Michael R. Jordan

In Ehrman's book titled Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) it is claimed that

"...at the very best of times and places--for example, Athens at the height of the classical period in the fifth century B.C.E--literacy rates were rarely higher than 10-15 percent of the population" (Page 37)

Therefore, the best time and place within this period was in the 5th century Athens, which "85-90 percent of the population could not read or write" (Ibid)

Yet, in Rubenstein's book titled When Jesus became God (or via: amazon.co.uk), it is said that "Many could read and write; the early Christians, like the Jews, considered themselves People of the Book and prized their ability to read Scripture."

Do you see where I am getting confused? Do the quotes conflict with one another or does "many" according to Rubenstein actually refer to such rather low ( when examined from the vantage point of modern time) literacy promulgated by Ehrman?


Best Regards,

Michael

Chris Weimer

Um - that's a 500 year difference there.

dongiovanni1976x

Chris, but in those 500 years (actually almost a thousand, now that I think about it) it has been argued that there was never a time when literacy was higher than they were in Classical Athens. Charles Freeman argues this in his work, "The Closing of the Western Mind (or via: amazon.co.uk)".

I have read both books you cite Michael and I think that the word "read" Rubenstein was referring to should be viewed or defined in light of what Ehrman says about how people "read" books in such days. "...literary texts were an oral phenomena: books were made to be read out loud, often in public, so that a person usually "read" a book by hearing it read by someone else." (Ehrman, B., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (or via: amazon.co.uk)3rd ed 2004 p54) Yes, many early Christians considered themselves people of the book, but when they "read" a book they did so by "listening" or "hearing" someone literate reading it. But this does not answer why Rubenstein says, "Many could read and write"...

For this last reason I think you bring up a very good point. But I would lean towards the historian and expert in New Testament studies on this one, instead of the expert in conflict resolutionist (aka Rubenstien).

Toto

I think that someone recently remarked that a 10 percent literacy rate is sufficient to make a society literate, in terms of providing the benefits of literacy to much of the population through scribes or readers.

dongiovanni1976x

So I wonder if "many" Christians would say that when the author of the Gospel of Matthew says, “Many are called but few are chosen” (22:14) that they would be satisfied that God only calls 10% of his people and that the other 90% never even had a chance...
I'm just kidding - I couldn't resist...I think Michael brings up a good question though...

Michael R. Jordan

Hm, interesting. I have Ehrmans NT testament book too. Would these Christians of such a time have avered to be able to "read" if all they actually did was listen?

Chris Weimer

1000? We go from the 400's to the very latest 400, a span of only 800 years, and even then the point was about early Christians, I'd push it back farther to literacy from 70-300.

I never read the book, but arguments from within are surely appreciated.

Furthermore, I'm weary of the arguments, nor am I exactly sure what is being argued. For example, when Greeman argues that literacy was greatest in Classical Athens, does he mean that literacy in Athens was at its peak during its classical period or that literature around the AMC? After Alexander, Athens was in a decline, but Rome, Alexandria, and other places were bursting with literacy. If you think about the entire Roman population with 10% literacy rate, that's quite a significant number.

Malachi151

I'm not so sure about these numbers. I simply can't imagine that the literacy rate was only 10% in Rome or Alexandria.

For one thing there was a huge amount of trade and commercial activity going on, which required literacy for the record keeping. Then there were so many books and poems written, and law was made public and posted in public squares.

Surely more than 1 in 10 people could read, its not like reading is THAT hard.

I'd like to compare this to literacy rates in the early American South though.

Since all of these civilizations had slaves, are they counting the slaves as a part of the population that couldn't read, or are these rates based only on the literacy rate of free citizens, etc.?

darstec

It is my understanding that it was the slaves that were for the most part the literate sector of their society, totally unlike the American experience.

dongiovanni1976x

Sorry for the confusion...but I was basing that figure on the fact that Rubenstien's entire book is set no earlier than the 4th century. Thus my reason for rounding it up so high...I thought when you said "500 years" you might not have been aware of the time period Rubenstien's book covered.