Literacy and Holy Writ

One of the popular objections to sola Scriptura by epologists alleges low rates of literacy and limited access to books in the first few centuries of the Christian era. However, Larry Hurtado, in the course of a book review, presents evidence to the contrary:

***********************************************

[Quote] Contending also that there is “little evidence of private lay ownership of biblical books at any early date” (21) and that there is “no reason to suppose that Christians were disproportionately more likely than other people to own books” (23), Bagnall urges that “the natural sense of palaeographical comparisons can be followed without an unreasonable zeal for finding origins” (24). Later in the book, as another reason why there should be very few copies of Christian writings in the earliest centuries, Bagnall notes that “Christian books had no role in the traditional Greek educational system” (50).

I find his claims a bit puzzling, however. For example, as to evidence of private copies of Christian texts, it is commonly thought that the copies of Christian writings (including some biblical writings) on reused rolls (“opisthographs,” e.g., the third-century copy of the Gospel of John known as P22) likely represent inexpensive copies made for personal usage. Also, given Bagnall’s recognition of “Christianity’s inheritance from Judaism of a writing-centered culture” (2), and given that certain texts were treated as scripture and came to have a special place in early Christian worship and devotional life, do we not have reason to think that Christians may in fact have been somewhat more inclined than the general population to value, own, and use their writings? Granted, Christian texts were not copied for use in schools; nevertheless, Christians may well have had their own reasons for being involved in, and committed to, copying texts. So they may have produced copies of their texts disproportionate to the number of Christians in the general population. In any case, it is curious that Bagnall makes no reference to Kim Haines- Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford University Press, 2000), who argued that there was frequent private copying of Christian texts in the early centuries.

Chapter 3, “The Economics of Book Production,” is a very demanding discussion of how much it may have cost to produce copies of texts in the second and third centuries. Personally, I found the flurry of various figures and various monetary measures a bit difficult to follow at some points. In any case, again, Bagnall takes no serious account of the private copying of texts and seems to base his analysis solely on costs involved in professional copying. He is likely correct, however, that there were more Christians in the third century, and more of them with sufficient means to afford paying for copies of texts, than in the second century and that this is probably reflected in the comparatively greater number of copies of Christian texts datable to the third century.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7289_7933.pdf