It is often alleged that the Apostles of Jesus couldn’t have written the Gospels because they were illiterate. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, writes:
“The only explicit reference to their literacy comes in the book of Acts, which indicates that two of the chief disciples, Peter and John, were in fact illiterate (Acts 4:13). What about the others? There’s little reason to think the story was different for them.” (p. 107)
When people make such claims, we always need to examine their supporting evidence. In this case, Ehrman offers only one piece of evidence:
• Acts 4:13 – When they [the Sanhedrin] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled (“agrammatos” = “illiterate?”), ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
By itself, it’s hard to gauge what “agrammatos” means. It is only used one time in the NT. Therefore, we are restricted to deducing its meaning from the context, which I think argues decisively for “unschooled.”
Notice that this had been the assessment of the educated Sanhedrin, the ruling spiritual body of Israel. This body formed their opinion about Peter and John based upon what they “saw” and “realized” about them! They couldn’t see or gauge whether or not they were illiterate – they would have needed a written test to assess this – but they could see that the two were simple, “unschooled and ordinary men.” Clearly, these disciples weren’t graduates of the “University of Jerusalem.”
I am not aware of even one Bible translation that translates “agrammatos” as does Ehrman. Given the context, this is entirely unsurprising. Why then does Ehrman promote such a counter-evidential conclusion?
Even if the Apostles were illiterate, what was there to prevent them from dictating their Gospels to a scribe? Only the presuppositions of our present-day scholars!
The greek lexicon translates "agrammatos" as illiterate. It isn't Ehrman making the translation, it the Greek lexicon. I will agree that it cannot be said that all the apostles were illiterate. Peter and his brother Andrew, and James and his brother John, were fishermen, so they didn't need to read.
ReplyDeleteMatthew was a tax collector for the Roman occupiers, so he could probably read.
Simon the Zealot was a political activist, although that was not his 'profession' as such. So maybe he could read.
It is believed that Judas Iscariot was possibly involved in monetary matters as he was the purse-keeper for the disciples, so he could probably read.
As for the other five, the other Judas, the other James, Philip, Batholemew (also known as Thaddaeus) and Thomas no-one knows as their jobs are not mentioned in the Bible and there is insufficient evidence to speculate as to what they might have been. All in all, who could read and who could not read is not really the issue as much the issue is convenience, and affordability of writing tools. First, someone would have had to have sheep skin with them at all times. Seeing that the apostles spent most of their time following Jesus, they didn't have much money, and relyed on the kindness of strangers for lodging and food. Writing scroll while they walked wasn't something that could be done so easily, and while some could probably read or even write, that doesn't mean that they could take dictation on the fly while in the middle of a journey, or listening to a sermon. It probably more likely that everything was transcribed years after all the events had occurred, and thats only if the apostles actually wrote them. Seeing that the Gospel of John was transcribed 145 years after the events in question, I highly doubt the rest of the Gospels, which are not in possession, would have been much different. One has to question the validity of the canon though. If the Gospel of John was done in 145 AD, then how did John write it, especially seeing that Catholics believe he died in 100 ad. Yet the canon has not question the Gospel of Johns authenticity. Illiterate, maybe not, taking dictation on the fly, with writing supplys being readily available only to the rich, highly unlikely. Years ago, scholars thought the Gospel of John was done 65 years after, with new technology, they now know that it was actually 145 years after. The question is, how much does one remember after a hundred years? Are we really expected to believe that John completely recalled everything a hundred years later? I doubt it.
The relevant question is why the author of Luke include the incident in his story. I doubt that his point was to show that the Sanhedrin were unskilled in assessing educational levels. I think the point was to show how God could use even those who lacked the kind of learning that was esteemed among men. Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to translate the word as "illiterate."
ReplyDeleteVinny,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is reasonable to translate the word as illiterate, that still doesn't prove that they had the money, tools, and the skills necessary to take dictation on the fly. What should be question is, in light of the evidence that proves that the Gospel of John was in fact done over a hundred years after the events, how can we assume that the other Gospels were supposedly written by the apostles. Especially since John wasn't even alive when his Gospel was written. So if John didn't write his Gospel, who did? It makes more sense that a church would have included such an important detail like the one found in Luke. What doesn't make sense is a bunch of vagabonds walking around recording everything being said as it happens. I can't really see too many ancient Hebrews walking around with sheep skin notebooks early 1st century Bics. It makes more sense for the compositions to have taken place centuries later. This notion actually fits in with the unusual inclusion of the word "illiterate", in Luke.
Vinny and Dusk,
ReplyDeleteAs far as the purpose for this account – I would guess it was partially to demonstrate who “ordinary” “unschooled” hicks were empowered to speak so boldly and intelligently to the panel of experts, whereas before, they had been bumbling fools.
However, the immediate context is even more determinative regarding the translation of “agrammatos.” I’ve argued that “illiterate” just isn’t a possibility here, and every translator, with the apparent exception of B. Ehrman, seems to agree.
As far as the dating of the Gospel of John is concerned, even EHRMAN dates it 90-95 AD, still within the lifetime of the Apostle.
As I understand it, the literal meaning of "agrammatos" is "without letters." I cannot see how any context could remove "illiterate" as a possibility. "Unschooled" is simply a slightly less pejorative term since it implies that the reason for being unable to read is lack of opportunity rather than lack of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteVinny,
ReplyDelete"Illiterate" means that the Apostles couldn't have written the Gospels. However, "unschooled" and being "ordinary people" does not preclude this possibility. Since the Sanhedrin couldn't SEE whether the Apostles were illiterate (this requires a test), all interpreters seem to agree that they saw that these "ordinary" men lacked any sophistication, hence "unschooled."
Even by his own account, the Apostle Paul did not write all of his letters. So the whole argument seems spurious. Nevertheless, of the 10 English translations I checked, all seem to think "unschooled or uneducated is to be preferred to illiterate. And why would Luke suggest that these authors were illiterate when his point was to remark at the astonishment of the Sanhedrin regarding their boldness and ability to articulate their case, further emphasizing the communication skills of Peter and John. Again, as to the requirements of these guys to take shorthand, there is much mystery regarding these ancient documents. But first among my list, is how does an oral culture pass on its history -- its stories. It seems that comparing an internet culture with an oral one could lead to false assumptions. Did someone take notes in the Garden of Eden? Most of Scripture, it seems, was oral before it was written. But just as Christ was "the Word," God has his ways of getting "the Word" out. Blaise Pascal was mystified that the Jewish people so admired and revered a collection of writings that, over and over again, made them, as a people, look so bad.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Luke indicate that he thought that John and Peter were authors?
ReplyDeleteFirefly,
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get this from: "Even by his own account, the Apostle Paul did not write all of his letters"???
According to Strong's Greek Dictionary of the NT the word "agrammatos" is described using its root word, combined with the negative participle, giving us the word "illiterate" as the first definition. That is to say, "without letters". The word root “gramma” is of a bit more importance than Bart Ehrman's determination of its usage in Acts 4:13. The way the first century Jews understood "learning and letters" is of even more importance in looking at what Bart Ehrman ignores.
ReplyDeleteThe word "gramma" appears 15 times; 2 times as "bill", 7 times as "letters" - meaning written letters and usage of alphabet, 1 time as scripture, 1 time as learning, 5 times as written letter or writings. Altogether that is 7 instances of "gramma" being used as writing and learning.
Turning to how the first century Jews understood “learning and letters". What did it mean to a Jew to be "educated and trained"? There were formal schools of each sect of Judaism in the first century. We know of the schools of Hillel and Gamaliel, certainly there must have been others. Such schooling required money, standing in Jewish society in terms of belonging to the sect out of which the formal school stemmed. Fishermen could not be a Sadducees, or Pharisees. Men of learning and letters in first century Judaism all went and got legal Jewish educations. Included in those educational experiences were learning Greek because that was the language of mathematics and because that was the language of everyday letter and business writing. Included in those educational experiences, was learning Hebrew in order to learn how to write the scriptures and exegesis of the Torah and the Prophets.
Every Jew in the Roman Empire new at least two languages fluently no matter their level of "formal education'; Aramaic and Hebrew. That makes Peter and John literate on a level that most Americans are not; only 35% of all United States Americans speak two languages fluently. Mathew was certainly not a Sadducee, or a Pharisee, however, he had to conduct business with the Roman government. In order to do that he had to use the language of mathematics used throughout the Roman Empire on parchment, which was Greek? In order to do that he had to use the formal language of letter writing and reporting to the government used throughout the Roman Empire, which was Greek? Tax collecting required parchment documentation and therefore Mathew was fluent in Greek, and completely literate in Greek. I am completely unconvinced that Peter and John were not also able to read and write Greek due to the fact that the culture in which they lived was the Roman Empire, not just Palestinian Judaism. The fact that they were "rude fishermen", as the usage of the word "idiotes", in Acts 4:13, and does not necessarily preclude that they did not read and write Greek.
The fact is that the Sadducees and the Pharisees, Luke, and Paul went to formal schools of education, but that Jesus, Mathew, Peter, James, and John Mark did not. What has not been factually proven by any Textual Critic, or any Source Critic is that Jesus, Mathew, Peter, James, and John Mark did not have an informal education! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Acts 4:13 means that Peter and John could not read and write Greek, it was the language of doing business in any part of the Roman Empire. Greek was the language of mathematics and of letter writing, of obtaining permission to trade and to export and import from the Romans.
Well, I am sure many of you will disagree with me and find fault with my reasoning. However, I am happy to submit my opinion out of respect for my friend Danny Mann and interest in all of your opinions on the matters at hand.
Lets take some time to exam the Acts 4:13, so we can clear up any discrepancies there might be. I will be using strongs concordance, so you are welcome to to see the proof for yourself. First, Acts is believed to be written by Luke. Acts 4:13 states the following:
ReplyDeleteNow when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
It clearly says, "and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men", so we know that they are talking about Peter and John. To make sure that there are no objections as to the translation, the Greek word used for perceived is katalambanō. In the Greek lexicon, it literally means to lay hold of with the mind, or to understand, perceive, learn, or comprehend. Now if this weren't meant to be conveyed as a something that was the opinion of these men, or maybe even a mistake in supposition by these men, they wouldn't have used the word katalambano. A word in which is rooted in an understanding that is grasped. Had this been as mistake by these men, they would have used words like hypolambanō, or dokeō. These words are often associated with assumption. If this was just an assumption that was made by these men, katalambano would not have be used. As far as the words used for Unlearned, and ignorant, they used agrammatos, idiōtēs. Strongs concordance is probably aware that there might be contraversy over what the usage is, so in idiotes, strongs highlights that the usage in the NT means unlearned or illiterate. Luke doesn't just use one word to describe their illiteracy, he emphasizes illiteracy by using two different words that both mean illiterate. In fact, the definition goes on even further, saying that idiotes is a man as opposed to the learned and educated: one who is unskilled in any art. It is clear by the authors emphasis in these words, that Peter and John lacked literacy, education, and maybe even any skills at all.
anyone that wishes to review the passage and cross reference with the strongs is welcome to do so. You can find a useful source at
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=4&v=13&t=KJV#13
Dusk, I agree that the word for "understand" is "katalambano", and that it meant that the Sadducees and Pharisees percieved Peter and John to be "uneducated and untrained". However, I do believe there is room for argument on the issues of what the Sadducees and Pharisees understood being "uneducated and untrained" to be.
ReplyDeleteThe issue, I do believe hinges right at this juncture in the text on the fact that the Sadducees and the Pharisees did not consider those who did not posses a FORMAL LEGAL JEWISH EDUCATION to be either trianed or educated. That does not preclude anyone from being able to read and write. That does not preclude anyone from being able to read and write Greek fluently. All it does is preclude Peter and John from having been to a formal Rabbinial school and be known by the two groups of elitist Sadducees and Pharisees to have learned the Torah and to be able to "PREACH WITH CONFIDENCE".
The issue which the Sadducees were specifically addressing in Acts 4:13 was not what we all keep hammering away at in here; that Peter and John suppossedly could not read or write. The issue the Sadducees were addressing in the passage we are all writing about is that the Sadducees were amazed that Peter and John coul perform Messianic Miracles and Preach at the same level that Jesus did!
That is most central to why the Sadducees stated that they understood that Peter and John were uneducated and untrained... No Jew would think that a person with an informal eduation, a rude man, an "idiotes", could possibly do a Messianic Miracle such as the lame beggar in chapter 3, which Peter references in chapter 4:8, 9. Further the Sadducees found it incredible that Peter and John, who did not have an legal education in the Law and the Prophets, could use the kind of reasoning on the same caliber that Jesus used to preach about Jesus risen from the dead in 4:2,and 10. Further the Sadducees found it incredible that Peter and John could not only prech to crowds that Jesus rose from the dead and get 5,000 converts quickly (some of whom were educated Sadducees and Pharisees), preach that they did a Messianic miracle (it was presumed that one had to learn what and why that ought to be done before being able to do it), and that they preached that according to the NAME OF THE CRUCIFIED MAN JESUS the lame man was healed. But most importantly, Peter and John preached using the Old Testament...
Now, that was very telling as to WHETHER OR NOT PETER AND JOHN WERE ILITERATE. I do believe that verse 11 definitevely proves that Peter and John were NOT illiterate by current day standards. AND SO THE SADDUCEES MARVELED BECAUSE HOW IN THE WORLD COULD THESE MEN WHO NEVER ATTENDED A RABBINIC SCHOOL POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO QUOTE A SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT THEIR RHETORIC? HOW COULD PETER AND JOHN UNDERSTAND HOW TO SPEAK AND USE RHETORIC??? AND HOW COULD PETER AND JOHN QUOTE A SCRIPTURE THEY NEVER READ.
I await your reply Dusk, or anyone else....
Dusk,
ReplyDeleteI would add that the oral tradition was an integral part of a Rabbinic formal education. Therefore, how could Peter and John quote a scripture even based on those grounds??? Because learning the oral tradition was also a part of being educated and trained....
Hat Lady,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response. Greek lexicons can do no better than English dictionaries. They just can give a range of meanings, but with far less familiarity with the language than the English dictionary. Consequently, the context is far more determinative of the meaning than a dictionary.
I see there a bit of misconception about the Greek lexicon having too much of a range of meaning. The language of the verse you attempting to understand is not english, but ancient greek. Using an english dictionary is a complete waste of time, because the scripture is translated from Greek. That would be like trying to understand japanese with an english dictionary; it doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure why one would use an english dictionary. The Greek lexicon does not have a wide range of meanings for one word. It even tells you what the word means, and gives you synonyms to emphasize its meaning. If you don't want to accept the fact that the author chose to include Peter and Johns illiteracy that is your decision based on nothing but the fact that you THINK everyone should have been able to read and write because of church. The reality is that even Jesus emphasized the apostles lack of learning and skill. Luke 10:21 states the following:
ReplyDelete"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the WISE and PRUDENT, and hast revealed them unto BABES: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
The Greek words used for WISE and PRUDENT are an emphasis in intelligence. Synetos means "intelligent, having understanding, wise, learned". Sophos is used to emphasis the kind of intelligence that Jesus is speaking of. It means: 1) wise
a) skilled, expert: of artificers
b) wise, skilled in letters, cultivated, learned
1) of the Greek philosophers and orators
2) of Jewish theologians
3) of Christian teachers
c) forming the best plans and using the best means for their execution.
Jesus is emphasis that "these things" are hidden from the educated, and learned. Rather, "these things" have been revealed to the BABES. The Greek word that is used in the text is nēpios. Obviously Jesus doesn't really think the apostles are babies, in this specific instances BABES is a metaphor. Nēpios is metaphor that means childish, untaught, unskilled. English and greek are two completely different languages.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteGreek is far more complex than english. In the NT, there is five different types of love described. Yet when translated to english, the words you see are just love. Although there are different types of love, the english word for love does not reflect what kind of love is being talked about. In Greek, the words for love reflect the type love that is being discussed in their meaning. So what does mean about word katalambano used in Acts? Well this means that "katalambano" is not a word that can be interpreted as meaning an assumption. Again, I point out that if this were an assumption, the author would used a word to convey that these individuals were making an assumption. Hypolambanō, or dokeō are words that are often used to convey assumption, opinion, and even the action of seeming. If it only seemed that they were unlearned and uneducated, or they assumed that they were, the author would have used the Greek word hypolambanō, or dokeō, not katalambano. Peter and John didn't have to be able to read in order to quote scripture. There's twelve apostles, they helped each other out. One guy reads and the rest repeat. Its not that complicated. Peter and John didn't have to know how to read to be able to speak well, and recite verses that they memorized. Yes, they were illiterate, it is emphasize in Acts and in even in Mathew, but they didn't need to be literate in order to be Jesus's disciples. Thats why Jesus emphasized that these things weren't given to the "WISE", they were given to the Babes, the unlearned, the unskilled, and the uneducated. Jesus acknowledge the lack of learning, and skill in his disciples. He acknowledged it, and praised God that he would use such people to spread his message. But of course, I know what you're thinking; "they had to be able to read, how could they quote scripture". Well, let me end by saying this, if Jesus could walk on water, raise the dead, and turn water into wine, making a bunch of illiterate hill-jacks quote scripture isn't a problem.
Dusk,
ReplyDeleteWhy the writer of Acts described the Sadducees as perceiving that Peter and John were uneducated untrained is as important as the Greek words used which mean uneducated and untrained.
What Luke wrote in all of chapter 3, and then referenced in chapter 4, has everything to do with what he was saying the Sadducees said in 4:13.
There are some true a sayings in Biblical studies;
1) "The passage cannot mean what it could never have meant to its first century author."
2) "A verse cannot mean something according to today's standards that is divorced from what the author explained in the verse preceding, or following."
3) "Our interpretation of verses in passages can never be divorced from what the author states were the particulars of circumstances described in the passage."
Taking out the words "uneducated and untrained" is divorcing them from Luke's written description of what circumstances led up to that statement. Our present day understanding of what Greek means according to present day criteria is not a first century understanding of how it was being used. The criteria as to what was meant by the words "uneducated and untrained" has to be outlined ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA OUTLINED BY LUKE IN THE PASSAGE...
The book of Acts is an historical account according to the criteria of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish history writing. Luke's account of what the Sadducees witnessed in Acts chapter 4:1 - 13 is to be taken as fact. What we know of the Sadducees from the Bible and other extra-Biblical historians of the first century must dictate how we understand the reaction of the Sadducees in Acts chapter 4.
Sadducees DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION. But Sadducees were waiting for the Messiah. The Messiah was to manifest to Israel his identity by performing the miracles listed in Luke chapter 4 when Jesus read the Isaiah scripture and in other Old Testament scriptures. The signs of the Messiah to all Jews was to heal the lame, the blind, the leper, the paralytic, cast out demons, and to free the oppressed. The Sadducees had a problem with Jesus doing these things because the decided that Jesus could not have been the Messiah they were waiting for for various reasons. That Peter and John were now doing this was amazing IN THE PASSAGE.
The Sadducees, in the passage, were amazed that Peter and John could quote the scriptures to support what they did in healing the man that Jesus was the chief cornerstone. That is usage of first century refutation by use of Rhetoric, something only an educated and trained man would know how to do. Saying Jesus was the chief cornerstone was not something we recognize the way a Sadducee would. To a Sadducee saying that Jesus was the chief cornerstone was saying Jesus was THE REJECTED MESSIAH AND ACCUSING THE SADDUCEES OF REJECTING THE MESSIAH THEY WERE WAITING FOR... This is telling a Sadducee; the power by which we healed this man we now speak of is by the power of the Messiah you rejected, and further we are refuting every complaint you have because you have rejected the only salvation that exists for you under heaven.
THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON THE SADDUCEES MADE THE CRASS AND TRUE STATMENT THEY MADE; these men we preceive to be lacking in formal training in the usage of ORATORY ARGUMENT! We are amazed that Peter and John can give us an argument we cannot refute because they were never known to have learned anything! How in the world did they just do this???
Dusk,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry that my last response wasn’t too clear. Let me try again. Dictionaries, whether English or Greek, represent our feeble attempts to reflect the intended meanings of words in common usage. Consequently, there are no authoritative dictionaries. Instead, they are mirrors or reflections. They don’t create; they describe. They attempt to become accurate mirrors by investigating all of the usages of a particular word, deducing its meaning from each context. Then the dictionary presents definitions that attempt to reflect the wide range of usage.
In fact, English dictionaries have a tremendous advantage over dictionaries that attempt to describe usage in ancient times. Those who write dictionaries are native speakers. They have spent their entire life with those words, living, inhaling, and spitting out those words to others who demonstrate understanding or lack of. However, those who assemble Greek lexicons are operating under grave limitations. They can merely see the words from afar, from the limited number of ancient documents at their disposal.
However, we can do much better than a Greek lexicon:
1. We can narrow our search for one word in a particular context. It doesn’t so much matter how “agrammatos” was used in the time of Plato. Languages evolve and so do word usages. We are more interested in how this word was used in NT times, but in this case, we only have one piece of evidence – Acts 4:13!! So we must resort to that context.
2. In addition to this, each author has their own idiosyncratic use of words.
3. The lexicon regards many different contexts where this term is used in varying ways. It may have little authoritatively to say about our particular context.
Once again, in the context of Acts 4:13, the Sanhedrin couldn’t “see” illiteracy, but it could see a lack of sophistication. Besides, there do not seem to be any translations on Ehrman’s side. I’m afraid that your argumentation goes wide of the mark.
I can see that regardless of what facts are presented, you and Hatlady have no intention of accepting that Peter and John were illiterate. What I have displayed to you is accurate, undenyable translations of words in the Greek lexicon. I've defined words commonly used in Greek to illustrate something assumed, or seeming to be. I've shown instance in Mathew where Jesus highlights that the apostles were unskilled, and uneducated. The reality is that regardless of what you guys want to believe, the majority of scholars side with me. Descriptions of the Apostles in the Britannica highlight their illiteracy. Everywhere illiteracy is brought as issue with the apostles, Peter and John are brought up. You guys have not only denied the words written in the bible, you have denied the very language used in the bible. The Greek lexicon is the leading authority in the ancient Greek used in the bible. It has never been refuted, or disputed. Its been around for years and is used and studied by leading authorities and scholars. Illiterate is word that has been associated with Peter and John long before Ehrman wrote it in his book. The fact is, the only reason you guys are denying that Peter and John were illiterate is because it makes Ehrmans point more valid. Like I said before, Jesus raised the dead, walked on water, brought sight to the sightless, and fed 5000 people with nothing but a couple fish and some bread, puppeting around a bunch of illiterate hill-jacks and making them look and sound smart is not outside Jesus's power. Arguing that Peter and John weren't illiterate only takes away from Jesus's glory. If he could make successful, intelligent men out of societies morons, he is truly the Son of God. Thats the point that is made in these scriptures, that God works miracles even in the stupid. That he holds wisdom from the wise, and gives it to the illiterate, so that his glory may be known amongst the world. If Peter and John weren't illiterate, that means Jesus was a liar when he called them uneducated, Luke was misleading, and a liar by insinuating that they couldn't read, or Mathew was a liar for writing that Jesus said that God gave these things not to the educated, but the uneducated. Deny the translation, deny the words, withhold understanding from yourself if you like.
ReplyDeletecontinue next page...
Part 2: The majority of biblical authorities have accepted something that you've yet to grasp. Even the Catholic churches official stand on the apostle is that they were illiterate. To illustrate to you how very minute your opinion is, searching (Peter apostle "not illiterate") will give you 804 results. Most of which are religious conspiracy pages that deny the translation and the greek lexicon. Just like you, they make baseless arguments with conjecture, and the complete lack of evidence all together. Searching (peter apostles "illiterate") will return a search result of around 70,000. I'm afraid your opinions represent the minority. It is widely known that apostles were illiterate, and the greek lexicon is leading authority in ancient greek in the NT. It is not the lexicon that is inaccurate, it the english translation. English is one dimensional and lacks the complexity of Greek. Greek is by far more complex than english. The reality is, you will not find one reputable biblical source that supports your position. Yet I have Strongs Concordance, the greek lexicon, the catholic church, exhaustive commentary on the subject of the apostles illiteracy by senior pastor Chuck Smith, director of Calvary Chapel Bible College david Guzik, Reverand and author George Mastrantonis, Herbert Lockyer, and I could go on forever. You have a paragraph filled with baseless opinions and conjectures that are held by a small minority of individuals. I guess you don't think Jesus had the power to give wisdom to the uneducated. Your opinions only take glory from God and deny his power. You can respond, if you want. But you haven't provided any proof other than speculation. You've yet to mention one reputable source that backs up your claim that the Greek lexicon is inaccurate, or that Peter and John weren't illiterate. All you've provide is speculation on your opinion of what education was in the first century. Lets try citing some reputable sources if you expect to convince anyone that the the Greek lexicon is wrong, and Peter and John could read. I doubt you'll find any. Otherwise we would have seen it already. Even Harvard University History textbooks Highlight Peters illiteracy. So is Harvard, the Pope, the catholic church, the greek lexicon, and all the biblical scholars and authorities I've mentioned all wrong? I think you might be being a little bit stubborn about your opinion. When something is in textbooks, encyclopedias, an official stance by most churches and their pastors, accepted by leading authorities in theology and the New Testament, it might be safe to say that its time to reconsider your position. I've provided proof from reputable sources, from the Britannica, Harvard university, the leading authority in ancient Greek in the NT, the irrefuted Greek lexicon, the Catholic Church, and wide range of well known, respected biblical scholars pastors and reverends. Wheres your cited proof, wheres your rebutable sources, wheres your biblical scholars, wheres proof that the greek lexicon is inaccurate, what leading authority is supporting you, what do you have behind your claims other than observation and opinions about the apostles education? You have nothing but words, eloquent, meaningless, baseless, unsupported words. If you don't plan on offering something other than your own interpretation of the scripture, and your opinion that the Greek lexicon is inaccurate, to support any of your claims, don't waste your time responding to me, because I'm not convinced. You guys are very eloquent, but lets see if you can prove your point without infringing on any logical fallacies, stating opinions that aren't supported by reputable sources, and try citing information that you claim to be common knowledge. Everything you've said so far is just big opinion. Lets hear some supporting evidence. Lets see some reputable sources.
ReplyDeletePost #1
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
You claim many things, not all of which are founded on solid ground. I will take just one claim you make and answer that with a series of posts. All the posts will geared to offer evidence to support my claim that the words uneducated and untrained refer to not having Rabbinical training, rather than being unable to read, write, or be well verses in oral tradition recitation.
Excerpt from Jamieson Fauset and Brown, IVP New Commentary Series, Acts 1 - 5
Now Peter alludes to Psalm 118:22 to help the leaders understand that their rejection of Jesus and the Father's resurrection of him were the fulfillment of God's saving plan. A number of Jewish leaders had last heard this verse applied messianically by Jesus himself, as he interpreted their opposition to him (Lk 20:9-19). That opposition had manifested itself with the same question: "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things. . . . Who gave you this authority?" (Lk 20:2; compare Acts 4:7). Not heeding Jesus' interpretation, they had rushed on in blind rage to fulfill the prophecy. Would they in hindsight repent now?
Peter declares that Jesus has become the capstone. The NIV marginal reading cornerstone is more literal, picturing a stone at the base of a corner where two walls meet and take their line from it (Williams 1985:67).
Peter now declares the significance for every human being of Jesus' position: Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven--throughout the whole world--in which (NIV takes the instrumental understanding only, by which) we must be saved. These leaders know from the Old Testament that the God of Israel is the only Savior (Is 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4). Now Peter claims this role for Jesus Christ (compare 4QFlor 1:13; 1QH 7:18-19; Jubilees 31:19). And this name has been given to men.
In an age of religious pluralism, this radical claim is rejected outright by some (Hick and Knitter 1987). Others will admit the uniqueness of Christ in the objective accomplishment of salvation, but they say this text does not teach that it is essential to hear the good news about Jesus' saving work and consciously "name the name" (Sanders 1988). Such a bifurcation of the accomplishment and application of salvation runs counter to the explicit thrust of this verse. Peter makes his universal claim by explicitly asserting that this name has been given to humankind as a means by which we must be saved (compare Lk 24:46; Acts 11:14). Appropriation of the name is an essential part of God's salvation transaction. To be true to Peter and Luke, we must never water down the fact that apart from Jesus there is no salvation for anyone--neither its accomplishment nor its appropriation.
Peter's Spirit-filled speech elicits amazement not unlike what the crowd experienced when they saw the crippled beggar walking (3:11). Peter's Spirit-endowed courage empowers him to tell the whole truth even though it will turn his judges into defendants and call into question their conviction that resurrections don't happen (4:10).
He tells an intelligent truth, skillfully handling the Scriptures to prove that all this happened according to God's plan (v. 11). Yet he and John have not had the rabbinic training required, humanly speaking, to sustain such theological argumentation. They are unschooled. They are ordinary men, more precisely "laymen." They lack the recognized credentials of a professional teacher of the law, which alone would command respect in the council. Nevertheless, amid their astonishment the council grasps the fact that these men had been with Jesus. Their Lord also lacked credentials yet handled the Scriptures in the same effective way. With a completely healed man (note the perfect-tense tetherapeumenon) standing before them as living proof of a truly risen Lord, the council has nothing to say in reply."
Post #2
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
Albert Barnes Bible Commentary, Excerpt from Acts
"Verse 13. Boldness. This word properly denotes openness or confidence in speaking. It stands opposed to hesitancy, and to equivocation in declaring our sentiments. Here it means that, in spite of danger and opposition, they avowed their doctrines without any attempt to conceal or disguise them.
Peter and John. It was they only who had been concerned in the healing of the lame man, Acts 3:1.
And perceived. When they knew that they were unlearned. This might have been ascertained either by report or by the manner of their speaking.
Unlearned. This word properly denotes those who were not acquainted with letters, or who had not had the benefit of an education.
Ignorant men--\~idiwtai\~--. This word properly denotes those who live in private, in contradistinction from those who are engaged in public life, or in office. As this class of persons is commonly also supposed to be less learned, talented, and refined than those in office, it comes to denote those who are rude and illiterate. The idea intended to be conveyed here is, that these men had not had opportunities of education, (comp. Matthew 4:18-21,) and had not been accustomed to public speaking, and hence they were surprised at their boldness. This same character is uniformly attributed to the early preachers of Christianity. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:27; Matthew 11:25. The Galileans were regarded by the Jews as particularly rude and uncultivated, Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70.
They marvelled. They wondered that men who had not been educated in the schools of the Rabbins, and accustomed to speak, should declare their sentiments with so much boldness.
And they took knowledge. This expression means simply that they knew, or that they obtained evidence, or proof, that they had been with Jesus. It is not said in what way they obtained this evidence; but the connexion leads us to suppose it was by the miracle which they had wrought; by their firm and bold declaration of the doctrines of Jesus; and perhaps by the irresistible conviction that none would be thus bold who had not been personally with him, and who had not the firmest conviction that he was the Messiah. They had not been trained in their schools, and their boldness could not be attributed to the arts of rhetoric, but was the native, ingenuous, and manly exhibition of deep conviction of the truth of what they spoke; and that conviction could have been obtained only by their having been with him, and having been satisfied that he was the Messiah. Such conviction is of far more value in preaching than all the mere teachings of the schools; and without such a conviction, all preaching will be frigid, hypocritical, and useless."
Post #3
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
Adam Clarke's Critique on the Bible, Excerpt from Acts
"Verse 11. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders
By your rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, you have fulfilled one of your own prophecies, Psalms 118:22; and, as one part of this prophecy is now so literally fulfilled, ye may rest assured, so shall the other; and this rejected stone shall speedily become the head stone of the corner. See Clarke on Matthew 21:42.
Verse 12. Neither is there salvation in any other
No kind of healing, whether for body or soul, can come through any but him who is called JESUS. The spirit of health resides in him; and from him alone its influences must be received.
For there is none other name
Not only no other person, but no name except that divinely appointed one, Matthew 1:21, by which salvation from sin can be expected-none given under heaven-no other means ever devised by God himself for the salvation of a lost world. All other means were only subordinate, and referred to him, and had their efficacy from him alone. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and no man ever came, or can come, to the Father but by him.
Verse 13. The boldness of Peter and John
τηνπαÏÏησιαν, The freedom and fluency with which they spoke; for they spoke now from the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, and their word was with power.
That they were unlearned and ignorant men
αγÏαμματοι, Persons without literature, not brought up in nor given to literary pursuits-and ignorant, ιδιωται, persons in private life, brought up in its occupations alone. It does not mean ignorance in the common acceptation of the term; and our translation is very improper. In no sense of the word could any of the apostles be called ignorant men; for though their spiritual knowledge came all from heaven, yet in all other matters they seem to have been men of good, sound, strong, common sense.
They took knowledge of them
επεγινωσκον may imply that they got information, that they had been disciples of Christ, and probably they might have seen them in our Lord's company; for there can be little doubt that they had often seen our Lord teaching the multitudes, and these disciples attending him.
That they had been with Jesus.
Had they not had his teaching, the present company would soon have confounded them; but they spoke with so much power and authority that the whole sanhedrin was confounded. He who is taught in spiritual matters by Christ Jesus has a better gift than the tongue of the learned. He who is taught in the school of Christ will ever speak to the point, and intelligibly too; though his words may not have that polish with which they who prefer sound to sense are often carried away.
Verse 14. They could say nothing against it.
They could not gainsay the apostolic doctrine, for that was supported by the miraculous fact before them. If the doctrine be false, the man cannot have been miraculously healed: if the man be miraculously healed, then the doctrine must be true that it is by the name of Jesus of Nazareth that he has been healed. But the man is incontestably healed; therefore the doctrine is true."
Post #4
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
John Gill's Bible Commentary, Excerpt from Acts
"Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,.... With what courage and intrepidity they stood before them, the presence of mind they had, and the freedom of speech they used, as the word properly signifies: they observed their elocution, the justness of their diction, the propriety of their language, and the strength and nervousness of their reasoning; as well as their great resolution, constancy, and firmness of mind; not being afraid to profess the name of Christ, or to charge them with the murder of him; and that they seemed to be determined to abide by him, at all events; to assert him to be the true Messiah, though rejected by the Jewish builders; and that he was risen from the dead; and not only to ascribe unto him the miracle now wrought, but the salvation of men; and to declare, that there was none in any other but him: the Syriac version renders it, "when they heard the word of Simeon and John, which they spoke openly": and freely, without any reserve: they answered readily to the question, that it was by the name of Jesus of Nazareth that they had done this miracle; they dealt freely with the Jewish Sanhedrin, and told them in so many words, that they were the crucifiers of Christ, and the rejecters of that stone, which God had made the head of the corner, and that there was no salvation for them in any other: it appears from hence, that John spoke as well as Peter, though his words are not recorded: and perceived that they were unlearned ignorant men; not by what they now said, but by what they heard and understood of them before: they were informed that they were "unlearned" men, or who did not understand letters; not but that they had learned their mother tongue, and could read the Scriptures; but they had not had a liberal education; they had not been brought up at the feet of any of the doctors, in any of the schools and universities of the Jews; they were not trained up in, and conversant with, the nice distinctions, subtle argumentations, and decisions of the learned doctors, in the interpretation of the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders: and understood that they were also "ignorant" men, ιδιωται, "idiots", or private men; for men might be unlearned, and yet not be such; it seems the high priests themselves were sometimes unlearned men: hence, on the day of atonement, "they used to read before him, in the order of the day, and say to him, Lord high priest, read thou with thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgot, or it may be, לא למדת, "thou hast not learned" (c).''
Post #5, continued from #4, John Gill’s Bible Commentary, Excerpt Acts 4
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk
“The Jews have adopted the word here used into their language; and express by it, sometimes a man that is mean, abject, and contemptible: thus instead of "children of base men", or "without a name", the Targumist on Job_30:8 reads, בני הדיוטין, "the children of idiots", or "private men": and in the Targum on 1Sa_18:23 it is used for one lightly esteemed, and comparable to a flea: it sometimes designs persons in a private life, though men of learning and knowledge, in distinction from those that are in office; so we read (d), that "three kings, and four הדיוטות, "private" persons, have no part in the world to come; the three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh; the four "idiots", or private men, are Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi.''
And so a bench of idiots, or private men, is distinguished from a bench of authorized and approved judges (e); and sometimes the word is used of such, as are distinguished from doctors, or wise men; so when it is said (f), "the command of plucking off the shoe, is done before three judges, and though the three are "idiots";'' the note of Maimonides upon it is, "not wise men, but that know how to read the language,'' the Hebrew language: and such were the disciples, in every sense of the word; they were mean and abject, poor fishermen, men of no name and figure, that were in no office, and exalted station of life, nor versed in Jewish learning, but common private men: so that they marveled; the Sanhedrin were astonished to hear them talk with so much fluency and pertinence."
Post #6
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
Mathew Henry's Bible Commentary, Excerpt from Acts
"The courage of Christ's faithful confessors has often been the confusion of their cruel persecutors. Now, (1.) We are here told what increased their wonder: They perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They enquired either of the apostles or themselves or of others, and found that they were of mean extraction, born in Galilee, that they were bred fishermen, and had no learned education, had never been at any university, were not brought up at the feet of any of the rabbin, had never been conversant in courts, camps, or colleges; nay, perhaps, talk to them at this time upon any point in natural philosophy, mathematics, or politics, and you will find they know nothing of the matter; and yet speak to them of the Messiah and his kingdom, and they speak with so much clearness, evidence, and assurance, so pertinently and so fluently, and are so ready in the scriptures of the Old Testament relating to it, that the most learned judge upon the bench is not able to answer them, nor to enter the lists with them. They were ignorant men - idiōtai, private men, men that had not any public character nor employment; and therefore they wondered they should have such high pretensions. They were idiots (so the word signifies): they looked upon them with as much contempt as if they had been mere naturals, and expected no more from them, which made them wonder to see what freedom they took. (2.) We are told what made their wonder in a great measure to cease: they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus; they, themselves, it is probable, had seen them with him in the temple, and now recollected that they had seen them; or some of their servants or those about them informed them of it, for they would not be thought themselves to have taken notice of such inferior people. But when they understood that they had been with Jesus, had been conversant with him, attendant on him, and trained up under him, they knew what to impute their boldness to; nay, their boldness in divine things was enough to show with whom they had had their education. Note, Those that have been with Jesus, in converse and communion with him, have been attending on his word, praying in his name, and celebrating the memorials of his death and resurrection, should conduct themselves, in every thing, so that those who converse with them may take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus; and this makes them so holy, and heavenly, and spiritual, and cheerful; this has raised them so much above this world, and filled them with another. One may know that they have been in the mount by the shining of their faces."
Post #7
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
William Barclay's Daily Study Bible, Excerpt from Acts
" Here we see very vividly both the enemy's attack and the Christian defence. In the enemy's attack there are two characteristics. First, there is contempt. The King James Version says that the Sanhedrin regarded Peter and John as unlearned and ignorant men. The word translated unlearned means that they had no kind of technical education, especially in the intricate regulations of the law. The word translated ignorant means that they were laymen with no special professional qualifications. The Sanhedrin, as it were, regarded them as men without a college education and with no professional status. It is often difficult for the simple man to meet what might be called academic and professional snobbery. But the man in whose heart is Christ possesses a real dignity which neither academic attainment nor professional status can give. Second, there are threats. But the Christian knows that anything man does to him is but for a moment whereas the things of God last forever.
In face of this attack Peter and John had certain defences. First, they had the defence of an unanswerable fact. That the man had been cured it was impossible to deny. The most unanswerable defence of Christianity is a Christian man. Second, they had the defence of an utter loyalty to God. If it was a question of choosing between obeying man and obeying God, Peter and John were in no doubt as to what course to take. As H. G. Wells said, "The trouble with so many people is that the voice of their neighbours sounds louder in their ears than the voice of God." The real secret of Christianity lies in that great tribute once paid to John Knox--"He feared God so much that he never feared the face of any man." But the third defence was greatest of all, the defence of a personal experience of Jesus Christ. Their message was no carried tale. They knew at first-hand that it was true; and they were so sure of it that they were willing to stake their life upon it."
Post #8
ReplyDeleteDear Dusk,
Robertson's Word Pictures (A Scholar of Koine Greek Language and Biblical Critic), Excerpt from Acts
"Act 4:13
The boldness (tēn parrēsian). Telling it all (pan, rēsia). See also Act_4:29, Act_4:31. Actually Peter had turned the table on the Sanhedrin and had arraigned them before the bar of God.
Had perceived (katalabomenoi). Second aorist middle participle of katalambanō, common verb to grasp strongly (kata), literally or with the mind (especially middle voice), to comprehend. The rulers recalled Peter and John from having seen them often with Jesus, probably during the temple teaching, etc.
They were unlearned (agrammatoi eisin). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. Unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai. Jesus himself was so regarded (Joh_7:15, “not having learned letters”).
And ignorant (kai idiōtai). Old word, only here in the N.T. and 1Co_14:24; 2Co_11:6. It does not mean “ignorant,” but a layman, a man not in office (a private person), a common soldier and not an officer, a man not skilled in the schools, very much like agrammatos. It is from idios (one’s own) and our “idiosyncracy” is one with an excess of such a trait, while “idiot” (this very word) is one who has nothing but his idiosyncracy. Peter and John were men of ability and of courage, but they did not belong to the set of the rabbis.
They marvelled (ethaumazon). Imperfect (inchoative) active, began to wonder and kept it up.
Took knowledge of them (epeginōskon autous). Imperfect (inchoative) active again, they began to recognize them as men that they had seen with Jesus."
Dear Danny and Dusk,
ReplyDeleteI do believe eight differrent posts from reputable and very well known conservative commentators, including one world renown scholar and professor of the Koine Greek Language will suffice to support my "claim" that for the frist century Jews, the usage of "uneducated and untrained" by the Sadducees meant that Peter and John had no formal education in the Rabbinic schools and that fact did not preclude them having the ability to read, write, and posses the oral traditions.
Standing down on this issue. I may address other claims you made Dusk, but the evidence speaks for itself and I have no need to address that particular claim of yours any longer.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Hatlady,
ReplyDeleteMy hat goes off to you!
Hatlady,
ReplyDeleteyou can site all the closed minded, stubborn scholars, who refuse to accept the simplicity of the translation all you want. In the end, it says what it says, and if we're arguing over the accuracy of the translation, and the churches official possition is that they were illiterate and uneducated, then once again, I will have side with the majority on this. Just because a few intelligent skeptics argue something doesn't make what they say any more valid. The reality is the Chruches official position on the illiteracy of the apostles is that they could not read or right. Plain and simple. 8 exhaustive posts from 8 guys isn't going to change the position of the church. If you feel so strongly, perhaps you could persuade them to change their mind about something they've believed for the last 1900 years. The greek lexicon can't be manipulated. The words meaning stands as uneducated. The Greek lexicon isn't new, its a leading authority in the NT ancient Greek. Long dissertations on why the translation can't be right aren't going to convince me anytime soon. The majority has accepted that some of the apostles couldn't read. Manipulating the translation into proving your point, and reciting the history of ancient education isn't going to help your argument. No matter what the bible says, it was written by men. The bible can't authority to itself. Thats like me calling myself a cop. I might get treated like I have authority but in actuality my authority is illusion. We could sit here all day, trading commentary by reputable individuals with reputable backgrounds. It would go forever. The reality is that a majority believe that they couldn't read. Changing that view means changing what Jesus said when he called the apostles Babes in comparison to the wise Sadducees. According to the translation it meant that they were uneducated, unlearned, or unskilled. Believe what you will, but this conversation is becoming a little monotonousness. We will both keep asserting our view points, and neither one of us has any intention to accept the others point of view. The reality is, we may both have valid view points. You assert that education was manditory, I assert that it wasn't a focus if you were the son of a poor fisherman. Making enough money to feed your family is going to be more important than learning how to read and argue with a bunch of guys in church, but thats beside the point. Lets just agree to disagree, otherwise we'll continue to flood this forum with useless, monotonous facts about a subject that has very little to do with the price of rice in china.
I'm confused about something. Someone mentioned that the disciples would have been able to speak Greek etc.
ReplyDeleteHere's my confusion... why is this the case?
Wasn't Rome ruling the world at that time? And wasn't the language of Rome Latin?
Where did this Greek come in?
Whether or not they were illiterate is not the point. There are many people that question the attribution on other grounds.
ReplyDeleteLet's take Mark for instance. Mark was said by Papias to be a collection of stories in no particular order, but Mark is clearly in chronological order. This is just one of the problems found, and even Christian scholars that believe in the historicity of miracles like Raymond Brown say that the authorship should be looked at with "special skepticism". He also adds that it is "not impossible" that Luke was a minor companion of Paul.
Anyway, there are good reasons to be skeptical in the least of the authorship without even considering literacy at all.
ur all fucking morons... christianity is a big ass lie... u fucking pedophile faggots
ReplyDelete"It is only used one time in the NT. Therefore, we are restricted to deducing its meaning from the context"
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding? NO! Greek was a language long before and long after the bible was written. You don't get word meanings based on your beliefs.
unlucky: I have debated with him over this exact topic. Unfortunately, when I approached him with the translations from the greek lexicon, he claimed the the greek lexicon is "operating under grave limitations" and that "They can merely see the words from afar, from the limited number of ancient documents at their disposal." So I guess he expects us, as his audience, to recognize his authority over the translation, rather than the greek lexicon, a well established, world renown, accurate translation.
ReplyDelete