hatsoff

I confess I am not formally trained in ancient history or literature, but I had a thought yesterday which, if true, might go a long way towards explaining the process of Biblical authorship and canonization.

What kind of value did ancient peoples place on written documents? It seems to me that, given low literacy rates, the scarcity of writing materials, and the difficulty in producing, maintaining and transmitting texts, that these early societies would by default hold any written document in extremely high regard--something to be revered for the mere fact that they exist. Was this the case, or am I completely off-base?

If literature itself was already valued so highly, then would that not make any religious text easier to advance as authoritative and divine? Could this help explain the early veneration and false ascription of the New Testament documents?

Just a thought.

Chris Weimer

Which part of the world are you talking about? The Greeks and Romans had no qualms criticising written literature. They did it all the time.

neilgodfrey

There is evidence to the opposite being the case. Clement of Alexandria, our famous Papias, and even, I think, Plato, downplayed the usefulness of written texts in comparison to being taught orally. And many texts were edited over the years -- secular as well as our religious ones. At least one ancient librarian was famous for trying to work out the original text of Homer by locating all the interpolations that had crept in over the centuries. And churchmen would add their own passages or words to religious texts to make them say what they thought they should say.

Even earlier gospels were changed by subsequent gospel writers. Mark was changed by Matthew (just one example here). Davies and Thompson argue that there were rival scribal schools who created our OT literature by writing texts as arguments against what each other had written.

One of Paul's letters warns readers not to accept what someone else had written in his name.

This sort of evidence would not indicate that any particular text was all that sacred just by virtue of being a text.

Roger Pearse

I'm a little more sympathetic to the OP, although there are plenty of qualifications that need to be made. There is something in this (although there are plenty of examples that could be adduced to the contrary, let's consider the OP). After all, when an ideological movement comes into existence, after the founders and their circle die whatever written remains they leave must inevitably acquire a special status, I would have thought; and this will not be a process that happens suddenly, but over time, as access to them declines. The written remains are obviously valuable because they are written; hence the use of extracts as charms.

Incidentally should we be convinced that ancient times were perceptibly less literate than modern times before the creation of universal education? The latter is a recent thing, of course. It would be absurd to describe people in the 16-18th centuries as living in a non-literate society, after all.

I don't recall the passage from Clement -- reference? Plato likewise.

Papias says something slightly different -- that he preferred the testimony of a living voice (i.e. a witness from the apostolic circle). Well, who wouldn't? But he didn't prefer oral tradition to written tradition, when we start thinking of oral tradition of something handed down from one generation to another to another, as far as I can see.

These sentences give an impression of textual fluidity which isn't justified by the evidence, tho. Generally texts were not edited like this (although technical manuals might well be extended, supplemented, abridged, etc), not least because they were copied by slaves, and making wholesale changes would have earned them a beating, and for their master to edit the text was much, much more work. And why do it?

The interpolations into Homer -- a text transmitted orally, remember, and probably modified ad-hoc as common property by the bards of that period, and then in an uncontrolled manner by people who were emerging from that -- these are not good evidence for the point being made. On the contrary, the critical activity to free the text of spuria and damage indicates that by the Hellenistic era, control of texts from that period from random damage was progressing seriously, and that people wanted good texts. The workers were the first six librarians at the Museum in Alexandria, Zeonodotus to Aristarchus.

The idea that churchmen would just add words ad-hoc to a copy is strange; would you be more specific here? On the contrary we can think of the example of the presbyter thrown out of the church for composing a novel, the Acts of Paul.

?

It sounds most improbable, and quite what evidence they could have I do not know.

Indeed, which rather indicates that forgery was not acceptable, rather than that it was.

True. But I think the OP was more nuanced than this. And one might quote the fabrication of gnostic gospels in the names of apostles as evidence that it was worth a try; that such texts could get undeserved respect among the unwary. Such attempts explain why the church produced the rule of faith -- a quick, memorisable summary which could be used to check whether a text was actually a forgery by outsiders peddling their own ideas -- and canon lists of acceptable (and sometimes unacceptable) books.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I don't know the Clement quote, but Plato's comes from Book X where he speaks of censoring Homer since Homer depicts the gods as less than perfect.

jgibson000

It's helpful to note in which of Plato's writings this Book 10 you adduce appears. It is of course Book 10 of The Republic.

Jeffrey

hatsoff

Thanks for the responses, guys. They have all been helpful so far. I had forgotten about the Papias passage, which is quite on point and to the contrary of my silly hypothesis. On the other hand, Roger's idea that texts enjoyed sufficient status and veneration that forgery was often "worth a try" is interesting, too.

I really need to take some formal classes on this stuff. It's all very fascinating.

Roger Pearse

I hope you didn't feel "sat on"? I sort of felt that you were groping towards an idea that was quite original, and perhaps was another element in the picture which I wouldn't normally have seen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

hatsoff

Sat on? Not at all. I was mistaken--although as you pointed out I may be on the right track to some extent--but I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. (At least that's what I like to tell myself...)

andrewcriddle

There are also references in the Phaedrus by Plato and in his seventh letter to the advantages of speech and the probems of the written word.

Clement of Alexandria says something similar in the early part of book one of the Stromateis.

Andrew Criddle