I was just told that people in biblical times couldn't read or write?

Question

then explain how Peter, an uneducated fisherman allegedly wrote letters to the 'churches' that became Books?

You can't have it both ways there people.

and, he wrote in GREEK, the language of SCHOLARS at the time.

omg you don't even know your own bible history!
Paul was a freakin tentmaker and Peter was a fisherman. LUKE was the physician and would've been the ONLY one of them with knowledge of Greek!
Thanks for proving my point christians.

Answer 1

You were told wrong... no big surprise there.

Seeing as someone obviously believed this enough to tell you, maybe we can conclude that some people today can't think?

Answer 2

Actually, he likely wrote in Aramaic, the common language. Greek was a later translation for the New Testament - not much later, though.

Who said he was so illiterate, anyway? It is like saying that just because I didn't go to college I can't make a living or spell very well. I believe that Peter was not of the level of Paul or Luke, but I think he could read and write, at least.

Answer 3

"However, the author of the first epistle explicitly claims to be using a secretary (see below), and this explanation would allow for discrepancies in style without entailing a different source. The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both, or at the least that he used a different secretary for each letter."

- Wikipedia. Always wondered about that myself... oh, and it says that it's not as if he wouldn't know Greek at all, it would just most likely be a second or third language to him. It wasn't exclusively a scholarly language.

Answer 4

The Summerians were thousands of years before Peter.They kept written records just fine.Where do you get this nonsense from.The Egyptians were after them and the Greeks were in their "Flower" 300 years before Peter.The Romans certainly didn't run around illiterate.Paul who lived at the same time and knew Peter was a graduate of the University in Jerusalem and studied under Gamaliel.What nonsense!He even quotes on Mars Hill(the Aeropagus) Greek Philosophers.It is possible Peter himself didn't write but dictated.Most scholars think the Book of Mark is Peter's story as dictated to Mark.(Mark inserts himself at the end in the garden as the lad who had his sheet pulled off him as he ran away.The last Supper was at his house you know.He probably as a youngster tagged along)

Answer 5

All the temples had scribes. All the Pharisees like Apostle Paul were able to read and write. Apostle Peter healed so many people that they would write anything he wanted.

Ask whoever told you the lie, what did he think about the Dead Sea Scrolls of biblical times? Ask whoever told you the lie, what about the cuneiform tablets of the Library at Ninevah where God sent Jonah?

Now here is what I know. Any person who has the Holy Spirit within them who Christ said would teach us all things can easily read, write, heal, raise from the dead and walk on water.

Answer 6

Who ever told you they were uneducated is not informed. Their were at least three languages spoken in the area at the time of the new testament and all males were taut to read write and do math. A fisherman that is illiterate is a broke fisherman.

Answer 7

Peter didn't write them. Oral tradition continued to be used at that time. They were written down more than 100 years after his death. It was simply presented that way by political leaders of the time. Jesus and only one of the apostles (I can't remember which one) were the only ones that could read, although Jesus was never known to write.

It is true also, that less than 1% of the entire population could read or write.

Answer 8

During the time of old testament writing was not in vogue.Everything was handed over orally.But during the time of Jesus people knew writing.But neither Jesus nor his disciples wrote down anything. All his disciples were also illiterate.In oral tradition people added their own stories and imagination.This is why we find so many fallacies in bible.

Answer 9

You are in the fallacy of GENERALIZATION. Obviously, some people could, and some couldn't read, write, do gymnastics, etc.

Also, there are more than two ways to have it, which is why I try not to say the foolish vocalized pause, "on the other hand".

Finally, many writers use "personas" - which, in Greek, means "masks".

Answer 10

The Hebrews and Jews were well educated. The common people were not well educated in matters of Biblical law.

Peter did write letters and they are in the Bible.
Paul was a tent maker and well educated member of the "clergy"

Answer 11

It's hard to establish the literacy levels in these times but we can have a calculated guess.

Before the idustrial revolution finally made cheap paper and cheap books available to all classes in industrialized countries in the mid-nineteenth century, only a small percentage of the population were literate. Up until that point, materials associated with literacy were prohibitively expensive for people other than wealthy individuals and institutions. For example, in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write.

So some 1800 years had passed and only 1/3 of men could read and write.

In these times stories were passed onby word of mouth wasn't ill much later that they were written and then copied by hand who knows what embelishments were included alongthe way.

It gets weirder.

The story of Jesus was just one of many stories of saviours,

The 'Jesus' of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) existed only in 'spiritual' realms. There was nothing to differentiate the 'Christ Cult' from the OTHER 'savior cults' which were popular at the time... Mithras, Adonis, etc.

Early Christians, such as Paul, had no inkling of the idea that Jesus ever existed as an actual human person who lived in the recent past. In all of the genuine (not forged) writings of Paul, there are only two references to events that can even be interpreted as having taken place on the human plane of existence, absent the mental contamination that comes from having read the Gospels, and interpreting them in that light. Paul omits essentially ALL (two exceptions) of the details of the supposed 'life' of Jesus that are 'revealed' in the Gospels. Pretty odd, huh?

It is most likely that as early Christian missionaries came into contact with pagans, "spreading the word", that they gradually became aware that the people they were addressing were interpreting their message as a story about an actual person... not someone who figuratively and metaphorically existed (and had existed) only in imaginary spiritual realms. So, they figured... why fight it? These boneheads are swallowing this fable hook-line-and-sinker, in a way that we never anticipated. We need to build off this unexpected success by developing some real, heavy-duty marketing materials.

Thus... the Gospels.

Mark was the 'first-draft', written near the end of the 1st century. Fair outline, but sketchy on details.

Matthew and Luke, probably written shortly after the beginning of the 2nd century, were competing 'second-drafts', written using Mark as a template, expanding on the Mark outline and creating scenarios in which to incorporate 'sayings of Jesus', which were actually a Judaized version of snippets of 'wisdom' from the Greek 'cynic' school of philosophy, written down in the supposed 'Q-document' (look up 'Synoptic Gospels'). They were both tried out 'in the field', to see which one was received better. Unfortunately, both drafts escaped 'into the wild'. (You can't un-ring a bell.)

John... who the heck knows where John came from. Probably some mid-2nd century intellectual who just thought that he could do a much better job spinning a yarn, than the authors of the amateurish tripe that was presently in circulation.

The existence of FOUR Gospels (rather than just one) is consequence of the fact that there was no mechanism in place for recalling and suppressing earlier versions of their marketing materials. So, over the centuries, Christian apologists have made a career out of trying to explain-away the glaring discrepancies.

I'm especially delighted with the bone-heads that point out all of the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. LOL. Think of this:

* Look into some old document that makes a lot of predictions.

* Make a list of these 'prophecies'

* Create a work of fiction which weaves in the items from the list as 'plot elements' in a series of vignettes.

Excluding the 40-days that he (supposedly) spent in the desert, the entire new testament accounts for only abour 3-weeks in the 'life of Jesus'... and a quarter of the world's population shapes their lives around this mythological drivel.