Literacy among the Jews in Antiquity

Literacy among the Jews in Antiquity Meir Bar-Ilan Hebrew Studies, Volume 44, 2003, pp. 217-222 (Review) Published by National Association of Professors of Hebrew DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2003.0039 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/439039/summary Access provided at 1 Sep 2019 15:29 GMT from Columbia University Libraries LITERACY AMONG THE JEWS IN ANTIQUITY Meir Bar-Ilan Bar-llall University bari/cm@mail.bill.ac.il A review of Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. By Catherine Hezser. Text.;; and Studies in Ancient Judaism 81. Pp. x + 557. Tilbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2001. Cloth, $193.00. Professor C. Hezser (pronounced "Hesher" in English) has written a book with the goal of establishing a new standard of scholarship in the field of Jewish literacy in antiquity. This ambitious book is intended to open a new era in this field where previous studies tended to be partial and sporadic. Her bibliography is immense (around nine hundred books and articles). However. it shows an over-emphasis on archeological fmds in Israel on the one hand. while ignoring some of the main papers dealing with literacy in antiquity on the other. I In any case, the book is impressive. though it is not without its drawbacks. The book is organized into three parts, each on a specific theme, and subdivided into chapters. After an introduction. Part 1 is devoted to "The Conditions for the Development of Literacy," and is divided into the following chapters: 1) Education; 2) The Costs and Distribution of Texts; 3) The Socio-Economic Functions of Literacy; 4) Religion and Literacy; 5) Language Usage. Part 2 is titled "The Occurrence of Writing" and is divided into the following chapters: 1) Letters; 2) Documents; 3) Miscellaneous Notes; 4) Inscriptions; 5) Literary Writing; 6) Magical Writing; 7) Summary. Part 3 5 titled "Participation in a Literate Society" and is divided into the following chapters: 1) The Readers of the Texts; 2) The Writers of the Texts; 3) Degrees and Distribution of Literacy. Only from looking at the structure of the book and its contents can one appreciate the scholarship, skill. and expertise of the scholar who wrote the book. Beginning with the work of J. Goody. the author provides a good (though lengthy) introduction describing illiteracy in antiquity from a socioanthropological point of view. This introductory chapter (pp. 2-17) is a kind of an abstract of Goody's views and those of his followers (with 135 footnotes that mostly cite Goody's works), letting the new comer get more than a rough idea about an unfamiliar subject. which is usually discussed by anthropologists. Goody personally experienced the awakening of Africa to literacy and later analyzed the dawn of literacy in the Sumerian and Greek civiliza1 Sec the bibliography at hllp:llfacuhy.biu.ac.il/-barilmlbibliter.html. Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 218 Review Essay tions. 2 In this volume, the author applies Goody's views to the question of literacy in the context of Roman Palestine Judaism. However, one would expect the author not only to mention parallel phenomena, but also to point out their relevance to her own field. In other words, what conclusion can be drawn from the dawn of literate cultures that are applicable to the Jews under Roman Palestine, where literacy had prevailed for more than a millennium? Part I (pp. 37-109) includes a lengthy chapter devoted to every facet of education in ancient Israel. However, when one recalls that "education" is not necessarily connected with literacy, and even today official education does not necessarily result in literacy, one wonders whether this discussion is not superfluous. Just as previous scholars have already expressed their opinion on education without any attempt to tackle literacy (as reviewed on pp. 40-43), the author could similarly have discussed literacy without considering education (especially since there was no attempt to determine the percentage of literate people). Unfortunately, this erudite scholar touches only in passing on the importance of the rate of literacy. It should be recalled that the shift from prehistory to history began with writing, a fact that presents the scholar with a challenge of evaluating the rate of literacy during the ages, a task that Professor Hezs~r does not tackle. Thus the main problem is not whether former scholars were right or wrong concerning this major issue, but rather, what is the scholar's new method by which he, or she, understands ancient literacy. The author also ignores literacy as affected by social status. She discusses literacy among kings, as well as among rabbis (p. 212), as if kings and rabbis were two different strata in the same society. Apparently the author seems to be unaware of the biblical source of the rabbinic halakah concerning a king's reading the Torah (verbatim: writing; Deut 17:18), and does not consider whether this source reflects history or pure speculation. 3 Surprisingly, the subject of literacy among women is not given a chapter by itself (compare index, p. 557), and the connection of gender to literacy was ignored. The main problem, of course, is not in "knowing the sources" but rather how to apply them. Using so much archeological data without an attempt to apply these data to the question of literacy among women suggests that a significant opportunity for analysis was overlooked.4 2 II is interesting to note that while rejecting Goody's view concerning the connection between rationality and literacy (p. II). the author somehow failed to mention the book where this issue is one of the main themes: J. Goody. The Domestication of the Saw/ge Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1977). J On the ability of Jewish kings to read and write. see: 2 Kgs 5:7; 10: I; 2 Chron 10: I; m. Sarah 7:8. 4 On literacy among Jewish women in antiquity. discussed especially with reference to archeological findings. see M. Bar-llan. Some Jtoll'ish WOIIII'II i" Antiql/ity (Atlanta. Ga.: Scholars Press. 1998). pp. 31-51. Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 219 Review Essay Chapter 4 of Part 1, in which the author discusses "Religion and Literacy" (pp. 190-226), is frustrating. True, the author discusses eruditely the written and the oral Torah with the aid of fonner scholars and ideas. Calling Judaism a "book religion" does no harm, since this is a characterization of the Jews already in the Quran. But from a religious studies perspective, there are other religions that are book-oriented and for this reason, the uniqueness of Judaism is not clear, nor does this characterization clarify the role of the Jewish religion in making the Jews a literate people. Many religions have had oral traditions of some kind, so stress should rather be laid on the written factors, especially when taking into consideration that in Roman times the Jewish people who had the oral Torah tradition had had the written law of God (Exodus 20) for more than a millennium, and the written Torah takes advantage of using written words to advance religious belief and behavior (for example, Exod 24:4; 39:30; Num 5:23; 17: 17; Deut 6:6; 27:3, and more). In the author's discussion of how King Josiah's cultic refonn relates to Jewish religion in Roman Palestine, one looks in vain to find any discussion on the Rabbinic concept of writing Torah as a "heavenly deed."5 Similarly, the author discusses the canonization of the Bible, a very important topic indeed, without paying attention to the rules of the rabbis that everyone must read the Torah (unlike the biblical injunction which was addressed to the king only), or that everyone is obliged to read the Scroll of Esther (t. Meg. 2:7). Thus, according to the author, the contribution of rabbinic leaders in Roman Palestine Judaism (i.e., the Tannaim) to their old heritage is vague. Instead, the reader learns once more that there is no agreement concerning the process of canonization (pp. 192-193) and that the sectarians were quarrelling over the correct interpretation of the Torah (pp. 197-200), issues with very slight connections to litemcy. Similarly, the author frequently discusses magic (pp. 206-226; 436-444, and passim), but one wonders how exactly all the archeological evidence for magic, which the author has meticulously collected and organized, yields new data concerning literacy. After bringing very interesting comparative data from seventeenth-century New England, the author writes: In contrast to seventeenth-century New England. where relatively many people will have possessed a copy of the Bible. one may assume that in Roman Palestine only a few rabbis and wealthy Jews will have owned Torah scrolls or been able to borrow them from relatives or friends. Consequently. the rareness of Torah scrolls will have increao;cd their holiness (p. 212). 5 B. Sahb. 28a-b: b. <Em". 13a: b. P(,.fU~. SOb: lind more. Hebrew Sllldies 44 (2003) 220 Review Essay One is likely to agree with this statement only when one does not know the rabbinic sources and does not consider either the literacy rate or a methodology for extracting the literacy rate from those sources (the author discusses the literacy rate only sporadically; see the index, p. 553).6 However, the relevant rabbinic texts suggest that the author's characterization of the Torah scrolls as rare is problematic. For example, in b. Ber. 18a, there is a halakah that discusses one who walks with his Torah scroll in a quite customary way. In addition, m. Yebam. 16:7 speaks of a rabbi who went on a trip and took his Torah scroll with him. In school, every child had his own book (b. Git. 58a), and when rabbis were martyred, they had their Torah scroll in their hands (b. cAbod. Zar. 18a). There are more sources that should be discussed more thoroughly, especially with respect to how much they reflect pure history and with respect to how much the rabbinic "movement" should be taken as reflecting the situation in Roman Palestine; both questions are beyond the scope of this review. However, rather than analyze the rabbinic texts as the primary source of her information, it seems that the author has instead focused on the secondary academic literature on the topic. The problem of the paucity of books is discussed when the author deals with libraries (pp. 160-168). It is true that libraries in the modern sense of the word were not in existence in antiquity; however, synagogues were a kind of library. The author is skeptical about this issue, stating that the rabbinic sources "do not specify whether the Torah scrolls would be kept or brought to the synagogue" (pp. 163; 165 n. 324; 166 n. 327). It is true that Torah scrolls would have been brought to the synagogue before Shabbat, as was done in Sepphoris in the second century (b. cErub. 86b), probably for security reasons, so that the scrolls would not be stolen (m. B. Qam. 10:3; b. B. Bat. 43a). Even in modem libraries there are cases where a book is kept in a special storeroom, outside the library itself, so nothing essential should be deduced from the absence of books in a synagogue. Furthermore, books were essential to the ritual of the Temple (Neh 8:1-18; m. Yoma 7:1; m. So{ah 7:8). Books were stored in the Temple (2 Macc 2: 13), just as they were in other temples in ancient times. Judaism from its very beginning was based on reading books (Exod 24:7; 1 Macc 3:47; Syr. Bar. 77), and writing texts {Exod 28:9; Deut 6:9; 27:8).7 There is no way one can imagine Judaism under Roman Palestine (and much earlier) without books, even though we are probably talking of a paucity of books (as was the case in the Hellenistic world), with very low selection (unlike the Hellenistic world), except in the M. Bar-llan. "Illiteracy as Renectcd in the Ualakhot Conccnling the Reading of thc Scrol\ of Esther and the Hallel:' PAAJR 54 (1987): 1-12 (Heb.); M. Bar-llan. "Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E .... in vol. 2 of £.uays in the Social Scientific Stlldy of Jlldaism tlnd Jewish Society. ed. S. Fishbane. S. Schoenfeld, and A. Goldschlaeger (New York: Ktav. 1992), pp. 46-61. 7 For that reason. the author's statement at the bottom of p. 452 should be taken as an understatement. 6 Hebrew Sludies 44 (2003) 221 Review Essay case of Qumran, It should be added that more than 150 synagogues have been unearthed (although it is true that many of them are a bit later than "Roman") and every synagogue would have had books, According to the rabbis, one townsman can force the other people in town to buy scrolls of the Torah or of the prophets (and Ketubim; I. B. Me$i ca II :23). R, Tarfon, a well-known Tanna in Roman Palestine of the second century, ruled that one who gives charity "in all times" is one who writes books and lends them to others (Midr. P.m. Buber 106; b. Ketub. 50a),8 Taking all this into consideration, the only conclusion is that in antiquity there were many more books than the author realizes, and the whole issue deserves to be reevaluated (with references to sources ignored for the most part by the author). The discussion of the languages in Roman Palestine (pp. 227-243), exemplifies the merits of the book as well as its weaknesses. From the way the scholar analyzes the problem, it is evident that she is not only diligent but well-equipped with all the methodologies concerning bilingualism, or multilanguage usage in society. However, her knowledge of the sources is limited, especially when she refrains from showing the relevant data to the reader, and instead relies on incompetent scholars, while, at the same time, failing to quote more reliable scholars. There is no doubt that at least four languages were used in Palestine: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and the only questions are to what extent they were used, where, and when. From the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, Hebrew and Aramaic shared a role in Jewish identity, as can easily be seen in the books of Ezra and Daniel. The same type of bilingualism is evident in the Aramaic Megillat Tacanil, where it.. commentary (scllOlion) is in Hebrew, The relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic is reversed in the Hebrew Mishnah with its Aramaic "commentary," the Palestinian Talmud, Moreover, there are Aramaic sentences in the Mishnah il<;eIf.9 This state of affairs was not new, of course, since already in the Temple both languages were in ritual use.1O Moreover, the rules of the Tannaim of the Mishnah take for granted that the Hebrew Bible is translated, that is to Aramaic (with very few exceptions to Greek). From this period (and later) emerged the Aramaic Targumim, Aramaic poetry, Aramaic magic, and Aramaic documents in the core of Judaism (such as the Ketubba and the writ of divorce), This shortened version of the role of Aramaic in antiquity calls into doubt the statement of the author that "Aramaic was not an essential component of Jewish Antiquity" (p. 240). When the scholar continues "nobody will have been particularly interested in its preservation and its In a way, this is to dismiss the author's claims (pp, 166-167) against S. Krauss ('The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers," lQR 5 (1893): 122-157; 6 (1894): 82-99. 225-261). Scc also A. Yaari, "Loan of Books," Simli 34 (1954): 122-136 (Heb.). 9 For clIample: III. 'Ablll 1:13; 2:6; III.lfag. 1:9; III. Ke/llb. 4:8; III. Gil. 9:2; 111.8. Mefi(" 9:3; and more. 10 A. BUchler, The Prit'sts alUl Their Cllit (Jerusalem: Mossad lIarav Kook, 1966), pp. 47-52 (Heb.). 8 Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 222 Review Essay prevalence over Greek," it becomes clear that she is underestimating the role of Aramaic while overestimating the role of Greek (the language of the conquerors) among the Jews in antiquity. Altogether, when analyzing the role of Aramaic in ancient Judaism, one wonders whether the aforementioned statements were made by an historian or by one who portrays Judaism in antiquity according to contemporary Judaism. There is no doubt that the author of this book is highly learned in Judaism, as well as in the archeology of Palestine and in literacy studies as well. However, her writing lacks focus and is verbose, qualities which sometimes obscure academic clarity. Furthermore, she has a tendency to prefer secondary literature over primary sources (and rejects the Babylonian Talmud as a source reflecting Roman Paiestine).!1 Even though the author's opinions on certain issues seem to be a bit questionable, it must be admitted that the issue of literacy is highly complex and one cannot but thank her for her efforts to present a comprehensive picture of this muti-faceted topic. Though with some reservations, there is no doubt that the book under discussion will remain for a long time a basic sourcebook on Jewish literacy in antiquity. J J Moreover. on p. 481 n. 36. the author dismisses tractate Soleri", as Babylonian. stating "obviously such a strict rule did not exist in Palestine." As a matter of fact. while one doubts the exact date of Soleri",. there is little doubt that this is a Palestinian document for several reasons (in short: Christians are men· tioned; the liturgy represenl~ the place of the Sanhedrin [= Tiberiasl. rutd there is other evidence for the Palestinian origin of the liturgy; there are lists of words that easily can he seen as a pm:edent of the Masomh; most of the mbhis mentioned there are Palestinian), For that reason. one can only be surprised that in the index (p. 546). Soleri", is given as Babylonian. and probably for that reason. it is mostly ig· nored (that is. an old guidance manual to scribes is mentioned only twice in a hook dedicated to literary activities).