Scriptural literacy

[Piggy]

I am not finding references to the Essenes as an "end-times cult". It appears that some would have been active in the court as seers, so they would have some regular contact with society and city-life(BTW could the Simon mentioned here by Josephus, be the same Simon mentioned in Luke 2:25-35?? ) and Josephus seems to describe them as....communists(well, not politically....). Where should I be looking?

Where can one find the writings of the Essenes? I would love to read their text...

Find yourself a copy of the complete Dead Sea Scrolls with commentary (they can be rather impenetrable without good commentary).

These were produced by the Essene community at Qumran. The excavations of the community site there, and the extensive scrolls, have produced new insights into the Essenes.

The Essenes, like the early Xians, thought that the Day of the Lord was imminent.

The Essenes at Qumran saw themselves as the final "remnant" of the true Israel, who would be the only ones remaining when the day of Wrath came and the wicked were annihilated as in Great Flood.

The reason for the extreme righteousness cited by Josephus was that they felt they had to be that strict in order to prove themselves righteous so they wouldn't be wiped out, too.

ETA: The man who proclaims Jesus' status as Messiah in the Temple is Simeon.

 

[Piggy]

You don't gain literacy over some piece of text by hearing bits of it read out in public.

An evasion, you doubted that the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament would be an "unfamiliar tongue" for New Testament writers. I asked you what languages you believed the writers of Luke, Matthew and John would be familiar with.

I answered that question.

Whoever composed the books of the gospels, they were -- for their time -- educated and literate men.

They would have known Greek, and if I'm not mistaken all indications are that all of the gospels were written in koine (a dialect of Greek).

They would have known Aramaic, which was the common lingua franca of their day.

And it's likely that Paul and Matthew, at least (I believe I incorrectly said Mark above), would have known Biblical Hebrew.

Paul was a Pharisee, so certainly he would have known Biblical Hebrew.

The gospels do appear to rely heavily on the Septuagint, but of course, in those days, there simply was no definitive version of the Septuagint, so it's likely that each gospel writer was working from a version which differed in some ways from the versions that the others were using.

 

[Robin]

Thge Bible clearly tells us that the Jews were biblically familiar witrh the OT.

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.


Acts 13:15
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 15:21
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anyone unfamiliar with this has absolutely no business posturing as biblically literate much less postiuring as a Bible critic. Otherwise his cover is soon-um exposed.

: )

As I said to Piggy, you don't become literate in some text by hearing bits of it read in public.

 

[Toke]

You don't gain literacy over some piece of text by hearing bits of it read out in public.

That is "litterary" true.

You overlook a couple things.

The people who wrote must have had acces to ink and parcement, so why not acces to older texts?
They were after all the intelectuals of their time.

You discount oral tradition, just because we don´t use it nowadays does not make it useless, or the people that relied on it less intelligent.

Njalds Saga (iceland) does mention the importance of having a good divorce lawyer.
How do you think the gaul druids discussed theology.

 

[Toke]

Robin, you might be confusing the bible and history.

 

[Robin]

That is "litterary" true.

I was using Radrook's term here. Hearing bits of a text read out cannot make one familiar with the whole text.

You overlook a couple things.

The people who wrote must have had acces to ink and parcement, so why not acces to older texts?
They were after all the intelectuals of their time.

I don't see how being an intellectual with access to writing materials would imply they had access to older texts. Any text, as I pointed out, would have been rare in the first part of the first millenium, never mind complete and reliable versions of the ancient Jewish sacred texts.

You discount oral tradition, just because we don´t use it nowadays does not make it useless, or the people that relied on it less intelligent.

I don't recall ever suggesting that oral tradition was useless or that people with an oral tradition are less intelligent. Please quote where I do.

 

[Robin]

Robin, you might be confusing the bible and history.

Please feel very free to quote anywhere that I have confused bible and history.

 

[Toke]

Oral tradition requires that you learn the whole text by heart.
That skill would have been more common in earlier times.
Having it read out bit by bit does not prevent you from memoricing the whole text.


Yes, texts were rare, so were litterates, that means fewer to share.
Are you saying that the texts read aloud in synagoues were so secret that no interrested parties were allowed to copy them?
The gideons have a different approach to holy texts.

Using bible quotes to descripe litteracy levels, accces to texts or anything else is not my idea of accurate history.

 

[Aitch]

As a (bit of) an illustration...

Back in the days when I went to church, two parts of the RC mass were "the Gospel" and "the Epistles". Basically, these were short readings (a couple of verses) from the NT. Usually for the priest to preach about in his sermon. Oh, and related the ecclesiastical calendar.

Is it possible that the readings referred to in previous posts were that sort of thing? Short extracts to provoke discussion or whatever?

 

[Robin]

I answered that question.

Whoever composed the books of the gospels, they were -- for their time -- educated and literate men.

They would have known Greek, and if I'm not mistaken all indications are that all of the gospels were written in koine (a dialect of Greek).

They would have known Aramaic, which was the common lingua franca of their day.

And it's likely that Paul and Matthew, at least (I believe I incorrectly said Mark above), would have known Biblical Hebrew.

Paul was a Pharisee, so certainly he would have known Biblical Hebrew.

So will you concede that ancient Hebrew would have been an unfamiliar tongue for at least some New Testament writers?

 

[Piggy]

As I said to Piggy, you don't become literate in some text by hearing bits of it read in public.

I think you underestimate the level of literacy in ancient Jewish communities, as well as the frequency with which the Hebrew texts were read.

 

[Piggy]

So will you concede that ancient Hebrew would have been an unfamiliar tongue for at least some New Testament writers?

Non-Jewish writers like Luke, who was Greek, would probably not have been familiar with Hebrew. By that time, Hebrew was not the everyday spoken language among Jews, but was consistently used in prayer, worship, and ceremony. So Paul would have known it, and Matthew, but it is unlikely that Luke would have ever learned it.

 

[Robin]

Oral tradition requires that you learn the whole text by heart.
That skill would have been more common in earlier times.
Having it read out bit by bit does not prevent you from memoricing the whole text.

I know of no evidence that the Jewish tradition ever required people to learn texts by heart or ever did so.

Are you saying that the texts read aloud in synagoues were so secret that no interrested parties were allowed to copy them?

I don't recall ever saying that the readings were secret, or even remotely implying anything of the sort.

OK, try something for me. Find a patient friend and ask him/her to read out the 66 chapters of Isaiah at a normal pace. Copy it down as he/she speaks.

How much did you get down? Even using modern writing equipment? And that is just Isaiah. What you are suggesting is just not feasible. It is entirely possible that many of the texts available were remembered from public readings, but those ones are fragmentary and unreliable.

Oral traditions require special skills and commitment. There are not really that many Muslims who know the Koran by heart. Homer's poetry was not memorised by all and sundry, but by a select few.

 

[Piggy]

You discount oral tradition, just because we don´t use it nowadays does not make it useless, or the people that relied on it less intelligent.

According to Schniedewind in "How the Bible Became a Book" (Cambridge U. Press, 2004), "Writing was an extension of the urbanization of the Judean state in the late eighth century. The evidence of archaeology and inscriptions suggests a spread of writing through all classes of society by the seventh century BCE in Judah." (Bolding mine)

However, during the exile, this pervasive literacy was lost.

During the 2nd Temple period, you saw a split between the Temple religion, controlled by Saducees and Scribes, which relied heavily on written text, and the rabbinical/Pharisaic tradition of the synagogues (village assemblies) which combined the use of the Temple-approved scrolls with locally used scrolls and oral traditions.

So in the synagogues, you would have had the recitation of the Hebrew texts along with more recent texts in Aramaic as well as purely oral prayers, poems, and stories passed down in Aramaic.

The Jesus movement was a rabbinical, but not Pharisaic, movement.

 

[Piggy]

Any text, as I pointed out, would have been rare in the first part of the first millenium, never mind complete and reliable versions of the ancient Jewish sacred texts.

Not necessarily.

The Essenes at Qumran, for instance, had an entire building set up for the reproduction of scrolls. It was one of their enterprises.

There's a reason why the Jews were called "the people of the book".

 

[Piggy]

Robin, can you remind me what the original issue was that was being discussed when the point was raised about the degree to which NT writers would have been familiar with the Hebrew Bible?

I've lost track.

Thanks.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oral tradition requires that you learn the whole text by heart.

No, actually the opposite. Oral tradition requires that you lern the whole story by heart, not a particular text. Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly. Research into oral story-telling traditions has shown that there are significant differences, rendition to rendition, despite the fact that the story-tellers report handing down the same exact story.

It is only with written texts that the idea of exact renditions even came into being. You cannot check how different one story rendition is from a previous telling in a purely oral society.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Jesus movement was a rabbinical, but not Pharisaic, movement.

I find myself fascinated by this simple statement and I must know more.

If the subject is not too extensive to be touched on within the reasonable limits of this forum, might you explain what was different between the rabbis and Pharisees and how they related to the Jesus movement? I have already made a note to acquire the book you've cited.

 

[Moochie]

I, for one, haven't spent anytime on theologian history except for reading from the bible, but this thread fascinates me and I don't presume anyone here to be Godless. I just hope Piggy, joobz, SK, MarkF, & Co. keep it going.

I second the above. It is interesting reading people who actually know what they're talking about. And appreciated.


M.

 

[Toke]

No, actually the opposite. Oral tradition requires that you lern the whole story by heart, not a particular text. Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly. Research into oral story-telling traditions has shown that there are significant differences, rendition to rendition, despite the fact that the story-tellers report handing down the same exact story.

It is only with written texts that the idea of exact renditions even came into being. You cannot check how different one story rendition is from a previous telling in a purely oral society.

I was thinking of the difference between a story and a text with chapter and verse.
The later should be easier to get right. It is also the form used for laws.
Ok, hard to tell how right.

Guess it is completely irrelevant if you can walk into the synagoe with pen and parcement and ask politely to copy the scrools during off hours.