The Physical Form of Early Christian Literature

Along with thousands of other people, I received an E-reader device for Christmas last year (2010). Somewhat of an Amazon addict, I was more than happy with my Kindle. Still, I’m also a bit of a bibliophile. Despite my love for Kindle, the feel, smell, and look of a real book still lights my fire. I also find my interaction with the text of a printed book is different than that of the surprisingly book-like Kindle screen. 

In many ways, contemporary readers are in a time of massive textual transition from printed and bound books to electronic texts. Print newspapers are dying out, magazines are being reinvented as web-based publications, and Amazon now sells more Kindles than anything else. Not to mention the rise of the blog. All of this prompts lots of questions about what the textual transition means. How does the form of a text influence how it is read, used, and valued? What unforeseen changes will electronic textuality bring about?

Now, consider how similar questions might be asked about the physical form of early Christian literature. For too long, scholars have failed to reflect on how the physical form of early Christian literature was different than modern print culture. This is unfortunate because as Harry Gamble observes, “All aspects of the production, distribution, and use of texts presuppose social functions and forces – functions and forces that are given representation, or inscribed, in the design of the text as a concrete, physical object” (43). Again, we return to Harry Gamble’s seminal book to describe the physical form of early Christian literature and its implications (chapter 2 of Books and Readers in the Early Church).

There are two significant textual transitions that are relevant to understanding ancient books. First, there was a shift from “the roll book (scroll) to the leaf book (codex), which transpired between the second and fourth centuries” (43). Second, to appreciate the modern reader’s distance from ancient book culture, the shift from handwritten books to printed books in the fifteenth century. In order to understand the first transition Gamble begins by describing the standard book form of Greco-Roman antiquity – the scroll.

Scrolls were typically manufactured out of either the papyrus or less commonly because of the cost parchment. Papyrus was produced mostly in Egypt from a papyrus plant found in marshes. Papyrus paper was produced by cutting the stalk of the plant into sections and then peeling the pith into strips. These strips would be laid side by side then overlaid with another crisscrossing layer of strips. The overlapping layers would be pressed together and dried into a single sheet (roughly 20-30 centimeters high and 18-20 centimeters wide). Then, about twenty sheets were glued together with the horizontal strips facing inward for writing. Producing parchment was more complex and expensive because it consisted of turning animal skins into a suitable writing surface. Papyrus was the standard until about the fourth century CE (47). During the beginnings of the early Christian movement, Jewish Torah scrolls were somewhat unique because they were commonly made of parchment rather than papyrus.

Typically, the inside of a scroll was the only part with writing on it. The text would be in columns ranging from 6-9 centimeters wide and 15-24 centimeters high (47). All of the texts were scriptio continua, that is “without divisions between words, without punctuation or accents, and without paragraphing, so that each column presented a monolith of characters” (48, pictured right with P46 an early manuscript of Paul’s letters).  

Despite the almost ubiquitous use of scrolls in Greco-Roman and Jewish book production Christians stand out. “Almost without exception," the early Christians did not use "the papyrus roll," but rather "the papyrus codex, or leaf book” (49). This is really quite amazing. Prior to the third century CE, nearly 98% of Greek books are scrolls, but Christian texts from the same time are almost all codices. This shows that “early Christianity had an almost exclusive preference for the codex as the medium of its own writings and thus departed early and widely from the established bibliographic conventions of its environment” (49). This begs the question, why did Christians find it necessary to use such a radically different physical form for their literature?

(Codex Sinaiticus)

It is interesting that Gamble points out how the codex was regarded as a less proper form for a book. It was more akin to a modern “notebook” than a properly bound book of distinction (49-53). Why would Christians latch on to this improper form to produce their literature?

A number of possibilities have been suggested. First, it could have been motivated by economics. Gamble estimates that the cost of production for a codex was about 25% less than a scroll. So, some have suggested the early Christian predisposition for the codex was an attempt to produce texts while lacking sufficient resources to do so. This suggestion flounders somewhat because the codices themselves do not portray unusually poor quality of text production. 

Second, it has been suggested that the primary motive for the codex was convenience. Much like the convenience of a modern e-reader, the codex was easier to use because it could be held in one hand. It was also significantly more compact (reducing the size of text by almost 50%). Codices could be more comprehensive containing large works in a single book, and easier to access at different points in a text. These conveniences are certainly notable, but the size of early Christian texts were generally not unwieldy enough to require a different form. As Gamble points out, “A gospel was brief enough to be easily contained in a roll of normal length, and as a narrative it was meant to be read from beginning to end” (63). Why then use the codex?

Gamble suggests that perhaps the predisposition for codices was the result of identifying with a Christian tradition – namely Paul’s letters. “Not only were Paul’s letters, so far as we know, the earliest Christian writings, they were also the earliest to be valued, imitated, to circulate beyond their original recipients, and to be collected” (58; cf. 2 Pet 3.15-16). A collection of Paul’s letters would have been most suitable in a codex form. The codex would allow a reader, for example, to conveniently begin with Colossians, a letter in the middle of the collection. In light of this tradition, a modified convenience/tradition theory makes the most sense of explaining why the early Christians used the codex as their book form of choice.

Unlike surrounding book culture, the early Christians were concerned to produce books that would be conveniently readable and accessible. It is also likely, that Christians were concerned to make books easy to travel. Following the missionary-letter-writing example of Paul, the early Christians used the codex as their primary means of producing books.

What do you think this says about how the early Christians read, used, and valued their books?

Literacy and Culture in Early Christianity

Gamble begins his first chapter with an intriguing quote from Origen. Perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the early church, Origen was defending the scriptures from the accusation of being literarily lackluster. He did not defend the gospels as masterpieces of literature, but rather argued,

It was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers. Nay, I am of opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted both to think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the ministers of His doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of employing artifices, like those philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects, and consequently the promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would not have manifested itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in the persuasive utterance and arrangement of words, then faith also, like that of the philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been through the wisdom of men, and not through the power of God. (Against Celsus 1.62)

Origen goes on to quote Paul’s response to his cultured Corinthian despisers (1 Cor 2.4-5).  Similarly, Acts portrays the apostles as “unlettered and uneducated” (Acts 4.13). Origen did not disagree with Celsus’ assessment of the literary quality of early Christian literature. Instead, like Paul and Luke, he evaluated it as a testament to the divine power behind the movement.

Despite the response of a highly educated man many years later, one has to wonder about the literary culture of the early Christians. Harry Gamble raises three pertinent questions, “First, to what extent were the skills of literacy available within early Christianity, and what role did literacy play in Christian life? Second, how far did early Christians depend upon texts? Third, how are Christian texts to be understood in relation to the literature of the larger society of which the early church was a part?” (2). His first chapter in Books and Readers in the Early Church thoughtfully addresses these questions.

The question of early Christian literacy is immediately complicated by competing conceptions of “literacy.” The contemporary world is highly textual. The technology of the printing press was only more radically intensified with the advent of the internet. So, it is difficult for those of us in the information age to appreciate the lack of textual familiarity in the largely oral culture of the first century. Still, it is important to recognize that “literacy,” was both extremely rare and widely varied. It was rare in the sense that most people could not read. It was varied in that “literacy” could describe one’s ability to read a simple text aloud or the skills to compose lengthy texts.

The typical estimate of literacy, broadly defined as “the ability to read or write at any level” (4) was only about 10 percent of society at large. The lack of any widespread educational system meant literacy was limited to the elite. Thus a small movement composed largely of the non-elite would have been even less literate. A number of descriptions among the church fathers seem to imply that the vast majority of believers were not among the educated elite. Consider for example, Tertullian’s description of how believers struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity, “the simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers” (Against Praxeas 3). Or again, Origen in response to Celsus,

Although, among the multitude of converts to Christianity, the simple and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the more intelligent, as the former class always does the latter, yet Celsus . . . himself admits that it was not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to adopt His religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst them some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories. (Against Celsus, 1.27).

Even Paul indicates the general low status of the Corinthian community (1 Cor 1.26; 2.8). This leads Gamble to the sober conclusion, “not only the writing of Christian literature, but also the ability to read, criticize, and interpret it belonged to a small number of Christians in the first several centuries, ordinarily not more than about 10 percent in any given setting, and perhaps fewer in the many small provincial congregations that were characteristic of early Christianity” (5).

This does not mean that the early Christians lacked familiarity with texts. Christian communities were unique among ancient religions in their focus on texts. Gamble thinks it quite likely that some level of literacy was a requirement of early Christian leaders (Acts 18.24; 1 Tim 4.13; cf. 1 Clement; Ignatius’ letters; Polycarp to Phil.; Papias of Heirapolis). Thus, despite low levels of literacy, “Every Christian had the opportunity to become acquainted with Christian literature, especially the scriptures, through catechetical instruction and the reading and homiletical exposition of texts in the context of worship” (10). Literacy, then, was not widespread in early Christianity, but was common among leaders who then made texts available to their communities via public reading.

New Testament scholarship is a discipline weaned on form criticism and its assumptions about the development of NT literature. One of the primary assumptions is a sharp distinction between oral and textual transmission of tradition. Gamble argues that this assumption is misguided. Thus old distinctions between literature proper and early Christian texts as crude written compilations of oral stories simply do not hold water (11-20). Furthermore, “No Greco-Roman religious group produced, used, or valued texts on a scale comparable to Judaism and Christianity, so that apart from Jewish literature, there is no appreciable body of religious writings with which early Christian literature can be fruitfully compared” (18). As far as the evidence indicates, Christians and Jews were uniquely dependent on texts as part of their religious identity.

Recognizing the paucity of comparable evidence, one of the immediately obvious facts about early Christian literature is its interaction with the Old Testament. “From the beginning Christianity was deeply engaged in the interpretation and appropriation of texts. That activity presupposed not only a mature literacy but also sophisticated scribal and exegetical skills” (27). Thus, again we see a Christian predisposition to value texts.

But overall, how does early Christian literature fit into its first century environment? First, the language of the NT seems to be significantly influenced by Semitic grammatical oddities. This is probably explained by the fact that the NT writers were Jewish and deeply indebted to the Greek version of the OT (LXX). What about the fact that NT Greek lacks the poetic literary methods of historians and philosophers? Studies have shown that this is not a vulgar Greek but rather the language “commonly used by scholars with scientific and humanistic interests,” like pharmacology, astronomy and mathematics (33). Thus, the NT language “was not the classicizing Greek of arts and letters, nor was it popular Greek, but the professional prose of the day” (34).

Second, there is the observation that early Christian literature employs common features of ancient rhetoric. Indeed, “most Christian writers of the second through the fifth centuries were practiced in the rhetorical arts” (35). Likewise, Paul seems to be a capable rhetorician in his letters, though this is widely debated among scholars. There has been much work on rhetorical criticism of the NT since Gamble’s work was published so this point is only stated most generally.

Third, the genres of the NT are quite unique. The gospels fit awkwardly among Greco-Roman biographic literature but there is little else to compare them. The numerous letters show affinity with ancient epistolary conventions but substantially differ in length and content. Historical narrative of Acts broadly fits among historical literature, but is narrow in its focus on Peter and Paul. Apocalyptic, “the most identifiably Jewish” (38) genre, is set apart by its focus on Jesus. NT literature is not generically similar to extant Greco-Roman literature from the first century.

Gamble thus concludes, “For axiomatic as it may be that Christians wrote for practical rather than aesthetic purposes, there is in writing that intends to teach and persuade both the opportunity and the need for literary skill, skill that must have been available to Christianity from its birth” (39). As Christianity grew and spread so did its literary capacity eventually producing Origen, Augustine, the Cappadocians and others. Yet the first Christian educated people were primarily converts who put their literary skills to work for the cause of Christ.

Early Christian Readers

How was early Christian literature made? Who read it? In what circumstances were Christian books read? How did they compare to other ancient books in physical form, literary quality and reading function? The significance of these questions is often overlooked. In fact, in the many NT classes I have taken both at the undergraduate and graduate level, rarely have these questions been addressed.

It is precisely to these questions that Harry Gamble attends in his masterful, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. The goal of the book is to provide “a history of early Christian texts” (x). It is a difficult history to write. Early Christian writers give few details regarding the production, circulation and use of their literature because they assumed the process to be common knowledge. Rather than seek to answer these questions by focusing on a specific geographic region or time frame, Gamble attempts to provide a portrait of the entire landscape of the literary culture of the burgeoning Christian movement in the first five centuries.

Gamble’s study includes five chapters:

1.      Literacy and Culture in Early Christianity

2.      The Early Christian Book

3.      The Publication and Circulation of Early Christian Literature

4.      Early Christian Libraries

5.      The Uses of Early Christian Books

In each chapter Gamble seeks to answer his questions by first placing them in the larger context of Jewish and Greco-Roman literary culture. He then, as far as possible, compares what we know about literacy and books with what is evidenced among the early Christians. The result is a fantastically insightful book. In light of this book’s significance I will provide a review of each chapter in a series of upcoming posts. Stay tuned. Larry Hurtado thinks Gamble’s book “ought to be required for any PhD student in the field.” You will want to know why.