Quintilian on Writing Well and Quickly

Ivory relief from the cover of a sacramentary, 10th century, Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna

While reading through Raffaella Cribiore's excellent work "Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt" I came across an interesting reference by Quintilian (ca. 35-100 CE) on the necessity of writing legibly. In his magnum opus, "The Institutes of Oratory" Quintilian was writing on the the art of educating and transforming a young boy into a rhetorician worthy of the Roman courts. In book one Quintilian writes about the necessity of teaching to write legibly.

"The art of writing well and quickly is not unimportant for our purpose, though it is generally disregarded by persons of quality. Writing is of the utmost importance in the study which we have under consideration and by its means alone can true and deeply rooted proficiency be obtained. But a sluggish pen delays our thoughts, while an unformed and illiterate hand cannot be deciphered, a circumstance which necessitates another wearisome task, namely the dictation of what we have written to a copyist. We shall therefore at all times and in all places, and above all when we are writing private letters to our friends, find a gratification in the thought that we have not neglected even this accomplishment." (Inst. Or. 1.1.28-29; )

There are a few elements of Quintilian's comments that relate to New Testament letter writing, in particular, Paul's use of a secretary to write his letters (see discussion here). It is fascinating that Quintilian makes the point that "writing well and quickly" is actually "disregarded by persons of quality"! Thus, the ability to write well was not a marker of high social status.
Despite this, Quintilian emphasizes the importance of clear writing, especially in personal letters, but not at the expense of an inordinate amount of time to write out one's thoughts. He notes especially that one may write out a letter in a less-than-legible hand, but then this eligibility requires the extra step of dictating this out to a copyist for better clarity in writing. Perhaps this is the case with Paul, for example, with regard to his letter to the Romans. He might have written it out himself and then, due to poor handwriting, dictated it out to Tertius (Rom. 16:22) for a more clear and practice hand. Of course this is pure speculation, but this possibility may be added to the list of reasons as to why the authors of the New Testament writings used secretaries and copyists. Also, their inability to write legibly would not have been a marker of low social status. 
_________________________

Cribiore, Raffaella "Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt" (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1996).

Quintilian, "Institutes of Oratory," (Harold Edgeworth Butler, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922).

Chaerammon the Literate Slave

While reading through a work on the documentary papyri, I came across a citation from a contract that dates to 1 March 155 CE (Lewis, 136).

Panechotes also called Panares, ex-cosmetes of Oxyrhynchus, through his friend Gemellus, to Apollonius, writer of shorthand, greeting. I have placed with you my slave Chaerammon to be taught the signs which your son Dionysius knows, for a period of two years dating from the present month Phamenoth of the 18th year of Antoninus Caesar the lord at the salary agreed upon between us, 120 silver drachmae, not including feast-days; of which sum you have received the first instalment amounting to 40 drachmae, and you will receive the second instalment consisting of 40 drachmae when the boy has learnt the whole system, and the third you will receive at the end of the period when the boy writes fluently in every respect and reads faultlessly, viz. the remaining 40 drachmae. If you make him perfect within the period, I will not wait for the aforesaid limit; but it is not lawful for me to take the boy away before the end of the period, and he shall remain with you after the expiration of it for as many days or months as he may have done no work. The 18th year of the Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Phamenoth 5. (P.Oxy 4.724)

This papyrus tells us that a slave owner, Panechotes, worked out a contract with a local artisan, Apollonius, skilled in writing short hand. The contract agreed to have Panechotes's slave Chaerammon apprenticed to Apollonius for two years for the purpose of learning the skill of writing short hand. There are two stipulations of the contract that each party was responsible for;

1) Apollonius would receive his pay in three installments, at the beginning, when Chaerammon "learned the whole system" (presumably the shorthand system), and when the "boy writes fluently in every respect and reads faultlessly";

2) Panechotes was to leave his slave there for a certain amount of time, even if Chaerammon learned quickly so that he could fulfill an expected level of work for Apollonius.

This papyrus helps us to understand that literacy levels did not follow social classes. Here we have a slave that would potentially be a highly skilled scribal artisan, yet held no social status. This is in stark contrast to Petaus who was a village scribe and held some type of official clerical post yet could barely write his own name! (See P.Petaus 121). In the context of the early Church, I find it intriguing to think that a slave like Chaerammon, if they were Christian, could have been in a position to copy out scriptural books for a local Christian community. 
________________________________________________________________

Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 4. (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904); 204-205

Lewis, Naphtali. Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Quintilian on The Critical Skills Grammarians Teach (ca. 95 CE)

While reading through Eric W. Scherbenske's "Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum," I came across a reference from Quintilian. He was sketching the critical skills taught as part of the standard literary education given by the Greek and Latin Grammarians (teachers); 

"As soon as the boy has learned to read and write without difficulty, it is the turn for the teacher of literature (grammatici). My words apply equally to Greek and Latin masters, though I prefer that a start should be made with a Greek: in either case the method is the same. This profession may be most briefly considered under two heads, the art of speaking correctly and the interpretation of poets; but there is more beneath the surface than meets the eye. For the art of writing is combined with that of speaking, and correct reading precedes interpretation, while in each of these criticism has work to perform. The old school of teachers (veteras grammatici) carried their criticism so far that they were not content with obelizing lines [marking for deletion] or rejecting books whose titles they regarded as spurious, as though they were expelling a supposititious child from the family circle, but also drew up a canon of authors, from which some were omitted altogether." (Inst. or. 1.4.1-3)

Quintilian notes here that it was customary for Grammarians to teach the art of analyzing a piece of literature for a correct textual reading as well as determining its authenticity in relation to an author's other writings. Of course, Quintilian is describing the ideal Greco-Roman education. It may have been uncommon for literates (of lesser or greater ability) to acquire this level of analytical skill. Nevertheless, the teaching of these critical skills appears to occur early in a child's literary education (soon after acquiring an adequate level of reading and writing ability). Thus, most literates may have had at least a rudimentary understanding of recognizing textual/transmission issues as well as the problems associated with authorship.  

Apostles, disciples, and other early Christian leaders who were literate, may have had at least some ability in analyzing and evaluating a particular writing's textual character or authorship claims.  This can be seen in Peter's assessment of those who have miss-interpreted and possibly textually altered Paul's epistles in 2 Peter 3:16, and Luke's evaluation of previous Gospel writings in 1:1-4. Similar parallels could be made with regard to the collecting of Ignatius's letters in Poly. Phil. 13.1-2.

Mosaic of Plato's academy (Pompeii)

__________
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria (trans. H. E. Butler; LCL; London: William Heinman, 1920), 61-63.

Scherbenske, Eric W. Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 16.

New Testament Authors, Autographs, and Elitist Romans

An article published in a recent issue of JETS explored the definition of "autograph" as it related to the composition of the New Testament writings and Greco-Roman publication practices;

 "What are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication." JETS 59/2 (June 2016): 287-308.

The paper posited that, "in reference to the NT, the 'autograph,' as often discussed in biblical inerrancy doctrinal statements, should be defined as the completed authorial work which was released by the author for circulation and copying, not earlier draft versions or layers of composition."
The article seemed to garner a positive response from readers as well as questions regarding the applicability of the thesis to the Pauline corpus. Another line of feedback questioned the validity of applying the composition practices of Roman elites with the authors of the New Testament documents, who may have been from humble uneducated backgrounds.

Other than Paul (and possibly Luke), we have very little knowledge of the social status and education levels of the authors of the New Testament writings. Despite this, much has been made of the statement in Acts 4:13;

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus."

This verse has often been used to show that Peter and John could not read or write (whether in Greek or Aramaic), were from the lower level of the social strata, and thus, could not have authored any of the New Testament writings (Ehrman, 75). However, this appears to be going too far with this statement in Acts. The context of the passage has to do with a meeting of the Sanhedrin examining the teaching of Peter and John with regard to Jesus. Because ἀγράμματοί (uneducated) is used along with ἰδιῶται (laymen) it seems more likely that the Sanhedrin were astonished because they thought (or knew, see below) that Peter and John had no legal training in biblical interpretation and rabbinical law and did not hold an official position in the Temple. Similar statements were made in John 7:15 with regard to Jesus; "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?" The astonishment is expressed over Jesus showing such learning in biblical interpretation and his followers addressing him as 'Rabbi' when he had no formal rabbinical training. It seems then that Acts 4:13 has little to do with Peter and John's ability to read and write and their education in general (Bruce, 102;cf. Kraus, 439-440).

In contrast, it may be that some of the disciples, namely John, walked in the elite social strata of Judean society. If we take the statements in the Gospels at face value (we have very little else to go on), then it may be that John came from an elite family. If one compares Matthew 27:56, Mark 16:1, and John 19:25, it may be that John's mother was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Luke indicates that Mary was related (ἡ συγγενίς) to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Luke 1:36). Elizabeth was from the Aaronic line and was married to Zacharias, a priest (Luke 1:5). Therefore, the apostle John may have been distantly related to the Priestly family through his mother, even though John himself did not hold an office in the Temple worship.

Further clues indicate that John may have moved in the elite class of Judean society. The author of the Gospel of John (if taken at face-value, the apostle John) is known for referencing himself anonymously (compare John 1:35-40) and is most likely the anonymous disciple mentioned in John 18:15;

"Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest"

John is known well enough by the High Priest Caiaphas that he is allowed to enter into the "elite" areas of the Temple complex. If John was known to the High Priest, then this might shed some light on Acts 4:13 because the Priest overseeing the Sanhedrin would have known personally that John had received no formal rabbinical or legal training and therefore "that they were uneducated, common men."

Coupled with this, if one looks at the use of ἀγράμματοί in the papyri, then it becomes clear that being ἀγράμματοί does not automatically classify one as coming from the lower strata of society. A well know example comes from the Fayum in Greco-Roman Egypt. Petaus (2nd century AD), even though he was ἀγράμματοί this did not prevent him from operating in the upper strata of society and holding a position of status as a village scribe. One had to own a great deal of property to be considered for the position of village scribe (Kraus, 443: Harris, 278-279).

Of course, none of the above is meant as an apologetic defending traditional authorship of the Gospel of John or the veracity of the New Testament. Rather, it is only meant to emphasize the uncertainty of the education levels of the apostles and followers of Jesus. It is a mistake to assume that all of the apostles and disciples (who later authored New Testament writings) were uneducated and illiterate, and/or from the lower social strata. Of the authors of the New Testament writings, John at least may have been a member of the Judean elite society and therefore may have shared in similar Greco-Roman attitudes towards literary composition discussed in the JETS article. Explicit examples of John's careful consideration could be gleaned from his writings, but will have to wait for another time.

_____________________________
Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Translation with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God : Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: HarperOne, 2012.

Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Kraus, Thomas J. "'Uneducated', 'Ignorant', or Even 'Illiterate'? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of AΓPAMMATOI (and IΔIΩTAI) in Acts 4.13." NTS 43.3 (1999); 434-449.

Lucian on Education: Illiteracy in the Roman World

A boy recites a lession to a tutor, 2nd cen. AD

A previous post brought attention to the low literacy levels of the Roman world and the effect this had on the reading practices of the early Christians. William Harris argued that literacy levels in the Roman world were somewhere around 15 to as high as 20% in some regions like Pompeii (p. 264). Overall, the literacy level in Rome likely would have never been above 15% (p. 267) and for any region to reach the levels of 20 to 30% literacy among males would have been remarkable (p. 141). When discussing precise percentages of literacy, it is important to remember William Harris's own caution,

"We shall obviously never know in a clear-cut numerical way how many people were literate, semi-literate, or illiterate in the Graeco-Roman world in general, or even in any particular milieu within it." (p. 7)

I thought about the levels of literacy in the Roman world and the education that may or may not have been available to the early Christians. A dialogue of Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE) came to mind that illustrates well the path to education available in his day. In his satire Hermotimus, one character, Hermotimus, a philosopher steeped in study for the past 20 years, is engaged in dialogue (in the Socratic method) by Lycinus, an interlocutor who values the simple and average life. At one point Hermotimus described the path of education as climbing a steep mountain slope;

"Many would climb it, if it could. As it is, a fair number make a very strong beginning and travel part of the way, some very little, some more; but when they get half-way and meet plenty of difficulties and snags, they lose heart and turn back, gasping for breath and dripping with sweat; the hardships are too much for them. But all who endure to the end arrive at the top, from then on are happy having wonderful time for the rest of their life, from their heights seeing the rest of mankind as ants." (Hermot. 5)

Hermotimus described that there were many who began the path of education in philosophy, that is, education, but few completed the journey. This gives and excellent picture of education during the Roman empire. There was probably a large number of the population who began the journey of education and literacy, many who could scrawl their names on a document, scratch some crude graffiti onto an alley wall, or read signs and laundry lists. The reality was that few attained any reasonable level of education. Listen to Lycinus as he responded to Hermotimus's description of his path to educated enlightenment,

"Goodness, Hermotimus! How small you shall make us, not as big as pygmies! Utter groundlings crawling over the earth's surface. It's not surprising--your mind is already away up above; and we, the whole trashy lot of us ground-crawlers, will pray to you along with the gods, when you get above the clouds and reach the heights to which you have been hastening for so long." (Hermot. 5)

 Lycinus identified himself with the "whole trashy lot of us ground-crawlers," namely, the uneducated masses. When a person reached a high level of education, it was as if that person reached divine status.

_____________________________
Bibliography.

Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Lucian,  Translated by K. Kilburn et al. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913-1961.