Authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John

[TheButler]

My question would be: Were Matthew and John literate? Matthew was a tax collector so maybe. John was a fisherman, so probably not.

 

[BartholomewB]

Were Matthew and John literate? Matthew was a tax collector so maybe. John was a fisherman, so probably not.

It seems to be generally accepted that literacy rates were higher among Jews than among other peoples in the Hellenistic and Roman period, because Judaism attached importance to studying Scripture. Nobody has ever compiled any reliable statistics, as far as I know, but there is some evidence that Jewish society was an exception to the widespread pattern in Antiquity of literacy being largely confined to the wealthy and aristocratic classes.

 

[Joe_5859]

John was a fisherman, so probably not.

Even if he wasn’t at the time he met Jesus, there’s a long time between when he started following Jesus (ca. 30 AD) and when he is traditionally believed to have died (ca. 100 AD). Plenty of time for him to learn.

 

[JohnR77]

Matthew was a tax collector. People in power rarely played games when it comes to money. The Romans would not have allow themselves to be cheated. Therefore written records would probably have been required for auditing. Therefore Matthew must have been literate.

John was of the Priestly class as he got into the trial for Jesus therefore he would more likely have been Schooled in reading and writing.

And Clement of Alexandria explicitly states that both of these people left us a Gospel.

Arguments based along the lines that the apostles could not have done this or that because they were not as smart as me , rarely hold up

John

 

[James817]

He also could’ve hired a scribe.

 

[HarryStotle]

My question would be: Were Matthew and John literate? Matthew was a tax collector so maybe. John was a fisherman, so probably not.

Was John a fisherman all his life? He lived to be over 90. That would give him ample time to learn to write, given that he became Bishop at Ephesus.

Jesus was a tekton, a worker in stone and wood. He read from Scripture in the synagogue. So, apparently, literate to some degree. Why couldn’t John also have been?

In any case, scribes were often used.
Peter used a scribe, Silvanus.

Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. (1 Peter 5:12)

Even Paul, who was literate, used scribes – Tertius, for example.

I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Romans 16:22)

 

[goout]

The first thing to remember is the Gospel is not essentially a writing of a particular human being. The Gospel is a person, Jesus Christ the Word made Flesh.
So in determining how the Gospels came to be you must start with:

1. the life and person of Jesus, lived in time and history as the incarnate Son of God
   Jesus lived in an age when journalistic fact collection was not an option. The Gospel is not essentially a writing, it is a Person.
   What you have instead of modern journalism is:
2. The oral tradition of a community.
   Again, not the stuff of our modern journalistic expectations. This is a very messy thing for the modern mindset, but it is unavoidable for a Christian to accept this very personal and communal aspect of the Gospel. It is an unscientific mode of communication that relies on the integrity of people before books.
   That is a foundational Christian concept: people before books. Without a community of people, you have no written Gospel. Protestantism frequently gets this wrong.

If it were otherwise, God would have just thrown the book at us, no Incarnation necessary.

1. Written Gospel.

When you think about it, whether a specific man named John wrote John, or whether the community he founded wrote it, or whether he wrote it jointly with others, are all details. They are important details surely, and worthy of investigation, but these details are not the essence of inspiration. They contribute to it.