Literacy in the Greco-Roman Period

[angellous_evangellous]

Philip Esler writes in "The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1.18-32," Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring 2004. Pages 3-4.

"Above all, we must remember that Paul was working in a culture in which the great majority of people were illiterate. In an article that appeared in 1990 Paul Achtemeier urged scholars to pay close attention to the oral environment in which the New Testament was written, and further research has made this advice all the more urgent. William Harris, the author of the first historical monograph on Greco-Roman literacy, published in 1989, has estimated (328) that even in Greece in the fourth century BCE no more than 10-15 percent of the population would have been literate. As for the Roman empire, he argues (330) that a high degree of literacy can only be assumed for the urban upper classes and that only a few artisans and traders and even fewer farmers and rural workers would have been literate."

"Harris suggests that in the provinces the level of women's literacy is likely to have been well under 5%. Catherine Hezser reasonably concludes from this (23) that an overall literacy rate of 10-15 percent would have applied in the Roman period as well. Although Harris's book stirred up a lively discussion (see the essays in Beard 1991), Hezser correctly notes (26) that "[h]ardly anyone has questioned his low estimation of the literacy rate in the ancient world."

"In her own substantial monograph, JEWISH LITERACY IN ROMAN PALESTINE, Hezser argues that in spite of the common view that literacy rates were higher among Israelites because of their use of written texts in prayer and worship, in fact their literacy rate must have been lower than elsewhere, especially because of the high percentage of the population living in rural areas in Palestine. The rate was possibly as low as 3% (496). Harry Y. Gamble has recently estimated (1995: 5, 10) that literacy levels among Christ-followers were probably similar to those in the population at large--about 10-15 percent. The general accuracy of these well argued estimates is assumed in what follows."

I intend to collect evidence against Esler's thesis.

 

[sojourner]

I wrote that in the other thread. Let me explain my position further here:
Actually, I was speaking specifically of the pre-Roman Hebrews, where the stories of the OT originated. This was oral culture, as we know. The preponderance of the NT are letters written to specific congregations. so, my point was that the original writings were probably not meant for the common person to interpret. The OT writings would have been interpreted by a Rabbi. The NT letters would have to have been interpreted by the writer, or by the congregation that was the original recipient. The gospels and Acts by the communities for whom they were written.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wrote that in the other thread. Let me explain my position further here:
Actually, I was speaking specifically of the pre-Roman Hebrews, where the stories of the OT originated. This was oral culture, as we know. The preponderance of the NT are letters written to specific congregations. so, my point was that the original writings were probably not meant for the common person to interpret. The OT writings would have been interpreted by a Rabbi. The NT letters would have to have been interpreted by the writer, or by the congregation that was the original recipient. The gospels and Acts by the communities for whom they were written.

Fruedian slip?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wrote that in the other thread. Let me explain my position further here:
Actually, I was speaking specifically of the pre-Roman Hebrews, where the stories of the OT originated. This was oral culture, as we know. The preponderance of the NT are letters written to specific congregations. so, my point was that the original writings were probably not meant for the common person to interpret. The OT writings would have been interpreted by a Rabbi. The NT letters would have to have been interpreted by the writer, or by the congregation that was the original recipient. The gospels and Acts by the communities for whom they were written.

That would be perhaps my only dispute in your post.

I agree that the ancient cultures of the NT/OT were "oral" inasmuch as they probably had to memorize oral traditions at a much higher rate than we do today, so their memories were likely far better to - say - remember the events of the life of Christ and accurately record them thirty years later - particularly when we can identify mneumonic devices in the NT (eg, quotations of the Hebrew bible with teachings of Jesus attached - see E. Earle Ellis Paul's Use of the OT and The Making of the NT Documents).

An oral culture as opposed to our own does not preclude a low literacy rate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree - the Hebrew Bible is written to be memorized. Some portions of it may have existed only in oral form before it was written.

The Gospels also seem to have been written to be memorized if we follow the theories of Earle Ellis and the feller who wrote Memory and Manuscript. The Gospels were likely written at a time when the church had funding for books.

However, the Pauline letters demonstrate that the church had a leader who wrote to the churches - odd that if the society is basically illiterate that Paul would purposefully address the letter to the whole church and send it to them rather than address his letters to a wealthy leader who could read. It also seems odd that the apostolic fathers wrote to one another if we should expect them to be illiterate. I can't accept that all of the letters are authored by the elite and only accessible to the elite, written in the common koine.

 

[sojourner]

I agree - the Hebrew Bible is written to be memorized. Some portions of it may have existed only in oral form before it was written.

The Gospels also seem to have been written to be memorized if we follow the theories of Earle Ellis and the feller who wrote Memory and Manuscript. The Gospels were likely written at a time when the church had funding for books.

However, the Pauline letters demonstrate that the church had a leader who wrote to the churches - odd that if the society is basically illiterate that Paul would purposefully address the letter to the whole church and send it to them rather than address his letters to a wealthy leader who could read. It also seems odd that the apostolic fathers wrote to one another if we should expect them to be illiterate. I can't accept that all of the letters are authored by the elite and only accessible to the elite, written in the common koine.

What I meant is that the letters were written to specific congregations. In order for us to understand the message that lies in them for us, (as opposed to the original audience) some interpretational filtering would be necessary.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I meant is that the letters were written to specific congregations. In order for us to understand the message that lies in them for us, (as opposed to the original audience) some interpretational filtering would be necessary.

I don't dispute any of this.

It's quite another thing to say that the letters were for the most part inaccessible to both the general Greco-Roman audience and the congregations of the churches due to illiteracy.

Such a theory would require all of the writers and early readers of the church to be in the elite classes, and Christianity would be mediated primarily through scholars and not called leaders. Seems to be a bit self-serving theory to me - this theory coming from the current preistly/scholarly class.

It begs the question = why did all of the splinter groups show up in early Christianity - each with their own collection of writings if illiteracy was rampid?