Did Paul see written Christian materials before his conversion?

Could Paul have had access to written 'Christian' materials before his conversion, in the 30s of the first century? This is rarely suggested. So where angels fear to tread…

One thing we can say: since Paul put his own writings into circulation in the early church in the 50s of the first century, it is unlikely that these were the only things in circulation. However much or however little time Paul had spent with followers of Jesus, he could spend as much time as he liked with what may have been written. Is it possible that he did? That's speculating a little, but it makes more sense than thinking that all of Paul's knowledge dropped out of the sky by ‘revelation’ (as some sceptics like to mischievously suggest).

So this is about sources of Paul’s knowledge of Jesus.

Background

Sceptics who say that Paul learned nothing but by ‘revelation’ are like someone making five by adding two and two (as I’ve explained in another post here). But suppose we were to extend the meaning of Paul’s words to say that a lot of his knowledge came without being taught it by any man (“the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” – Galatians 1:12). So, what would Paul mean?

Well, typically when Christians today say they have had a revelation from the Lord, they mean that they were reading the Bible and its meaning opened up in a new way to them, in some way they found especially relevant to their lives. This is a fairly obvious route to explore. Indeed, rather than some spiel downloaded into his head from heaven, when Paul preaches the only available evidence is that he does so biblically (e.g. Acts 28:23 claims that Paul preached from the content of the law and the prophets, not from revelations). So Jewish writings will have played some part in the development of his thinking.

In fact, in any other kind of context, we would naturally infer from ‘nor was I taught it’ that the person was self-taught. To illustrate: if I were to say that no-one taught me the list of television’s 1960s Doctor Who stories, that would be true. I taught myself the list from books. Another example: people who claim to be self-taught in foreign languages invariably mean they learned from books. Books are a teacher. Now if I start to speak of exceptions, it becomes clearer what I mean, and makes more sense: i.e. “no-one taught me about 1960s stories except when I met some Doctor Who fans for a few hours, and read a few books about Doctor Who, and was inspired to memorise them.” This is more or less how Paul talks. He makes exceptions which he flags in his own way. He says no-one taught his gospel to him, except that he met members of the Jesus movement before his conversion, and spent a couple of weeks with two of them after his conversion, and he met other members of the movement, and he had books – especially the Old Testament which he quotes copiously. And he says he had a flash of inspiration which he attributes to God. So the idea that no-one taught him is hedged in by all the exceptions that Paul made. But what I am particularly interested in now is what Paul could have learned from written materials about Jesus – even as early as the 30s of the first century.

The proposal

Could Paul have had material to read from the Jesus movement itself? No Christian texts survive from the 30s of the first century – the decade of Paul’s conversion. But that is the possibility I am opening up now. There is context to this: before Paul was a Christian, he was – as he himself admits to his embarrassment – responsible for persecuting the Jesus movement violently. In that light, any texts he had seen could include material he confiscated from believers when arresting them, and which he read and from which he taught himself more about the movement. Paul could have got written material from other believers (the ones he met straight after his conversion or Christians dispersed from Jerusalem – even potentially in Arabia where he went after that, although we have no evidence to confirm this). But the most obvious way he would have got any written material that existed is by confiscating it when he was arresting believers.

Could there really have been written materials so early in the movement? This is possible – we know Paul was getting material from somewhere – in his letters he quotes sayings of Jesus not found in the biblical gospels, as well as material that we know in the gospel of Luke. Not least, written materials are possible because the Jesus movement had a vested interest in recruiting people who could write. Not gospels though, not as early as the 30s. This would be materials earlier than gospels. For example: perhaps lists of Jewish scriptures that the Jesus movement was using, or scriptures annotated with Christian notes, or a few sayings of Jesus. One thing this could include is the creed which begins chapter 15 of Paul’s letter 1 Corinthians, a creed which surely goes back to a very early phase of the movement and is one of the very earliest Christian creeds.

What makes this proposal of early written materials so attractive is that there are a number of problems that are satisfactorily resolved by this simple proposal:

1) It explains why Paul went ‘from house to house’ when persecuting the church. There has to be a purpose to it. Why not just arrest them at an incriminating meeting? You didn’t need to go to people’s own houses to arrest them – which could easily become a messy business - but you did if you wanted to search for and confiscate materials. If you want to stop a movement and its ideas spreading, you don’t just arrest people. What you do is confiscate its materials. It’s ever been thus, and confiscation was characteristic of later persecutions of Christians (especially under Diocletian).

2) The presence of written materials in homes also explains how Paul knew whom to arrest. After all, what Christians he might meet were Jews and would have looked no different from other Jews, and would have taken part in the same Jewish rituals, so how did he know whom to arrest? This is more of a problem than might at first be obvious. He couldn't ask them if they were 'Christians' because that word had not yet been invented. What would he do to ascertain who was who? Ask them what they think about the name of Jesus? Ask them if they believe that Jesus is Lord? Ask them is they believe in the resurrection? How did he know he had sufficient evidence to make arrests? How did he know that he was not just arresting a few Jewish mums? And supposedly there were many believers by this point – too many to arrest them all – so how did he set out to achieve his ends of stopping a movement with arrests that would make an impact? The simplest explanation is that the ones you arrest are the ones with incriminating evidence in their houses, such as written material – however basic - distinctive to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem at that point in time. Finding and confiscating written material fits with knowing who to pick out to arrest.

3) It explains why Paul is coy about saying from what materials he learnt more about Jesus. He’s hardly going to say his learning is from documents he stole. So he says coyly that no man taught it to him.

4) And if one were to push the ‘no-one taught’ Paul line very hard, then what fits this best is his possession of some written materials of the Jesus movement.

Now Paul does not need to have carried such materials around with him – he only needs to have read it at the time he was confiscating it. But if he was on a mission of finding members of one and the same movement who were spreading ideas he thought subversive, then taking evidence along with him as reference points would be logical behaviour. 

And these problems are solved by one simple explanation: the early Jesus movement had some written materials in the 30s of the first century. Nothing such survives, so a proposal like this can only be judged on the balance of probabilities. But it does explain rather a lot: where Paul was getting information and why he says little about how he came by it; why he was going from house to house and what he was doing there; how he was achieving the aims of the persecution he was conducting.

 

Was Jesus literate? (or his followers?)

An ongoing debate in academia, this one. Was Jesus literate? Were any of his twelve disciples? What about the wider circle of his followers? Were they among the large percentage of people in ancient populations who could write their own name? Probably some of the followers, at least, yes. But were any of them among the smaller percentage who could read at least basic official documents? Were any of them among the smaller percentage still who could read religious texts? Were any of them among the smaller percentage still who could write literature of a more than basic standard (such as the texts in the New Testament)? In short, were these people above average for their time and place, that is, as Israelites in first century Jerusalem and Galilee and the region?

This is one of those questions assessed on the balance of probabilities, based on historical context and scraps of information. And what goes for one group might not go for another – each case has to be judged on its own merits on a case by case basis.

One of the points that might be made, to begin with, is that apart from the gospels, there are other kinds of evidence we can look for. One such is archaeological evidence. For instance, in Capernaum in Galilee, no ancient inscriptions has been found by archaeologists from that period. This might well suggest that literacy levels were low. This wasn't the only place frequented by Jesus' group, of course, but it is fair to say that it was an important one to them. So we should be cautious. On the other hand, you would not have had to travel too far to come across the elites, who may well have had slaves, among whom may have been literate slaves (see appendix 2 below), but that is speculation. We need to move to something more relevant to the evidence in the case in hand. 

One of the points that I will be making is that Jesus especially, but also his disciples, are portrayed in the gospels (and Acts) as highly motivated people, and this in itself is not average performance, so we are not studying average people per se. This has a bearing on a number of individual points. 

Here are a generous ten points which might mean Jesus and/or the wider group of his disciples included some who were above average in their literacy compared to other people of their rural, unprivileged, social background.

1) One reason for being above average is that Jesus’ family had royal pretensions. This royal claim is attested in multiple sources. That Jesus was executed for claiming to be the ‘King of the Jews’ is virtually undisputed among scholars of antiquity. As such, actively claiming to be royalty, this family had a motive for aspiring to higher standards, for fostering more literacy than their average Jewish neighbours. It doesn't mean that it was a literate family. But their aspirations reach beyond the average, and therefore opportunities for education would have been attractive.

2) Luke claims that Jesus’ wider family – away from his home town of Nazareth - included a priest. If any weight is given to this, then that would increase the possibility of some literacy in the wider family – someone from whom knowledge could be acquired.

3) Jesus’ family in Nazareth were, on the other hand, not known for being learned. And Jesus had somehow acquired learning that differentiated him from his family and townsfolk. This means he had become above average compared to them. This didn’t just happen – there were reasons, but we don’t have direct access to know what they were. Here is the basis for thinking the Nazareth family was more humble - Mark 6:2-4 has Jesus’ townsfolk surprised at his religious teaching:

“And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

(There is a separate account in Luke's Gospel but I won't go into that now - I'm trying to keep this simple.)

Jesus was clearly exceeding their expectations, with verbal skills which surpassed the achievements of his family in Nazareth. Indeed, by calling himself a prophet, Jesus was himself claiming to be above average. This invites a possibility that his newly acquired skills included not only preaching the Jewish religion but also literacy. But how had Jesus come to be a teacher of religion and one that surpassed his townsfolk without local people knowing how he had done it? Since the gospels are silent on the years in-between Jesus’ childhood years and his ministry years, then we can only speculate, but it seems most probably that these years were the time in which he acquired his learning that so caused surprise. The Nazareth family’s uneducated background doesn’t explain it, even if they claimed to be royalty, but someone in the wider family of this aspirational group might – perhaps there is something in Luke’s claim that there was a priest in the family away from Nazareth. (Bart Ehrman suggests that the most likely person to have taught Jesus to read would be ‘the local leader of the local synagogue’, but that would leave the surprised reaction of the townsfolk unexplained. A teacher away from his own town therefore seems more likely.)

4) One of Jesus’ favourite sayings when debating with scribes was ‘have you not read?’ This is not in itself a claim by Jesus that he could read, but it invites the possibility. Otherwise, he made himself too vulnerable to the embarrassing rejoinder, “Well, we know you haven’t read, ignorant illiterate peasant!” every single time he used this saying. I think this point is perhaps insufficiently addressed in Chris Keith's book Jesus Against the Scribal Elite (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014). (Keith's argument is that with such statements, Jesus left an ambiguity about his ability, such that those of low education could have assumed Jesus was literate, and those of high education could have suspected that he was not. Keith leans towards the opinion that he was not.)

5) John 7-8 has Jesus making marks in the ground with his finger. To quote Bart Ehrman on this: “The oldest form of the text does read KATAGRAPHO, and that does appear to refer typically to actual writing (not doodling or drawing, e.g.,)” (Source: http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-literacy-for-members/)

6) Jesus knew religious texts from memory. This means at a minimum that he had heard them and memorised them while listening – a common practice of learning in the ancient world. The person he was listening to had either memorised the texts, or was possibly reading them. That invites the possibility that Jesus – like anyone else who listened to texts being read in the ancient world – had access to one or more people who could read. As such, the potential for a person to learn to read existed – especially a highly motivated person in a family with royal pretensions, particularly a leader with aspirations to be ‘King of the Jews’ and planning to have disciples administering such a kingdom (see next point). This is not an average situation, and opportunities such as learning from someone who could read were unlikely to be overlooked by such as him.

7) Given that he was highly motivated and high royal aspirations, it is unlikely that Jesus, in choosing those closest to him, was looking for 'average'. For some time, Jesus’ followers believed that they would have prominent roles in the leadership and management of a reformed kingdom of Israel. As such, they would have been highly motivated to recruit into their group people who were literate enough to be able to play an active part in the new administration they expected to happen. Such aspirations were unimaginably silly if the group did not think of recruiting people with reasonable literacy. This was not a group with merely average expectations!

• Such recruitment is attested to by Acts 6:7 which claims that “Even a large number of priests became obedient to the faith”.
• A more famous example comes in Acts 15:22-23, which claims literacy by some present in the Jerusalem church in the 40s of the first century, who were literate enough to write down a letter (to be taken to churches where someone had the ability to read the letter): “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. With them they sent the following letter…” Content of the letter is then set out in Acts 15.

8) It is widely attested that Jesus was regarded as a teacher, which means his group had an interest in learning – these were disciples actively, not passively so. Therefore some form of education was of interest to them. This was in particular religious teaching, which was informed by religious texts. This could have been informed by texts being heard by the group, but it does invite the possibility that some in the group could read religious texts themselves.

9) The known practice of scribal note-taking by followers of a rabbi is reflected in Jesus' saying in Matthew 13:52: "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old." Jesus thus equates scribes with his disciples (not that all disciples were scribes, but that some were, otherwise it would be redundant to speak of scribes who had become disciples). So, in the language of Jesus’ saying, a scribe’s treasure is his scribblings. Scribes, literate followers of Jesus, would have kept notes, their 'new treasure', of what their rabbi said. This is evidence of literacy among the wider group of Jesus’ disciples rather than among the twelve in particular. That would be in the 30s of the first century, according to the gospel text.

10) One of Jesus’ followers was a tax collector according to the gospels, and as such would have had at least enough basic literacy to do his job.

So from early on, this movement of family and disciples, with Jesus at their head, was highly motivated to have a measure of literacy in their group, and early textual sources attest to this being lived out in the wider group.

This in itself would not mean that any particular person in the group had the ability to write a document as sophisticated as one of the biblical gospels, but it does mean that some in the group surely had above average literacy, and could possibly include someone who could write something sophisticated.

Overall, what we have is a number of indicators of probabilities, with a little bit of evidence, mainly about the wider group, that some in this circle were highly motivated, certainly above average in their aspirations and, very possibly, in their literacy.

It is worth mentioning that Jesus will have set out to select apostles who would be capable of going out and preaching his message effectively. So he will definitely have hand-picked people whom he regarded as good communicators. This does not mean they were literate, but it does mean they were probably articulate. 

In addition, and this is difficult to measure and therefore unattractive to scholars, some people just have natural talent for communicating that exceeds whatever limited education they may have had. The same thing is remarked, but obviously to different degrees in the case of the peerless writing of Shakespeare (who likely had shortened schooling), the Beatles (they could not read or write music), or indeed the author of John's gospel (likely to have had very limited opportunities as a Galilean fisherman). We can't from this factor make a case for special pleading, but it does caution us to keep reasonably open minds. What will be necessary to develop the argument further, when time allows, would be to look at analogous situations from antiquity where highly motivated people took advantage of opportunities to learn to read.

Sometimes cited as evidence against the literacy of some or all of Jesus' core group of disciples is Acts 4:13. Here, much ink is spilled over whether the Greek word used to describe them - ἀγράμματοί - should be translate as 'illiterate' (Douay-Rheims Bible), 'unschooled' (NIV) or to be interpreted as 'no special training in the Scriptures' (New Living Translation), and there are other suggestions. There is legitimate support for each of these possibilities. But actually, what is easily missed is that Acts could well be deliberately downplaying their degree of literacy as a tactic to imply, "Look, this movement must have its legitimate origin from God because nothing else but help from heaven can explain under-educated people speaking like educated people." This very tactic is used within Islamic apologetics to ascribe divine authority to Mohammed's words by claiming they are the educated-sounding utterances of an uneducated man, and thus surely from heaven. We should be a little bit wary of how keen Luke is to highlight the downplaying of the disciple's education, because Luke's agenda in so doing is to prove that God was on the disciples' side. The impression given by Luke's Acts is that the higher degrees of literacy are in the wider group of early Christians, not the core group. That is not to say that Luke is being untruthful, but that his choice of wording is ambiguous enough to leave us unsure. This is another point that I think is insufficiently addressed by Chris Keith's Jesus Against the Scribal Elite, although there is much in his book that very usefully sets out the data on this subject. So how literate where the disciples? The answer is that it is difficult to say!

Footnote

To keep this short, I have left out questions such as what we mean by authorship in the case of the gospels. For example, would traditional authorship of, say, the apostle Matthew mean that Matthew wrote the text, or more or less dictated it, or rather supervised some or all of its writing by some literate followers? Each of these options would require higher or lower levels of sophistication of Matthew, but any of these would fit the traditional view. Whereas in the case of Luke's Gospel, where Luke is not one of the core group, it is easier to see him as one of the literate ones in the wider group. 

Appendix 1: average literary rates

Catherine Hezser has written about average literacy rates in the time and place:

“Although the exact literacy rate amongst ancient Jews cannot be determined, Meir Bar-Ilan’s suggestion that the Jewish literacy rate must have been lower than the literacy rate amongst Romans in the first centuries C.E. seems very plausible.

Whether the average literacy rate amongst Palestinian Jews was only 3 percent, as Bar-Ilan has reckoned,(footnote 1) or slightly higher, must ultimately remain open.

The question naturally depends on what one understands by “literacy.” If “literacy is determined as the ability to read documents, letters and “simple” literary texts in at least one language and to write more than one’s signature itself, it is quite reasonable to assume that the Jewish literacy rate was well below the 10-15 percent (of the entire population, including women) which Harris has estimated for Roman society in imperial times.(footnote 2)

If by “literacy” we mean the ability to read a few words and sentences and to write one’s own signature only, Jews probably came closer to the Roman average rate.

Whereas exact numbers can neither be verified nor falsified and are therefore of little historical value, for the following reasons the average Jewish literacy rate (of whatever degree) must be considered to have been lower than the average Roman rate.”

(Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 496). Taken from: http://www.strangenotions.com/bart-ehrmans-botched-source/

Three per cent of course means thousands of people in a populous region like first century Roman Judea and Galilee. 10-15% many more thousands still, but Hezser leans towards the smaller percentage in this case.

Part of the problem with the evidence is that there is so little to go on. This would be for at least two reasons: low literacy levels don’t produce abundant literary remains; and most ancient writings don’t survive to modern times. The survival rate for documents in first century Judea is particularly bad, not least because of the war there which destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.

The question is whether any of Jesus' group numbered among the thousands, and some of the factors which may make this group exceptional have been set out.

Appendix 2: But don't Josephus and Philo say...?

It is well known that first century Jewish authors choose to give the impression that learning to read Torah was virtually a universal education amongst Jewish families (Josephus, Ag. Ap, 1:12 and 2:25; Philo Legat. 16:115-116). It would be easy to leap from this to assuming that Jesus had twelve literate disciples, but the evidence is problematic. Jewish people in general were surely familiar with seeing, hearing and memorising texts such as Torah and day to day texts (what Chris Keith calls textuality). But it is not safe to assume that they could generally actually read them (literacy), even less so write more than the basics needed to live according to their social status (see above). The widely circulated idea of a public schooling network in Galilee and Judea has foundered due to lack of evidence on the ground, so to speak. There is some evidence for learning in families and synagogues, but it is patchy evidence rather than universal. While most Jews learned about their sacred texts, it doesn't mean they all learned to read them. (See Chris Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elite, 21-24. And Chris Keith, Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (Bloomsbury, 2017), 74-77. And Chris Keith, "Literacy," in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 206-209.)


It may be worth adding the the activity of literacy was an enterprise more or less owned by elites, but they didn't necessarily want to do all of the tasks associated with it. in Roman cities, some elites could afford to pay lower status people (even literate slaves) to do the laborious task of copying books by hand, for example. (Freeing the elite to do more interesting things with their time.) So the elites could afford to pay for the upkeep, and perhaps the training, of lower status literate people. (See Loveday Alexander, "Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels," in The Gospels for All Christians, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 71-105. E.g. page 88.) What went for Roman cities didn't go for everywhere in the empire, since elites tend to cluster and were not evenly spread geographically, and some cities were more important than others! There is interesting evidence about this at: https://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2020/01/chaerammon-literate-slave.html

The extent to which this scenario would apply to cities in Galilee and Judea is difficult to judge. If we had any evidence of that, or that any within Jesus' circle had been slaves in elite households in such cities, we might be able to explore that further, but we don't have the evidence to go on. We meet Jesus' core followers in the gospels at a stage of life where they are rural fishermen and the like. However, household slaves were not unusual. (This is not like the kind of slavery we saw in the transatlantic slave trade where people were literally stolen. We should think rather of scenarios such as destitute families selling themselves into a different form of servitude.) We might think of Paul's letter to a Christian called Philemon about learning to treat his runaway slave as a brother. Whether the slave, Onesimus, had any such training we are not really in a position to confirm. But my overall point is that it was not impossible by any means for the wider circle to include some who were literate to some or other level.


Appendix 3: What about the literacy of scribes and Pharisees?

Jesus and the disciples are not described as scribes or Pharisees. The question arises here simply to help fill in the wider picture of literacy in Roman Judea and Galilee. As for scribes, I will speak more broadly. Obviously, there was some kind of Jewish education structure that produced scribes – a school for scribes, if you like, not a school for everyone. Not everyone was a scribe. Scribes had the education needed to draft documents that play a part in day to day living, and the best of them could deal with Hebrew scripture. This would give some of them higher status - not everyone scribe would count as part of the elite. For some of the better scribes, it was sufficient education for some of them to debate the Jewish law with a sense of authority, as we see in the gospels. It is difficult to know how a young person got into this class. (You could perhaps compare it with British young people who were showing aptitude around 1000AD being selected to learn in monasteries, while others got into them due to elite or family connections.) Now, for Torah reading, obviously we would think about people learning the locally prized language of Hebrew, not the lingua Franca of Greek (or even Latin). Greek had more widely provided education and was in use in Roman Judea and Galilee. Therefore we can’t be sure whether scribes in general were more competent in the Hebrew Bible or a Greek translation of it. In Jesus’ day, in Roman Judea, there were scribes and Pharisees and Sadduccees, and each group had differing levels of literacy and associated social status, in more or less that order. But the higher up the scale you were, the more likely you were able to rely on others to do some of your writing tasks for you - scribes had many uses!

On literacy, also see my post: The biblical gospels were all originally anonymous? How historically plausible is that?