1. Historical Oversimplifications

The origins of the current interest in ‘performance criticism’ appear to lie in an emphasis on ‘orality’ that emerged in New Testament studies the 1980s, perhaps particularly through Werner Kelber's influential book, The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983).Footnote ⁴ Numerous other scholars as well have underscored the appreciation for the spoken word in the Roman era, and, as a general observation, that may be taken now as widely accepted and not under dispute here.Footnote ⁵ The question is not whether Roman-era people valued the sound of words/speech, relished and promoted effective speaking (rhetoric), enjoyed lively recitations of poetry and performance of theatrical works, read literary texts aloud and enjoyed having these texts read to them, or used dictation (variously) as part of the process of composition. All these things seem to be the case. In these phenomena and others, certainly, we can characterise the Roman period as one in which an ‘orality’ (in the sense of the use and enjoyment of the spoken word) was a prominent feature.

The question then is whether the prominence of this ‘orality’ should be taken as a basis for minimising the place of texts and the activities associated with them (writing, reading, copying etc.) in that same period. I submit that in the recent advocacy of the ‘performance’ of texts in earliest Christianity there is often the fallacy of a kind of zero-sum game in which emphasising the place of Roman-era ‘orality’ is at the expense of recognising the significant place of written texts and their various uses in that period, producing an oversimplification of matters.Footnote ⁶ Even if in some sense the Roman world ‘remained committed to the spoken word’, this was by no means an exclusive commitment and did not involve less appreciation of texts, writing and reading. It is an exaggeration to claim ‘a cultural bias in favour of the oral over the written’ as the following discussion will show.Footnote ⁷ As reflected in the many thousands of manuscripts that survive from the Roman period, the many literary works produced and circulated, the many inscriptions and the many kinds of ‘documentary’ texts (letters, contracts, business/commercial documents, et al.), writings were not mere appendages to the spoken word but were important in themselves as a major factor in many areas of life and among various levels and sectors of societies.Footnote ⁸

To be fair, the sort of oversimplification among some New Testament scholars about ‘orality’ that I challenge here may have derived from similarly exaggerated claims in some earlier and influential publications of classicists that subsequently have received justifiable correction. In an important essay published in 2009, engaging what he referred to as then a ‘widely held consensus’ that texts of Republican and Augustan period poets were composed for recitations in small circles of auditors, and the widely repeated ‘doctrine that literature was intended for the ears’, Holt Parker warned against a simplistic ‘exoticizing’ of the use of literature in the Roman era.Footnote ⁹ He showed amply that poets and other writers of the time in fact wrote for readers, indeed individual readers more precisely, and not simply, or even particularly, for auditors of group/oral ‘performances’.Footnote ¹⁰ Parker also cogently contended that ‘the assumption that Rome can be considered an “oral” society in any meaningful sense because of certain types of vocal performance of certain types of literary texts in certain contexts (some rightly understood, some not) is mistaken’.Footnote ¹¹

Over a decade earlier still, Emmanuelle Valette-Cagnac provided a detailed analysis of the various ‘reading situations’ and reading practices of the Roman period, also correcting the sort of oversimplifications that drew Parker's criticism.Footnote ¹² Among the many observations that make her book important for anyone seeking to grasp the place of books and reading in the Roman period is her emphasis that texts had an indispensable role, not subordinate to orality (unlike the case of ancient Greece) but complementary to it: ‘Rome se caractérise par un incessant brouillage, un échange permanent, entre les fonctions de l’écriture et celles de la parole’, and this ‘exchange’ went in both directions.Footnote ¹³ Granting that writing was used in some cases to record thoughts originating in speech, she also noted equally clear evidence of texts as themselves the originating expressions, and she emphatically rejected the notion that Roman-era writing served simply as a tool to record speech.Footnote ¹⁴ So, to reiterate the point for emphasis, the Roman period is better characterised as a time of rich interplay of texts and readers (both private and to/before groups), writers and speakers, and appreciation of both oral/aural and written expressions of thought and entertainment, and it is a fallacy to make the one subservient to the other in any generalising way. I briefly point to some illustrative support for this claim.

Quintilian's advice to aspiring orators is indicative of the complementary roles of texts and speech. Surely oratory was the oral event par excellence in the Roman world, and yet even here one sees the strong place of writing and reading. Quintilian advises reading voraciously to develop one's sense of orderly thought and style (Inst. 10.1.42–131). He also urges budding orators to focus on composing their thoughts in writing, which is ‘the best teacher and producer of eloquence’ (10.3.1), and he gives writing and editing tips (10.3.5–10, 4.1–4). It is also noteworthy that he expresses caution about composing via dictation (‘now so fashionable’), not finding the results very impressive, and recommending instead that written composition produces better results, for ‘the fact that the hand cannot follow the rapidity of our thoughts gives us time to think’ (10.3.19). Although an experienced or particularly gifted orator may be able to engage in extemporaneous speech-making, Quintilian warns against depending on it (10.7.21–2). As Parker observed about oratory, ‘It is not the case that the written text is considered a copy or record of the oral presentation. Pliny explicitly states [Ep. 1.20.9] that the opposite is true: the written text is the model and archetype for the speech as actually delivered.’Footnote ¹⁵

Indeed, in many cases the written text was simply intended to be read in its own right and by individuals. As particularly clear examples, Parker pointed to poetic texts that were clearly ‘intended only for the eye – acrostics, picture poems, and the like … Poems in the shape of eggs or wings, in which one has to read inward (first verse, then last, then second, then second to last, etc.), cannot be read aloud.’Footnote ¹⁶

Another oversimplification is the oft-repeated claim that Roman-era reading, even private reading, was almost always reading aloud.Footnote ¹⁷ This assumption in turn serves the further claim that texts were radically subordinate to ‘orality’. Certainly, texts were often read out (aloud), especially, of course, in various group-settings, such as the ‘elite circles’ of sophisticates studied by William Johnson.Footnote ¹⁸ There were other, ‘sub-elite’ settings as well in which literary texts were read out for the benefit of a gathering of people, synagogues and early Christian ekklēsiai prominent among them.Footnote ¹⁹

However, as several important (but insufficiently noticed) studies have demonstrated incontrovertibly, Roman-era readers were also quite able to read silently and privately, and they did so commonly.Footnote ²⁰ As Johnson has noted pointedly, ‘this conclusion has been known to careful readers since at least 1968’.Footnote ²¹ Silent reading of letters, for example, certainly seems to have been the usual practice; but there is plenty of evidence that larger, literary texts were also often read privately and silently.Footnote ²² Indeed, one of the major points made by Parker is that literary texts such as poetry were regularly read by individuals, and silently, and that writers (e.g. Latin poets) wrote primarily for such reader-situations.Footnote ²³ Similarly, Valette-Cagnac has shown that the Latin verb legere appears to be used in contexts that designate particularly ‘une lecture individuelle, solitaire’, and she also showed that (despite continuing contrary assertions) there is abundant evidence of silent reading of literary texts, especially among those with more advanced reading abilities.Footnote ²⁴ The numerous visual depictions of solitary readers comprise further evidence of this type of reading as being common.Footnote ²⁵ As A. K. Gavrilov in particular has rather decisively demonstrated, in fact Roman-era readers were well aware of the respective features and advantages of ‘oral’ and silent reading of texts; for example, silent reading is faster.Footnote ²⁶ So, it is simply misinformed to assert that texts were only (or even dominantly) read aloud and in groups, and were, thus, merely appendages to ‘orality’. Even texts that were written to be read out (e.g. Paul's letters) were foremost texts, and what was delivered orally was the text.

Some advocates of the priority of ‘orality’ also claim that the physical/visual features of ancient literary manuscripts meant that ‘reading was a physically demanding activity’, making the memorisation of literary texts for oral ‘performance’ preferable (or even necessary).Footnote ²⁷ But their descriptions of ancient literary manuscripts are, again, typically oversimplified, and, indeed, appear to reflect a lack of direct acquaintance with the manuscripts. To be sure, especially for those accustomed to the modern printed leaf-book with its many format-features, including word-separation, a table of contents, page-numbering, paragraphing, chapter headings and punctuation, the ancient Greek or Latin literary roll (‘scroll’) will seem not only very different but daunting to read. Also, rolls will seem awkward to handle comfortably for reading if we are used to turning pages in a leaf-book. In particular, the typical use of scriptio continua (i.e. no spaces between words) and the common absence (or nearly so) of punctuation, especially in high-quality literary manuscripts, present readers of modern books in European languages with what can only seem a demanding format. But this response tells us more about modern readers (and what we are used to) than it does about ancient readers of literary manuscripts. The fact is that Greek and Latin literary manuscripts reflect a preference for scriptio continua over word-separation, probably because readers regarded it as a more elegant format.Footnote ²⁸

We must realise that education in the Roman era was geared towards equipping readers progressively to cope with texts precisely in the way that they were written then. Noting that ‘ancient manuscripts did not make many concessions to readers’, Raffaella Cribiore shows the path that ancient students had to make to acquire the ability to read literary texts competently.Footnote ²⁹ This took time and effort, certainly; but I repeat the point that the Roman-era educational process was designed expressly to develop in pupils the ability to tackle texts written in scriptio continua and so (in due course) to read them with understanding. For example, from early years, pupils were taught to recognise syllables, which was an approach intended to facilitate the reading of scriptio continua. Teachers provided copies of texts with syllables marked, sometimes also with word-separation and with punctuation inserted as well, to help pupils in early stages to develop their recognition and reading skills, so that thereafter (especially if they progressed beyond elementary educational stages) they could cope more readily with unmarked manuscripts.Footnote ³⁰

We should also note that, although elite Greek literary manuscripts made ‘few concessions’ to readers, they did make a few concessions. One of these was that columns were formed of narrow lines, typically of ca. 15–20 letters, or about 6–9 cm width.Footnote ³¹ Such short lines actually make it a bit easier to cope with scriptio continua, and it is interesting that this linear space is about what studies have shown to be the ocular space taken in by an experienced reader in a single ‘saccade’ (eye-movement in reading).Footnote ³² Also, often in prose literary texts, each successive line of a column in a roll was started just slightly to the left of the first letter of the preceding line. So, when a reader came to the end of a given line, it was easier for the eye immediately to find the next one. Poetic texts, however, were typically set out to reflect the poetic structure, enabling readers more easily to scan and read out the text with appropriate emphasis.Footnote ³³

Moreover, just as those intending to read a text publicly today do, people in the ancient setting who read a text aloud for a group did not approach the task ‘cold’, trying to read it without first acquainting themselves with the text so that it could be read smoothly, with appropriate pauses, emphases and intonation.Footnote ³⁴ This preparation might even include readers inserting accents, punctuation and paragraph markers in the manuscript, as reflected in some surviving examples of manuscripts marked up probably for public reading.Footnote ³⁵ So, it is a red herring to point to the demanding format of ancient Greek and Latin literary texts as if this means that they were a serious impediment to trained readers, and still less that such manuscripts could not be read from but only functioned as scripts to memorise.

As for the claim that a literary roll was awkward to use in reading and so texts would have been memorised instead, this notion also simply reflects the view of readers familiar with the leaf-book. Just as is the case with today's printed book, rolls came in various sizes, larger ones somewhat heavier and others more modest-sized and easier to hold and manipulate, and even miniature ones that were quite portable and easy to carry on one's person. In his detailed study of the Greek literary roll, Johnson noted the typical lengths (‘a normative range of 3–15 metres’), and he calculated the sizes of rolled-up scrolls of various lengths: ‘a 7.5-metre roll is, then, roughly the same diameter as a can of soda pop; a 10-metre roll roughly the same as a wine bottle; a 20-metre roll [i.e. considerably larger than the typical book of the time] slightly smaller than a 2-litre container of Coca-Cola’.Footnote ³⁶ None of these would have presented any greater difficulty to handle than do books of corresponding sizes today. He also rightly warned against imposing our reading habits and aesthetics upon ancient readers, who may have expected literary/historical works to be weighty tomes.Footnote ³⁷

Moreover, for readers accustomed to handling scrolls, unrolling them for reading (a column or two at a time) and rolling them up afterwards were familiar actions and would not have seemed as difficult or awkward as has been alleged. In support of this, several decades ago, after experimenting with various means of doing so, T. C. Skeat discovered that rerolling papyrus scrolls (necessary after reading the entire text) of ca. 10 metres length could be done quite easily and within about forty-five seconds. He concluded that this task ‘presented no great difficulty to a reader’ of the Roman period.Footnote ³⁸ Here again, we need to avoid imputing to ancient readers our lack of familiarity with handling a papyrus roll. The stark fact is that well after the codex book-form had appeared and began to be used for literary texts, most Roman-era people (other than the Christians) continued to prefer the roll book-form.Footnote ³⁹ We must presume, therefore, that they felt no great difficulty in reading texts in roll-format, and did not find that book-form the impediment to reading, consulting and conveying texts alleged by some modern scholars.

Yet another oversimplification and error relates to estimates of rates of literacy, with advocates of ‘oral performance’ typically emphasising that only a small minority of the Roman-era populace were literate, thus marginalising the likely place of texts in non-elite circles. Of course, in any discussion of literacy in the Roman period William Harris’ influential book will be cited, in which he proposed that Roman-era adult literacy rates averaged around 10–15 per cent (allowing for a somewhat higher rate in urban settings, and somewhat lower rates in rural settings).Footnote ⁴⁰ We may grant that it seems broadly correct that probably only a minority (perhaps a small minority) of the total population of the Empire were able to read easily and fluently, or at least able to read the more demanding literary texts with ease. However, it is important to take account of the various kinds of evidence that point to a more complex picture than some have drawn from Harris’ approach.Footnote ⁴¹

For example, two more recent studies of education in the Roman imperial era both emphasise that the period actually seems to have been one of comparatively wider and greater literacy than any time before it, and probably greater than in the subsequent medieval period as well, even if the majority of the Roman-era population may have been functionally illiterate. Noting what appears to be fluctuations in literacy rates across time, Teresa Morgan pointed to the appearance of grammatical texts in the first century ce, as well as the rising proportion of grammatical texts among all texts of the Roman and Byzantine centuries, as suggesting a greater number of people progressing on beyond elementary education, and so a general growth in literacy in the Roman period.Footnote ⁴² Similarly, highlighting the ‘extemporaneous and casual quality of Greek and Roman writing technology’ in comparison with ancient Egyptian and medieval times (in the latter period writing ‘required a laborious technology and much time and ability’), Cribiore judged the Roman era to have been a time of comparatively greater literacy (albeit of various levels) than the preceding and subsequent centuries.Footnote ⁴³

In addition to the evidence of widespread writing, copying and reading of literary texts (even if characteristic of a minority of the general population), we also should take account of other kinds of evidence indicative of abilities to read and write, particularly among ‘sub-elite’ levels of society. Observing that some 11,000 pieces of writing survive in Pompeii alone, ‘everything from shipping labels to scurrilous graffiti, from the famous campaign posters to lapidary inscriptions of the kinds common throughout the Roman world’, and that this material ‘remains largely neglected’, James Franklin argued that ‘the vivacity and sheer mass of the evidence suggests a widely literate population’ there.Footnote ⁴⁴ The Pompeii graffiti in particular indicate that various sub-elites including prostitutes, lower-class workmen and others were capable of reading and also some level of writing, which ‘suggests widespread literacy’.Footnote ⁴⁵ More recently, Kristina Milnor likewise has noted the amount and the interesting diversity of Pompeii graffiti, urging:

From another geographical quarter, there is the cache of wooden writing-tablets found at Vindolanda, a Roman fort near Hadrian's Wall (which date to ca. 90–120 ce).Footnote ⁴⁷ Described as ‘by far the most important and coherent body of material for the study of literacy in the western part of the early Roman empire’, the texts include ‘military documents and reports, accounts of cash and commodities … large numbers of personal letters, the occasional literary text and the earliest known examples of Latin shorthand’, several hundred individual hands represented and a variety of types of writing (cursive, capitals and shorthand).Footnote ⁴⁸ Alan Bowman noted that the tablets comprise ‘strong evidence for literacy among centurions, decurions and principales and some evidence for its presence at lower levels’.Footnote ⁴⁹ There are letters to and from women as well as men, and ‘complaints about a correspondent not having written frequently enough imply quite a high level of expectation and probably implicate a fairly broad range of people (not just the equestrian officer class) in the literacy-using network’.Footnote ⁵⁰

But probably the most wide-ranging study of non/sub-elite types of writing (thus far) is Roger Bagnall's slim volume, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Footnote ⁵¹ Despite its modest size, Bagnall's book is rich with data and wise judgments. Complementing the studies of Pompeii graffiti, he offers a fascinating discussion of graffiti from Smyrna, followed by analyses of several other types of what he calls ‘everyday’ writing, concluding: ‘The ubiquity and pervasiveness of everyday writing in Greek is clearly visible’, and urging: ‘Even in a world where many people could not read or write, the use of written languages was not something restricted to a small, high-status group. Writing was everywhere, and a very wide range of people participated in the use of writing in some fashion.’Footnote ⁵²

Similarly, Guglielmo Cavallo noted that in the Greco-Roman period reading became a feature of much wider circles than ever before, referring to ‘a public of new readers distinct from both the highly educated circles of literati and teachers and from the uncultivated masses, a mid-range public that even included some members of the lower classes’.Footnote ⁵³ He described ‘this “average” reading public’ as ‘made up of a middle social stratum of people with some schooling (some might even be very well educated) that included technicians, government functionaries, high-ranking military men, merchants, relatively cultivated craftspeople and agriculturists, wealthy parvenus, well-off women and faciles puellae’.Footnote ⁵⁴ The types of literature likewise were more varied, including ‘escapist poetry, paraphrastic epic, history in the reduced form of biographies or abridged in compendia, little manuals on cooking or sports, brief works on games and pastimes, erotica, horoscopes, texts on magic or the interpretations of dreams, and, above all, fictional narratives’, as well as pamphleteering texts and illustrated pornography.Footnote ⁵⁵

Once again, we also have visual evidence in support of the views of these scholars. Perhaps the most well-known example is the painting of the young couple from Pompeii, both of whom assert their literacy prominently (and, we presume, proudly). The young man holds a literary roll and the young woman a set of wax tablets and a stylus.Footnote ⁵⁶ In another Pompeii painting from a merchant's premises, we see various items intended to reflect the man and his business, including a pile of coins, a set of tablets (probably for calculations and notes) and a scroll with a pen and inkwell next to it. This merchant obviously wanted to assert that his reading abilities and tastes ran beyond simply keeping track of his sales.Footnote ⁵⁷ These paintings suggest that people of sub-elite levels prized abilities to read and write, including, so they claimed, the ability to read what look like literary texts.

In this light it is worth noting Wayne Meeks's conclusion that the ‘typical’ member of Pauline congregations was ‘a free artisan or small trader’, at least some of whom ‘had houses, slaves, the ability to travel, and other signs of wealth’, ‘the most active and prominent members’ probably ‘upwardly mobile’ individuals with ‘drive, abilities, and opportunities’.Footnote ⁵⁸ This seems to me a rough fit with the sort of individuals depicted in the Pompeii paintings, the sort of people who would have, or want to acquire, a reading ability to advance themselves. Such individuals (probably not as rare as some have assumed) who embraced Christian faith would also have been able to read out texts to the Christian gatherings of which they were a part.

I turn now to yet another problem in some studies taking a performance criticism approach: the confusion of the reading of texts to groups with the actions of orators and/or actors.Footnote ⁵⁹ This is a serious category mistake. To cite again Parker's discussion of the recitation of Roman-era poetry,

Later in his essay Parker again cautions about confusing the recitation of poetry in social settings with theatrical performance, urging:

We also have visual evidence that confirms this, scenes from the Roman period depicting the reading of literary texts. For example, in a painting from Pompeii, a seated youth with an opened roll reads to a small group of people, one of whom points to the text, apparently interested in its contents.Footnote ⁶² By contrast, orators and public figures are often depicted with a closed roll in one hand, typically gesturing with the other hand.Footnote ⁶³ It was obviously more effective for orators to rehearse their speeches and not need to resort to reading them, just as is still the case today for barristers and political leaders.Footnote ⁶⁴ Actors, likewise, memorised their speeches, and enlivened their roles with bodily actions. But in reading literary texts, e.g. in dinner gatherings or other social settings, the emphasis was on skilful reading, which included appropriate pauses, emphasis and pacing.Footnote ⁶⁵ We should not confuse lectores with actors and orators.Footnote ⁶⁶

Finally, we should note the confusion over the use of dictation, as if this amounted to composition of texts in ‘performance’. To be sure, poets, orators and other writers often (but not always) used dictation as a step in writing.Footnote ⁶⁷ This involved speaking thoughts, which were taken down by a secretary, after which the author worked up a complete draft of the poem, speech, letter or treatise. This draft might be read out to a circle of acquaintances for comments (recitatio), after which a final draft would be made for delivery/performance (e.g. an oration) and/or for circulation (e.g. poetry, prose writings). But such a ‘performance’ of a speech or poem involved the oral presentation of the previously written text. I know of no Roman-era evidence that any extended literary work was actually composed in ‘performance’. That a work such as the Gospel of Mark is written in a kind of oral ‘register’ (i.e. reflecting some of the syntactical traits of spoken Koine Greek) is not a basis for asserting that it was composed in/through ‘performance’.Footnote ⁶⁸

In sum at this point, there are a number of oversimplifications that afflict the current advocacy of ‘performance criticism’, and thus render its depiction of the use and place of texts in the Roman world distorted. The inferences about early Christian use of texts made on the basis of these oversimplifications are, thus, dubious.

2. Early Christian Evidence

We now turn to note briefly direct evidence of how texts were used in early Christian circles.Footnote ⁶⁹ I begin by noting the evidence provided in our earliest extant artefacts of Christian reading, i.e. manuscripts of Christian texts, a number of which are palaeographically dated to the third century ce, a few as early as some time in the second century ce.Footnote ⁷⁰ Though only remnants of the original manuscripts remain (of varying sizes ranging from fragments to more sizeable portions), these give us valuable data. They provide us with evidence that Christians read texts in groups and privately as well, with some manuscripts rather obviously intended for personal/private reading and study, and others probably intended for use in Christian gatherings.

It is particularly noteworthy that, in addition to exhibiting the well-known Christian preference for the codex book-form, a number of these early manuscripts (particularly copies of biblical texts) also exhibit various ‘readers’ aids' intended to facilitate (and guide) the reading of the texts (probably reading out to a group) that they contain.Footnote ⁷¹ For example, we see elementary punctuation (‘high stop’ and/or ‘middle stop’ marks), and the use of enlarged spaces to signal sense-units (such as sentences), sometimes ‘line-filler’ marks, and/or ‘ekthesis’ (the initial letter of a line commencing slightly into the left margin), these devices signalling larger sense-units (of roughly paragraph size). We also find use of a ‘diairesis’ (or ‘trema’, two dots, like an Umlaut) placed over a Greek vowel, either to avoid it being taken as part of a diphthong or to signal that it commences a word.Footnote ⁷² In addition, some Christian biblical manuscripts in particular feature writing that is larger than is typical of pagan literary manuscripts, with somewhat larger spaces between letters and larger line-spacing, which also seem to reflect a manuscript that was prepared for easier reading, and that probably means public reading.

I emphasise that in Christian manuscripts these devices are typically written by the copyist, not added later by readers of the texts. This means that these manuscripts were prepared specifically to assist readers. Given that ancient scribes of Greek manuscripts primarily copied their exemplar, this suggests that these readers' aids may derive from even earlier than the extant manuscripts in which we find them used. Similar devices are occasionally found in some pagan literary texts, but not as frequently as in Christian ones, especially in those copies of texts apparently intended for use in corporate worship.Footnote ⁷³

It is interesting to compare these Christian biblical manuscripts with the rather demanding nature of high-quality manuscripts of pagan literary texts. Taking a cue from Johnson's cogent proposal that the daunting format of the latter was a deliberate reflection of the elite and highly educated circles in which they were read, I have argued that the use of readers' aids in Christian biblical manuscripts was intended to enable a wider spectrum of people to read them, including readers of sub-elite social levels.Footnote ⁷⁴ Certainly, to reiterate the point, these readers' aids indicate manuscripts intended to be read, not simply studied and memorised for some sort of oratorical or theatrical ‘performance’.

To mention yet another feature that characterises (and distinguishes) Christian manuscripts, there is the curious scribal practice now referred to as the ‘nomina sacra’.Footnote ⁷⁵ The words in question were all central in the religious vocabulary and faith of early Christianity, and it is commonly held that the distinctive way they were written comprises a visual expression of piety.Footnote ⁷⁶ We cannot say for sure when the practice began, but it is already familiar and developed in our earliest Christian biblical manuscripts, which take us back to sometime in the second century ce.Footnote ⁷⁷ My point here is that, along with an appreciation for oral/aural phenomena, the nomina sacra show a surprisingly early physical and visual dimension to texts in manuscript form in early Christianity.Footnote ⁷⁸

Finally, there are a number of places in early Christian writings that describe texts being read, most often in group-settings.Footnote ⁷⁹ They all portray a copy of the text in question being read out; and none of them reflects some supposedly memorised or theatrical ‘performance’ of the text. We may begin with scenes set in synagogues, such as the well-known event in Luke 4.16–21, Jesus pictured as being handed a copy of Isaiah and opening it to a passage for reading out. Thereafter, he closes the roll and hands it back to an attendant, and then speaks to the text read. Acts 13.15 depicts the reading of ‘the law and the prophets’ in the Perga synagogue; 15.21 refers to regular reading of ‘Moses’ on the Sabbath in synagogues; and in 17.10–11 Jews in Beroea are praised for their eager and extended examination of their scriptures in response to Paul's proclamation.

To shift to early Christian circles, in several places in NT writings the reader of the text is directly addressed (ὁ ἀναγινώσκων), including Mark 13.14 (// Matt 24.15) and Revelation 1.3. In every case, nothing suggests anything other than someone reading from the text for a social circle, the latter referred to as those who hear the text read (addressed also in Rev 22.18).

At several points in the Corinthian correspondence, Paul refers to his letters to the church, and the responses that they elicited. In 1 Cor 5.9–13, he complains about his previous letter being misunderstood.Footnote ⁸⁰ In 2 Cor 1.13, however, he professes to write what the Corinthians should be able to read and understand. In 2 Cor 10.9–10, Paul cites the view of some that, although his letters are ‘weighty and strong’, his ‘bodily presence’ (παρουσία τοῦ σώματος) is weak and his speaking contemptible (ὁ λόγος ἐξουθενημένος), which suggests that his letters were essentially read out to the group, apparently not ‘performed’ in some dramatically effective fashion.Footnote ⁸¹ The solemn exhortation in 1 Thess 5.27 is that this epistle be read out to ‘all the brothers’. The author of Colossians orders the reading, circulation and exchange of Pauline epistles with other churches (Col 4.16). Finally, note 2 Pet 3.15–16, where the author appears to know a collection of Pauline letters, mentioning that they present some complexities for readers, and complaining that ‘the ignorant and unstable twist them’ and ‘the other scriptures’. It is the texts that are in focus, not some supposed ‘performance’ of them.

All of these references seem rather clearly to reflect the reading of texts (from manuscripts) in early Christian circles, similarly to the references to, and visual depictions of, texts read in non-Christian social gatherings of the time. There is nothing in any of these references to support the idea that these or other texts were ‘performed’ in the ways depicted by some recent scholars who base their claims on the behaviour of actors and/or orators. There would have been a concern to read texts as skilfully as possible, of course, but the point is that the action in question was reading from a manuscript. There is certainly no indication of the delivery of these or other extended Christian texts from memory.Footnote ⁸²