Literacy in the Ancient World and Christianity

[Magic Man]

It's just that once you talk about people's feelings back in that time, then you have to be inferring your conclusion. Unless these people wrote down how they felt, you can only "know" by taking what evidence you have about them, and applying logic and common sense. That is all the OP was doing with the original statement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's just that once you talk about people's feelings back in that time, then you have to be inferring your conclusion. Unless these people wrote down how they felt, you can only "know" by taking what evidence you have about them, and applying logic and common sense. That is all the OP was doing with the original statement.

Writing is not the only form of expression that is preserved for us. Illiterate people can fight wars, create artwork in protest, even dictate poetry and etc. The unbelief of readers is also preserved in writings - a historian or scribe can say "so-and-so" refused to believe because they would not trust someone they did not know to read to them.

Critical interpretation of this evidence is far better than uninformed common sense from someone completely immersed in a literate culture.

 

[Magic Man]

Writing is not the only form of expression that is preserved for us. Illiterate people can fight wars, create artwork in protest, even dictate poetry and etc. The unbelief of readers is also preserved in writings - a historian or scribe can say "so-and-so" refused to believe because they would not trust someone they did not know to read to them.

Critical interpretation of this evidence is far better than uninformed common sense from someone completely immersed in a literate culture.

So, you'd rather rely on people's ability to communicate things through thousands of years by word of mouth, rather than have the person write it in their own words, so that you can read yourself exactly which words were used?

Have you ever played the game "Telephone"?

 

[Magic Man]

By the way, Etu, that link didn't work for me. It might just be my computer, but I just wanted to let you know. I appreciate it, though.

 

[EtuMalku]

I edited it, try it now

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, you'd rather rely on people's ability to communicate things through thousands of years by word of mouth, rather than have the person write it in their own words, so that you can read yourself exactly which words were used?

Have you ever played the game "Telephone"?

It's not what I would prefer - it's what happened. The more we learn about the ancient and modern world, the more we see that oral tradition comparatively reliable to written histories.

There is a tension between the amount of writings that are preserved from the ancient world. Classicists (read - humanists) used to believe that the literacy rate was very high in the ancient world, imagining ancients much like themselves after the printing press. However, now we know that knowledge was expressed and preserved orally and heard even though a large amount of material was written. The written works - even letters - were more often than not written and read by professional scribes (read poor scholar or slave) who could and often did serve to share his/her knowledge with their friends and family.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you ever played the game "Telephone"?

Not in an oral culture.

Common sense only applies to a common environment.

 

[Magic Man]

Not in an oral culture.

So, have you ever played the game "Telephone"? He asks again, hoping for a normal, logical response.

Brilliant, Etu! Great link! I hope AE has time to read it, and respond.

 

[Magic Man]

Not in an oral culture.

Common sense only applies to a common environment.

Ah, so their environment was completely different then? I'm sorry, I thought they were still civilized human beings with all of the same basic things we have today. I guess one slight difference in their culture does make them a completely different species, though, subject to completely different laws of logic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, have you ever played the game "Telephone"?

My original response was perfectly logical, as it highlights how my playing this game or its results apply to this topic (at least from the POV I think that you're coming from...).

I have played the game, and it illustrates perfectly how people not in an oral culture are not trained to retain information and convey it in a reliable manner. It therefore shows our ineptitude at transferring knowledge orally, when we've been relying on all sorts of media other than our memory and ears. We don't know how to listen properly and we don't know how to retain information in the way that people did previously.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, so their environment was completely different then? I'm sorry, I thought they were still civilized human beings with all of the same basic things we have today. I guess one slight difference in their culture does make them a completely different species, though, subject to completely different laws of logic.

Logic is not the same thing as common sense.

 

[Magic Man]

Logic is not the same thing as common sense.

OK, but they seem to go together pretty well. If you use common sense, you're generally being logical, and vice versa.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, but they seem to go together pretty well. If you use common sense, you're generally being logical, and vice versa.

Sure. I was very clear that applying common sense in our culture to theirs is not the best way to approach this problem. Ancient circumstances and culture are so different that common sense for us in our context cannot apply - one must think more critically about it.

note:

In a literate culture it is, but not in an oral one...

It is prejudice, by the way, if one is making judgments about something that one knows nothing about. What evidence are you coming to this conclusion? I suspect personal common sense experience [leads one to believe] that illiteracy gives someone a disadvantage, but not in a culture where only 10% of the population can read.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure. I was very clear that applying common sense in our culture to theirs is not the best way to approach this problem. Ancient circumstances and culture are so different that common sense for us in our context cannot apply - one must think more critically about it.

note:

And I was pointing out the fact common sense is the only way you can get to some conclusions about their culture, just as you were doing before. I was just pointing out the contradiction in saying that you can't apply our common sense to an ancient culture, and then applying your common sense to an ancient culture. I'll post the quote that illustrates this in another response.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is this the Harris you make reference to?
If so he makes it quite clear about his stance on literacy

Sorry, I could not copy/paste the article

Ancient Literacy - Google Book Search

Yes, this is the guy.

First century evidence begins on page 158 (with Plutarch, and then he regresses).

 

[Magic Man]

Illiterate people were skeptical of the written word. In other words, they were more trusting of the oral word and therefore when something was read to them they would be more likely to question it.

Let's say you can get from the information we do have that they were skeptical of the written word. From there you use common sense to say that they trusted the oral word more, and so would be liekly to question the written word.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, this is the guy.

So, how do you explain his complete contradiction of what you're saying?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, how do you explain his complete contradiction of what you're saying?

He doesn't contradict me in the slightest.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, how do you explain his complete contradiction of what you're saying?

How easily the arguments are forgotten:

1) Widespread illiteracy in the ancient world is a non-issue. [The implication of the OP is that most converts to early Christianity were illiterate idiots who were easily manipluated into belief, presumably by those b***** Christian bishops who controlled orthodoxy with writings, leading those helpless poor folks by the nose] Since most erveryone was illiterate, implications of manipulation and contrast to other groups loses all of its force.

2) Illiterate people could have stuff read to them rather easily despite low literacy rates. This is because poor people could read - slaves, scribes, and scholars. Many folks had a family member or friend or wiseperson in the town who could serve literary purposes. These purposes were mostly the writing of contracts and wills rather than knowledge.

3) Illiterate people were skeptical of the written word. In other words, they were more trusting of the oral word and therefore when something was read to them they would be more likely to question it. This is emphatically against the OP.

4) The bulk of ancient knowledge was passed on orally anyway. That's how philosophy, religion, poetry, and skills permeated the ancient world. Even written stuff was read aloud by slaves (etc) to hearers, be they rich or poor.

These are Harris' principle conclusions...

EDIT: Unfortunately, google won't let me read anymore in the preview.

 

[EtuMalku]

[The implication of the OP is that most converts to early Christianity were illiterate idiots who were easily manipluated into belief, presumably by those b***** Christian bishops who controlled orthodoxy with writings, leading those helpless poor folks by the nose] Since most erveryone was illiterate, implications of manipulation and contrast to other groups loses all of its force.

I never used the word idiot, why are you?
You imply what you think I am saying

You then presume what you think I mean

presumably by those b***** Christian bishops

erveryone was illiterate

lol, you're killing me!