JoyJuice

Are there any 1st century historians out there?

I would like to ask the likelihood of fishermen of the 1st century being able to read and write? It would seem to me that this is a trade at that time kids were are born into as a family occupation, as it still is, and started fishing about as soon as they were physically able. Taking the time or even having the resources to become literate would have been strongly improbable. No?

I have seen it stated that Rabbis at that time educated the common folk inorder for them to be able to read scriptures for themselves. How probable is that? It would seem to me this would be an authority that those Rabbis would have protected. No?

What would be the literacy rate of the Jew in this era and who would have been the literate?

Thanks, Alkech

Rick Sumner

Crossan (Jesus and the Kingdom, in Jesus at 2000, ed Marcus J. Borg, p.53) cites anonymous "experts on literacy in the ancient world," as placing literacy in the area at the time at around three percent. He--correctly, in my opinion--then observes that anyone claiming literacy for a Jewish peasant is thus the bearer of the burden of proof.

Regards,
Rick

Roger Pearse

I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, on which there is, I think, a considerable literature. My impression is that the question is hotly debated, and some strange figures exist.

Just thinking about this, I wonder how we could find out. How would we be able to tell, at this distance? We would require some statement by an ancient author, or perhaps something on which a person would make his mark.

I have a vague recollection that all Roman legionaries were taught on joining. Romans routinely used Greek slaves as secretaries, suggesting that it can't have been that uncommon if even your slaves might be caught while knowing it.

Frankly, I don't know. Anyone got a bibliography?

My gut feeling is that literacy was variable across the empire, and probably not bad at all in Palestine. Jews in particular have a reason to be literate that pagans do not -- they are a religion of the book (although this could be taken too far, on the other hand -- moslems just memorise). After all, they have these big signs up in the temple in Jerusalem saying 'danger of death.' What would be the point, if no-one could read it? Medievals used pictures instead. None of this is more than off the top of my head.

Three per cent? What can such a figure be based on, I wonder?

Suppose we can work up a figure. Can we draw surmises from any of this to specific cases? Well, I doubt it. An analogy would be the percentage of people who can read ancient Greek letters in modern society. It would seem safe to presume that working class people would not. But this would be unsafe, in view of the habit of churches of running classes in NT Greek. Likewise, in every society, there are factors we don't know and which will mislead us.

Other things being equal, tho, presumably a labourer would be more likely to be illiterate. Fishermen? No idea.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

hasbeen99

I'm not a 1st century historian by any stretch, but I would expect the literacy rate would be minimal, at best. The 3% figure cited above seems reasonable to me. I would guess that's probably why Peter's account of the Gospel was dictated.

offa

Peter the son of king Herod the Great and the grandson of of a high priest. The fish in his net were persons. A fisherman is an evangelist.

Toto

Crossan thinks that literacy was low:

here

Amos

Fishermen are good at baiting things and and probably wrote the bible to lead mankind into their train of thought for centuries to come. Their secret was to write on things that can come to us by nature on their own which would make it all so much more believable and therefore they were fishermen to become fishers of men. John tells us about this in 5:39 "You search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life because they testify on my behalf, yet you fail to come to me to possess that life."

Toto

Getting back to the OP, very few scholars think that the gospels were written by fishermen. The description of Jesus' followers in the gospels as fishermen was probably a later allegory, like describing Jesus as a carpenter. But then there is no reason to think that any of Jesus's original followers wrote the gospels, even if Jesus existed.

Are you using this question to challenge the gospels as accurate accounts, or as written by the original disciples of Jesus as described in the gospels?

Jeremy Pallant

Most fish are caught in a net, and thus do not require bait. Even the Biblical accounts refer to nets. While rod and line fishing has been around since 2000 bce, the fishermen you are referring to used nets, a far more efficient method for a commercial fisherman. I think your analogy is flawed in this instance.

JoyJuice

Any opinions on this part of my questions:

I have seen it stated that Rabbis at that time educated the common folk inorder for them to be able to read scriptures for themselves. How probable is that? It would seem to me this would be an authority that those Rabbis would have protected. No?

Just thinking about my work environment, it seems it's human nature to protect knowledge to, I don't know, "look like the man."

alkech