What is reading? Does the generation of the sixties read in the same way that the millennials do? Has the mobile phone phenomenon, with its texting and apps, caused reading to become a different activity than it used to be? At the beginning of the introduction to his bulky book of over seven hundred pages about reading at the time of the emergence of the New Testament (=NT) as scripture Heilmann shows that fundamental questions like these about reading belong not just to our day and age.
His research question is how the texts of the later NT were read in the immediate context in which they originated, and in the context of their early reception history. He suggests that, at first glance, this is a somewhat banal question, since an assumption is that the NT was written to be read. However, over the course of his book, readers will start to see that reading is a more complex activity, especially, but not only, at the time of the NT’s creation.
Heilmann argues that there is too little reflection on what reading involved at the emergence of the academic study of the NT and of its reception history. He mentions as example that in an important reference work such as the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, the key word “to read” is missing. Yet, reflection on the definition of reading, is of great importance for NT scholarship. What is meant, when it is mentioned by quite a few scholars that Paul’s letters were read aloud? Had the reader memorized the texts? Did the lector learn when to intone questions in the text? And if so, how did they learn this? A more precise description of the aim of Heilmann’s study is to examine reading in early Christianity against the horizon of ancient reading culture, thereby opening a new field of research in the study of the NT and cognate literature.
After an extensive introduction, two parts follow. The first part clarifies what Heilmann calls the “Grundlagen” (“fundamentals”)”, a term that can refer to both basic knowledge and fundamental principles. In the second part, these “Grundlagen” are used as tools for the assessment of reading, as it is spoken of in the texts of ancient Judaism and of the NT. This is followed by a summary of the results in a separate chapter. In an appendix, one can find clear and useful lists of thematic topics dealt with in the various chapters, such as sources regarding non-focalized reading. Finally, there are various indices (Biblical citations; authors of the early Church; classical authors; a subject index; and a selection of the most important, relevant Greek and Latin words), and a lengthy bibliography.[1]
Each chapter is almost a monograph in itself and it would take me far too long to discuss all the arguments of those individual sections; I outline here the main thrust of his argument and provide some commentary.
In the introduction, Heilmann (pp. 21-22) outlines some common assumptions existing in scholarly disciplines like Classics and the study of biblical and early Christian writings:
- Books were expensive and therefore few people had them and few could read;
- In most texts, the words were written without any kind of spacing between words (scriptio continua) and (thus) these texts could not be read in silence;
- For NT writings, this fact means that the texts were made to be read aloud.
These general assumptions of how texts worked are problematized by Heilmann in the remainder of the introduction, and even more so in the rest of the book. In a careful review of existing literature, the author discusses topics such as reading in early Christian assemblies, the relationship between reading and performance, and the often-raised contrast between reading aloud and reading silently. Heilmann notes an important deficit when he observes that little research has been done regarding the semantic field of reading itself.
His starting point is to assess the words used in Greek for reading, beginning with ἀναγινώσκω and its derivates. This assessment of Greek and Latin words that in primary sources refer to reading in one way or another leads to only one conclusion: the semantic field of reading has many different aspects and, above all, demonstrates that the one-sided idea that all reading in antiquity was reading aloud needs to be abandoned. It is, thus, no longer obvious that all texts in the earliest Christian congregations always had to be read aloud.
Another phenomenon that defines the discussion concerning reading in antiquity is that of scriptio/scriptura continua: texts in those days were initially written without spaces between the words and sentences. What did that mean for the way reading was done in antiquity? This way of reading was said to be more difficult than scriptio discontinua, but after a review of recent studies on, for example, a language like Thai, which has no spaces between words, Heilmann concludes that there are no physiological constraints that prevented the Greek from being read silently.
An assessment of ancient literary sources also does not provide conclusive evidence that scriptio continua required that reading be done aloud. In that context, Heilmann also discusses a number of phenomena that can be characterized as reading aids (e.g. diacritical signs like diaereses and accents). On the basis of his assessment of these phenomena, he argues that diacritical signs were also not necessary for reading aloud correctly. In a subsequent chapter of this part of the book, he discusses the availability of books in the ancient world. In this context, the author also pays attention to the phenomenon of the “library” in antiquity, and to the recitatio, the reading by a writer of his work in progress. In a final chapter of the first part of this volume, Heilmann reflects on the practice of reading: communally, e.g. over a meal, or individually, e.g. as a means of learning something, but also as a pastime.
In the second part, in chapter 7, Heilmann brings the result of the first part into dialogue with Jewish writings such as the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the works of Philo, and also those of Qumran. Having discussed several aspects of reading in these writings, in his conclusions Heilmann focuses on the fact that those writings do not demonstrate that reading was done systematically in the synagogues. His conclusion is that Philo and Josephus indeed speak of the communal reading of the Torah, but that private reading also occurred. In chapter 8 he assesses the examples of reading practices in the early Christian writings. He again finds little evidence for a systematic reading out loud in community settings. In the last chapter, a detailed conclusion, he clearly summarizes the results, and then elaborates on the consequences of his study.
“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there,” wrote L.P. Hartley long ago in his novel The Go-Between. Those who take the trouble to read Heilmann’s book certainly get glimpses of being in such a different country. Reading is not as simple as is often assumed, certainly not in those days or today, and it may be different in the future. Heilmann sees the quintessence of his book as showing how versatile reading was in antiquity. He has certainly succeeded in demonstrating this. His book will be one of the standard works on this topic for decades to come.
Heilmann shows in his first section that many images exist for reading, for example it can be referred to with words like ‘eating’ and ‘traveling’. To get to that other land Hartley spoke of, the reader of this book does have to take a long journey, a journey in which very different stations are visited. The journey requires much of the reader. I was sometimes overwhelmed by the many references to both the abundant relevant secondary literature, as well as to the many different primary sources (sometimes entire densely printed lists in an excursion). Knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew is a sine qua non for understanding the book, and in fact a very good knowledge of German is also required of the reader.
Despite the long road the reader has to travel, reading (or is it rather ‘plowing through’, to use another metaphor for reading) I find this book not merely a tiring journey. The author has to be admired for all he gives. Besides the many revealing and interesting details, the book, for that matter, also seems to be a book with a mission. The author combats the all too easy presupposition in scholarly literature that in the early Church there was systematic reading from Scripture in liturgical meetings. He deconstructs all sorts of presuppositions underlying that assumption, as well as others, by raising important methodological and hermeneutical questions about prior research and the questions to be answered. He provides new answers based on a thorough examination of the relevant primary and secondary literature.
The book is worthwhile for those scholars concerned with other cultures of the Mediterranean, such as the Greco-Roman traditions. The Jewish sources receive somewhat less attention, but are certainly not left undiscussed.
This is an inspiring book because it also evoked new questions for me while reading it. I pose one question here: what is the relationship between memorization and reading? Heilmann suggests in his conclusion (p. 486), that when in Paul’s letters we find quotes from the Scriptures, Paul most likely had a text in front of him, and did not quote texts from memory. This seems to me a non-sequitur. Memorizing texts was until not too long ago part of learning to read, as my grandmother, born in 1883, told me. When learning to read and translate classical Greek in high school, I too had to memorize pieces of Homer. I still can recite them. There are many sources that tell us, for example, that deacons had to memorize a gospel before their ordination as a conditio sine qua non. An interesting example of how memorizing texts still plays a role is found in important Islamic traditions. You become an imam when you know the entire Quran by heart. You don’t have to understand what it says; neither do you have to be able to read Arabic.
Frances A. Yates described how in ancient times the ‘Art of Memory’ was cultivated through memorizing texts.[2] What might that art of memory mean for the interpretation of the Scripture quote found in the conversation between Jesus and a scribe in Luke 10:25-38, especially 10:27? Here we can refer to an example of the fact that Heilmann occasionally reads his own opinion too quickly into a source, concluding that reading is therefore by and large a private activity (e.g. p. 398 when he discusses a reference to reading in Luke 10:26). When he states that the quotation of a Bible text in that verse probably goes back to private reading (p. 398), might not the fact that a Bible verse is quoted in that Lucan conversation be an indication that both, the scribe and Jesus, may have known that text by heart?
This book will become one of the standard books for those who want to learn about reading in antiquity for a long time to come especially if an English edition is published.
Notes
[1] An index of recent authors would have been useful.
[2] Frances A. Yates, The Art of Memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.