Jesus Literacy Scribal Culture And The Teacher

From Galilee Chris Keith download

https://ebookbell.com/product/jesus-literacy-scribal-culture-and-
the-teacher-from-galilee-chris-keith-50616716

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Pericope Adulterae The Gospel Of John And The Literacy Of Jesus
Chris Keith

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-pericope-adulterae-the-gospel-of-
john-and-the-literacy-of-jesus-chris-keith-1824856

Information Literacy International Perspectives Jess Lau

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-literacy-international-
perspectives-jess-lau-50993598

Demography Literacy And Names Distribution In Ancient Jerusalem How

Many Jamesjacob Son Of Joseph Brother Of Jesus Were There No 1 7
December Camil Fuchs

https://ebookbell.com/product/demography-literacy-and-names-
distribution-in-ancient-jerusalem-how-many-jamesjacob-son-of-joseph-
brother-of-jesus-were-there-no-1-7-december-camil-fuchs-223361924

Seeing And Understanding Jesus A Literary And Theological Commentary

On Mark 822913 Kevin W Larsen

https://ebookbell.com/product/seeing-and-understanding-jesus-a-
literary-and-theological-commentary-on-mark-822913-kevin-w-
larsen-57210276
Jesus Potter Harry Christ What Jk Rowlings Literary Pastiche Reveals
About The Construction Of The Christian Epic Murphy

https://ebookbell.com/product/jesus-potter-harry-christ-what-jk-
rowlings-literary-pastiche-reveals-about-the-construction-of-the-
christian-epic-murphy-56080280

Jesus Potter Harry Christ The Fascinating Parallels Between Two Of The
Worlds Most Popular Literary Characters Derek Murphy

https://ebookbell.com/product/jesus-potter-harry-christ-the-
fascinating-parallels-between-two-of-the-worlds-most-popular-literary-
characters-derek-murphy-2099678

Jesus And The Eightfold Path Lavie Tidhar

https://ebookbell.com/product/jesus-and-the-eightfold-path-lavie-
tidhar-38566902

Is It Really So Strange To Believe That Jesus Is The Literal Begotten

Son Of God Jutta Deichsel

https://ebookbell.com/product/is-it-really-so-strange-to-believe-that-
jesus-is-the-literal-begotten-son-of-god-jutta-deichsel-55765968

Biblia Sagrada Kja Jesus

https://ebookbell.com/product/biblia-sagrada-kja-jesus-230374558
 LIBRARY OF HISTORICAL JESUS STUDIES

Volume 8

Published under
LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

413
Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor
Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board
John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn,
Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S.
Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb,
Catrin H. Williams
ii
 JESUS’ LITERACY

Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee

Chris Keith
Published by T & T Clark International
A Continuum imprint
80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

www.continuumbooks.com

Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com

© 2011 by Chris Keith

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark
International.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

eISBN: 978-0-567-37429-5

Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www.forthpub.com)

Printed and bound in Great Britain
 CONTENTS

Foreword by Dale C. Allison, Jr. ix

Preface xi
Abbreviations xiii

INTRODUCTION:
JESUS, READING, AND WRITING 1
1. Why Did Jesus Never Write a Book? 2
2. Why Does Jesus’ Literacy Matter? 2
3. This Study 4
4. Interest in Jesus’ Literacy 6

Chapter 1
JESUSES LITERATE AND ILLITERATE 8
1. The Literate Jesus 9
1.1. Appeals to Jesus’ Socio-Historical Context 10
1.2. Appeals to Biblical Texts 13
2. The Illiterate Jesus 16
2.1. Foundations for Recent Conceptions of Jesus as Illiterate 16
2.2. Appeals to Jesus’ Socio-Historical Context 20
2.3. Appeals to Biblical Texts 21
3. Summary and Conclusions 23
3.1. The Question Matters 23
3.2. Abandoning the Status Quaestionis 25

Chapter 2
JESUS TRADITION, MEMORY, AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED 27
1. The Criteria Approach to the Historical Jesus 29
1.1. Form Criticism and the Pre-Literary Jesus Tradition 30
1.2. The Criteria Approach 35
1.3. The Historian’s Task according to the Criteria Approach
and Form Criticism 37
2. Dissatisfactions with the Criteria of Authenticity 41
2.1. Modifications of the Criterion of Dissimilarity 41
2.2. “The Criteria Simply Do Not Work” 44
2.3. The Impact of Jesus 47
vi Contents

3. The Jesus-Memory Approach 50

3.1. Social Memory Theory—The Present and the Past in
Commemorative Activity 54
3.2. The Jesus-Memory Approach and the Gospel Tradition 61
3.3. The Jesus-Memory Approach and the Written Tradition 65
3.4. The Historian’s Task according to the
Jesus-Memory Approach 66
4. Conclusions 68

Chapter 3
SCRIBAL CULTURE IN THE TIME OF JESUS 71
1. Widespread Illiteracy 72
1.1. Proposed Literacy Percentages 73
1.2. Interpreting the Evidence 75
1.3. Religious Devotion Did Not Require Literate Education 81
1.4. Literate Education Was Not Practical 82
2. Widespread Textuality 85
3. Literacy Spectrums 89
3.1. A Spectrum of Literate Skills 89
3.2. A Spectrum of Languages 107
4. Scribal Literacy and Craftsman’s Literacy 110
4.1. Scribal Literacy 110
4.2. Craftsman’s Literacy 112
4.3. Implications of Scribal Literacy and Craftsman’s
Literacy for Jesus’ Literacy 114
5. The Acquisition of Biblical Knowledge 116
5.1. The Home 117
5.2. The Synagogue 117
6. The Perception of Literacy 120
7. Summary and Conclusions 123

Chapter 4
JESUS’ SCRIBAL-LITERATE STATUS IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY 124
1. Jesus as a Synagogue Teacher in the Synoptic Gospels 125
1.1. “Not Like the Scribes” (Mark 1:22//Matthew 7:29) 126
1.2. Jesus the UFLUXO (Mark 6:3; cf. Matthew 13:55) 130
1.3. Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41–50) 139
1.4. The Nazareth Synagogue (Luke 4:16–30) 142
1.5. Summary of the Synoptic Debate over Jesus as a Synagogue
Teacher 145
 Contents vii

2. Jesus’ Scribal-Literate Status in the Gospel of John 147

2.1. Did Jesus Know Letters? (John 7:15) 148
2.2. Galileans Who Know Not the Law (John 7:45–52) 150
2.3. Jesus Began to Write (John 8:6, 8 in the Pericope Adulterae) 152
2.4. Summary of Jesus’ Scribal-Literate Status
in the Gospel of John 155
3. The Predominance of the Scribal-Literate Jesus 156
3.1. The Epistolary Jesus 156
3.2. Jesus as Author of Gospel Tradition 159
3.3. Other Early Christian Images of a Scribal-Literate Jesus 160
4. Summary and Conclusion 163

Chapter 5
JESUS AND SCRIBAL LITERACY 165
1. Prior Suggestions on the Transition to a Scribal-Literate Jesus 165
1.1. Werner Kelber 166
1.2. John Dominic Crossan 166
1.3. Points of Agreement 167
1.4. Points of Disagreement—Why and When 174
2. Scribal Literacy and the Perception(s) of Jesus 175
2.1. Jesus’ Activities Invited Assessment 177
2.2. Mixed Audiences 179
2.3. Mixed Perceptions 180
2.4. The Influence of Those Who Knew Better? 181
2.5. Other Factors 183
3. Conclusion 187

CONCLUDING REMARKS:
THE CONTROVERSY OF JESUS THE TEACHER 189
1. The Contributions of this Study 189
2. The Scribal-Illiterate Jesus and the Controversy Narratives 190

Bibliography 193

Index of References 215

Index of Authors 221

1
viii
 FOREWORD

The traditions about Jesus often remember him as having quoted, alluded
to, and rewritten the law and the prophets. But if he did such things, how
did he learn to do so? Was he educated into Jewish scribal culture? Or
did later Christians make him out to be more scripturally sophisticated
than he actually was? Did Jesus learn to read in a synagogue school? Or
did his father teach him at home to read and perhaps write? Or did he, as
a Jewish peasant, never learn to read or write at all, so that his knowledge
of the Scriptures was necessarily limited to what he heard others recite
during religious services? Everybody agrees that Jesus was a teacher, but
what sort was he—an uneducated text-broker or a scribally educated
text-broker?
Luke 4:16–30, where Jesus unrolls a scroll of Isaiah and then recites
from ch. 61, traditionally settled the main issue. For many modern
scholars, however, the testimony of Luke is not enough to establish what
Jesus could or could not have done, especially given how uncommon the
ability to read appears to have been in his time and place. Some have
accordingly doubted that Jesus could read.
This is the immediate context for Professor Keith’s work, which is the
first book-length treatment of the topic. Happily, it is first-rate. Indeed,
all subsequent discussions will inevitably take their bearings from Jesus’
Literacy. The work is comprehensive, well-informed, and well-argued,
and time and time again it reveals that almost everybody who has
addressed the pertinent issues has come to premature conclusions. As
Keith himself puts it, historians of early Christianity “have underesti-
mated the complexity of literacy in the ancient world, the complexity of
the claims concerning Jesus’ scribal-literate status in the earliest sources,
the complexity of scholarly evaluation of those claims, and the complex-
ity of Jesus’ relationship to various audiences” (p. 5).
One of Keith’s major contributions is the revelation that previous
treatments have all-too-often failed to make necessary distinctions. To
ask, for example, whether Jesus was literate or not is to ignore that there
were differing degrees of literacy in his Jewish world. The query also
x Foreword

misdirects the discussion, which should not be whether Jesus could read
anything at all in any language but whether he was scribally literate, that
is, whether he had been trained to interpret the Tanak. Scholars have, in
addition, often failed to see that one could be textually adept without
being textually literate: it is possible to dictate texts without the ability to
read, just as it is possible to recite and interpret, even with some facility,
texts one has only heard because one cannot read them.
Keith’s volume further commends itself by virtue of the self-conscious
care with which it goes about reconstructing the past. For over fifty years
now, most critical historians conducting the so-called quest for the his-
torical Jesus have tried to answer their questions by employing the
so-called criteria of authenticity. Their method has involved subjecting
individual units to a gauntlet of authenticating tests. Keith is keenly aware
of the problems that surround those criteria, and he sensibly abandons
them for an alternative strategy. His approach is, in essence, to construct
a plausible narrative that explains the various conflicting traditions—at
least some of which must be inaccurate—regarding Jesus’ literacy. The
prudent strategy pays off.
Perhaps the most important thing to say about Jesus’ Literacy is this. It
does not just summarize previous work and add a nuance here or a new
argument there. Rather, by discussing at length important topics here-
tofore contemplated much too briefly or even not at all, it reboots the
discussion. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this book renders
everything else written on this subject well-nigh irrelevant.

Dale C. Allison, Jr.

1
 PREFACE

I had the idea for this book on a Lufthansa flight between Frankfurt,
Germany and Edinburgh, Scotland. At the time, I was working on John
8:6, 8 for my doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh. That thesis
argues that the account of Jesus writing in the ground in John 8:6, 8 in
the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is a claim that Jesus was able to
write (grapho-literate).1 Its focus is entirely upon the social significance
of the claim of grapho-literacy for Jesus and its relation to how and why a
scribe inserted the story between John 7 and 8. Since my hands were full
with the exegetical and text-critical matters, I left historical matters
unaddressed. Judging by many conversations during that time, however,
this was not a popular decision. In addition to what Jesus wrote in the
ground, whether Jesus really could write was almost all that anyone else
wanted to discuss. The issue came up in my review boards in my first
year of doctoral work. It came up at my viva at the end of my course of
study. It came up at all points in between, with specialists and non-
specialists alike. If I said, “Well, that is not really the focus of my study”
once, I said it a thousand times. So, as I hovered somewhere between
Frankfurt and Edinburgh and considered where my thesis work could
lead next, I decided to address whether Jesus could read and write.
This work builds further upon research originally undertaken at
New College, University of Edinburgh, so it is only proper to thank my
Doktoreltern, Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Their examples,
guidance, and encouragement have meant the world to me. I also thank
the following individuals for reading various sections of this study and
offering helpful feedback: Dale C. Allison, Jr., Samuel Byrskog, Bart
Ehrman, Alan Kirk, Patrick D. Miller, Jack Poirier, Benjamin Reynolds,
Rainer Riesner, Rafael Rodríguez, Barry Schwartz, Tyler Stewart, Neal
Windham, and Walt Zorn. Worth singling out for thanks is my colleague
at Lincoln Christian University, Anthony Le Donne. To his continuing
disapproval, I insist that our interoffice debates really happened, and

1. Now published as Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and
the Literacy of Jesus (NTTSD 38; Leiden: Brill, 2009).
xii Preface

were not simply perceptions on my part, and I will point to several

improvements in the manuscript of this book as evidence. I also thank
my colleague Chris Simpson for a conversation that drastically improved
the shape of Chapter 4. Leslie Starasta and Michelle Rodgers of the Jessie
C. Eury library at Lincoln Christian University were immensely helpful
in obtaining articles and books, as was Nick Alexander. In Clay Alan
Ham, I am fortunate to have a Provost who not only understands the
importance of academic scholarship for institutions of theological
education, but is a New Testament scholar in his own right and is willing
to add to his administrative duties the task of offering feedback on my
work. I am also grateful to Carol Bakhos and Ruben Zimmermann, each
of whom provided pre-publication copies of essays.
I presented versions of Chapter 2 at Eastern Kentucky University,
Yale Divinity School, Illinois Wesleyan University, the University of
Edinburgh, Western Kentucky University, and the Winners Colloquium
for the 2010 John Templeton Award for Theological Promise at the
Forschungszentrum Internationale und Interdisziplinäre Theologie,
University of Heidelberg. I presented a version of Chapter 3 at Cincinnati
Christian University and the University of Chicago Divinity School. I
thank those institutions and the participants in those discussions for their
feedback. The lectures were made available through the John Templeton
Award for Theological Promise. I thank Prof. Dr. Michael Welker and his
staff at FIIT, including Jennifer Adams-Massmann and Alexander Mass-
mann, for their generous help and kindness, and the John Templeton
Foundation for their endowment of the award.
It has been a pleasure to work with Bob Webb, editor of the Library of
Historical Jesus Studies series, and Dominic Mattos, Biblical Studies
editor for T&T Clark. I thank them for accepting this volume for publi-
cation.
Chapter 2 modifies and expands “Memory and Authenticity: Jesus
Tradition and What Really Happened,” ZNW 102 (forthcoming 2011)
(Walter de Gruyter; used with permission). Several sections of the Intro-
duction and Chapter 4 appeared first in “The Claim of John 7.15 and the
Memory of Jesus’ Literacy,” NTS 56, no. 1 (2010): 44–63 (Cambridge
University Press, 2010; used with permission). All Scripture citations are
from the New Revised Standard Version unless noted otherwise.

More than anyone else, I must thank my wife, Erin, son, Jayce Andrew,
and daughter, Hannah Louise. There is nothing better in the world than
coming home to you guys at the end of the day.
 ABBREVIATIONS

AAW Approaching the Ancient World

AB Anchor Bible
ABD David Noel Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New
York, 1992
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
ACAF Ancient Context Ancient Faith
AO Anecdota Oxoniensia
ASP American Studies in Papyrology
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F.
Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 2000
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib Biblica
BRS Biblical Resource Series
BS Biblical Seminar
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BTZ Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCS Cambridge Classical Studies
CCSA Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
CM Christianity in the Making
CMP Cultural Memory in the Present
ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New
Testament Series
COQG Christian Origins and the Question of God
CPP Critical Perspectives on the Past
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism
DNTB Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds. The Dictionary of New
Testament Background. Downers Grove, 2000
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
1
xiv Abbreviations

ECLS Early Christian Literature Series

EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ES European Sociology
ESCJ Études sur le christianisme et le judaisme/Studies in Christianity and
Judaism
ESCO European Studies on Christian Origins
ExT Expository Times
GBIU Göttinger Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung
GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HS The Heritage of Sociology
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ICC International Critical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCM Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern
World
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
JRASup Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplement Series
JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and
Roman Periods
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LAI Library of Ancient Israel
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LJ Lives of Jesus
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
LSE La scuola di epicuro
LXXG Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis
Litterarum Gottingensis editum
MBMC Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context
MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies
Neot Neotestamentica
NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary, New Testament
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited
by C. Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, 1975–85
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements
NPP New Perspectives on the Past
1
 Abbreviations xv

NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

NTS New Testament Studies
NTTh New Testament Theology
NTTSD New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OCPM Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs
ÖTBK Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament
OTM Oxford Theological Monographs
PSN Paul’s Social Network
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
RFCC Religion in the First Christian Centuries
RLS Rockwell Lecture Series
SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLTCS Society of Biblical Literature Text-Critical Studies
SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal
SemEd Seminar Editions
SemeiaSt Semeia Studies
SGJC Shared Ground among Jews and Christians
SJ Studia judaica
SL Scribner Library
SLFCS Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture, and the State
SNTSMS Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNVA Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo
SP Sacra pagina
SPNT Studies on the Personalities of the New Testament
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
STI Studies in Theological Interpretation
SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association
TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids,
1964–76
ThS Theorizing Society
TLNT C. Spicq. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and
edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1994
TS Theological Studies
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TTKi Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirche
VPT Voices in Performance and Text
1
xvi Abbreviations

VSI A Very Short Introduction

VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der
älteren Kirche

1
 INTRODUCTION:
JESUS, READING, AND WRITING

For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately

from Christ Himself…1

But we must first discuss a matter which is apt to present a

difficulty to the minds of some. I refer to the question why
the Lord has written nothing Himself.2

And so the Savior left his teaching in no book of his own.3

This study is the first book-length treatment of Jesus’ literacy. It is also

the first study to argue that there is substantial disagreement and con-
fusion over the issue in our earliest sources, and likely was in Jesus’ own
life. The topic of Jesus’ relationship to reading and writing, however, has
a long history. This history has concerned itself mainly with the fact that
Jesus did not author texts. As the quotations above indicate, Augustine
and Jerome were invoking Jesus’ lack of authorship in the early fifth
century C.E. as responses to pagan critics4 or heretical Christians who
claimed to possess writings of Jesus.5 Among modern scholars, Fredrik-
sen begins her From Jesus to Christ by also observing that Jesus was not
an author: “Jesus of Nazareth announced the coming Kingdom of God;
but he did not write it.”6

1. Augustine, Faust. 28.4 (NPNF 1).

2. Augustine, Cons. 1.7.11 (NPNF 1).
3. Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 44.29 (PL 25.443); author’s translation.
4. Augustine, Cons. 1.7.11–12.
5. Augustine, Faust. 28.4; Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 44.29.
6. Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament
Images of Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), ix.
2 Jesus’ Literacy

1. Why Did Jesus Never Write a Book?

As Augustine, Jerome, and Fredriksen (to name but a few who discuss
Jesus and literary activity7) indicate, some scholars stress only that Jesus
did not compose writings. Others, however, are concerned with provid-
ing an explanation for this fact. For example, in 1932 Sangster published
Why Jesus Never Wrote a Book.8 Ultimately, his answer to why Jesus
never wrote a book is one of a devotional nature: “Because it would have
become a fetish: because it would have lent itself to bibliolatry: because
men would have given a reverence to it as a book that belongs only to
God himself.”9
Much more recently, Crossan offers an entirely different answer to
why Jesus never wrote a book by raising an issue that Sangster does not
appear even to consider; namely, whether Jesus could have written a
book. Crossan pronounces negatively on the prospect: “Jesus did not—
and, in my opinion, could not—write.”10
As Chapter 1 will demonstrate, Crossan is not alone in explaining
Jesus’ lack of literary activity in terms of his lack of literate ability. His
claim is important to note here at the outset of this study, however,
because it reveals a tremendous difference between the state of biblical
scholarship in the times of Sangster and Crossan. In the period between
these two scholars, our understanding of ancient Jewish scribal culture
has experienced nothing short of a sea change. Questions concerning who
could read and write, how many could read and write, how one learned
to read and write, and the role of literacy in the distribution of power
have received intense scholarly interest in light of their important impli-
cations for the socio-political structure of Second Temple Judaism and
early Christianity. The burden of this book is to bring the insights of this
burgeoning field of enquiry to bear upon the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Why Does Jesus’ Literacy Matter?

An initial step in this regard is to establish why Jesus’ literacy matters, or
should matter, to New Testament and historical Jesus scholars in the first
place. The question of Jesus’ literacy matters because not all Second

7. See further Chapter 1.

8. W. E. Sangster, Why Jesus Never Wrote a Book and Other Addresses (London:
Epworth, 1932).
9. Ibid., 12.
10. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What
Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York:
HarperCollins, 1998), 235.
 Introduction 3

Temple Jewish teachers were created equal. More specifically, the divid-
ing line between recognized Torah authorities and unofficial teachers was
one of education, which led to mastery (whether presumed or actual) of
the holy text rather than mere familiarity. In this context, literacy equaled
power.11 This is not to suggest that uneducated Torah teachers had no
authority or were unable to resist the literate elite. As purveyors of local
traditions and interpretations, they too could have served as Torah
teachers.12 It is, however, to observe that the locus of Torah authority
resided with those teachers or groups of teachers who(m everyone knew)
were most capable of accessing the text; that is, the pedagogically quali-
fied text-brokers.13 In the words of Schwartz, “Mastery of the Torah was a
source of power and prestige.”14
Yet, the vast majority of the Jewish population in the Second Temple
period was illiterate, and thus incapable of attaining such power and
prestige. Harris’s assertion of a general 10 percent literacy rate for the
Roman Empire is now well-known.15 Chapter 3 will give further attention

11. On this topic, see especially M. D. Goodman, “Texts, Scribes and Power in
Roman Judaea,” in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (ed. Alan K. Bowman
and Greg Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 99–108, as well as
Robin Lane Fox, “Literacy and Power in Early Christianity,” in Bowman and Woolf,
eds., Literacy and Power, 126–48.
12. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; New
York: Doubleday, 1991–2009), 1:268: “But in an oral culture, one could theoretically
be an effective teacher, especially of ordinary peasants, without engaging
in reading or writing.” Also, Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary
(2 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:712 n. 86: “An uneducated peasant might be
a more credible prophet on the popular level.”
13. See, for example, Jer 8:8, where Jeremiah’s prophecy against scribes and their
control of the law simultaneously witnesses to their authority in matters of the law.
In this sense, it is important that Jeremiah accomplishes his lasting counter to scribal
authority through a written text. He ultimately challenges them as a co-literate,
displaying the very connection between authority and scribes and their pens (“false
pens” for Jeremiah) that he rails against. On the apt description of Jewish
and Christian “text-brokers” who mediated the holy text, see H. Gregory Snyder,
Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews and Christians (RFCC;
New York: Routledge, 2000), 122–217. More broadly on the power of literates in
illiterate cultures with a holy text, see the well-known study of Brian Stock, The
Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).
14. Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (JCM;
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 74 (emphasis added).
15. William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1989), 22, states that in the Roman Empire illiteracy was “above 90%”. Also,
4 Jesus’ Literacy

to Harris and the literate landscape of Jesus generally. Worth noting

briefly, however, is that Hezser’s detailed assessment of the Jewish literate
scene has furthered Harris’s research by suggesting that, if anything,
illiteracy was even more common in Roman Palestine.16 Similarly, and
while there are detractors,17 the most recent thorough studies of Jewish
scribes, orality, textuality, and education have also affirmed Harris.18 In
other words, the common anthropological description of Judaism in the
time of Jesus as a world of “haves and have-nots” applies as equally to
education and its benefits as it does to wealth and food.
Thus, while there is nearly universal agreement that the historical Jesus
was, in one form or another, a Jewish teacher,19 and Keck can even claim,
“To a considerable degree the history of the quest is the quest of Jesus the
teacher,”20 the question remains for critical scholarship: On which side of
the literacy line did Jesus fall? Stated otherwise, what type of Jewish
teacher was Jesus?

3. This Study
In what follows, I will argue that Jesus most likely did not hold the form
of literacy known as scribal literacy. Unlike Crossan and many others,

“[It is] unlikely that the overall literacy of the western provinces even rose into the
range of 5–10%” (272).
16. Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 496.
17. See Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the
Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2007), 242–45, whom I find unpersuasive and discuss further in Chapter 3.
18. David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and
Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 116 (cf. 270 n. 51); generally,
111–73; Richard A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple
Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 8–9, 91, 211 n. 27, 225 n. 6;
Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel:
Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (SBLABS 11; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2010), 127–35 (esp. 128 n. 1); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and
the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007),
10–11. Cf. also Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the
Maccabean Era (JSJSup 55; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1997), 49 n. 36. See
Chapter 3 for further affirmations of Harris among biblical scholars.
19. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 24: “It is more than a safe bet that Jesus was
a teacher…”
20. Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (SPNT; Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 2000), 65.
 Introduction 5

however, and based upon the background of scribal culture just men-
tioned, I will argue further that the issue is not quite as simple as a state-
ment affirming or denying literacy for Jesus. Any attempt to answer the
question of Jesus’ literacy must sort through confusion in the sources and
the likelihood of confusion over the issue in Jesus’ own lifetime. My
general criticism of the majority of prior attempts to answer the question
of Jesus’ literacy, then, which will find more detail in the pages that
follow, is that they have underestimated the complexity of literacy in the
ancient world, the complexity of the claims concerning Jesus’ scribal-
literate status in the earliest sources, the complexity of scholarly evalua-
tion of those claims, and the complexity of Jesus’ relationship to various
audiences.
In giving greater attention to these matters, the present study will
unfold in the following manner. Chapter 1 will provide a history of
research that will also highlight the manner in which Jesus’ literacy, and
scholarly disagreement concerning it, is an overlooked yet central aspect
of larger reconstructions of Jesus. Two of the most prominent differences
between these prior studies and this book are my approach to the
historical Jesus, which is undergirded by social memory theory rather
than criteria of authenticity, and my attention to the varieties of literacy
in Second Temple Judaism and their social manifestations. Chapters 2
and 3, respectively, will address these topics. Chapter 4 will discuss the
primary evidence concerning Jesus’ literacy, focusing prominently upon
first-century sources but also including evidence from the second to sixth
centuries C.E. This chapter will feature two original contributions. The
first contribution will be my argument that, in narrating Jesus’ return to
his hometown synagogue, Mark and Luke disagree over whether Jesus
was a scribal-literate teacher. The second contribution will be my inter-
pretation of John 7:15. Chapter 5’s hypothesis concerning the scribal-
literate status of Jesus will also be an original contribution. I will argue
that Jesus most likely was not a scribal-literate teacher, but that many of
his audiences likely thought he was. Brief concluding remarks at the end
of the book will summarize its contributions and offer comments on the
implications of my argument for the interpretation of the controversy
narratives.
With regard to nomenclature, I have attempted to avoid unnecessary
and pedantic distinctions between “Jesus,” “the historical Jesus,” “the real
Jesus,” and so on. This is not because I am blind to the potential useful-
ness of such terms. With the majority of scholars, I affirm that one can-
not equate the Jesus who walked the earth with the Gospels’ portrayals of
him. Part of the present study’s argument, however, is that scholars have
been overly confident in their ability to separate cleanly one from the
6 Jesus’ Literacy

other.21 Thus, I will refer to Jesus as a person who existed in the past as
“the historical Jesus” only when unnecessary confusion would result
otherwise or in reference to historical Jesus research (mostly in Chap-
ter 2). Other than these instances, I will refer simply to “Jesus” and Jesus
as he appears in a given text or source (e.g. “Mark’s Jesus”).

4. Interest in Jesus’ Literacy

As final introductory comments, I want to address what I perceive as
occasional motivating factors in both scholarly and popular interest in
the topic of Jesus’ literacy. Although some find Jesus’ literacy to be of the
utmost insignificance,22 I have found that others care strongly, even
adamantly, about it. They sense that something important is at stake
when one discusses Jesus’ literacy.
After many conversations about this topic over the past six or so years
in SBL meetings, invited lectures, classrooms, and ecclesial contexts, I am
utterly convinced that one of the reasons that some (certainly not all) are
willing to fight vehemently about Jesus’ literacy is that the topic is
something of a battleground for Christology. Asking whether Jesus could
read or write causes assumptions about Jesus’ identity and limitations to
surface, whether one finds him- or herself inside or outside the faith
community. As a result, it is nearly impossible to discuss Jesus’ literate
abilities without bumping into the Christological commitments of one’s
interlocutor; again, regardless of what those commitments are. I do not
pretend to avoid entirely my own commitments in this regard (although
I would add that my argument has not typically found a welcome home
among those who fall on my side of the aisle). Nevertheless, I find it
necessary to state that the following argument does not reside upon,
address, or have a stake in matters Christological. Others may disagree,
but I have had no success in finding a mention of Jesus’ literate abilities
in any of the creeds.
Along similar lines, and often in conjunction with Christological
assumptions, some (again, not all) specialists and non-specialists seem
heavily invested in affirming or denying Jesus’ literacy based on a mis-
understanding of the relationship between literacy and intelligence. To
speak of literate abilities in the ancient world was not to speak directly of
intelligence. A charge of illiteracy could function as a slur under certain
circumstances, and I will present several examples. But these instances

21. This study thus joins a recent, but nonetheless vocal, minority in rejecting
the criteria of authenticity. See further Chapter 2.
22. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:268: “Some would say that the question is ridiculous.”
 Introduction 7

are not truly comparable to modern derogatory references to someone as

illiterate, since literacy is the norm in the industrialized world and it was
not in the ancient world. Stated more bluntly, asking “Was Jesus liter-
ate?” is not the same as asking “Was Jesus stupid?” This point may seem
painfully clear, but since many of my conversation partners have seemed
to respond to the second question when I raised the first, I believe it bears
mentioning explicitly here at the beginning of this book.
Of course, I carry no illusion that asserting these caveats will deflect all
criticism of my proposal. In this sense, my modest goal for this volume
would be that even those whom my argument does not persuade will
recognize it as an advancement of the discussion that demonstrates that
the matter of Jesus’ literacy is significant and deserves greater attention.
 Chapter 1

JESUSES LITERATE AND ILLITERATE

That he was able to write

may be assumed.1

It must be presumed that Jesus

…was illiterate.2

This chapter will present previous proposals of Jesus as both literate and
illiterate, highlighting the roles that Jesus’ socio-historical context and
particular biblical texts have played in those proposals. The discussion
will also demonstrate the intrinsic connection between scholars’ views on
Jesus’ literacy and their larger reconstructions of the historical Jesus as a
Jewish teacher. This presentation of previous research inevitably is not
exhaustive, but will suffice for demonstrating that Evans is entirely
correct when he claims, “Scholars are divided on this question.”3 At the
end of the chapter, I will note the manners in which my proposal in the
rest of the book will reflect the status quaestionis in some ways, but also
depart significantly from it in other ways.
Related to the relationship between this study and previous consid-
erations of Jesus’ literacy, a comment on terminology is necessary.
Although useful as general descriptors and perhaps unavoidable in that
capacity, the terms “literate” and “illiterate” are ultimately unhelpful due
to their lack of precision. Such classifications do not accurately reflect the
literacy landscape of Roman Judea where individuals could hold different

1. J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of John (ed.

A. H. McNeile; 2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), 2:719.
2. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: Harper-
Collins, 1994), 25.
3. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 35.
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 9

levels of literacy with different literate skills implied, and in different

languages.4 I will return to this issue, too, at the conclusion of this chapter
(and more thoroughly in Chapter 3). It is important to recognize it at
present, however, because I will adopt the traditional approach for
heuristic purposes since the status quaestionis resides upon the dichot-
omy of literate/illiterate. Also, since the primary purpose of this chapter
is to present previous opinions, I will refrain from offering thorough
criticisms or prolonged discussion of the primary evidence and reserve
these tasks for subsequent chapters.

1. The Literate Jesus

Historically, the most popular scholarly position on Jesus’ educational
status has been that he was literate to some degree. As Foster observes in
his brief survey, the members of the First Quest were at times rather
confident in their abilities to know Jesus’ educational background.5
Renan, for example, dedicates an entire chapter of his Life of Jesus to the
matter of his education.6 He claims Jesus could “doubtless” read and
write in Aramaic, but likely did not know Hebrew or Greek.7 Their asser-
tions could be tempered also, however, as is the case with D. Strauss.
D. Strauss claims that John 7:15, where Jesus’ opponents “explicitly
assert” that he is illiterate and “he does not contradict them,” indicates
that Jesus “did not pass formally through a rabbinical school.”8 Never-
theless, this emphasis may reflect an early Christian desire to portray
Jesus as completely independent from human learning and, in turn, also
may witness latently to the fact that “Jesus may not have been so entirely
a stranger to the learned culture of his nation.”9 In other words, John 7:15
may be an early Christian cover-up that Jesus received his wisdom from

4. Cf. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of
Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 3: “A Christian in
first-century Palestine might have been thoroughly literate in Aramaic, largely
literate in Hebrew, semiliterate in Greek, and illiterate in Latin, while a Christian in
Rome in the late second century might have been literate in Latin and semiliterate in
Greek but ignorant of Aramaic and Hebrew.”
5. Paul Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” JSHJ 4, no.
1 (2006): 7–12.
6. Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus (trans. unknown; London: Watts & Co., 1935;
repr., San Diego: Book Tree, 2007), 41–46.
7. Ibid., 41–42 (quotation p. 41).
8. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (ed. Peter C.
Hodgson; trans. George Eliot; LJ; London: SCM, 1973), 201, 202.
1
9. Ibid., 202.
10 Jesus’ Literacy

human schools rather than divine bestowal. (D. Strauss’s theory is inter-
esting since, as we will see below, Bauer argues that the early Christian
cover-up in John 7:15 ran in the opposite direction.)

1.1. Appeals to Jesus’ Socio-Historical Context

Some scholars assert Jesus’ literacy by locating him in a Jewish context
where it is presumed that “most Jewish boys” went to school,10 a
presumption that Chapter 3 will demonstrate is unlikely. For example, in
his short Life of Christ, Cadoux claims that Jesus’ “educative influence…
would from an early age be supplemented at the local synagogue—where
with his younger brothers and other small boys Jesus would be taught in
class to read and say by heart portions of the Mosaic Law, and perhaps
also to write.”11 In his important study, Reading and Writing in the Time
of Jesus, Millard likewise says, “As a well-taught, observant Jewish boy,
Jesus would also have learnt to read the Scriptures in Hebrew.”12 Lee goes
so far as to say that an uneducated Jesus is implausible: “It seems safe to
presume that he attended a bet sefer and bet talmud as a child and young
man, because most Jewish males would have. His style of interaction with
the Pharisees is not intelligible without presuming education.”13 In a
similar vein, Flusser claims, “When Jesus’ sayings are examined against
the background of contemporaneous Jewish learning…it is easy to
observe that Jesus was far from uneducated. He was perfectly at home
both in holy scripture and in oral tradition, and he knew how to apply
this scholarly heritage.”14 He claims further that, despite the fact that “the
historically less reliable John” records a charge in John 7:15 that Jesus

10. John C. Poirier, “The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine,” JGRChJ 4

(2007): 87, refers to the idea that “virtually all male Jewish youths were schooled in
reading Torah” as “once a universal belief among scholars, and…still dominant in
many circles.”
11. C. J. Cadoux, The Life of Jesus (Gateshead on Tyne: Pelican, 1948), 37. See
also, Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Downers Grove: IVP,
1994), 38. Cf. A. Morris Stewart, The Infancy and Youth of Jesus (London: Andrew
Melrose, 1905), 126–29, whose account is quite imaginative.
12. Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (BS 69; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2001), 146.
13. Bernard J. Lee, The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus: Retrieving the Jewish Origins
of Christianity (CRNT 1; New York: Paulist, 1988), 126–27.
14. David Flusser with R. Steven Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering
Jesus’ Genius (4th English ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 12; repeated in David
Flusser, “Jesus, His Ancestry, and the Commandment of Love,” in Jesus’ Jewishness:
Exploring the Place of Jesus in Early Judaism (ed. James H. Charlesworth; SGJC 2;
New York: Crossroad, 1991), 161.
1
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 11

was uneducated, in reality, “Jesus’ Jewish education was incomparably

superior to that of St. Paul.”15 In a 1995 study of Jesus, Flusser’s student,
Young, repeats this claim: “Jesus’ training and experience as a learned
teacher of Torah far surpassed that of Paul the Jewish apostle to the
Gentiles.”16
Although he agrees with Dodd that Jesus could meet “scholars learned
in the Scriptures upon their own ground,”17 Riesner rightly considers
Flusser’s claim regarding Jesus’ pedagogical superiority to Paul “gewiß
falsch.”18 Nevertheless, in perhaps the most thorough consideration of
Jesus’ education to date, he too argues that Jesus was literate and empha-
sizes Jesus’ socio-historical context. Riesner is willing to grant that pas-
sages such as Luke 4:16 and texts where Jesus asks his opponents “Have
you not read?” imply that Jesus himself could read, and John 8:6 may
even claim he could write.19 But, for Riesner, these abilities certainly did
not come from formal scribal education and need not even have come
from elementary education, since he could have attained some degree of
reading and writing ability in the home,20 or via his attendance at syna-
gogue.21 He claims, “Die beiden stärksten Argumente für eine Elementar-
schulbildung sind aber die Existenz einer Synagoge in Nazareth und
seine Herkunft aus einem frommen Elternhaus.”22 Riesner thus concludes
his section on Jesus’ education by appealing not to any particular New
Testament text, but rather to Jesus’ supposed pious home and participa-
tion in synagogue, as well as pilgrimages to Jerusalem, as an explanation
for his “biblical knowledge”:

15. Flusser, Sage, 12; Flusser, “Jesus,” 161.

16. Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995),
xxxiv.
17. C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 120.
18. Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2/7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981),
242.
19. Ibid., 231.
20. Ibid.; cf. 112–15.
21. In his earlier essay, Rainer Riesner, “Jüdische Elementarbildung und Evan-
gelienüberlieferung,” in Gospel Perspectives. Volume 1, Studies of History and
Tradition in the Four Gospels (ed. R. T. France and David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT,
1980), 218, he claims, based on rabbinic evidence, that the synagogue attendant
could have functioned as an elementary teacher: “Nazareth besass eine eigene
Synagoge (Mt 13,54/Mk 6,2/Lk 4,16), in der alttestamentliche Schriften zugänglich
waren (Lk 4,17). Der Synagogendiener (Lk 4,20) konnte, wie wir das aus rab-
binischen Quellen wissen, als Elementarlehrer fungieren. Interessierte Nazarethaner
vermochten sich eine gründliche Schriftkenntnis erwerben.”
1
22. Riesner, Jesus, 232.
12 Jesus’ Literacy

Jesus hat keine ‘höhere’ schriftgelehrte Ausbildung absolviert. Aber sein

frommes, in davidische und priesterliche Traditionen eingebettetes
Elternhaus, der Besuch der Synagogen in Nazareth und Umgebung sowie
die regelmäßigen Wallfahrten nach Jerusalem konnten ihm ein großes
Maß vor allem an biblischem Wissen verschaffen.23

Elsewhere, he again underscores the importance of the synagogue:

“The synagogues provided even in small Galilaean villages such as
Nazareth a kind of popular education system. Many men could read and
write…[and] Jesus could presuppose a knowledge of the Old Testa-
ment.”24 Herzog too claims, “It is very likely that [Jesus] learned to read
and argue Torah in the local synagogue gathering.”25
More recently, in an introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, M. Strauss
continues this line of thinking by presenting a trilingual synagogue-
educated Jesus:
Like most Jewish boys, Jesus would have been educated in the local
synagogue, where he learned the Scriptures and the Hebrew language. We
know from his Nazareth sermon that he could read (Luke 4:16–20). This
means Jesus was probably trilingual, speaking Aramaic in the home and
with friends, using Hebrew in religious contexts, and conversing in Greek
in business and governmental contexts.26

Ehrman is less convinced of Jesus’ ability to speak Greek, but he also

affirms the likelihood that Jesus spoke Aramaic and could read the
Hebrew Scriptures.27 (Nevertheless, for Ehrman, despite the possibility
that Jesus “had some modicum of education…he was not considered an
intellectual superstar by the people who knew him as he was growing
up.”28) In another recent textbook, one again finds the combination of
Jesus being like other Jewish boys with the role of the synagogue in
securing literacy for him: “Like other boys in his village, from the age

23. Ibid., 244. Similarly, Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search
for the Jew of Nazareth (2d ed.; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1997), 38.
24. Rainer Riesner, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel
Tradition (ed. Henry Wansbrough; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 191. See also Riesner,
“Jüdische Elementarbildung,” 218.
25. William R. Herzog II, Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical
Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 68.
26. Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the
Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 421. Similarly, Mark Strauss, “Introducing
the Bible,” in The IVP Introduction to the Bible (ed. Philip S. Johnston; Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 14.
27. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 100.
1
28. Ibid.
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 13

of six to ten Jesus became literate in Hebrew through study of the

Torah in the Nazareth synagogue, and he memorized vast quantities of
Scripture.”29

1.2. Appeals to Biblical Texts

As the quotation from M. Strauss above indicates, some scholars fore-
ground a particular portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament in order to
affirm his literacy. M. Strauss cites Luke’s presentation of Jesus reading
the scroll of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Nazareth synagogue in Luke
4:16–20.30 Others too appeal to this passage in affirming that Jesus was, or
may have been, literate. Barclay points confidently to Luke 4:16 as
evidence that “he learned to read” and John 8:8 as evidence that “he
learned to write.”31 Dunn claims that, although “it is unclear how much
weight can be put on Luke 4:16–21,” “the picture painted in Luke 4:16–17
is in essence quite credible.”32 Foster concludes his cautious article
on Jesus’ education by claiming, “The balance of probabilities appears
to favour the contention that Jesus at least possessed a basic reading
ability.”33 During his discussion of the primary evidence, he claims Luke 4
is “the strongest piece of evidence in the New Testament for seeing Jesus
as possessing some level of functional literacy” and (similarly to Dunn)
states, “Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ ability to read is not implausible…[and]
can be assessed as feasibly fitting into the context of wider Galilean
culture in the first century C.E.”34
In a sustained treatment of Jesus’ literacy, Meier considers Luke 4:16–
30 along with John 8:6 and John 7:15.35 In contrast to Foster’s statement,
however, Meier concludes that the last of these texts offers the most

29. Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in
Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 128–29.
30. Presumably, Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical,
Literary, and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 66, has this
passage in mind as well: “Some process of education is implied by the fact that, as an
adult, he is able to read and is knowledgeable of the scriptures.”
31. William Barclay, The Mind of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 8–9.
Barclay also appeals to Jesus’ socio-historical context: “There was a village school in
Nazareth; to that village school Jesus must have gone” (9). Leslie T. Hardin, The
Spirituality of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 56, also cites Luke 4:16–20 and
John 8:6, 8 in affirming that Jesus could read and write.
32. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (CM 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003), 314 n. 280, 315, respectively.
33. Foster, “Educating Jesus,” 33.
34. Ibid., 12, 13–14, respectively.
1
35. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:268–71; more broadly on the issue, 1:268–78.
14 Jesus’ Literacy

evidence that Jesus had some level of literacy: “Of the three New Testa-
ment texts proposed, [John 7:15] at least provides some indirect basis for
supposing that Jesus could read and comment on the Hebrew Scrip-
tures.”36 For Meier, although John 7:15 rules out any formal education
for Jesus,37 it does indicate that he “could…read the Hebrew Scriptures…
[and] enjoyed a fair degree of literacy in Hebrew and—a fortiori—
Aramaic, the language he usually spoke.”38 Like Riesner, Meier posits that
Jesus could have received what training he had in a Nazareth synagogue,
but ultimately for Meier one “has to allow for a high degree of natural
talent—perhaps even genius—that more than compensated for the low
level of Jesus’ formal education.”39 In a predominantly illiterate culture,
though, Jesus’ limited literacy would have been sufficient to distinguish
him from the majority. Meier concludes:
In at least one aspect Jesus was atypical of most men and women of the
Greco-Roman world in the 1st century A.D.: he was literate, and his
literacy probably extended beyond the mere ability to sign one’s name or
to conduct basic business transactions (“tradesman’s literacy”) to the
ability to read sophisticated theological and literary works and comment
on them (“scribal literacy”). Jesus comes out of a peasant background, but
he is no ordinary peasant.40

Meier’s assessment of Jesus’ literacy exhibits both a sophisticated

reflection on the literacy landscape of Jesus, but also a certain lack of
precision when placing him within it. He correctly observes the general
low-literacy environment and notes that literacy in Jesus’ socio-historical
context existed in gradations (“tradesman” and “scribal” literacy). How-
ever, despite concluding that Jesus did not receive a formal education—
which would have undergirded “scribal literacy”—he nevertheless claims

36. Ibid., 1:269; also 271, 278. Following Meier is Thomas E. Boomershine, “Jesus
of Nazareth and the Watershed of Ancient Orality and Literacy,” in Orality and
Textuality in Early Christian Literature (ed. Joanna Dewey; SemSt 65; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1995), 22–23. On pp. 23–24, Boomershine compares
Jesus to Socrates since both left no writings of their own. Augustine, Cons. 1.7.12,
had already made this comparison. See also Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the
Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition,
Mark, Paul, and Q (VPT; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 18.
37. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:269, 278.
38. Ibid., 1:278.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid. See also Craig A. Evans, “Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus,” in
From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald
(ed. William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans; Macon: Mercer University Press,
2007), 54: “Jesus was no typical Galilean Jew.”
1
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 15

that Jesus’ literate abilities extended to scribal literacy. In the least,

Meier’s comments demonstrate the complexity of the issue.41
Another scholar who argues that Jesus was not formally educated but
nonetheless could at least read the Hebrew Scriptures, and points to John
7:15 as evidence, is Evans. In several contexts, he argues against the idea
that Jesus was illiterate.42 Like Meier, he views John 7:15 as a statement of
Jesus’ lack of scribal education, but also as an indication that he held
some degree of literate ability.43 Specifically, he claims:
The comments in John 7:15 and Acts 4:13 should not be taken to imply
that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate. In fact, the opposite is probably
the intended sense, as most commentators rightly interpret. That is,
despite not having had formal training, Jesus and his disciples evince
remarkable skill in the knowledge of Scripture and ability to interpret it
and defend their views. These texts, more than Luke 4:16–30 and John
8:6, lend some support to the probability that Jesus was literate.44

Evans, however, also appeals to “considerable contextual and circumstan-

tial evidence” in support of his overall argument, such as Jesus having
followers who called him “Rabbi” or his references to Scripture in his
teachings.45 He is aware that “it is not easy to determine to what degree
Jesus was literate” and that “there is no unambiguous evidence for the
literacy of Jesus.”46 Nevertheless, for Evans, the cumulative force of the
evidence is in favor of a Jesus who could at least read Hebrew Scriptures
and interpret them in Aramaic.47

41. Eddy and Boyd, Jesus Legend, 247–49, follow Meier. They begin by noting
that there is “no absolute proof” that Jesus was literate but claim it is “quite con-
ceivable” (247) in light of their reconstruction of his context, and then cite John 7:15
and Luke 4:16–30 as supporting texts.
42. Craig A. Evans, “Context, Family, and Formation,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Jesus (ed. Markus Bockmuehl; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2001), 15–21; Evans, Fabricating, 35–40; Evans, “Jewish Scripture,” 41–54. The
last essay is something of a compilation of the first two and a direct response to
Pieter F. Craffert and Pieter J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He
Could Not Read or Write: Reflections on Historicity and Interpretation in Historical
Jesus Research,” Neot 39, no. 1 (2005): 5–35.
43. Evans, “Context,” 16; Evans, Fabricating, 36; Evans, “Jewish Scripture,” 42–
43. Similarly on John 7:15, Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 282: “This issue here is not that Jesus is illiter-
ate (he is not), but that he has never formally studied with an advanced teacher.”
44. Evans, “Context,” 16; Evans, “Jewish Scripture,” 43.
45. Evans, “Context,” 19–20 (quotation from p. 17); Evans, “Jewish Scripture,”
48–50.
46. Evans, “Context,” 15, 17, respectively; also Evans, “Jewish Scripture,” 44.
1
47. Evans, “Context,” 21; Evans, Fabricating, 39; Evans, “Jewish Scripture,” 51.
16 Jesus’ Literacy

Scholars therefore find different reasons for asserting that Jesus was
literate. While some state simply that his literacy may be assumed, others
emphasize Jesus’ socio-historical context in a Jewish culture where, it is
presumed, boys normally received an education, sometimes attributing
this to a synagogue. Still other scholars see particular images of Jesus in
the Gospels, such as Luke 4:16 or John 7:15, as requiring a Jesus with
some degree of literate skills. The most popular position on a literate
Jesus is that, while he was not the recipient of a scribal education, he
nevertheless could at least read the Hebrew Scriptures.

2. The Illiterate Jesus

Compared to assertions that Jesus could read and/or write, viewing him
as illiterate has been a more recent phenomenon within historical Jesus
research. This is not to suggest that the matters of Jesus’ academic
credentials or literary activity were never discussed previously. Indeed,
already in the third century C.E., Origen is wrestling with Celsus’ accu-
sations and insinuations regarding Jesus being an uneducated UFLUXO
(“carpenter/craftsman”) and the disciples being “fisherfolk and tax
collectors who had not even a primary education.”48 As noted in the
Introduction, in the early fifth century C.E., Augustine twice addresses the
fact that Jesus never wrote anything,49 as does Jerome in his Commentary
on Ezekiel,50 although neither mention his literacy or lack thereof as the
reason. In the early twentieth century, Deissmann too cites Jesus’ lack of
literary activity: “Jesus of Nazareth is altogether unliterary. He never
wrote or dictated a line.”51 Quite independent of these ancient and
modern authors, Chapter 4 will demonstrate that Jesus’ literate status was
already a discussion topic for Christians in the first century C.E.

2.1. Foundations for Recent Conceptions of Jesus as Illiterate

Nevertheless, it remains that modern scholars have pursued the ques-
tion of Jesus’ illiteracy with a renewed vigor in light of recent social-
scientific developments and subsequent applications to the field of New
Testament studies. Among those developments, one can cite at least two
landmark studies that have laid new foundations for viewing Jesus as

48. Origen, Cels. 1.28–29; 6.34–36 (Chadwick), respectively.

49. Augustine, Faust. 28.4; Cons. 1.7.11.
50. Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 44.29 (PL 25.443).
51. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan;
rev. ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927 [original German, 1908]), 245; see
also 246.
1
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 17

illiterate: Werner H. Kelber’s The Oral and the Written Gospel and
William V. Harris’s Ancient Literacy.
Inspired especially by Walter Ong’s work on oral hermeneutics and by
folklorists Albert Lord and Milman Parry, Kelber’s groundbreaking The
Oral and the Written Gospel (1983) made New Testament scholars
acutely aware of the impact of the oral environment of Jesus and the early
Christians.52 Since its initial publication, this book has generated
significant critical response,53 but also received widespread praise for its
overall argument regarding the importance of Jesus’ culture being an oral
culture.54 Kelber’s primary contribution in The Oral and the Written
Gospel regards the impact of orality on the transmission of the Jesus
tradition, as his primary target was the hegemony of form-critical con-
ceptions of that process based on literary models. Significant for present
purposes, he situates Jesus within his oral culture at the beginning of the
study. Kelber traces the “phenomenon of early synoptic orality” to Jesus
himself, whom he claims the canonical Gospels present “as speaker of
authoritative and often disturbing words, and not as reader, writer, or
head of a school tradition.”55

52. Kelber, Oral.

53. See, for example, John Halverson, “Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of
Werner Kelber,” NTS 40 (1994): 180–95; Larry W. Hurtado, “Greco-Roman Textu-
ality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber’s The Oral and
the Written Gospel,” BBR 7 (1997): 91–106. Kelber responds to his critics in Werner
H. Kelber, “Introduction,” in his The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics
of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (VPT;
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), xix–xxxi.
54. Although few have accepted Kelber’s thesis in toto, the recent publications of
a tribute to Kelber (Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley,
eds., Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark [Minneapolis: Fortress,
2006]) and a tribute to The Oral and the Written Gospel itself (Tom Thatcher, ed.,
Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel [Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2008]) demonstrate scholars’ acknowledgment of Kelber’s
seminal insights. Consider Tom Thatcher, “Beyond Texts and Traditions: Werner
Kelber’s Media History of Christian Origins,” in Thatcher, ed., Jesus, the Voice, and
the Text, 2: “But while many of the specific points of [The Oral and the Written
Gospel] have been disputed, time has shown that the book was a milestone in biblical
studies, significant less for the answers it gave than for the questions it raised.”
55. Kelber, Oral, 18. Sixteen years later, Kelber reiterated, “Jesus was a speaker,
not a scribe, and not even a rhetorical composer by way of dictation” (Werner H.
Kelber, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus from the Perspectives of Medieval, Mod-
ern, and Post-Enlightenment Readings, and in View of Ancient, Oral Aesthetics,” in
John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Werner H. Kelber, The Jesus
Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict [RLS; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999], 75).
1
18 Jesus’ Literacy

A second landmark study that created interest in Jesus as an illiterate is

classicist William Harris’s Ancient Literacy (1989). As mentioned in the
Introduction, Harris argues against the idea of widespread literacy in the
ancient world and claims that literacy rates in the Roman Empire likely
never rose above 10 percent.56 Subsequent research has qualified Harris’
study for specific geographical and chronological locales, but in general
his thesis is broadly accepted.57 Also aforementioned, subsequent research
on Jewish literacy and scribal culture has affirmed Harris’s findings for
the Jewish context.58 Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church has
similarly affirmed Harris’s conclusions for the early Church.59 Already on
the third page of this book, Gamble places the issue before his readers as
such: “So the question remains unanswered: To what extent could early
Christians read and write?”60 Gamble’s question is indicative of the
renewed interest in such matters in the wake of Harris, including interest
in asking the question specifically of Jesus. Harris himself acknowledges
that several passages imply literacy for Jesus, but regards him as “a poorly
educated provincial.”61
Although I mention their opinions on Jesus here, Kelber’s and Harris’s
respective impacts on seeing Jesus as illiterate are not primarily due to
their individual statements on him, but rather to their description of his
socio-historical context. Furthermore, Kelber’s and Harris’s studies are
clearly not the only ones effecting a scholarly shift towards an illiterate
Jesus. One could also cite the work of Horsley, for example, who empha-
sizes the importance of class distinctions within the imperial context and
argues that Jesus was a member of the oppressed peasant class who
resisted the power of the scribal-literate elite.62 It would seem that Kelber

56. Harris, Ancient, 22, 272.

57. Mary Beard et al., Literacy in the Roman World (JRASup 3; Ann Arbor:
Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1992); Eldon Jay Epp, “The Codex and Literacy in
Early Christianity and at Oxyrhynchus: Issues Raised by Harry Y. Gamble’s Books
and Readers in the Early Church,” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual
Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004 (NovTSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 541–42;
repr. from CRBR 11 (1998): 15–37.
58. See the Introduction and, more extensively, Chapter 3.
59. Gamble, Books, 5. Accepting Harris and Gamble is Philip Esler, “Collective
Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework,” in Memory,
Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (ed. Alan Kirk and Thom
Thatcher; SemSt 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 154.
60. Gamble, Books, 3. Note the methodological appropriateness of Gamble’s
question; he asks not if they were literate, but to what extent they were.
61. Harris, Ancient, 281 n. 527, 213, respectively.
62. In addition to Horsley’s earlier studies, see his recent succinct presentation of
this view of Jesus in Richard A. Horsley, “A Prophet Like Moses and Elijah: Popular
1
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 19

and Harris are the primary catalysts, however, as Kelber argued thor-
oughly for the impact of the oral environment and Harris argued that
Judea and Galilee, like the rest of the ancient world, were indeed
predominantly non-literate.
Not all of the following scholars who argue for or assume an illiterate
Jesus are explicitly dependent upon Kelber or Harris, although many are.
The current suggestion, however, is not that they all are explicitly
dependent upon them, but rather that Kelber, Harris, and others such as
Horsley have generated a shift in the state of the discussion. Whereas
some scholars of a previous generation would have, and did, find the idea
of an illiterate/uneducated Jesus inconceivable, some present scholars
argue the exact opposite. For example, two recent scholars, Bond and
Thatcher, assume Jesus’ illiteracy or lack of education but do not argue it
in detail. Bond claims, “Jesus was uneducated; he was not a priest, he
claimed no learning in the law.”63 Thatcher argues throughout his Jesus
the Riddler that Jesus was a Jewish teacher who consistently outwitted his
opponents and “uses his riddles both as a teaching tool and as a means of
establishing his academic credentials.”64 He claims, however, that Jesus
“probably couldn’t write at all, or at least very little” and “possessed no
official academic credentials.”65 For Bond and Thatcher, it is simply
unnecessary to argue at length that Jesus was not formally educated.

Memory and Cultural Patterns in Mark,” in Horsley, Draper, and Foley, eds.,
Performing the Gospel, 166–90. More generally on the peasantry, see Horsley, Scribes,
24–26. Note Crossan’s acknowledged dependence on Horsley for his identification of
Jesus as a peasant in John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 124–25. (He
references Horsley’s Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in
Roman Palestine [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987].) On Crossan’s view of an
illiterate Jesus, see below, p. 20.
63. Helen K. Bond, Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2004), 69. Cf. Allison, Constructing, 32 n. 4: “Jesus was not
a scribe.”
64. Tom Thatcher, Jesus the Riddler: The Power of Ambiguity in the Gospels
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 112.
65. Ibid., 136, 102, respectively. Thatcher claims that whether Jesus had “official
rabbinic credentials” is beyond the scope of his study (168 n. 11). His consistent
reference to Jesus’ lack of formal/official academic credentials, however, demon-
strates the importance of the issue of Jesus’ (lack of) education to his overall argu-
ment (102, 107, 117; cf. 110, 112, 168 n. 11). My argument in this book strengthens
Thatcher’s suggestions.
1
20 Jesus’ Literacy

2.2. Appeals to Jesus’ Socio-Historical Context

Just as some scholars cite Jesus’ socio-historical context as primary evi-
dence for his literacy, others cite the same context as primary evidence
for his illiteracy. Foremost among the latter group is Crossan. In several
contexts, he argues that, since Jesus was a Jewish peasant, he must be
considered illiterate. For example, after citing Harris’ study on ancient
literacy, Crossan says, “Jesus was a peasant from a peasant village.
Therefore, for me, Jesus was illiterate until the opposite is proven.”66 On
the same page, he states more emphatically, “Jesus did not—and, in my
opinion, could not—write.”67 In another context, he likewise claims,
“Since between 95 and 97 percent of the Jewish state was illiterate at the
time of Jesus, it must be presumed that Jesus also was illiterate.”68
Crossan acknowledges that Luke’s account of Jesus’ synagogue activities
claims literacy for Jesus, but, like Kelber before him,69 he sees the image
of a scribal Jesus as due to theological elaboration rather than accurate
reflection of the historical Jesus.70 For Crossan, the identification of Jesus
as a “carpenter” (UFLUXO) in Mark 6:3 more accurately reflects his non-
scribal peasant origins.71
The identification of Jesus as a peasant and the concomitant implica-
tions for his literate status have proven persuasive to several scholars. In
his biography of Jesus, for example, Chilton refers to Jesus’ illiteracy in
this manner when he says of Galilean Jewish peasants, “For the most part,
like Jesus, they were illiterate.”72 The Jesus Seminar, of which Crossan was
a member, reiterates his position in their The Acts of Jesus. They print the
entirety of Luke 4:16–30 in black ink, indicating their judgment that such
an episode did not happen, and offer the following commentary:
The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar are dubious that Jesus could read and
write. That he was an oral sage is attested by ample evidence. But that
does not mean that he had learned the scribal skills, in his day a rare
achievement among peasants. It is by no means certain that Jesus could
read Hebrew.73

66. Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 235. Cf. also his quotation of Carney on
peasant illiteracy in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 3; cf. 421.
67. Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 235.
68. Crossan, Jesus, 25. See also his The Essential Jesus: What Jesus Really Taught
(New York: HarperCollins, 1989), 21.
69. See above, n. 55.
70. Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 235; Crossan, Jesus, 26.
71. Crossan, Jesus, 23–26.
72. Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday,
2000), xx; see also p. 99.
73. Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the
Authentic Deeds of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 274.
1
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 21

As in the work of Crossan, one can see here that placement of Jesus in the
peasant class trumps the claim of the Lukan narrative. (The Seminar
prints Mark 6:3’s identification of Jesus as a “carpenter” in grey ink,
indicating its possible reflection of the historical Jesus, and claims it “may
be accurate, although it is difficult to verify.”74) Elsewhere, the founder of
the Jesus Seminar, Funk, claims, “Economically and socially Jesus was a
peasant. He was probably technically illiterate—he may not have been
able to read and write.”75 Initially, Oakman entertains the possibility that
Jesus held some level of literacy: “Jesus was either illiterate (unable to
read or write at all), or possessed at best craft literacy.”76 Thereafter,
however, he refers to him as “the illiterate Jesus” and “an illiterate
peasant.”77
Rather than emphasizing Jesus as a peasant, Burge portrays him as a
Middle Eastern storyteller and implies his illiteracy when appealing to his
socio-historical context. He says, “Jesus lived in a world where literacy
was rare and books (or scrolls) were rarer still.… The Gospels were
penned by Jesus’ followers, but we have no evidence that he wrote down
any of his own sayings—much less that he wrote a book.”78

2.3. Appeals to Biblical Texts

Although Crossan primarily points to Jesus’ identity as a peasant and the
realities of peasant life in order to assert his illiteracy, he demonstrates
that advocates of an illiterate Jesus also can appeal to scriptural support.
In Crossan’s case in particular, he sees Mark 6:3 as corroborative
evidence for an illiterate peasant Jesus and the scribal Jesus of Luke 4:16
as an inaccurate reflection of the historical Jesus.
Although initially considering Mark 6:3 as a possible indication of a
learned Jesus (!),79 Vermes cites the combination of the silence of gospel
tradition on Jesus’ education and John 7:15’s “explicitly stated denial of
formal training” for Jesus as indications of his lack of education.80 He

74. Ibid., 84.

75. Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (New York:
HarperCollins, 1996), 158.
76. Douglas E. Oakman, Jesus and the Peasants (MBMC 4; Eugene: Cascade,
2008), 303.
77. Ibid., 305, 308, respectively.
78. Gary M. Burge, Jesus, the Middle Eastern Storyteller (ACAF; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009), 18.
79. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1973), 21–22.
1
80. Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 2000), 165.
22 Jesus’ Literacy

thus considers Jesus “apparently untaught and unqualified.”81 Bauer also

sees John 7:15 as evidence for an illiterate Jesus. Whereas D. Strauss
posits John 7:15 as an early Christian attempt to cover up the fact that
Jesus was educated, Bauer believes John 7:15 is the opposite—a Christian
assertion for Jesus’ literacy and thus a cover-up for the fact that “Jesus
wäre ein Analphabet gewesen.”82
In one of the more recent arguments for Jesus’ illiteracy, Botha briefly
mentions the role of John 7:15 and 8:6 in previous discussions of Jesus’
literacy, but then focuses exclusively upon Luke 4:16.83 (He never returns
to the other passages.) Botha argues that scholars must view Jesus’
activities in the Nazareth synagogue as a “cultural event” and interpret
them in terms of Galilean peasants, for the majority of whom “literacy
was of little concern”—“To be Jewish and literate are demands of a
different time and not of the first century.”84 As with Crossan, for exam-
ple, Botha emphasizes Jesus’ historical context as a Galilean Jewish
peasant in order to assert, “The historical Jesus could not read or write.”85
Botha, however, does not discount Luke 4:16 entirely and insists, “There
is an association with reading which can plausibly be ascribed to him.”86
According to Botha, Jesus’ “reading” in the synagogue (he appropriately
notes that the text technically never claims Jesus read) was actually a
performance—“a highly rhetorical verbal presentation of stories and oral
interpretations”—rather than a literal reading from the text.87 Luke is, for
Botha, showing an expert interpreter of the Hebrew Scriptures at work.
Therefore, although Jesus was illiterate from our perspective, “Seen as a
report of a cultural event, Luke 4:16 should be related to Jesus’ authori-
tative and demon-conquering activities. He is the son of God who can
employ various techniques, including ‘reading’.”88 In this heavily quali-
fied sense, for Botha, Luke 4:16 presents an illiterate Jesus.
Scholars who argue for an illiterate Jesus, therefore, like those who
argue for a literate Jesus, support their arguments with a variety of evi-
dence. Appealing to Jesus’ socio-historical milieu as a context that would

81. Ibid., 165.

82. D. Walter Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (2d ed.; HNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1925), 105.
83. Craffert and Botha, “Why Jesus,” 21–31. In this co-authored article, Botha
writes the section concerned with Jesus’ illiteracy.
84. Botha, “Why Jesus,” 22, 26 (emphasis original), respectively.
85. Ibid., 29; also, 32.
86. Ibid., 29.
87. Ibid., 30.
1
88. Ibid., 31.
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 23

have precluded literate education is popular, although some scholars also

cite biblical passages, or both. Especially popular is connecting Jesus’
illiteracy to his identity as a peasant.

3. Summary and Conclusions

In light of the previous discussion, one must consider Craffert and Botha
wrong when they claim, “Current scholarship is fairly unanimous that
Jesus could read and write.”89 If anything, there has been a slight shift
towards seeing Jesus as illiterate, although there are still advocates of a
literate Jesus. Furthermore, confusion exists not only over whether Jesus
was literate or illiterate, but also over the nature of the evidence upon
which one makes a decision. Both John 7:15 and Luke 4:16–30 appear in
the discussions as evidence for a literate Jesus (John 7:15—Evans, Meier;
Luke 4:16–30—M. Strauss) and as evidence for an illiterate Jesus (John
7:15—Bauer; Luke 4:16–30—Botha). Similarly, scholars appeal to Jesus’
socio-historical context as a Galilean Jew as evidence for a literate Jesus
(e.g. Riesner, M. Strauss) and as evidence for an illiterate Jesus (e.g.
Crossan, Chilton). Equally perplexing, scholars assert propagandistic
influence on the gospel tradition in opposing directions. D. Strauss sees
John 7:15 as early Christian cover-up for a literate/educated Jesus while
Bauer sees it as early Christian cover-up for an illiterate Jesus. I shall
return to many of the preceding suggestions in subsequent chapters, but
offer now several remarks regarding the current book in light of this
confused status quaestionis.

3.1. The Question Matters

First, to reiterate the point of the Introduction with emphasis, the ques-
tion of Jesus’ literacy matters because how one answers that question
impacts how one will answer other questions about Jesus. As a particu-
larly salient case in point, and one to which I will return in Chapter 5,
how one answers the question of Jesus’ literacy will impact how one
views Jesus as a teacher, and thus how one interprets the controversy
narratives. Do the Gospels portray an intra-Pharisaical dispute? Or do
they portray an attempt by Jesus, a renegade scribal authority, to chal-
lenge his former comrades? Or do they portray an attempt by known
scribal authorities to shame Jesus as an unqualified imposter? One’s
assumptions about Jesus’ educational background will affect these
broader exegetical matters. Thus, it is completely unsurprising that

1
89. Craffert and Botha, “Why Jesus,” 5.
24 Jesus’ Literacy

Young’s Jewish theologian Jesus exhibits pedagogical superiority in

Scripture, that Thatcher’s riddling Jesus, who uses wit to compensate for
official authority on interpretive matters, is himself devoid of formal
academic training, and that Crossan’s Jesus, preaching a brokerless
kingdom as a form of resistance against the scribal elite, is himself out-
side that culture as an illiterate peasant.90
Crossan, however, deserves praise for at least answering the question
of Jesus’ literacy explicitly and acknowledging the role it plays in his
larger portrait of Jesus. Others do not address the issue, or address it
insufficiently, when it is clearly pertinent to their topic. Clear examples
are scholars who suggest that Jesus was in fact a member of the Pharisees
(or at least that the Gospels portray him as a Pharisee).91 Maccoby, for
instance, argues that Jesus was a member of the Chasidim, a non-main-
stream group of Pharisees, stating that the “central proposition” of his
book is “that Jesus was a Pharisee.”92 En route to this argument, he
suggests that Pharisees and scribes in the Gospels are “members of the
same movement” and that the two identities are interchangeable.93 In
light of Maccoby’s image of a Pharisaic Jesus, it is likely not coincidence
that his index of scriptural references does not list Mark 6:3 or John 7:15,
passages that have the capacity to challenge the notion of a scribal Jesus.94
Rather, he addresses the issue indirectly and briefly: “The idea, com-
monly held, that Jesus’ upbringing as a carpenter somehow disqualified
him from entering the ranks of the Pharisees (regarded as rich aristo-
crats, or, more recently, as pen-wielding bureaucrats) is entirely wrong.”95
He offers the matter no further reflection other than noting that Hillel
and other Pharisees were laborers as well. Surely, however, (in addition

90. I am not the first to make this point. Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Humanity
of Jesus: What’s at Stake in the Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in Crossan, Johnson,
and Kelber, Jesus Controversy, 66, comments on the usage of categories such as
literacy in order to establish “boundaries to what Jesus could and could not have
done”: “A charismatic Jew would not be interested in observance of the law, an
apocalyptic Jew must have been committed to the restoration of the temple, a
peasant Jew could not read and write.”
91. This is the approach taken by Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at
the Jewishness of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1985); Hyam Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee
(London: SCM, 2003); Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (SJ 1; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1961), 133.
92. Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee, 180.
93. Ibid., 2.
94. Ibid., 220.
1
95. Ibid., 181.
 1. Jesuses Literate and Illiterate 25

to his identity as a carpenter,) Jesus’ education/literacy is relevant

for whether he was part of a movement that Maccoby categorizes as
scribal.
The present point is not simply to criticize Maccoby and others
for failing to discuss an issue they did not set out to discuss.96 Rather, it
is to observe that there is indeed an intrinsic connection between what
one thinks about Jesus’ literate abilities and what one thinks of Jesus’
fuller identity. Jesus’ literacy is a foundational issue in historical Jesus
research and is thus long overdue for a critical treatment.

3.2. Abandoning the Status Quaestionis

The present book will therefore fill this lacuna in Jesus research. It will
share some similarities with previous investigations of Jesus’ literacy
insofar as it will enlist Jesus’ socio-historical context (Chapter 3) and
particular texts and traditions about Jesus (Chapter 4) in order to offer a
statement on the literacy of Jesus (Chapter 5).
More important, however, this study will abandon the status quaes-
tionis in other manners and forward a thesis that is, to my knowledge,
original. First, I will abandon the literacy/illiteracy dichotomy upon
which almost all prior studies have been based.97 This dichotomy is too
simplistic for proper understandings of literacy and its social manifes-
tations in Second Temple Judaism. Chapter 3 will thus concentrate on
various gradations of literacy, the social factors that affected the acquisi-
tion of literate skills, and the perception of literate abilities, among other
issues. I will argue that the early Jesus traditions allow us to address not
whether Jesus was literate or illiterate at all, but specifically whether he
held scribal literacy. Second, I will not assess the historical trustworthi-
ness of each Jesus tradition that is relevant to his scribal-literate status
and proceed only with those traditions that “pass.”98 Rather, my argu-
ment will begin with the various images of Jesus’ scribal-literate status in
early Christianity’s corporate memory of him and posit a Jesus who, in

96. See the remarks regarding Thatcher’s riddling Jesus in n. 65, above. See also
the discussions of Jesus’ literacy in relation to his possible consultation of the Jewish
Scriptures for his identity and mission in Sean Freyne, Jesus, A Galilean Jew: A New
Reading of the Jesus-story (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 150–51; Scot McKnight, Jesus
and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2005), 189 n. 1; cf. 177–87.
97. Exceptions who note the existence of gradations of literacy are Botha, “Why
Jesus,” 26–27; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:278 (see the quotation above on p. 14).
98. This method is especially clear in Foster, “Educating Jesus,” 12–21; Meier,
Marginal Jew, 1:268–71.
1
26 Jesus’ Literacy

one form or another, was capable of setting into motion this particular
“history of his effects.”99 Chapter 2 lays the methodological groundwork
for this approach and Chapters 4 and 5 put it into practice.
In light of these differences, the remainder of this study will argue that
the most plausible explanation for why the early Church remembered
Jesus as both a scribal-literate teacher and a scribal-illiterate teacher is
that Jesus did not hold scribal literacy, but managed to convince many in
his audiences that he did.100

99. Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The
Question of Criteria (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2002), 212.
100. As Chapter 5 will emphasize, my argument does not require that Jesus
intended to convince his audiences that he was a scribal-literate teacher, only that he
did convince them.
1
 Chapter 2

JESUS TRADITION, MEMORY,

AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED*

Historical portrayals of Jesus, therefore, are also

hypotheses about how things could have been.1

Everywhere memorial sensibilities run up against

the limits of historical criticism’s
analytical categories.2

The question “What really happened?” is the Rock of Gibraltar of his-

torical studies generally and historical Jesus studies specifically. Waves
upon waves of scholars using various methodologies have insisted, per-
suasively even, that answering that question is ultimately impossible.3
Nevertheless, as the waves of Jesus scholarship crash against the Rock
and retreat, the question of historicity stands today, as it has in every
generation since the Enlightenment, as the primary generating force

* This chapter expands and modifies Chris Keith, “Memory and Authenticity:
Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened,” ZNW 102 (forthcoming 2011) (Walter
de Gruyter; used with permission).
1. Jens Schröter, “Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus,”
in Jesus Research: An International Perspective (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr
Pokorný; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 38 (emphasis removed). See also Jens
Schröter, “New Horizons in Historical Jesus Research? Hermeneutical Con-
siderations Concerning the So-Called ‘Third Quest’ of the Historical Jesus,”
in The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan (ed.
Cilliers Breytenbach, Johan C. Thom, and Jeremy Punt; NovTSup 124; Leiden: Brill,
2006), 77.
2. Werner H. Kelber, “The Work of Birger Gerhardsson in Perspective,” in Jesus
in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives (ed. Werner H. Kelber and
Samuel Byrskog; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 203.
3. Consider Ernst Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus (trans. Andrew Scobie;
SBT 42; London: SCM, 1964), 179: “It can never be certainly decided whether any
indisputably genuine saying of Jesus has been handed on to us” (emphasis added).
28 Jesus’ Literacy

behind any and every quest for the historical Jesus.4 It may indeed be
naïve to think we can answer the question of historicity in a final sense
and without subjectivity; it is equally naïve to think that either of these
matters will stop us from trying to answer it at all.
As Chapter 1 demonstrated, “what really happened” with regards to
Jesus’ education and literacy is an overlooked, yet important, matter.
Scholars portray Jesus, however, as both literate and illiterate, with both
sides appealing to biblical texts and Jesus’ socio-historical background in
support. The status quaestionis thus reveals an overall lack of progress
since 1835 when D. Strauss claimed regarding Jesus’ education: “But
from the absence of authentic information we can arrive at no decision
on this point.”5 As a case in point, note the similarity in Evans’s statement
in 2006: “Scholars are divided on this question because the evidence
is somewhat ambiguous.”6 This chapter will argue that this protracted
stalemate is a result of a commonality between Strauss in the nineteenth
century and the dominant approach to the historical Jesus today—the
search for “authentic” tradition. In contrast to the majority of scholars
using the “criteria approach” to the historical Jesus, which employs
criteria of authenticity to sanitize Gospel traditions as authentic before
connecting them to the historical Jesus,7 this study joins other recent

4. This is the case even for the so-called No Quest associated primarily with
Bultmann, whose negative conclusions on the ability to quest after Jesus nevertheless
demonstrate the primary role of the question in the research agenda. As a related
note, the inaccuracy of the moniker “No Quest” for Jesus research in the first half of
the twentieth century has been well demonstrated (see Dale C. Allison, Jr.,
Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters [New York:
T&T Clark, 2005], 1–26; Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-
Jesus Research: Previous Discussions and New Proposals [JSNTSup 191; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2000], 28–59 [esp. pp. 40–45], 238–39; Fernando Bermejo
Rubio, “The Fiction of the ‘Three Quests’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Historiographical Paradigm,” JSHJ 7 [2009]: 211–53; Walter P. Weaver, The
Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900–1950 [Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999]). It
remains an accurate description of Bultmann’s approach to the historical Jesus,
however.
5. Strauss, Life, 202. On the date of the publication of the first edition, see Peter
C. Hodgson, “Introduction,” in Strauss, Life, xxiv.
6. Evans, Fabricating, 35.
7. Alternatively, David S. du Toit, “Der unähnliche Jesus: Eine kritische
Evaluierung der Entstehung des Differenzkriteriums und seiner geschicts- und
erkenntnistheoretischen Voraussetzungen,” in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und
Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (ed. Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker;
BZNW 114; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 118–19, refers to the “das Authentizitäts-
modell,” and McKnight, Jesus, 43, refers to “the criteriological approach to the
Gospels.”
1
 2. Jesus Tradition, Memory 29

voices in employing (what I term) the “Jesus-memory approach” to the

historical Jesus.
Foundationally, arguments about the Gospels and historicity are actu-
ally about the nature and development of the Jesus tradition, and thus its
possible connections to the actual past. In this regard, this chapter will
break into three sections. First, I will argue that the criteria approach
inherited a form-critical conception of the development of the Jesus
tradition, which then determines how scholars employ the Gospels in
search of the historical Jesus. Second, I will observe previous dissatis-
factions with the criteria approach to the historical Jesus. Third, the
remainder of the chapter will propose the Jesus-memory approach,
which differs from the criteria approach both in its conception of the
Jesus tradition and its determination of the historian’s task in search of
the historical Jesus. This chapter will thus lay the groundwork for the rest
of this study, establishing why one must factor Jesus’ socio-historical
context (Chapter 3), as well as all the traditions about Jesus’ literate status
in the early Church (Chapter 4), into an opinion on Jesus’ literate status
(Chapter 5).

1. The Criteria Approach to the Historical Jesus

The dominant approach to the historical Jesus since at least the advent of
the so-called Third Quest has been criteria of authenticity. Although
most of the criteria considerably pre-date this period of Jesus research,
they are a particular fixture of this most recent period and still the major-
ity approach to the historical Jesus. As recent as 2007, after claiming,
“Exegesis is now united in the view that the quest of the historical Jesus
is historically possible and theologically necessary,” Schnelle presents
the criteria as the answer to the question “But how is this to be done?”8
Even more recent, Keener’s 2009 The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,
which at least one reviewer claims “sets the standard for current histori-
cal Jesus work,”9 continues to affirm some criteria of authenticity.10
Although there are many criteria, up to twenty-five according to one

8. Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 68; trans. of Theologie des Neuen Testaments
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007).
9. Craig L. Blomberg, review of Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the
Gospels, RBL (2010), n.p. (cited 10 September 2010). Online: http://www.
bookreviews.org/pdf/7385_8048.pdf.
10. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009), 155–62. He notes criticisms of the criteria, however, particularly with regard
to the criterion of dissimilarity (pp. 156–57).
1
30 Jesus’ Literacy

scholar,11 it is not necessary to treat them in detail here; others have

provided useful introductions and descriptions.12 The most significant
points for the present discussion are the criteria approach’s conception of
the composition of the Jesus tradition, the form-critical influence upon
this conception, and the manner in which this conception defines the
historian’s task for scholars who use the criteria. These are the most sig-
nificant points because I will propose that the Jesus-memory approach
affirms what is correct in the form-critical conception of the Jesus
tradition while addressing constructively what is incorrect.

1.1. Form Criticism and the Pre-Literary Jesus Tradition

Several scholars note that the formative development of certain criteria of
authenticity occurred concomitantly with the rise and practice of form
criticism, and thus the criteria reflect form-critical influence.13 My argu-
ment, however, is that the entire enterprise of criteria of authenticity is
dependent upon a form-critical framework. For, the criteria approach
adopts wholesale the form-critical conception of the development of the
Jesus tradition and thus its method for getting “behind” the text. Dibelius
and Bultmann, the two most prominent practitioners of form criticism,
will serve as representative examples of the method.14

11. Dennis Polkow, “Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research,” in
Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (ed. Kent Harold Richards; SBLSP
26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 338. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries:
Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 13 n. 34, refers to Polkow’s numeration of
the criteria as “finely nuanced…at times ‘hair-splitting.’ ”
12. Inter alia, M. E. Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy
and the Gospel Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 192–206; D. G.
A. Calvert, “An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words
of Jesus,” NTS 18 (1972): 211–18; Evans, Jesus, 13–26; Polkow, “Method,” 336–56;
Porter, Criteria, 63–123; Riesner, Jesus, 87–95; Robert H. Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for
Authenticity,” in France and Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, 225–63; Gerd
Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (trans.
John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 115. For convenient collections of
applications of various criteria, see Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds.,
Authenticating the Words of Jesus and Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (2 vols.;
NTTS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
13. Keener, Historical, 155; McKnight, Jesus, 45; Porter, Criteria, 63–102; Gerd
Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of
Criteria (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 8–9; cf.
Klaus Haacker, “Die moderne historische Jesus-Forschung als hermeneutisches
Problem,” TBei 31 (2000): 64–67.
14. Edgar V. McKnight, What is Form Criticism?(GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1969), devotes an entire chapter to Dibelius’s and Bultmann’s articulations of the
1
 2. Jesus Tradition, Memory 31

1.1.1. Primary Task of Form Criticism. Form criticism’s primary task was
to conceptualize and explain the pre-literary history (die Geschichte) of
the Synoptic Jesus tradition.15 Accepting the now disproved sharp
distinction between early Palestinian Christians and later Hellenistic
Christians, form critics located the pre-literary history of the gospel
tradition in the early Palestinian Christian communities and its eventual
textualization in the supposed Hellenistic communities.16 Importantly,
then, form critics argued that, prior to its existence as textualized narra-
tives, the Jesus tradition was neither textualized nor narrativized. The
earliest Palestinian Christians were too illiterate and unfamiliar with
literary culture to be capable of producing the Gospel narratives, which

method, claiming, “Knowledge and general acceptance of the work of these men is
presupposed and necessary for understanding and using the discipline of form
criticism” (17). The other two important form-critical studies are Karl Ludwig
Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur
ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964);
Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (2d ed.; London: Macmillan
& Co., 1960). Since Dibelius’s and Bultmann’s “classical form criticism” was most
important for the development of the criteria of authenticity, I leave aside more
recent developments in form-critical methodology. See, however, Samuel Byrskog,
“A Century with the Sitz im Leben: From Form-Critical Setting to Gospel Commu-
nity and Beyond,” ZNW 98 (2007): 1–27. Elsewhere, Byrskog proposes integrations
of newer form-critical approaches, performance criticism, and memory studies
(Samuel Byrskog, “The Early Church as a Narrative Fellowship: An Exploratory
Study of the Performance of the Chreia,” TTKi 78 [2007]: 223: “We need to show
how the study of mnemonic forms and their Sitz im Leben provides further
sophistication and differentiation in our conceptions of performance and memory”),
demonstrating that, among their important differences, form criticism and social
memory theory share some common emphases. What follows will further highlight
the important similarities and differences. (I thank Professor Byrskog for making his
TTKi article available to me.)
15. For a helpful introduction to form criticism, see Christopher Tuckett, “Form
Criticism,” in Kelber and Byrskog, eds., Jesus in Memory, 21–38.
16. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh;
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1963), 5, claimed the matter of the primitive Palestinian
Christians and the later Hellenistic Christians was “the one chief problem of primi-
tive Christianity” and “an essential part of my inquiry.” The most considerable blow
to this theory was Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter
in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 23–24: “[The] distinction between ‘Palestinian’ and
‘Hellenistic’…has been shown to be simplistic.” Similarly, Tuckett, “Form Criticism,”
30: “Any distinction between ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Hellenistic’ has now been shown to
be too crude.”
1
32 Jesus’ Literacy

display at least some literary sensibility.17 Earliest Christians may have

encountered the individual units of tradition that comprise the Synoptic
Gospels, but not in the arrangement in which one finds them in their
written state.18
Thus, in order to accomplish their primary task—the writing of the
pre-literary history of the Jesus tradition—the form critics had to recon-
struct that tradition. Of course, the only evidence with which they could
work was the written Gospels as they stand. Form critics therefore had to
develop methodological means of identifying oral tradition in written
tradition.

1.1.2. Form Criticism and the Gospel Tradition. The form-critical means
of identifying and extracting pre-literary Jesus traditions from the written
Gospels reveal the method’s central assumptions about the nature and
development of the gospel tradition. First, form criticism asserted that
the Synoptic Gospels are a mix of earlier oral traditions and later inter-
pretive traditions of the early Christians, the latter of which are observ-
able through the narrative framework of the written Gospels. One can
identify this assumption in the following oft-quoted statement from
Bultmann, in which he affirms Wrede and opens the door for redaction
criticism: “Mark is the work of an author who is steeped in the theology
of the early Church, and who ordered and arranged the traditional
material that he received in the light of the faith of the early Church.”19
The impact of the early Church on the shape of the oral tradition
began before it reached Mark, however. “The process of the editing of the
material of the tradition was beginning already before it had been fixed in
a written form” and the composition of the Gospels “involves nothing in

17. Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans. Bertram Lee Woolf; SL 124;
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934): “The company of unlettered people which
expected the end of the world any day had neither the capacity nor the inclination
for the production of books, and we must not predicate a true literary activity in the
Christian Church of the first two to three decades. The materials which have been
handed down to us in the Gospels lived in these decades an unliterary life or had
indeed as yet no life at all” (9); and again, “We must assume unliterary beginnings of
a religious unpretentious ‘literature’ ” (39); see also p. 5. In entertaining the idea that
the Gospel narratives formed in Aramaic rather than Greek, Dibelius rejects it out of
hand on the same grounds: “For in this case we shall have to assume even for the
earliest Christian generation a certain literary activity—and that is out of the
question” (234).
18. Ibid., 3: “The position taken by the evangelists in forming the literary
character of synoptic tradition is limited…[to] the choice, the limitation, and the
final shaping of material, but not with the original moulding.”
1
19. Bultmann, History, 1.
 2. Jesus Tradition, Memory 33

principle new, but only completes what was begun in the oral tradition.”20
These statements reveal a second important assumption of form
criticism. The form critics assumed an evolutionary development of the
gospel tradition whereby the earliest oral tradition absorbed elements of
the early Church’s faith on an inevitable path towards the tradition’s
textualization.21
Third, as is clear, form criticism assumes that the interpretations of
Jesus in the written Jesus tradition came from later Christians, not the
earliest stage(s) of oral tradition. This assumption is clear in the quota-
tions from Bultmann above, the aforementioned argument of Dibelius
that the earliest Palestinian Christians lacked the literary sensitivity to be
responsible for the Gospel narratives, and perhaps most clearly in the
crucial role of the early Christian Sitz im Leben (“life situation”) in the
form-critical model. The Sitz im Leben was not a historical event per se,
but a familiar set of circumstances in early Christian communities that
called forth the development of the specific forms.22 The form critics
assumed that, in contrast to the literary goals of the authors of the written
Gospels, the impetus for the shaping of the oral Jesus tradition was early
Christian existence itself (that is, the life situations) and particularly the
missionary activity of preaching.23 The transmission process thus took
the shape of clusters of traditions with similar emphases and themes,
organized into/by forms that met different kerygmatic needs in the life of
early Christians.24 In the words of Bultmann, “Every literary category has
its ‘life situation’ (Sitz im Leben…) whether it be worship in its different
forms, or work, or hunting, or war.”25 Further, “It is only possible to
understand [the Synoptic tradition’s] forms and categories in connection
with their ‘life situation’, i.e. the influences at work in the life of the
community.”26

20. Ibid., 321 (cf. also p. 163, where he claims the I-sayings “were predominantly
the work of the Hellenistic Church, though a beginning had already been made in
the Palestinian Church”). Also, Dibelius, From Tradition, 3 (quoted in n. 18, above).
21. Similarly, Terence C. Mournet, “The Jesus Tradition as Oral Tradition,” in
Kelber and Byrskog, eds., Jesus in Memory, 47.
22. Bultmann, History, 4.
23. Dibelius, From Tradition, 13, 37; also p. 8: “The ultimate origin of the Form is
primitive Christian life itself.” Similarly, and explicitly following Dibelius, Bultmann,
History, 4.
24. Dibelius, From Tradition, 13–14: “Thus the things that were remembered
automatically took on a definite form, for it is only when such matters have received
a form that they are able to bring about repentance and gain converts.”
25. Bultmann, History, 4.
1
26. Ibid.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
In reply to your Lordship's letter of the 25th instant, I have the
honour to acquaint you, by the direction of His Royal Highness the
Commander-in-chief, that nothing has transpired, further than what
the public journals contain, respecting the fate of Captain Ronald
Stuart, of the Gordon Highlanders. But, if that unfortunate officer
does not rejoin his regiment at Cork before the next muster-day, he
must be superseded.

I have the honour to be,

My Lord, &c. &c.
HENRY TORRENS,
Mil Sec."

"Right Hon. Lord Lisle,

of Inchavon."

Alice wrung her hands, and wept in all the abandonment of woe.
The last reed she had leant on had snapped—her last hope was
gone, and she knew that she should never behold Ronald more. The
next muster-day (then the 24th of every month) arrived; and, as
being still "absent without leave," he was superseded, and his name
appeared no longer on the list of the regiment. It was sad
intelligence for his friends in Perthshire; but it was upon one gentle-
loving and timid heart, that this sudden stroke fell most heavily. Poor
Alice! she grew very sad, and long refused to be comforted. As a
drowning man clings to straws, so clung Alice to every hope and
chance of Ronald's return, until the letter of Sir Henry Torrens drove
her from her last stronghold.
Days rolled on and became weeks, and weeks rolled on to
months, and in her own heart the poor girl was compelled to
acknowledge or believe, what her friends had long concluded, that
Ronald Stuart was numbered with the dead. It was a sad blow to
one whose joyous heart had been but a short time before full almost
to overflowing with giddy and romantic visions of love and
happiness. Under this severe mental shock she neither sickened nor
died, and yet she felt as deeply and poignantly as mortal woman
could suffer.
Few or none, perhaps, die of love or of sorrow, whatever poets
and interested romancers may say to the contrary. But as this is not
the work of the one or the other, but a true memoir or narrative, the
facts must be told, however contrary to rule, or to the expectation of
my dear readers.
In course of time the sorrow of Alice Lisle became more
subdued, the bloom returned to her faded cheek, and she used to
laugh and smile,—but not as of old. She was never now heard to
sing, and the sound of her harp or piano no more awoke the echoes
of the house. She was content, but far from being happy. When
riding or rambling about with Virginia or Louis, she could never look
down from the mountains on the lonely tower and desert glen of Isla
without symptoms of the deepest emotion, and she avoided every
path that led towards the patrimony of the Stuarts.
But a good example of philosophy and resignation under woe
was set before her by her servant, Jessie Cavers. That young
damsel, finding that she had lost Evan Iverach beyond the hope of
recovery, instead of spoiling her bright eyes in weeping for his death,
employed them successfully in looking for a successor to his vacant
place. She accordingly accepted the offers of Jock Nevermiss, the
gamekeeper, whose coarse shooting-jacket and leather spats had
been for a time completely eclipsed by the idea of Iverach's scarlet
coat and gartered hose.
The old Earl of Hyndford came down again in the shooting
season, and renewed his attentions to Alice; but with no better
success than before,—much to his amazement. He deemed that her
heart, being softened by grief, would the more readily receive a new
impression. He quitted Inchavon-house, and, in a fit of spleen and
disappointment, set off on a continental ramble, acting the
disconsolate lover with all his might.
Louis, leaving Virginia at Inchavon with his sister, rejoined the
Highlanders at Fermoy, and in a week thereafter had the pleasure to
obtain a "company."
The Highlanders were daily expecting the route for their native
country, but were again doomed to be disappointed. They were
ordered to Flanders,—to the "Lowlands of Holland," where Scottish
valour has been so often triumphant in the times of old, for the
flames of war had broken forth again with renewed fury.

CHAPTER VI.
THE TORRE DE LOS FRAYLES.
 "Thought's fantastic brood
Alone is waking; present, past, and future,
Wild mis-shaped hope and horrible rememb'rings,
Now rise a hideous and half-viewless chaos
To fancy's vision, till the stout heart fails
At its own prospect."
The Hermit of Roselva.

When Ronald found himself helplessly and, as he thought,

irrecoverably immured in the Torre de los Frayles, and surrounded by
a band of the most merciless and desperate ruffians conceivable,—
defenceless, in their power, and secluded among the wildest
fastnesses of the Spanish Pyrenees, his heart sickened at the
hopelessness of his prospects. His life depended entirely on the will
and pleasure of his captors, and he felt all that acute agony of spirit
of which a brave man is susceptible when reflecting that he might
perish like a child in their hands, helpless and unrevenged. He was
conducted to a desolate apartment, to which light was admitted by a
couple of loop-holes, which, being destitute of glass, gave free
admittance to the cold air of the mountains.
Excepting an antique table and chair, the room was destitute of
furniture, and Ronald was compelled to repose on the stone-flagged
floor, with no other couch than a large ragged mantle, which a
renegade priest, one of thousands whom the war had unfrocked,
lent him, offering, at the same time, indulgently to hear his
confession. Ronald glanced at the long dagger and brass-barrelled
pistols which garnished the belt of the ci-devant padre, and, smiling
sourly, begged to be excused, saying that he had nothing to confess,
saving his disgust for his captors, and the sense he felt of Spanish
ingratitude.
"Morte de Dios!" swore the incensed priest as he departed, "you
are an incorrigible heretic. Feeding you, is feeding what ought to be
burned; and I would roast you like a kid, but for that meddling ape
Gaspar!"
By order of the last-named worthy, who appeared to be the
acknowledged leader, a sentinel was placed at the door of the
apartment, which was well secured on the outside to prevent
Ronald's escape. At the same time Alosegui, who said he wished to
be friendly to a brother capitan, gave him a screw of a peculiar
construction, with which he could strongly secure his door on the
inside—a necessary precaution when so formidable an enemy as
Narvaez Cifuentes was within a few feet of him. Having secured the
entrance as directed, he rolled himself up in the cloak of the pious
father,—but not to sleep, for dawn of day found him yet awake,
cursing his untoward fortune, and revolving, forming, and rejecting a
thousand desperate plans to escape. Even when, at last, he did drop
into an uneasy sleep or dreamy doze, he was quickly aroused by the
twangling of guitars and uproar of a drunken chorus in the next
apartment, where the padre was trolling forth a ditty, which, a few
years before, would have procured him a lodging for life in the
dungeons of the terrible Inquisition.
To Stuart, his present situation appeared now almost
insupportable. He sprang to the narrow loop-holes, and made a long
and acute reconnoisance of the country round about, especially in
the neighbourhood of the robbers' den, and he became aware that
escape, without the concurrence of Alosegui or some of his
followers, was utterly impracticable. The tower was perched, like an
eagle's nest, on the very verge of a perpendicular cliff, some
hundred yards in height, and a chasm, dark and apparently
bottomless, separated the tower from the other parts of the
mountain, or, I may say, the land, as it hung almost in the air. At
every pass of the hills leading to the narrow vale where it was
situated, a well-armed and keen-eyed scout kept watchful guard, for
the double purpose of giving alarm in case of danger, or warning
when any booty appeared in sight. The bottom of the valley which
the tower overlooked was covered with rich copse-wood, among
which wound, like a narrow stripe of crystal, a mountain stream, a
tributary of the Bidassoa,—the way to the West.
About noon he was visited by Gaspar Alosegui, with whom he
was ceremoniously invited to take breakfast; and yielding to the
cravings of appetite, he unhesitatingly accepted the proposal, and
sat down at the same table with four fellows, who, Gaspar told him,
were the greatest cut-throats and most expert bravoes in Spain. The
apartment in which they sat was a dilapidated hall, which bore no
distant resemblance to the one at Lochisla, save that its roof was
covered with carved stone pendants and grim Gothic faces, among
which hung branches of grapes or raisins, nets of Portugal onions,
bags of Indian corn, and other provender; and the floor was strewed
with mule-pannels, saddles, arms of all sorts, towards which Ronald
glanced furtively from time to time, and countless bales, barrels,
wineskins, &c. like a merchant's storehouse.
Ronald got through his repast without offending any of the
dagger-grasping rogues; but he was so much disgusted with their
language and brutality of manner, that in future he resolved to eat
by himself, at all risks. Narvaez, with a strong party under his
command, was absent, to watch for a train of mules in the
neighbourhood of Roncesvalles, and Ronald was therefore relieved
from his hateful presence. Gaspar assembled the remainder of the
band in solemn conclave, to consult about the ransom of Stuart.
When the latter, who stood near Alosegui's chair, looked around him
upon the ruffian assemblage, and beheld so many dark, ferocious,
and black-bearded faces, he felt that, among such men, his life was
not worth a quarto.
The amount of the ransom had been fixed on the preceding
evening. When Alosegui inquired where the Condé de Villa Franca
then resided, no one could say any thing with certainty about it, but
all supposed him to be at Madrid. In support of this supposition, the
soi-disant padre produced, from the crown of his sugar-loaf hat, a
ragged number of "El Español," at least three months old, well worn
and frayed, and which he carried about him for gun-wadding. In one
of the columns, the arrival of Don Alvaro and his countess appeared
among the fashionable intelligence. To Madrid, therefore, it was
resolved that Ronald should despatch a letter, the bearer of which
should be Juan de la Roca, who, for cunning and knavery, was
equal, if not infinitely superior, to Lazarillo de Tormes, of happy
memory. His travelling expenses were also to be defrayed, fully and
amply, before the captive would be released. To save time, for it was
a long way to Madrid, Ronald proposed to communicate with the
British consuls at Passages or Bayonne; but the proposition was at
once negatived by a storm of curses and a yell of dissatisfaction
from the banditti, while, waving his hand, Alosegui acquainted him
sternly, that it was inconsistent with their safety or intentions to
permit his corresponding with the consul at either of these places, as
some strenuous and unpleasant means might be taken to release
him unransomed. And before they would proceed farther in the
business, the wily bandidos compelled him to pledge his solemn
word of honour as a cavalier and soldier, that he would not attempt
to escape,—a pledge which, it may be imagined, he gave with the
utmost reluctance. While his bosom was swelling with rage and
regret, Ronald seated himself at the table and wrote to Alvaro,
praying that he would lend him the sum the thieves required, and
setting forth that his life was forfeited in case of a refusal. Seldom
has a letter been indited under such circumstances. While he wrote,
a Babel of tongues resounded in his ear,—all swearing and
quarrelling about the delay, and proposing that cold steel or a swing
over the rocks should cut the matter short, as it was very doubtful
whether the Count de Villa Franca would ever send so large a sum of
money. But Gaspar's voice of thunder silenced their murmurs.
"I will drink the heart's blood of any man who opposes or
disobeys my orders," cried he, striking the rude table with his mighty
fist. "I am a man of honour, and must keep my word, par Diez! Hark
you, my comrades; again I tell you, that for three months the life of
the prisoner is as sacred as if he were an abbot."
"Three months!" thought Ronald bitterly. "In three months, but
for this cursed misfortune, I might have been the husband of Alice
Lisle."
The letter to Don Alvaro was sealed by Ronald's own seal,
(which one of the band was so obliging as to lend him for the
occasion,) and placed in the hand of Juan de la Roca.
 "Adios, señor! adios, vaga!" said the young thief with an
impudent leer, and presenting his hand to Ronald at his departure.
"Remember, señor, that for your sake, I lose the chance of winning
one of the sweetest prizes in Spain."
"How, Señor Juan?" replied Stuart, bestowing on him a keen
glance of contempt.
"A girl, to be sure, a fair girl we captured near Maya," said Juan
sulkily; "and I am half tempted to cast your despatch to the winds."
"Come, Juan, we must part friends at least," said Ronald, willing
to dissemble when he remembered how much his fate lay in the
power of this young rascal. He gave him his hand, and they parted
with a show of urbanity, which was probably affected on both sides.
In a few minutes he beheld him quit the Friars' Tower, and
depart on his journey mounted on a stout mule, and so much
disguised that he scarcely knew him. His ragged apparel had been
replaced by the smart attire of a student, and was all of becoming
black velvet. A large portfolio was slung on his back, to disguise him
more, and support the character which he resolved to bear as a
travelling artista. He was a very handsome young fellow, and his
features were set off by his broad sombrero and the black feathers
which vanity had prompted him to don. A black silk mantle dangled
for ornament from his shoulders, while one more coarse and ample
was strapped to the bow of his mule's pannel. He had a pair of
holsters before him, and wore a long poniard in his sash: altogether,
he had very much the air of a smart student of Salamanca or Alcala.
From a window Ronald anxiously watched the lessening form of this
messenger of his fate, as he urged his mule down the steep
windings of the pathway to the valley; and a thousand anxieties, and
alternate hopes and doubts distracted him, as he thought of the
dangers that beset the path of his ambassador, of the lengthened
duration and possible result of his expedition.
In no country save Spain could the dreadful atrocities
perpetrated by the wretches into whose hands Ronald had fallen,
have been permitted in the nineteenth century. A day never passed
without the occurrence of some new outrage, and many were acted
under his own observation. On one occasion the band captured an
aged syndic of Maya, who had made himself particularly obnoxious
by executing some of the gang. His captors, to refine on cruelty, tore
out his eyes and turned him away on the mountains in a
tempestuous night, desiring him to return to his magistracy, and be
more merciful to cavaliers of fortune in future.
An unfortunate medico of Huarte, who was journeying on a
mule across the mountains from St. Juan de Luz, where he had been
purchasing a store of medicines, fell into their clutches somewhere
near the rock of Maya. He could procure no ransom: many who
owed him long bills, and whom he rescued from the jaws of death
by the exercise of his art, and to whom his messenger applied,
would send him no answer, being very well pleased, probably, to be
rid of a troublesome creditor. One of the band being seriously ill, the
life of the medico was to be spared if he cured him. The bandit
unluckily died, and the doom of his physician was sealed. It was
abruptly announced to him that he must die, and by his own
weapons, as Gaspar informed him. The unhappy son of Esculapius
prayed hard that his life might be spared, and promised that he
would dwell for the remainder of his days in the Torre de los Frayles,
—to spare him, for he was a very old man, and had many things to
repent of. But his tyrants were inexorable. After being confessed
with mock religious solemnity by Gorgorza de la Puente, he was
compelled to swallow every one of his own drugs, which he did with
hideous grimaces and trembling limbs, amidst the uproarious
laughter and cruel jests of his destroyers, who beheld him expire
almost immediately after finishing the nauseous dose they had
compounded, and then consigned his body to that charnel-house,
the chasm before the doorway of their pandemonium.
Several months elapsed—months which to Ronald appeared like
so many centuries, for he had awaited in almost hourly expectation
the arrival of some intelligence from Madrid; but the dreary days
lagged on, and his heart began to lose hope. Juan de la Roca
appeared to have travelled slowly. Letters were received from him by
Alosegui, at different times, by the hands of certain muleteers and
contrabandistas, who, on passing the mountains, always paid a
regular sum as toll to the banditti, whom, for their own sakes, they
were glad to conciliate so easily. These despatches informed the
thieves of Juan's progress; but they often cursed the young rascal,
and threatened vengeance for his tardiness and delay. But Juan, by
exercising his ingenuity as a cut-purse, pick-pocket, cloak-snatcher,
and gambler, contrived to keep himself in a constant supply of cash;
and he seemed determined to enjoy to the utmost the short term of
liberty allowed him. At last he disappeared. His companions in crime
heard of him no more; but whether he had been poniarded in some
brawl, sent to the galleys, or made off with Stuart's ransom-money,
remained a mystery. The last appeared to the banditti to be the
most probable cause for his non-appearance, and their curses were
loud and deep.
 Stuart now found that his life was in greater jeopardy than
before. Alosegui proposed to him to take the vows, and join the
banditti as a volunteer in their next marauding expedition; and
added, that if he would take pains to conciliate the good-will of the
lieutenant, the Señor Narvaez, and distinguish himself, he might be
promoted in the band. Alosegui made this proposal with his usual
dry sarcastic manner; and although Ronald, who was in no humour
to be trifled with, rejected the strange offer of service with as much
scorn and contempt as he could muster, he saw, on second
thoughts, that for his own safety a little duplicity was absolutely
necessary. He affected to have doubts, and craved time to think of
the matter, intending, if once well-armed, free of the tower, and with
his feet on the free mountainside, to fight his way off, or to die
sword in hand.
But he was saved from the dishonour of even pretending to be
their comrade for a single hour, because, in a very short space of
time, a most unlooked-for change of politics took place at Torre de
los Frayles.
A train of muleteers about to depart from Elizondo for France or
the lower part of the Pyrenees, sent forward one of their number to
the robbers' den to pay the toll. The mule-driver was made right
welcome. The banditti found it necessary to cultivate to the utmost
the friendship of these travelling merchants, with whom they
trafficked and bartered, exchanging goods and valuables for money,
clothing, arms, and ammunition, supplies of which were regularly
brought them, and accounts were balanced in the most exact and
business-like manner.
 The envoy from Elizondo had transacted his business, and been
furnished with Alosegui's receipt and pass, formally signed and
marked with a cross; but he seemed in no hurry to depart, and
remaining, drank and played at chess and dominoes for some hours
with the thieves, who were, scouts excepted, generally all within
their garrison in the day-time.
Ronald knew that a messenger from a train of mules was in his
place of confinement; but as visits of this kind in no way concerned
him, he had ascended to the summit of the tower, and there paced
to and fro, watching anxiously as usual the long dim vista of the
valley, with the expectation of seeing Juan de la Roca, on his grey
mule, wending his way towards the Tower of the Friars. He would
have hailed with joy the return of this young rogue as a delivering
angel; but such a length of time had now elapsed since his
disappearance that, in Ronald's breast, hope began gradually to give
way to despair; and when he remembered Alice, his home, and his
forfeited commission, his brain almost reeled with madness. Shading
his eyes from the hot glare of the noon-day sun, he was looking
intently down the long misty vale which stretched away to the
westward, when he was roused by some one touching him on the
shoulder.
He turned about, and beheld the round and good-humoured
face of Lazaro Gomez, fringed, as of old, with its matted whiskers
and thick scrub beard.
"Lazaro Gomez, my trusty muleteer of Merida! how sorry I am
to see you in this devil's den."
"Señor, indeed you have much reason to be very happy, if you
knew all."
 "How, Gomez?"
"Hush, señor! Speak softly: you will know all in good time. I
came hither to pay the toll for my comrades, who at present keep
themselves close in Elizondo for fear of our friends in this damnable
tower; and there they must remain until I return. By our Lady of
Majorga, but I am glad to see you, señor! As I say now to my
brother Pedro, Señor Caballero, allow me to have the honour of
shaking hands with you?"
Stuart grasped the huge horny hand of the honest muleteer and
shook it heartily, feeling a sensation so closely akin to rapture and
delight, that he could almost have shed tears. It was long since he
had shaken the hand of an honest man, or looked on other visages
than those of dogged, sullen, and scowling ruffians. At that moment
Stuart felt happy; it was so agreeable to have kind intercourse, even
with so humble a friend, after the five months he had passed in the
dreary abode of brutality and crime.
"And why, Lazaro, do you address your brother, the sergeant, so
formally?"
"Ah, señor! Pedro is a great man now! He is no longer a humble
trooper, to pipe-clay his belts and hold his captain's bridle. By his
sword he has carved out a fair name for himself, and a fair fortune
likewise. He led three assaults against Pampeluna, like a very valiant
fool as he is, and was three times shot through the body for his
trouble. Don Carlos de España, a right noble cavalier, embraced him
before the whole line of the Spanish army, and appointed him a
cornet in Don Alvaro's troop of lancers. The next skirmish with the
enemy made him a lieutenant, knight of Santiago, and of the most
valiant order of "the Band." Don Alvaro has also procured him a
patent of nobility, which he always carries in his sash, lest any one
should unpleasantly remind his nobleness that he is the eldest son of
old Sancho Gomez the alguazil, who dwelt by the bridge of Merida."
"I rejoice at his good fortune."
"But I have not told you all, señor," continued the gossiping
muleteer. "A rich young widow of Aranjuez, the Condéssa de
Estramera, fell in love with him, when one day he commanded a
guard at the palace of Madrid. An old duenna was employed—letters
were carried to and fro—meetings held in solitary places; and the
upshot was, that the condessa bestowed her fair hand, with a
fortune of—of—the holy Virgin knows how many thousand ducats,
upon my most happy rogue of a brother. Lieutenant Don Pedro
Gomez, of the lancers of Merida; and now they live like a prince and
princess."
"Happy Pedro! The condessa is beautiful; I have seen her,
Lazaro."
"Plump Ignesa, the chamber-maid at the posada of Majorga, is
more to my mind. I never could relish your stately donnas, with their
high combs and long trains. This condessa is niece of that prince of
rogues, the Duke of Alba de T——, who was killed in the service of
Buonaparte: but Pedro cares not for that."
"In the history of his good fortune you see the advantage of
being a soldier, Lazaro."
"With all due respect to your honourable uniform, which I am
sorry to see so tattered, señor, I can perceive no advantage in being
a soldier—none at all, par Diez! I envy Pedro not the value of a
maravedi. He has served and toiled, starved and bled, in the war of
independence, like any slave, rather than a soldier."
 "So have I, Lazaro," said Stuart; "and these rags, and
confinement here for five months, have been my reward."
The muleteer snapped his fingers, then gave a very knowing
wink, and was about to whisper something; but, observing one of
the banditti watching, he continued talking about his brother.
"Ay, like any poor slave, señor; and has more shot-holes in his
skin than I have bell buttons on my jacket. And now, when the war
is over, he has still a troublesome game to play in striving to please
his hot-headed commanding-officer and lady wife, whom it would be
considered a mortal sin to baste with a buff strap, as I may do
Ignesa when she becomes my helpmate and better half. Pedro's
honours weigh heavily upon him, and he has many folks to please;
whereas I have none to humour save myself, and perhaps that
stubborn jade Capitana, my leading mule, or Ignesa of Majorga, who
gets restive, too, sometimes, and refuses to obey either spur or
bridle. But my long whip, and a smart rap from my cajado, soothe
the mule, and my sweet guitar and merry madrigal, the maiden. I
am a thousand times happier than Pedro! I never could endure
either domestic or military control, and would rather be Lazaro
Gomez, with his whip and his mules, than the stately king of the
Spanish nation. I have the bright sun, the purple wine, my cigar, and
the red-cheeked peasant-girls to kiss and dance with,—and what
would mortal man have more? Bueno!"
He concluded by throwing himself into an attitude, and
flourishing his sombrero round his head with a theatrical air. Ronald
smiled; but he thought that, notwithstanding all this display, and
Lazaro's frequent assertions that he was happier than Pedro, a little
envy continued to lurk in a corner of his merry and honest heart.
 "But has Pedro never done aught for you, Lazaro, in all his good
fortune?" asked Ronald.
"Oh, señor! his lady wife, disliking that her brother-in-law should
be treading a-foot over sierra and plain at a mule's tail, gave me the
post of Escrivano del Numero at Truxillo, which I kept for somewhere
about eight weeks. But I always grew sad when I heard the merry
jangle of mules' bells; and one morning, unable to restrain myself
longer, I tossed my Escrivano's cope and rod to Satanas, seized my
whip and sombrero, and once more took to the road as a merry-
hearted muleteer of Merida, and neither Pedro nor the condessa
have been able to catch me since."
"I am happy to find you are such a philosopher," said Ronald,
with a sigh, which was not unnoticed by the muleteer.
"I could say that, Señor Caballero, which would make you far
happier," said he, with a glance of deep meaning. "But," he added,
pointing to the armed bandit, who kept a look-out on the bartizan
near them, "but there are unfriendly ears near us."
"Speak fearlessly, Lazaro!" said Ronald eagerly, while his heart
bounded with expectation. "I know that rascal to be a Guipuscoan,
who understands as little of pure Castilian as of Greek. In heaven's
name, Lazaro, what have you to tell me? I implore you to speak!"
"Señor," said the muleteer, lowering his voice to a whisper, "you
have thrice asked me about Don Alvaro, and I have thrice delayed to
tell you what I know: good news should be divulged cautiously. Well,
señor, the famous cavalier of Estremadura has encamped three
hundred horse and foot among the mountains near Elizondo. He
comes armed with a commission from the king, and his minister Don
Diego de Avallo, to root out and utterly destroy this nest of wasps,
or cientipedoros. The place is to be assailed about midnight; so look
well to yourself, señor, that the villains do not poniard you in the
fray; and, if you have any opportunity to aid us, I need not ask you
to do so. I am to be Don Alvaro's guide, as I know every foot of
ground hereabout as well as I do at Merida, having paid toll here
twenty times. But this will be my last visit of the kind; and I came
hither only to reconnoitre and learn their pass-word, in case it
should be needed. Keep a brave spirit in your breast for a few hours
longer, señor, and perhaps, when the morning sun shines down the
long valley yonder, Alosegui and his comrades will be hanging round
the battlement, like beads on a chaplet. I pray to the Santa Gadea of
Burgos that the night be dark, that we may the more easily take the
rogues by surprise."
Ronald's astonishment and joy at the sudden prospect of
liberation revealed to him by Lazaro Gomez, deprived him of the
power of utterance for a time. He was about to display some
extravagant signs of pleasure, and to embrace the muleteer, when
the keen cold glance of the Guipuscoan bandit, who was watching
them narrowly, recalled him to a sense of his danger. He almost
doubted the reality of the story, and narrowly examined the broad
countenance of the burly muleteer; but truth and honesty were
stamped on every line of it. The horizon of Ronald's fortune was
about to clear up again. He felt giddy—almost stunned with the
suddenness of the intelligence, and his heart bounded with the
wildest exultation at the prospect of speedy liberty, and of
vengeance for the thousands of insults to which he had been
subjected while a prisoner in the Torre de los Frayles.
 When Lazaro departed, Stuart gave him the only token he could
send to Don Alvaro,—a button of his coat, bearing a thistle and the
number "92." He desired him to acquaint the cavalier that it would
be requisite to provide planks to cross the chasm before the tower,
otherwise the troops would fail to take its inmates by surprise.
This advice was the means of saving Stuart's life at a very
critical juncture.

CHAPTER VII.
SPANISH LAW.

"Hard the strife, and sore the slaughter,

But I won the victory,—
Thanks to God, and to the valour
Of Castilian chivalry."
The Cid Rodrigo.

As nearly as Ronald could judge by the position of the sun,—being

without a watch,—it was about the hour of three in the afternoon
when Lazaro departed.
It was yet nine hours to midnight, and although that time
seemed an age to look forward to, yet so full was his mind of joy,
and crowding thoughts of gladness, hopes, and fears, that evening
surprised him long before he imagined it to be near; and he had
much ado in preserving his usual cold and serene look, and
concealing the tumult of new ideas which excited him from the
insolent bravoes, who were continually swaggering about, and,
according to their usual wont, jostling him rudely at every corner
and place where he encountered them. To remonstrate would have
been folly, and to these petty annoyances he always submitted
quietly.
On this last eventful evening he submitted to the penance of
dining at the same table with the banditti, and even condescended
to 'trouble' his friend the padre for a piece of broiled kid; but, as
soon as the repast was ended, he withdrew to the tower-head. He
preferred to be alone, almost dreading that his important secret
might be read by Alosegui, Cifuentes, or any other who bent his
scowling and lack-lustre eyes upon him.
At times, too, there came into his mind a doubt of the truth of
Lazaro's story; but that idea was too sickening to bear, and he
dismissed it immediately.
The sun had set. Masses of dun clouds covered the whole sky,
which gradually became streaked with crimson and gold to the
westward, where the rays of the sun yet illumined and coloured the
huge mountains of vapour, although his light was fast leaving the
earth.
The appearance of the sky and aspect of the scenery were
wonderful and glorious. The whole landscape was covered with a red
hue, as if it had been deluged by a red shower. The mountain
streamlet wound through the valley of the Torre de los Frayles, like a
long gilded snake, towards the base of a dark mountain, where
appeared part of the Bidassoa, gleaming under the warm sky like a
river of liquid fire. Beautiful as the scene was, Ronald seemed too
much occupied with his own stirring thoughts to admire it, or to
survey any part with curiosity, save that which, by gradually
assuming a more sombre hue, announced the approach of night. It
was not easy for him to observe a landscape with an artist's eye,
while placed in the predicament in which he then found himself.
He remembered, with peculiar bitterness, the countless
mortifications and insults which he had received from Alosegui, the
padre, and many others, and he contemplated with gloomy pleasure
the display which these master-rogues would make when receiving,
by the cord or the bullet, the just reward of all their enormities. He
remembered with pleasure that he had never broken the parole of
honour he had pledged to these miscreants,—and truly he had been
sorely tempted. Owing to their irregular and dissipated course of life,
more than one opportunity of escape and flight had presented itself.
"I expect a storm to-night, señor," said Gaspar, breaking in
abruptly on his meditations.
"Indeed, señor!"
The other swore a mighty oath, which I choose not to repeat.
"San Stephana el Martir! si, señor,—and no ordinary storm either.
We shall miss our prize of a rich hidalgo of Alava, who, with an
escort of twenty armed men, would have departed to-night from a
posada a few miles from this, and meant to bivouac at a place on
the hill-side, of which the inn-keeper, who is an old friend of mine,
sent us all due notice. Look you: hombre! the sky grows dark almost
while we look upon it, and the clouds, in masses of black and red,
descend on every side, like gloomy curtains, to shut out the sun
from our view, and the wind, which blows against our faces, seems
like the very breath of hell! Pooh! this is just such a night as one
might expect to see our very good friend the devil abroad."
"He is no friend of mine, Señor Alosegui, although he may be a
particular one of yours," said Ronald with a smile.
"By the holy house of Nazareth!" swore the bandit, "you may
come to a close acquaintance with him after you have served for a
time, as I expect you shall, in our honourable company."
"Well; but what of the storm?" asked Ronald, more interested
about that, and unwilling to quarrel with his captor when there was
so near a prospect of release. "What leads you to suppose there will
be one to-night?"
"These few rain-drops now falling are large and round; hark,
how they splash on the battlement! The valley, the sierra, the tower,
the river, and every thing bear a deep saffron tint, partaking of the
hue of the troubled sky. Santos! we shall have a storm roaring
among the mountains and leaping along the valleys to-night, which
will cause the old droning monks at Maya to grow pale as they look
upon each other's fat faces, and while they mumble their aves,
count their beads, and bring forth the morsel of the true cross to
scare away Satanas and his imps of evil. By-the-by, speaking of
Maya reminds me of your case, señor. A train of mules, which
crossed the Pyrenees without paying us our customary toll, are on
their return homeward from Bayonne to Maya, laden with the very
best of all the good things this world affords for the use of the pious
and abstaining fathers of the convent of Saint Francis. Forty men,
commanded by Narvaez Cifuentes, will set out to-morrow to meet
our friends in the Pass of Maya, and a sharp engagement will
probably take place. A priest is with them; on his shoulder he bears
the banner of Saint Francis of Assissi, but if they imagine that we
hidalgos of fortune will respect it, the holy fathers are wofully
mistaken. The mules are escorted by a party of armed peasants,
commanded by an old acquaintance of Gorgorza, the padre Porko,
who is as brave as the Cid, and has served with honour in the
guerilla bands during the war of independence. The muleteers are all
stout fellows, too, and being well armed with cajados, trabucas, and
long knives, will likely show fight,—and, truly, Narvaez will see some
sharp work. Now, hark you, señor; if you are willing to join him and
his brave companions, you will have an opportunity of making your
first essay as a cavalier of fortune under a very distinguished
commander. Do this, señor, and you will live among us honoured and
respected, as an equal, a friend, and a brave comrade. If you fall in
conflict, all is at an end; but if taken by the authorities, to suffer
martyrdom by the law on the gallows, the garrote, or the wheel,
then you will have the glory of dying amid a vast multitude, upon
whose sympathy the fame of your exploits will draw largely. You like
not my proposition? Well, señor caballero, I have to acquaint you
that I shall not be able to resist the fierce importunities of Narvaez
Cifuentes, and those who are his particular friends. Their poniards
are ready to leap from their scabbards against you now,—now that
all chance of your being ransomed has failed. I have a sort of
friendship for you, señor, because, instead of supplicating for life,
you have rather seemed to defy fearlessly the terrors of death; the
which stubborness of soul, if it wins not the pity, certainly excites the
admiration of the jovial picaros, my comrades. You are a fine fellow
over the chessboard or wine-cup, and your bearing would be
complete if you would follow the example of Cifuentes, and swear
and swagger a little at times. But you will acknowledge that the
flowing ease of action and expression which distinguishes that
accomplished cavalier, are difficult of imitation."
"I must confess they are, Señor Gaspar," replied Ronald, who
could scarcely help smiling at the other's manner, which had in it a
strange mixture of impudence, and part serious, part banter. "But I
have really no desire to become the pupil of your friend."
"As you please, amigo mio; as you please," replied Alosegui,
speaking slowly as he puffed at his cigar; for, like a true Spaniard, he
smoked from the time he opened his eyes in the morning till he
closed them again at night. "I once saw you perform the bandit to
the very life in the* Posada de los Representes* at Aranjuez, when
the British officers acted La Gitana, and some of Lope de Vega's
pieces, for the amusement of themselves and the ladies of the city.
You are a superb imitator, and, under the tuition of Narvaez, would,
I doubt not, fulfil my utmost expectations."
"The devil take Narvaez!" muttered Ronald, who was getting
impatient of Gaspar's style of speech.
"All in good time," said the other quietly. "You have been
enemies of old, I believe; some affair of rivalry, in which Cifuentes
was successful. I understand perfectly; but in our community among
the Pyrenees here, we have no such petty feelings of dislike.
However, señor," continued the robber, suddenly changing his
satirical tone for a stern and bullying one; "however, I would have
you to think well of all I have said, as I should be sorry to see your
bones cast into the vast depth of the chasm, to swell the grisly
company there. So give me a definite answer to-morrow, señor,
before Narvaez departs for Maya, or fatal results may ensue."
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com