Loading...How many Christians by near the end of the New Testament period – say, 100 CE – could read and write? In his intriguing article “Christian Number and Its Implications,” Roman historian Keith Hopkins tries to come up with some ballpark figures.
As you may recall, he is assuming that there were Christian churches in about 100 communities in the world at the time (we have references to about 50 in our surviving texts, and he is supposing that maybe there were twice as many as we have any evidence for); and he agrees that if Christianity started out with about 1000 believers in the year 40 then with a growth rate of 3.4% per year, by the year 100 there would be just over 7000 Christians in the world.
That would mean
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hopkins points out that in antiquity the population would be roughly 30% adult male; 30% adult female; and 40% children under the age of 17. And so an average church at the time would have 20 men, 20 women, and 30 children.
Now, how many of them could read? The reality is that most women did not have a basic education. But that’s true of men as well. The overall literacy rate among adult men at the time was low (this is based on other studies, such as William Harris, Ancient Literacy), probably something like 10-20%. (Among women, what, 1-2%?)
So let’s assume that it was 20%. That would mean that an average church, with 70 members, of whom 20 were adult males, would have, on average four who would read. And of course their reading abilities would cover a wide range: some could probably read very painstakingly and slowly, maybe one or two could read pretty well – it’s hard to say. Overall, there would be, around the year 100, 400 Christians (in the entire world) who could read.
Again, these numbers sound overly precise because they are. No one is saying that we know exactly how many people who called themselves Christian could read in the year 100. But these are not simply blind guesses. They are calculations based on what little surviving evidence we have – references to churches in every surviving source, evidence of rates of literacy in antiquity, and so on.
I wonder sometimes what the implications of such numbers would be. In particular, I have long been struck by the fact, which I take to be a fact, that Christianity – unlike virtually every other religion we know of, with the exception of Judaism – was a religion that focused on the importance of written texts in a world where few people could read.
For Judaism, of course, texts were important: the Law of Moses, found in the Torah, was central to Jewish life and practice. But for Christians, I would argue, texts were at least as important, maybe even more so. The Scriptures (Jewish Bible) were read deeply and seriously to see how they had predicted the coming of Christ. Scripture was an absolute authority for the Christians (even as they reinterpreted major portions of the Law in order to show why it no longer had to be followed literally for those who believed in Christ).
But in addition, they had their own writings – accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus which were quoted as authoritative texts; writings of his apostle Paul; books circulating in the names of other apostles. Already by the end of the first century, say, again, 100 CE, there were Christians who maintained that these other writings were just as authoritative (or even more so) than the Jewish Scriptures. These books were read aloud in churches every week; they were studied; they were copied and circulated. Christianity was not *strictly* a literary movement, of course. But writings had a unique place in it.
I stress this point for two reasons. For one thing, this made Christianity (along with Judaism) very different indeed from all the other religions in the Roman Empire. Even though we today think of religions in relationship to their books (e.g., the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Qur’an), in ancient Rome, books had very little indeed to do with religion. Roman religions had nothing comparable to a “Bible.”
But for another thing, what do we make of a religion that focuses heavily on books when most of its adherents couldn’t even read?
Many years ago now I had a graduate student who wrote her Master’s thesis on this issue (Kim Haines-Eitzen, who went on to be a professor of early Christianity and chair of her department at Cornell). She argued, quite sensibly in my opinion, that the ability to read in a book-oriented community was a marker of high status and power. Who would be the leaders of the early churches? The people who could read. They were the ones who had access to the sacred texts. They were the ones who provided access to these texts to others in the community. And most important, they were the ones who would have been trusted to provide the authoritative interpretation of these texts. They were, after all, the only ones who had direct access to them.
It might occur to someone to ask: if texts were so important in the early Christian movement, then why didn’t the literate leaders of the churches teach other people how to read? There probably were logistical problems in doing so – these literate people were not necessarily able to teach what they knew; people had very little leisure time for activities that in fact take massive amounts of time (getting an education); and since there were no institutions in the environment that set the pattern for adult education, it may well not have even occurred to someone that it would be a good idea to teach others to read.
But in her thesis, Kim argued something else. Literacy provided the bishops of each church (that is, the head honchos) with a source of power, and they were not willing to relinquish it to others. The power of interpreting the religion was in the hands of very few. And that allowed the Christian leaders to assert their own authority, their own interpretations of the faith, within their communities.
It’s an interesting idea. Some people might consider it a bit too conspiratorial. But I think there may be something to it, in a religion where having the correct understanding of the faith was completely central, was, in fact, of fundamental importance not just for life in this world but for guaranteeing a happy afterlife. For the Christians, God wanted you to have the right religion. And the smart, literate people were the ones who could tell you what that was. Maybe they weren’t overly eager to share their power….
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
39 Comments
Leave A Comment
I think Dr. Haines-Eitzen’s premise makes sense given how Christianity develops. The Bible remained in Latin for similar reasons that the Quran’s Arabic version remains *the* version: to prevent error. That wasn’t always effective, we only need to look at all the eccentricities in the Vulgate to know that, but it was the idea.
Some of Maimonides’s work was written in Arabic language using Hebrew letters. This could be because it was the vernacular for his cosmopolitan Jewish audience in al-Andalus, but I think it’s also possible that it was intended as an obstacle to prevent random people from reading and misunderstanding his work. Writing this way means that it can’t be read by someone who knows only one of the languages. Uneducated Jews who might not be “primed” to understand the more complex topics Maimonides discussed wouldn’t get all mixed up and Christians and Muslims trying to polemicise wouldn’t be able to get into the text either.
Theoretically the idea is to safeguard the correct interpretation of the religion, but as we see with Luther it’s also wielded to maintain a power base. It’s not an either/or thing, they’re both the same purpose shaded in different ways.
In 100 CE where or how would the 10-20 per cent have learned to read? Would most of them have been from wealthy or privileged families?
Yes, and slaves trained for the job. But my own sense is that the literacy rates among Xns at the time were lower than the general populatoin.
Dr Ehrman
You often speak about the challenges of translation and finding the right English for the original Greek. Inspired by you I’ve read the Bible, in the gospels the word amazed Is used a lot
“Jesus did X and they were amazed” etc
But in context when this word is used I get the feeling whatever Greek word is translated as ‘amazed’ doesn’t mean amazed in the same way we use it today, it seems to have both a slightly different meaning and even different meanings in different contexts. Is there anything to this, can you think of another word or series of words that more accurately conveys what was written in the original Greek
I really hope this makes sense and you understand what I’m trying to ask as ironically even using my own language I’m struggling to convey exactly what I’m trying to ask here, I’ve seriously batted this question around in my head, trying to find the right wording for over a year but have finally accepted this is the best I can do without writing my question in 1,000 word essay form with examples
The Greek word is THAUMAZO, used in the passive voice, and it means something like “be astonished” or “stand in wonder at.” It can be used of when someone sees an unbelievably gorgeous or strong person and can hardly believe it; it can be used of someone seeing a magician do his incredible trick; it can be used when someone is blown away by most anything someone else is/does that’s highly unusual. I think “amazed” generally means something like that in English too. Do you have a different take?
Anyone considering it “a bit too conspiratorial” might wish to remember that the Catholic Church didn’t hold services in a language people could understand until the 1960s and Luther (and others) got in hot water (or hot flames) for translating the Bible into the vernacular.
So the same arguments are valid for Judaism ?
Yes, most Jews could not read either, contrary to what lots of us heard when we were younger, that “all Jewish boys learned to read the Torah.” Wrong.
This is such an interesting reminder and perspective. I grew up in a climate where studying scripture seemed to be a pre-requisite to truly following the faith. Correct interpretation was considered to be attainable to the truly astute.
What does that imply about the many followers of Jesus pre-canonical text? And the ones mentioned here who were perhaps not literate?
It’s not hard to imagine leaders being loathe to impart knowledge to others when doing so might diminish their own power. Religion kind of feeds on hierarchical control and special access.
Yup, it’s an interesting issue. Related to the idea that a Christian has to “believe in the Bible.” What about all those Christians before there *was* a Bible?
And it is more difficult for an adult to learn to read than it is for a child.
I took a beginning Chinese course and was able to read and write about 600 Chinese characters. The average Chinese high school graduate knows about 5000. I gave up.
“400 Christians (in the entire world) who could read.”
In a world where so few christians could write complex theological works isn’t the appearance of two texts as similar as the gospel of John and the first letter of John best explained as being written by the same person?
I wouldn’t say it’s probative, but certainly has to be considered as one of the options. The question is what the evidence indicates one way or the other.
Very interesting Bart; but I am not sure I follow your logic. If you are applying the estimated population prevalence of literacy – from Harris – to model expected numbers of persons in a Christian congregation who might be able to read; then you cannot propose your attributed low number as evidence that church leaders may have discouraged thier congregations from learning to read.
Archeological findings from the house church at Dura Europos might be consistent with the contrary view – at least by the mid 3rd century. Wall surfaces the house church were found to be covered in casual graffiti (as too were the walls of the synagogue and Mithraeum, and likely around half of the domestic houses too). Much of the population of Dura wrote across their walls, apparently without compunction.
But what is distinctive in the house church is the large numbers of abecedaria graffiti found on the courtyard walls – the area believed to be used for the instruction of catechumens. Interpretation of this observation varies; one view is that these were apotropaic. But the majority opinion is that this indicates systematic introduction of catechumens into the elements of reading.
I don’t think graffiti on walls is a strong indication of broad literacy; it doesn’t indicates that everyone passing by those walls could read them. In any event, the Dura Europos church is mid third century. (When one says “much of Dura wrote on their walls” I don’t know what that means. How much/ many people, over what period of time — and which ones?)
“When one says “much of Dura wrote on their walls” I don’t know what that means. How much/ many people, over what period of time — and which ones?”
Every population in Dura contributed to writing on walls – in Greek or course, but also Latin, Palmyrene, Hatrene, Safaitic, and Aramaic. And since graffiti commonly included names and titles (or occupations), we can tell that contributors came from across the social scale; from senior army officers to labourers and marginalised groups. What are conspicuously missing in Dura are ‘intrusive’ graffiti – scabrous, abusive or pornographic. Writing on walls appears to have been normal, expected and welcomed by those on whose walls they were. Most common are memorial formulae; any clients, guests, friends or business associates attending a private house were welcome to record their names, titles and a formulaic greeting on the walls, invoking the householder’s name.
So when the same people attended a sanctuary, synagogue or church, they did the the same and were welcome to do so; now invoking a deity or just “the gods”. We don’t know how many *could* read these memorial notices, but the writers plainly expected them to be read.
As you know, “reading” in antiquity normally meant “hearing someone read.”
Specifically on Kim’s point: “that the ability to read in a book-oriented community was a marker of high status and power”; I note that in ‘On the Apostolic Tradition’ (in this chapter likely early 3rd century), the office of ‘reader’ is *not* one of higher status. “The reader will be installed as the bishop hands over the book for the first time, and will not receive the imposition of a hand” (from the Axumite Ethiopic text). So readers are with subdeacons, virgins and widows who do *not* have episcopal hands laid on them at their institution, by contrast with presbyters, deacons and confessors, who do.
The task of the reader was to read from the scriptures at the Eucharist, and it has been proposed that the lower status associated with this function in the community of the Apostolic Tradition may have been due to the widespread employment of slaves to read to a company at mealtimes in domestic settings.
Sub=orders were still high status, in relationship to hoi polloi.
“It is thus possible that some of the Christians were associated with the MILITARY,
especially considering the likelihood that many of the private houses in the
immediate vicinity of the house-church had been commandeered “to house
resident officers of the GARRISON…
Recently, Lucinda Dirven has carried on the view of Carl Kraeling that “the Christians
in Dura were probably people of a gentile background, who were at least
partly recruited from men who served as soldiers in the ROMAN ARMY”
The world’s oldest church : Bible, art, and ritual at Dura-Europos, Syria – Pepperad,2016
“Widespread use of the written word among soldiers has now been clearly demonstrated by remarkable finds made inexcavations in areas as remote as the eastern desert of Egypt, the fringes of the Libyan Sahara and, above all, at Vindolanda,in northern Britain”
Power, literacy and the Roman army – John Wilkes
Graffitti on city walls is done by a tiny percentage of a population nowadays. Maybe always?
Even fewer graffitists in antiquity!
Early Jewish Christians in Galilee, probably not a one. Early Christians in Laodicia, Alexandria, or Puteoli? Hmm. I’d bet money most of them could read and write well. So fancy.
“and they are taught to read.” Josephus on Essenes in “The Jewish War”, Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 6.
I think you don’t connect Essenes with Early Christianity, but I think it’s Jesus’ mom’s side.
Christianity’s quick uptake of the codex is supposed to be partly responsible for its fast spread, but it first comes from *Egypt*: https://mummybook.uni-graz.at/en/
And that’s what I’ve been doing for the last coupla days, unzipping the Bible against Egypt.
I just found Ramses 2 portraying himself as a Canaanite deity, with the words Saphon (with some undecipherable bit probably referring to Baal) and El.
That’s the Lord God.
All these pharoahs kept their unusual stuff along the southern route, and when you get to Beth-Shean its just Re-Horarkhty.
So Jesus, especially in Revelation, seems to be saying the words of the divine king tradition that hadn’t been seen since the 6th C BCE. Where would you come across that without reading?
Do we know anything of How the few people that were educated in the first century became such? Specifically in the roman empire among the different classes of people
Yes, there’s a lot of scholarship on that. R. Cribbiorre is a great expert to turn to. Basic answer: rich folk sent their kids to school to study how to read and write.
Professor Haines-Eitzen’s thesis seems reasonable, not unlike many modern churches today. Pastors are held in high regard because of their seminary training “they must know more about the bible than us”. Besides, “thou shall not lie”, so what he/she says must be true. While most Christians today are able to read, it has been my experience that most rarely read the bible other than to read the versus’ projected onto the overhead screen at the church service. Those that attend Sunday School classes are usually following a carefully scripted booklet prepared by church leaders.
Interesting. Were apostles mostly men because men were more educated?
Did power in the church shift further towards those who could read when reliance on oral tradition gave way to reliance on written accounts of the life of Jesus? If so, does that help to explain the rise of patriarchy in the church?
The task of gospel writing would fall to the literate. Do you agree that Matthew (because he was a tax collector) and John/Mark (who’s mother had a large house and a slave) could well have been literate enough to write gospels, and that John of Zebedee was probably insufficiently literate?
I suppose apostles were mainly men because men tended to be spokespersons who could travel more than women. And I don’t think we know who the author of Matthew was — nothing in his text connects him with being a tax collector; and nothing in Mark’s Gospel connects him with John Mark. I don’t think either of these people (the tax collector or the person in Acts named John mark would have been literate — certainly not literate in literary Greek)
I think someone could write an interesting history on how the Bible was read and interpreted to people more recently too – in Africa, Asia and S America by “missionaries” who wanted to convert them, but keep their power over them. Africans have an interesting take on how missionaries came to their land with a bible, said ‘Close your eyes, let us pray.’ When they opened their eyes the missionaries had the land and they were left with the bible!
Dr. Ehrmann,
You mentioned an estimate of 120 believers in Rome. What would the estimated population of the city of Rome around the time of Nero?
Obviously, per the historical narration of Tiberius, the Christians would have had a presence to be an annoyance that Nero could cast the blame on them. 120 doesn’t seem to be significant enough, especially considering the percentages of women and children mentioned above?
Your thoughts?
It’s usually put at around 1 million.
To blame someone else for starting a fire, you actually only need to name one person. (Big controversy in California just now, as one example)
The low literacy rate is reflected in the nature of the New Testament books, which are less formal than their counterparts in the Hebrew Bible — aka the “Old Testament.” Paul’s letters are just that, albeit a bit longer than some others in that time (?). They’re fairly concise and could be read aloud in a relatively short amount of time (Not like reading Deuteronomy out loud once a year!). The gospels even have the feel of a nice set of lectionary notes. Here’s what Matthew knew/recalled about Jesus. Let’s see here’s his birth, here’s his death, here are some things he did, and look, here are five collections of famous sayings of Jesus. Hey, as I travel around preaching, bucking up converts and trying to make new ones, I can use this! Maybe I’ll do a sermon series on the stuff Jesus said! … The NT writings seem a good fit for their community. They were sketches but much interpretation required! … Much interpretation is still required. When you hear what some people make out of the Bible/Christian tradition it’s easy to see why a Bishop would be reluctant to have vernacular translations in his midst.
I’ll add a bit of context from OT times that sensibly continues through NT times – after all the people living in the first century culture and society was an ongoing continuum.
Jacob L Wright in his book Why The Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and It’s Origins, explains that Jewish scribes who were the few educated people who could read, write and develop their scripture considered themselves ‘authoritative’ and ‘special’ and often were of the priestly class who conducted religious events/ceremonies, and were those who presented to people how they should believe, god’s nature, etc. These were ‘secret’ for the educated, authoritative few, and what made Judaism unique from other peoples. In other words these scribes were the religious and cultural power brokers.
Continuing through NT times, certainly those who were literate developed theology, doctrine, etc. The Catholic church enforced this to the nth degree but, as Bart has presented previously and in books, so did the Gnostics, Marcionites, etc.
I’ve often thought of a couple of seeming oddities, which I’d sure like a response to. How could Jesus have obtained sufficient reading ability to be called to read in a synagogue? And how could folks like Peter and James have been competent to write letters? Even the song of Mary is awfully eloquent for a young woman of the time. Could the letters have had a ghostwriter? Could Mary’s song have simply been written by Luke?
I didn’t know that Kim Haines-Eitzen was a student of yours! She recently published a wonderful book, The Sonorous Desert, about the idea of silence and desert isolation in early Christian asceticism.
Anyway, this post brought to mind a line from one of the earliest surviving martyr narratives, The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, a group of North African Christians put to death around 180 AD for their refusal to acknowledge the cult of the emperor at the time. During their interrogation, the magistrate asks them about the contents of a satchel in their possession and they claim it’s “books — and letters of Paul, a just man.” So obviously someone, or maybe a couple, of these Christians could read. But more likely, as Bart (and Kim) suggest, early Christian churches probably consisted of one or two people who could read and who led worship services and the rest listened and did their best to remember what they heard. The medieval scholar Brian Stock called this dynamic a “textual community”. Not everyone could read, but they nonetheless believed in a text as interpreted by their leader(s).
Yup! And I interviewed her for that book on my podcast a while back. (Check out the Misquoting Jesus Podcast and look up the episodes.) It’s a terriifcally interesting book.
Thanks for your above response regarding the population of Rome being around 1 million. But my question was not more so directed around starting a fire, but the numbers of 120 Christians being an accurate representation of the numbers in Rome for the Christian population. Tacitus seems to paint them as having a significant enough presence in Rome that the other members of the city didn’t like them. He even likens them to the “mischief of Judea”, which seems to be a comparison to the Roman revolts and that involved over 1 million Jews.
In a population of 1 million, 120 seems like a blip. I mean how many Romans would even be aware of them, especially in an ancient city like Rome?
Based on what I read, Tacitus wouldn’t really have a reason to lie for the Christians, since he was Roman
Are we over-estimating or under-estimating in some ways? For example, was the event of the burning of Rome not really that significant, it’s just narrated that way?
I absolutely don’t know if the number is 120. But it was small. There are times when an entire country hates a single person. When I was in high school most everyone I knew in Kansas mocked the Hari Krishnas; the state probably had 2 or 2.5 million people at the time, and I doubt if there could have been 200 hari krishnas there then. But maybe someone else would know? (The obvious objection is that we had mass media in the 1970s but not in Rome in the first century; the counter to that objection is that Rome was PACKED with its urban population, more dense than any modern overcrowded urban area in the world today, and rumors and news simply flew around town, in part bacause, well, there was no social media, tv, radio, etc. A lot more talkin’ going on.
Dr Ehrman:
Really interesting topic. I was thinking of the “church” I grew up in. 1st KJV & when I was there they used 1970s-80s. Then they came up with their own Bible RECOVERY VERSION. Based directly: JN Darby interpretation.
The time I was thrown out was when I was suggesting to the Elder of Catholic Bible as opposed to their interpretation.
2) what would the original 11 think of American Evangelists! Which neither follow Jesus or St Paul teachings!
3) & then St Paul writes [all] believers to obey their leaders:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God [granted by His permission and sanction], and those which exist have been put in place by God.
that ain’t the American spirit. & what about Trump disinfectants & Hydroxychloroquine?