that is not the consensus view. The Watchtower has done a fair bit of research on the matter and here is a snipet from an article in a 2008 watchtower
In the first century, people of all sorts knew how to read and write. On this point, Alan Millard, professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages, observed: Writing in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society.
That's not from a 2008 watchtower article. It's from Alan Millard's 2000 book
Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. As Chancey points out in
Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus, Millard bases his view on
1) the idea of a Galilee where Greek was spoken widely, because it was hellenized. And it was hellenized, clearly, because Greek was spoken widely. In other words, circular reasoning.
2) Millard points to "government-issued inscriptions, whether civic, Herodian, or Roman" and then assumes that because that most people could read them.
The problem with both assumptions are well-documented. For the 2nd, as Thomas points out in his study "Writing, Reading, Public and Private 'Literacies'" (in
Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome), these such inscriptions were often read
to the general public, not
by the general public. In much the same way scribes were hired to produce letters like Paul's (who at one point states that he is writing a particular portion of a letter himself, indicating that he had, like many or most, dictated the rest).
Not only that, but as JF Healey points out in "The Writing of the Wall: Late Aramaic Epigraphy" (from
Writing and Ancient Near East Society), Millard takes the abundance of inscriptions in regions found outside of Galilee (such as Jerusalem), and decides that a parallel situation can be found in Galilee. However, not only are such inscriptions quite rare, but the diversity of semitic (as well as Greek & Latin) inscriptions in places like Jerusalem, Nabataea, Edessa, Hatra, and elsewhere show a great deal of diversity in the number of inscriptions.
Which leads neatly into the abundance of studies and the consensus view which has rather thoroughly trashed Millard's major argument. The archaeological excavations at Galilee which, when Millard wrote, were in their infancy, have destroyed the "myth of a gentile galilee" (the title of Chancey's first monograph on the subject). Studies by Reed, Chancey, Freyne, Savage, Root, Choi, Aviam, and others have all thoroughly examined the lack of any archaeological support (and plenty of evidence against) the idea of a Hellenized Galilee in Jesus' day. As this hellenized Galilee is key to Millard's argument, the fact that it is now an outdated view unsupported by archaeological evidence (not to mention socio-economic approaches and the combination of both) means his argument has no support.
Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written something they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others.
This may be true, but even if it is true the problem is whether or not they would. Orality studies are now a century old and quite advanced, combining work in classics, biblical studies, anthropology, cognitive psychology, and even literary and performance theories. Oral cultures simply do not think about texts and writing the way that highly literate cultures do. We have
actual writers from ancient Greece to the Roman empire expressing a distaste for written texts rather than oral reports, teachings, etc.
What we have in our sources of Jesus teachings, parables, aphorisms, etc., make it quite clear that he taught/preached the way people did all throughout the ancient world and beyond. The use of parables, aphorisms, etc. and the forms they take are designed so that they can be both performed over and over again and so that they can be remembered and repeated. As numerous authors (Bryskog, Gerhardsson, Reisner, Horsley, Bailey, Dunn, Boomershine, etc.) have pointed out, not only was the early Christian community transmitting oral "material" which the gospel authors used, they likely began this while Jesus was still living and as a teacher/preacher in an oral society, he used styles, cues, and forms to facilitate
oral transmission and memorizing, not written. It is possible that some may have taken notes, but there is no reason to suspect.
The fact that later rabbis took notes is not enough to overcome the amount of contrary evidence. Boomershine notes that perhaps the single figure as thoroughly studied after Jesus, Socrates, likewise taught extensively but never wrote. Bauckham and Byrskog both point out the importance both within and outside of early Christian literature (including the NT) emphasizes the importance of
perception (hearing and seeing), whether as an eyewitness or as one getting
oral reports from eyewitnesses. Even where we'd expect to find only or mainly written communication (e.g., in terms of laws and codes), we find both literate and illiterate Greeks memorizing these (see Carawan's study in the volume
Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World) and the "lawyers" (lögsögumaðr/lawspeakers) of the nordic world were those who committed law to memory (see e.g., "
Making and Using Law in the North"). We also have examples of "scribes" who can't read.
Another example illustrates that writing boards and their use were evidently known at this time. In the book of Acts, we read that Peter was speaking to a crowd in the temple area, exhorting them: Repent . . . get your sins blotted out. (Acts 3:11, 19) The expression get blotted out comes from a Greek verb that means wipe out, erase.
It's the other way around. The word in 3:19 (ἐξαλειφθῆναι/exaleiphthenai; the aorist infinitive passive of ἐξαλείφω/exaleipho) means centrally to "cover up" or to "wash over/away", but can mean be used to mean everything from "obliterate" to "clearing away" thoughts. Also, it was extended to the use of reusable writing materials. The word for "write" means "draw", and writing was seen as closer to "drawing" even when it was centuries old.
The Gospel accounts also show that Jesus followers and audiences included people who likely used writing in their everyday work. There were, for example, the tax collectors Matthew and Zacchaeus (Matthew 9:9; Luke 19:2); a synagogue officer (Mark 5:22); an army officer (Matthew 8:5); Joanna, wife of a high official under Herod Antipas (Luke 8:3); as well as scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and members of the Sanhedrin. (Matthew 21:23, 45; 22:23; 26:59) No doubt, manyif not allof Jesus apostles and disciples were able to write.
1) You are assuming not only that these accounts happened the way they are said or that these people were who they were described, but also that they had the ability to write and chose to (odd for reasons given above) and finally that the gospel authors not only had access to these
reusable (as in, not designed to be permanent but to be erased) tablets, but made use of them
2) Many of these encounters, even if they happened, would be extremely odd situations for the people described to start jotting down notes. The gospels portray the scribes, pharisees, or sadducees as Jesus' rivals or even enemies. Why would they jot down on a reusable tablet what he was saying, and then end up giving these to his followers after he was executed?
3) Again, lots of people who'd one would think had to write did not, lots of those had to write couldn't read, and lots of those who could do both chose not to. Being able to write in a primarily oral culture does not mean one often does.
How can they all be illiterate AND be in occupations which required them to be literate such as a tax collector or officer of the synagugue and even members of the sanhedrin who would have been schooled in the rabbinical schools.
1) There were no rabbis, as the word didn't come to be a type of person until after the destruction of the temple, the rise of the synagogue and the finally universally recognized "oral torah".
2) There is no reason to think a tax collector would have to be literate. Scribes were often illiterate, and were hired because all they had to do was copy one text (it was basically drawing).
3) Literate people in the Greco-Roman world, from legal administrators to historians, frequently chose to memorize rather than read, communicate orally rather than write, and rely on oral accounts rather than written.
4) Even if they were all literate, again Jesus' teachings were designed for oral/aural transmission. They were deliberately constructed to heard and (for followers) memorized in some sense/form.
