Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices

by Brian J. Wright

Much of the contemporary discussion of the Jesus tradition has focused on aspects of oral performance, storytelling, and social memory, on the premise that the practice of communal reading of written texts was a phenomenon documented no earlier than the second century CE. Brian J. Wright overturns that premise by examining evidence that demonstrates communal reading events in the first century. Wright disproves the simplistic notion that only a small segment of society in certain urban areas could have been involved in such communal reading events during the first century; rather, communal reading permeated a complex, multifaceted cultural field in which early Christians, Philo, and many others participated. His study thus pushes the academic conversation back by at least a century and raises important new questions regarding the formation of the Jesus tradition, the contours of book culture in early Christianity, and factors shaping the transmission of the text of the New Testament. These fresh insights have the potential to inform historical reconstructions of the nature of the earliest churches as well as the story of canon formation and textual transmission.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Christian, Church History, Church, Nonfiction

320 pages, Hardcover

Published December 1, 2017

Reviews

[David Graieg · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus, Wright argues communal reading was widespread and functioned as another control category of the Jesus traditions.
Wright earned a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from Ridley College, Melbourne. He is an adjunct professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. This is Wright’s first book, though he has written several articles and one chapter in an edited volume (for a listing see: https://ridley.academia.edu/BrianJWright). This book is a published version of his PhD dissertation: “Communal reading events in the first century of the common era.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ridley College, Melbourne, 2016. 221 pages.
Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus asks “who was reading what in the first century and where. Why this matters? How were traditions passed along, what role did texts play. Who had access to this. What controlled the textual transmission and influenced its stability” (Author Brian J. Wright on his book, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, Dec 13, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8CJH... ).
Chapter 1 proposes communal reading as a new control category. Wright defines a control as “a tendency to preserve the integrity of a tradition’s propositional content, even while acknowledging that variation was inevitable, and local contingencies could shape the preservationist tendency itself” (p. 4). In footnote 13, Wright states that it is outside his scope, but that “future research should compare this type of control with others” (p. 4). But given that Wright claims this is a new category perhaps this should have been investigated a little more first, especially since Michael Metts in his review in the Bulletin for Biblical Research points out that there is some overlap in how Wright describes communal reading as a control with performance criticism as a control.
In chapter 2, Wright defines a communal reading event as “one in which two or more persons are involved” and it “can be public or private, but not individualistic” (p. 12). This chapter also states that Wright is primarily examining literary evidence, not epigraphical nor archaeological. Chapter 3 argues that the economic and political factors provided stability, and travel and mobility would have favored “the unhindered spread of communal reading events” (p. 37). Chapter 4 examines the social context and argues that “virtually all literature during this time period was composed to be read communally” (p. 59). That communal reading crossed social boundaries and took place in many different settings. Furthermore “the early Christian movement largely inherited the book culture, reading communities, and literary practices of Judaism, even if early Christian communities modified or transformed them in diverse ways” (p. 60).
Chapter 5 surveys the following Greek and Roman authors: Epictetus, Strabo, Valerius Maximus, Chariton, Ovid, Martial, Persius, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Quintilian, Seneca the Elder, Celsus, Petronius, Seneca the Younger, and Jewish Sources: 4 Maccabees, Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, 4 Ezra. Showing that communal reading was a common part of the culture at large. Various readers of texts were identified including “clerks, emperors, students, young boys, politicians, scribes, fathers, lectors, magistrates, plagiarists, old men, and young women” (p. 114) and audience was varied including “emperors, children, men, women, slaves, students, plebs, assemblies, soldiers, Roman officials, invited guests, and crowds” (p. 114). Further “[t]hese events occurred in big cities like Rome, as well as faraway places of exile such as Tomis. According to these selected authors, people heard readings while standing, sitting, running, bathing, eating, dining, and swimming” (p. 114).
Chapter 6 surveys the New Testament and found ample evidence for communal reading events in Christian circles. They were found in widespread locations including "Rome, Corinth, Achaia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Crete, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossae, Laodicea, Capernaum, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Galilee, Damascus, Cyprus, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, Lystra, Berea, Athens, Miletus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Philadelphia" (p. 201). Further there was a “broad range of venues, participants, and cultures also confirmed the widespread nature of communal reading events. There were public communal reading events (Acts 17 in Athens) and private communal reading events (Acts 5:42 in Jerusalem). They could be small (Acts 8), as well as large (John 6:59). There were formal settings, such as synagogues (Matt 4:23). There were informal venues, such as open-air marketplaces (Acts 17:17). There were also numerous places just about everywhere in between, such as private homes (Luke 1:40), the Bema (Acts 18:12–3), Paul’s apartment (Acts 28:23), Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 3:11), the temple courts (Mark 12:25), the Hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), temple of the Lord (Luke 1:9), holy places (Luke 1:21–22), the ἐκκλησία (Acts 11:26), and public assemblies (Acts 19:30–31). Social inferiors were often portrayed as participating in them (John 6:31; Acts 8:27); this shows how communal reading events also crossed class boundaries" (p. 205).
Note Wright takes the pastorals as with the other disputed Pauline letters to be authentic. Wright also takes the pastorals to be intended for communal reading.
Chapter 6 surveys the New Testament. The main passages being: Mark 6:2–3, 10:19; 13:14; 14:9; Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; 21:42; 22:31; 24:15; John 7:40–44; 12:34; 18:21; 20:30-31; Luke 1:63; 2:46; 4:15-21, 28-29; 6:3; 10:26; 13:10, 14-15, 42; 17:18; 18:26; 19:47-48; 20:30-31; Acts 2:14; 9:1-2; 10:28; 13:4-5, 14-16, 27, 42; 14:1; 15:20-21; 17:18; 18:26; 19:9-10, 19-20; 20:30-31; Rom 1:7; 10:18; 16:1–16; 1 Cor 1:1-2; 4:6; 5:1, 9; 7:1; 11:2; 14:26-33, 37-38; 16:21; 2 Cor 1:13; 2:3; 3:1-3; 4:2; Gal 3:2; 3:13-14; 4:31; 6:11; Eph 1:1; 3:4; 5:26; Phil 1:3, 7, 8; Col 4:10, 16, 18; 1 Thess 4:18; 5:27; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, 14, 17; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:15-16; 4:2-4, 13; Tit 3:15; Phlm 1-2, 19, 25; Heb 2:6; 3:1; 5:11-13; 13:22; James 1:1-2; 1 Pet 1:1; 5:12; 2 Pet 1:1, 12-16; 3:1, 15-16; 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1, 10; 3 John 9, 15; Jude 5; Rev 1:3-4; 2:1-3:22; 14:6; 22:16, 18-19, 21.
The appendix includes a listing of more evidence of communal reading either side of the first century including: Misnah Bik. 3:7e; Seqal. 1:1b; Yoma 1:3a; 1:6c-d; 7:1a-d; Sukkah 3:10; Ros Has. 3:7d-h; Meg. 1:1a, 2b; Stotah 7:7b, 8g; Git. 5:8b; Mak. 3:14; Ketub. 4:6b; Ber. 7:3k; 1 Enoch 13:4; 3 Maccabees 1:12; 4 Baruch 7:21; Aristeas 26, 42, 305, 308, 310, 312; Pseudo–Hecataeus 6:8; Rechabites 22:4; Sibylline Oracles 0:11; Testament of Solomon 2; 2 Clement 19:1; Diognetus 12:1; Irenaeus Haer. 1.25.5; 4.32.1; 4.33.8; 4.35.4; Justin Martyr Apol. 1:44; Papias 3:7; Shepherd of Hermas 8:3; Tertullian Apol. 39; Letter of the Tyrian Settlers at Puteoli to the City of Tyre AGRW 317; Regulations of the Iobacchoi AGRW 7; Apollodorus of Athens LCL 121:348-9; Apollonius of Tyana LCL 458:102-3; Appian LCL 2:192-3; 5:92-3; 4:24-5, 492-3; Apuleius LCL 453:266-7; Athenaeus LCL 327:142-5; Dio Cassius LCL 83:348-9; 176:36-7; Diodorus Siculus LCL 399:16-7; 279:252-3; 377:184-5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 347:136-7; Fronto, Marcus Cornelius LCL 112:164-5, 206-7; Gellius LCL 195:8-9; 212:268-9; Horace LCL 194:488-9; Juvenal 91:414-5; 91:298-300; Livy LCL 355:32-3; 367:60-1; 313:368-9; 114:84-5; 367:408-9; 396:6-7; 295:46-7, 336-7; Lucian LCL 430:108-9, 144-5, 10-11; Marcus Aurelius LCL 58:368-9; 113:314-5; Pausanias LCL 188:546-7; Persius LCL 91:54-5; Pliny the Younger LCL 55:296-7; 55:310-11, 160-1; 59:136-7; 55:146-7, 176-77, 304-5, 522-3, 518-9; 59:154-5; 55:490-1; 55:10-11, 424-5; Plutarch LCL 99:380-1, 444-5, 28-9; 98:68-69; 80:306-7; 100:224-5; 98:28-9, 354-5; 405:60-1; 197:188-9; 321:86-7; 425:20-1; 321:116-7; 321:392-3; 306:186-7; 100:226-7; 46:514-5; 87:270-1; 406:318-9; Propertius LCL 18:170-1; Quintus Curtius LCL 369:138-9; 368:256-7; Select Papyri (41 CE) LCL 282:78-9; Seneca the Younger LCL 77:58-61; Statius LCL 206:52-3; Suetonius LCL 38:482-3, 456-7; 31:274-5; 38:332-3; 31:278-80; 38:326-7; Tacitus LCL 249:630-1; 35:252-3; 322:184-5, 232-3; 249:58-9; 35:322; 249:46-7; 111:344-5; 249:48-9; Gospel of the Ebionites 7; Gospel of the Hebrews 2, 5, 6; Gospel of the Nazarenes 21, 25; Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1.15.2; 3.13.2; Preaching of Peter 4, 6, 7.
On the whole, Wright does a good job at surveying the vast relevant literature allowing one to assess the evidence and make their own decision. However, I find he doesn’t draw as many precise conclusions as the preface had led me to hope. For instance Wright writes “I would have told you that reading in the ancient world was largely an elitist phenomenon; texts played more of a symbolic role than utilitarian; around 90 percent of the population in antiquity was illiterate; a “professional” scribe was behind every document, unless proven otherwise; writing materials were expensive and in short supply; and some sort of “professional” reader was required whenever a manuscript was read, because scriptio continua (i.e., a text without spacing between words) was extremely difficult to read.” While Wright states that his views on these have changed and not to the other extreme, he never states to what degree. I would have appreciated his expertise commenting more precisely on this and I get the impression that he feels it is more towards the other end of the spectrum, though how far he does not specify.
I did feel at times that Wright was overstating his case, which I do not think was needed as I already found his case strong. For instance, with reference to Luke 5:14, Wright argues that “Jesus automatically assumes an unidentified leper knows what Moses commanded” (p. 135), and Wright uses the case of the leper to argue that communal reading was more widespread. While Luke 5:14 does require that somewhere down the line someone read what “Moses commanded,” it seems more likely this illustrates the oral nature of the culture rather than its reading habits. I also think it is unlikely on the road to Emmaus that Jesus was literally reading scripture (Luke 24:32, p. 133-134). With Jesus’ parable of the rich man, Wright argues that Luke 16:29 indicates the brothers could attend a communal reading event to hear Moses and the Prophets (p. 135). While that might be true, it seems the point of the text is to highlight that one should obey the Scriptures, not that there is access to communal readings of them. In regard to Acts 19:19-20 and the burning of magic books, Wright suggests Christian written texts increased (p. 150). While this might be a long term result, it seems less likely this is the intent of the passage which I would suggest points to the growth of the Lord’s message in general not specifically to written texts of it. In Romans 2:13 Wright states that the Gentiles lack communal reading of the law (p. 153). While that is true, it seems more likely that Paul’s point is that they lack the Law, period, not communal readings of it in particular. With reference to Philemon 19, Wright argues that Paul is stating that he is writing with his own hand, indicating the letter was intended to be read communally as “this would be a moot point if only addressed to one person who could see the change in handwriting” (p. 183). While I agree that this letter was intended to be read communally as the opening and closing verses indicate, Wright’s argument here seems unlikely. For even if only one person were reading it they may not have known who wrote the letter, or if the handwriting only changed here the individual would still be unaware of the reason. Paul by writing himself emphasizes his personal promise and commitment. Nevertheless, I found Wright’s argument credible even without what I thought were weaker examples.
Wright argues that this work makes two important contributions. The second being that communal reading, being widespread functioned as a control category. This seems likely but to what extent, needs to be further studied. The first being, that “the prevalence of communal reading events raises important new questions regarding the formation of the Jesus tradition, the contours of book culture in early Christianity, and factors shaping the transmission of the text of the New Testament” (p. 209). This seems likely for the most of the epistles as it shows that they were generally intended for communal reading. However, it seems a little more complicated for the content of the gospels. It seems likely that communal reading would also affect the transmission of the gospels but to what extent it affected the formation of the gospels is less clear. For communal reading to significantly affect the formation of the gospels would assume extensive note-taking already existed, which while touched upon in an excursus on pages 119-20, was simply beyond the scope of this book.
The appendix includes a listing of another 142 quotations providing more evidence of communal reading either side of the first century.
Errata: on page 191, “1:12-17” should read “2:12-27” and on page 142, “13:43” should read “13:41-42.” Also thanks to Michael Metts for pointing out two other errors: page 111 lists “Rhodes” twice, and page 201 refers back to chapter 3, but should be to chapter 5, p. 111. Note the page numbers in the Kindle edition were occasionally off.
Overall a well-written book on the widespread nature of communal reading in the first century.

An edited version of this review appeared in: “Book Review of Brian Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus.” JGAR 2 (2018), 135-137. Journal of Gospels Acts Research, 2018. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/37584557/Gra...

[Mark Olivero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brian J. Wright has written an important book that fills a gap in New Testament studies. Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus presents us with a picture of how important reading (and thus texts) was in the 1st century. We have apps, printed books and libraries in abundance. The ancients didn’t have this wealth of tools and resources. So then, was the practice of reading rare? Were most people illiterate? Did most people regard reading as something reserved only for officials in the upper echelons of government or the religious establishment?

The answer, Wright shows, is yes, but… Yes, but communal reading, even public reading was a common practice in many cities. Such readings were a part of a thirst for entertainment. Such readings were also influential in forming and even re-shaping culture. Literacy according to modern standards was low, but Wright wants us to see that communal reading filled that gap to such a degree that influence of texts extended well beyond just those who could read them.

The value of the research and writing Wright has brought together in Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus has been recognized by prominent scholars. The list of endorsements reads like a roll call of current luminaries in the field of New Testament studies. Praise for it comes from D. A. Carson, Craig Keener, Richard Bauckham, Stanley Porter, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Thomas Schreiner, Michael Bird and others.

In Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus Wright first does a deep dive into the practice in its various forms as found in the pagan and non-Christian contexts. Evidence of communal reading related to ancient authors such as Epictetus, Strabo, Valerius Maximus, Chariton, Ovid, Martial, Persius, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Rufus, Quintillian, Seneca the Elder, Celsius, Petronius, Seneca the Younger, Pliny, Tacitus and also many Jewish sources provides firm confirmation for Wright’s thesis. Communal readings also played part in the social and economic development of many cities. In Rome, for examle, many people “read such philosophers, in light of the vast literary resources available there, in order to achieve a certain social status by later reciting them communally or referencing them during a communal reading” (loc 1138). It was seen as way to boost your CV or resume. Communal readings provided a way not only for news to be disseminated, but also for the cultural ideas of the days to gain currency.

Given the value placed on communal reading we can see how Christianity with its focus on texts would be well -suited to slip into this mode of cultural formation. Though superstitions abounded in those ancient contexts, there was at the core of communal reading a counter force against superstition built into the academic and philosophical aspects of the thirst for knowledge it represented. In other words, in the presentation of Wright’s thesis we see more plainly how Christianity could flourish in contexts which we not Jewish, not particularly friendly to Hebraic mores and either unaware or dismissive of key motifs from the Torah.

In Communal Reading we get a wide and deep picture of this development from a variety of vantage points, whether it be Greek, Roman, Jewish or what would become distinctly Christian creedal commitments. Wright uses his skill with Latin, Greek, Hebrew and other languages to bring into our sight in one place how communal reading was used providentially by God to spread Christianity across the Roman Empire and build it into a formidable cultural force.

Another important lesson from this book is how over the last 2000 years the Church has valued the practice of publicly reading the Scripture. It bears repeating again that high literacy rates in modern societies and the plethora of libraries, books and apps have brought texts directly to the individual. This is a good thing. Yet, since this technological advance was unheard of for most of human history we should be willing to see the importance, even the need, for people to come together to listen to texts.

Our churches, small groups and even our efforts in evangelism will be greatly helped by keeping a practical emphasis on communal reading. This communal reading need not be reserved just for Scripture, but also for reading of other published materials that can help deepen our appreciate for theological truths of the Christian faith and deepen our love for the beauties of the Gospel. We can learn a great deal by listening to others read aloud and from the shared thoughts which arise from communal reading.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brian Wright has given us a look into first century—and by implication NT—cultural literary practices. The geographic and sociological diversity of communal reading events, Wright argues, provided a sort of quality control for certain texts that were read and heard in those communal reading events: hearers would be quick to note when something had been changed or read incorrectly.

The early sections of the book define terms (like the Greek anaginosko), set out parameters for the study (limited to 1st century), and deal with economic, political (chapter 3), and social (chapter 4) factors that effect the study. Regardless of the topic, it becomes clear even before extensive examples from chapters 5 and 6, that communal reading was quite common in the first century and was the “trend of the day.” These events were held publicly as well as privately and crossed socio-economic barriers. They were not, as is shown in the study, limited to Rome’s elite.

In chapter 5, Wright surveys 20 1st century writers who mention, allude to, or discuss communal reading events to show how wide-spread the practice actually was in the first century. With any endeavor of this scope, decisions have to be made and questions must be left unanswered. One of the unanswered questions I had was how many authors in the 1st century failed to mention communal reading events at all? In other words, what percentage of 1st century authors talk about these events? Would this knowledge add to our understanding? Was everyone talking about something that was as common as Facebook is today? Regardless, Wright does show that communal reading events were wide-spread across the Roman Empire.

In chapter 6, Wright specifically looks at the New Testament to show that in every case, there were at least hints, if not out right proof, that each book of the NT was intended to be read out loud to its audience. Which in turn means that the books of the NT were known by more than just people who had a copy and that these readings served as a quality control for the gospel. In addition, there is evidence that many of the recipients of these letters were steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures through communal reading events in the Jewish synagogues of the day.

In any study such as this, the danger is to present too much evidence to the point of overkill and/or present weaker pieces of evidence for the sake of bolstering an argument. I don’t believe Wright is guilty of the first, but in a small number of instances in chapter 6, he might be guilty of the second. By no means do I think this discredits the immensely helpful work that Wright has compiled for us as these are mere quibbles over how to read a certain passage. One of only a very small number of examples in a rather lengthy chapter will suffice:

I am not convinced by the arguments that the Pastoral Epistles were intended to be read to the entire church where Timothy and Titus served like the other epistles which Paul wrote. Wright argues that Paul “directly addresses the church as a whole (1 Tim 2:1ff), women (1 Tim 2:9ff), bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3:1ff), and slaves (1 Tim 6:1ff).” I rather read this as Paul simply instructing Timothy about how to conduct himself in relation to these various groups.

Finally, the writing does not bog down as in some studies of this nature—even in the lengthy surveys of chapters 5 and 6. It is an enjoyable and worthwhile read! Wright is clear in what he argues and sticks to his main point throughout. This is both a helpful look into the first century literary scene as well as a helpful and encouraging guide to seeing how the 1st century church learned, preserved, and passed on the teachings that would spread throughout the Roman Empire.

[Nathan Casebolt · Rating 2 out of 5]

The New Testament originated as fragments of oral tradition and scraps of written letters, passed around through a few generations of illiterate and poverty-stricken Christians, until sometime in the Second Century CE, when a handful of elites distilled unreliable and conflicting hand-me-downs into a self-serving written tradition fixed in favor of their own power. At least, this is the narrative Brian J. Wright sets out to undermine in his study of communal reading in the time of Jesus.

Wright shines the light of history on the milieu of the early church, starting with a probabilistic case by way of archaeology and extant literature that the Roman Empire in general, and the regions in which Christianity rooted and grew in particular, were neither as poor nor as intellectually benighted as some would have it. While literacy and wealth by our standards were certainly low, there’s reason to believe a strong enough and stable enough social framework existed to support the type of communal reading events popular in this era.

These communal reading events, Wright argues, were common both in the Greco-Roman culture and in the tradition of the Jewish synagogue. Texts were appreciated and respected even by those who could not themselves read, and gathering to hear texts recited both in secular and sacred contexts was no more exotic than going to the movies in our day.

Evidence both internal and external to the New Testament point toward a practice of reading or reciting apostolic writings in a constellation of small and decentralized gatherings around the eastern Mediterranean. This practice of gathering communally to hear the apostolic writings read likely exercised a form of quality control over the tradition, increasing the unlikelihood that a supposed cabal of second-century Christian power brokers could exercise the Orwellian information gatekeeping imagined by some.

The content of Wright’s work is excellent but dry. This is an academic dissertation edited into book form. So while the writing is admirably clear and jargon-free, easy to understand and accessible to the average reader, it also suffers from the detached scholastic tone of the academy. The study is good and the info is solid, but I’d be lying if I told you it was fun to read. Ironically, I would not gather communally to hear this read again.

[Mitchell Dixon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brian Wright presents an extensive study over the communal reading practices of the 1st century CE in the Greco-Roman world. His scholarship is vitally important for the Christian academic world in that it will inform what we think of ancient literacy and availability or writing materials.

Personally, it is also very convicting to read because I do not hear the word read aloud in large chunks, i.e. an entire epistle or the first half of Isaiah, often if at all. I would love to get a group of friends together to do this though!

[Kris Lundgaard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-argued and significant thesis. Much to think about regarding how the scriptures were received and passed on from the beginning of the church.

[Kathleen Chandler · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would not read any books by Brian J Wright because he sexu@lly assaulted me. He has no place telling people anything about Christianity.