in basic literacy skills is to enable them tobe more devout in upholding of the law. The motivational factor to instruct Jew-

ish children in reading appears to be based upon Torah piety. While this obvi-ously grew in the post-destruction period, there are antecedents prior to 70 CE.Once again there is evidence which makes one cautious about too quicklygeneralizing projected literacy levels for the first-century Graeco-Roman worldand applying them to Judaism of the same period. In relation to this text, Dunnsuggests, even a Galilean villager (of some ability) might well have learnt toread. Jesus quite widely attested challenge, Have you not read?, probablypresupposes his own ability to read.112 Thus the applicability of the statisticsgenerated by Harris for standards of ancient literacy are perhaps not appropriate

to the context of the Galilee of Jesus time.113

QuintilianThe fullest extant account of primary education in the Graeco-Roman world of the

first-century CE occurs in theInstitutio Oratoria of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus.In the opening chapter of book 1 he addresses the rudiments of instruction in

reading and in writing. After encouraging adults to model mature, accurate andelegant speech when addressing children,114 Quintilian then commences his dis-cussion of primary education. One of his fundamental objections to the teaching

methodology employed by some of his contemporaries is that they divided theoral and visual aspects of learning the alphabet. Thus children were being taughtto recite the letters in the correct order without simultaneously being shown theform, or shape, of the letter.115 Two arguments are given against what Quintiliandescribes as the usual practice. First, when the letter shapes are introduced

112. Dunn,Jesus Remembered, p. 314.

113. Harris,Ancient Literacy.114. Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.4-7.115. At any rate I am not satisfied with the course (which I note is usually adopted) of

teaching small children the names and orders of letters before their shapes (Quint.,InstitutioOratoria 1.1.25).


25/27


later, such a practice makes the children slow to recognize the letters,116 andsecond, by analogy, comparing the way in which a child recognizes people,Quintilian argues that this is not the natural way for children to learn.

Quapropter optime sicut hominum partier et habitus et nomina edocebuntur.(Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.25)117

It is interesting to note that Quintilians preferred method is the one adopted

by Jesus first teacher inInf. Thom. kai\ e1grayen au)tw~| a)lfa&bhton kaqhghth_jkai\ h1rcato e0pithdeu&ein kai\ ei]pe to_ a!lfa pleista&kij (6.15). Here thewriting of the letter and observation of its shape are combined with thearticulation of the corresponding sound. A number of observations can be drawnfrom this, although no certain conclusions can be established. First, the descrip-

tion inInf. Thom. may reflect a Graeco-Roman context rather than a Galileanmilieu. It is, however, also plausible that the methods employed in primary educa-

tion throughout the Mediterranean world of the first-century CE were extremely

similar, thus the story is equally at home in a Jewish or a hellenistic setting.Second, the fact that the teaching approach aligns with Quintilians preferred,but nonetheless minority method, may suggest that it is more likely that the inci-dent recorded inInf. Thom. is in fact later than the writing ofInstitutio Oratoria(usually assumed to have been written during the reign of Domitian)118 thusallowing the teaching method advocated by Quintilian to take the ascendancy.

Yet, it is also possible that the method which Quintilian preferred while beingthe minority position was not insignificant and perhaps also widespread, andmaybe even more prominent outside the imperial capital. Perhaps it had beenimported from other parts of the empire.

While no line of dependence can be traced between the method outlined inInstitutio Oratoria and the description provided in Inf. Thom., the similarityshows that the learning approach portrayed was at least familiar in some parts ofthe Graeco-Roman world. That does of course leave open the possibility that anon-Jewish educational context is being imported into the narrative telling ofJesus schooling. However, it is impossible from the extant sources to indicate ifthere was anything distinctive about primary education in Galilee, apart from

116. Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.25.117. It will be best therefore for children to begin by learning their appearance and names

just as they do with men (Quint.,Institutio Oratoria 1.1.25).118. Quintilian was born around 35 CE in Spain and died probably before 100 CE. At about

the age of fifty (i.e. around 85 CE) Quintilian retired from teaching to compose his great work

on the training of the orator (Institutio Oratoria). After two years retirement he was entrustedby Domitian with the education of two grand-nephews, whom he destined as successors to histhrone. Quintilian gained the titular rank of consul, and probably died not long before theaccession of Nerva (96 CE). Hence his workInstitutio Oratoria was probably composed duringthe decade between 85 to 95 CE.


26/27


the fact that one may assume that for those who learned to read, in line withJosephus comments, the language in which they were instructed was not Greekor Latin, but the Semitic language necessary for reading the Jewish sacred texts.

Conclusions: Jesus, Literate or Illiterate?

On the basis of the evidence currently available, no definitive answer can begiven to the question of whether or not Jesus possessed some level of functionalliteracy. The certainty with which Crossan asserts that Jesus belonged to thepeasant classes and hence was illiterate is an over-confident claim.119 The aimsof this paper have been threefold. First, to briefly highlight the swing in schol-arly opinion from the nineteenth-centuryLives of Jesus in comparison with anemerging and contrary new consensus. Secondly, to show that claims for Jesus

being illiterate are dependent upon comparative social-scientific research dealing

with literacy in antiquity, which may not be applicable to first-century CE Jewishculture. And thirdly, the discussion has concentrated on showing that, while there

are no ancient texts that report Jesus being illiterate, the converging lines of evi-dence drawn from relevant Jesus material in the early church make implicitclaims for his ability to read.

While it may be argued that this is in no way surprising with tendencies toglorify Jesus in later literature, the manner in which Jesus ability to read isreported is always incidental and never as a point from which the ancient writersadvance status claims for him. When this is combined with statements containedin Jewish texts about the importance of teaching the young to read, especially inthe writings of Josephus120 and the Testament of Levi,121 the possibility of a liter-ate Jesus can at least find a plausible context in first-century CE Jewish society.Furthermore, when discussing literacy in the ancient world a distinction needs tobe made between the skills of reading and writing. While Josephus122 andInf.

Thom.123

each describe the learning of letters there is no reason to see this asincluding instruction in writing. It is apparent that on the basis of the extantevidence no totally conclusive case for either a literate or illiterate Jesus can beadvanced. Nevertheless, the evidence in early Christian texts, along with descrip-

tions of literacy in contemporary Jewish society, at least show that Jesus lived in

119. Crossan,Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 25-26.120. Contra Ap. 2.204.121. T. Levi 13.2.122. It [the law] orders that they [the children] be taught to read (Contra Ap. 2.204).123. Inf. Thom. 6.2b, 13.


27/27


an environment where it was not impossible for him to be literate.124 Thereforethe balance of probabilities appears to favour the contention that Jesus at leastpossessed basic reading ability.

124. As Roberts states, The world into which Christianity was born was, if not literary,literate to a remarkable degree (Roberts, Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the NewTestament, p. 48).