The audiences of the hagiographical and historiographical literature of the Late Antique and early medieval period have come under increasing investigation by historians in the last decade. In the fifty years previous to this there had been a notable degree of scepticism concerning the extent to which early medieval Christians understood the nuances of Church teaching. Following Dom Delehaye's assertions that the recipients of hagiography, in particular, were the lowest common denominator of intelligence that depended upon the credulous rather than the historical reality of an individual, it simply was not fashionable to challenge this view. Indeed, were one to read some of Bede's more disparaging comments about the level of learning in contemporary monastic communities, it is easy to see how historians became beguiled by the whole notion of credulity and the subsequent lack of interest in the sources that ensued. Bede, like Delehaye, appreciated learning but had little patience when it was absent. Where audiences are concerned though, issues of reception are not just about one particular type of understanding, but about how different groups in an audience construct different meanings from the same texts.

Interestingly, in relation to Bede there has been more of an assumption that reception of his historiographical texts, at least where the Ecclesiastical History is concerned, extended beyond the literate monastic community to that of the king, Ceolwulf. Nonetheless, it is clear that Bede's methods of construction and the messages he wished to disseminate required an intensity of reading beyond the merely literal acceptance of his narrative.