Loading...I have now decided (I think) that my next book will be about how Christianity revolutionized the world in a way that most of us would agree is particularly good, even though most do not realize it was a specifically Christian accomplishment. It has to do with wealth and giving to charity.
Jesus himself said “the poor you will always have with you,” and in fact, for the entire history of the human race the vast majority have been poor, often (usually?) to the point of destitution. That’s still true today, even though in our world today we could easily feed everyone on earth if we wanted to. We simply lack the moral drive and the political will to do so. But before now, before the 19th century CE, it simply wasn’t even an option: solving world hunger requires modern methods of agricultural production; machinery; mass transportation systems, and so on.
Jesus could also have said “the rich you will always have with you,” since that’s true enough as well. But wealth, in and of itself, has almost never been seen as a bad thing. People who do not have it want it and those who have it want to keep it. They often take extraordinary measures to do so.
With respect to wealth, one very big difference between the modern and ancient worlds is that throughout antiquity, wealth – anything substantially above mere subsistence – was incredibly rare. Most people don’t realize just how dire the situation was,
This is an little-understood topic, and crucial for seeing the enormous difference Christianity made in the world. Want to learn more? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
Fabulous; your recent discussion with Glen Scrivener and Tom Holland’s recent book touch on this area. At a Penn Law lecture 3 years ago, I asked a visiting Israeli Prof how Jews living in the diaspora implemented Jubilee, gleaning and other practices intended to mitigate social and economic inequality. Chuckling, he replied there is no evidence whatsoever the Hebrew scripture’s injunctions about Jubilee were anything other than hortatory; I don’t remember what he said about gleaning.
Today, we are living in a period of great wealth formation, aggregation and concentration in which many ppl within the three Abrahamic Faiths struggle with our relationship to wealth, money and material goods, what GOD requires of us as it pertains to wealth and income, and how to live sacrificial lives to help others and raise children who will do the same. Many leading philanthropists (Rockefeller, Rosenwald, Ford, Carnegie, Russell Sage) of the industrial era provided concerted and essential support that literally undermined racial apartheid and injustice in American society. However, with a handful of notable exceptions (Gates, Buffett) and despite “The Giving Pledge,” many of today’s wealthiest have yet to develop transformative philanthropic programs matching that of their predecessors.
Excellent choice Bart; I look forward to reading it.
You may well already be familiar with Larry Siedentop “Inventing the Individual; The origins of Western Liberalism”; but if not, may I recommend it to you? Larry’s survey covers the full history of the Western liberal tradition; arguing in particular that it derives substantially from theories first developed within the Christian churches (contrary to many free-thinking political theorists).
But he maintains that this process can be tracked to the earliest Christian tradition; as a radical break with the ethical and political assumptions of “natural inequality” that underpinned classical culture and education. New assumptions of “moral equality”, that translated into “moral obligations that follow from recognizing that all humans are children of God”.
“Paul overturns the assumption of natural inequality by creating an inner link between the divine will and human agency. He conceives of the idea that the two can, at least potentially, be fused within each person, thereby justifying the assumption of the moral equality of humans. That fusion is what the Christ offers to mankind. It is what Paul means when he when he speaks of humans becoming “one in Christ”.
Page 61.
Thanks. I’m not familiar with it. (I’m just starting to dive more deeply into the history of research and the popular writings of relevancel) I’ll check it out. I’ll need to look into what he means about Paul: that sounds a bit more like a modern philosophical idea than an ancient Jewish apocalyptic one. But I’ll see! Sounds interesting.
Larry’s is not an uncontested view; especially his concentration on the ‘Western’ Christian tradition; when the obligation of charity to the poor arguably develops more sytematically in the early Islamic world.
But Larry’s basic thesis rests on the proposition that Paul (and Christianity) inherited from Judaism a radically different idea of human agency from that which predominated in Graeco-Roman culture. The Greeks saw agency as ‘rationality’; so moral actions derived from capacity for reasoning, such that moral capability was inherently constrained by family status, hierarchy (and patriarchy). The problem of wealth for the Greeks was exactly that accumulated possessions interfered with moral reasoning. Whereas the Jews saw agency in terms of actions in accordance with (or contrary to) divine will. Paul’s understanding of all humanity as potentially having access to the divine will through being ‘in Christ’ – in Larry’s view – provides a means by which the Jewish idea of agency as ‘will’ could be articulated for a Graeco-Roman understanding.
The overal context being that Graeco–Roman ‘rational’ agency had increasingly ceased to operate; in a political context where the ‘will’ of the Emperor insistently overrode the rationality of the polis.
I take it as axiomatic that a charitable concern for the welfare of humanity in general, rests on recognising all humans as moral agents.
So, when Xenephon states that moral agency is only possible for those motivated by the “love of honour” – as distinct from seeking satisfaction in food, drink, sleep and sex – he effectively limits the subjects of moral discourse to the male citizenry participating in the rationality of the polis; “The lust for honour and praise grows up only in those who are most fully distinguished from the beasts of the fields; which is to say that it grows up only in real men, and no longer mere human beings”. (Hiero).
Contrariwise, of course, the Jewish principles of moral agency extends (in principle) to all of those who “know the Law”; so all God’s people are moral agents, but the (pre-eschatological) nations are not.
For Siedentop then, Paul is a revolutionary, overturning both Greek and Jewish restrictiveness; “Paul felt that through Jesus he had discovered something crucial – the supreme moral fact about humans – which provided the basis for reconstructing human identity, opening the way to what he called ‘a new creation’.”(p.58)
But the “new creation” was limited to those “elect” who believed in Christ and were “chosen before the creation of the world” (“not by any works nor will of their own”) and would then shortly live in utopia after the Son of Man comes in the lifetime of some presently then alive.
I read his book years ago. Thanks for refreshing my memory!
Can’t wait to read it!
Prof,
When you mentioned ‘charity’ in this post, what New Testament Greek words or phrases did you have in mind?
Do you have any recommendation on books exploring New Testament ideas of ‘love’ (agape)? I’ve only read the old ‘Agape and Eros’ by Anders Nygren. Thanks.
There are several words of relevance (in old English translations, even AGAPE was translated as “charity”!); but what I have in mind is something like “almsgiving” – ELEEMOSUNE Re: books on Love, I don’t know of anything like Nygren that is more recent. Maybe someone else on the blog does?
disabledupes{0a3690f92724d231ccdc69470befc49a}disabledupes
Yes, a very interesting topic for a book. I have come across instances of disaster relief in ancient sources (eg. Nero was supposed to have arranged for the distribution of emergency provisions in the aftermath of the great fire of Rome) and the corn dole in Rome, I guess, was a type of charity but probably more like a modern state administered benefit. So charity as we understand it probably did start with the Christians. The only other comparable practice I can think of was the ancient concept of hospitality, particularly in the Greek world where it was customary to offer a traveller/stranger free board and lodging.
I’d say the corn dole was more crowd control than charity; and it’s worth noting that it was given only to Roman *citizens* not to most of the poor.
As far as I can tell, when congregations give money to the church, that money doesn’t go to the poor either. My brother-in-law, an Anglican minister in a poor rural community, told me that it was hard work convincing the unemployed men to tithe their unemployment insurance to cover a minister’s salary, but he had to do it. And when that church did raise larger amounts of money, with a campaign to tap wealthier citizens with some connection to the community, it was generally to repair or replace buildings.
So, would you say that Jesus advocated what later came to be Christian charity– something general and not confined to any specific group, like his fellow Jews, or was Christian charity as we conceive of it now, something that developed as the theology developed and transformed Jesus into God? If the latter, that’s ironic, since such charity would really have little to do with Jesus as he was, but the Jesus legend. If Jesus actually did regard gentiles as “dogs”, something second rate, then it was probably a good thing that that Jesus got buried under legend. Problem is, a lot of protestants today say: you can’t buy your way into heaven. In other words, charity and good works have nothing at all to do with salvation. Where does that leave “Christian” charity? Pardon me, but it looks to be more Catholic, since Catholics have always put emphasis on good works, something scorned by every protestant denomination, as far as I know. So maybe consider the origin of charity as we know it as a specifically Catholic invention, subsequently buried under the prosperity gospel?? Calvinism?? Charity irrelevant??
My sense is that Jesus did believe gentiles could enter the kingdom — precisely by helping those in need (thus the sheep and the goats), and taht suggests he mainly was concerned for the welfare of others, not just for one set of people or another.
“Invent” probably isn’t the right word if Jesus was “following the Jewish tradition attested abundantly in the Hebrew Scriptures.”
Yup, that’s part of the answer.
I wholeheartedly support your choice of topic (among the 3 possibilities you presented us) for your next book! 🙂
That being said, you wrote: “[…] even though in our world today we could easily feed everyone on earth if we wanted to. We simply lack the moral drive and the political will to do so.”
This often-repeated argument unfortunately distracts us from focusing on the institutional and systemic causes of economic stratification, poverty and hunger.
On a related note, you might find interesting and useful this 6 minute animated video of a speech by Richard Wolff (professor of economics at the New School University) titled “Does Capitalism Actually Reduce Poverty?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4FES0ehyI
One topic worth raising is how more complicated a global perspective would be, whether other precedents can be found by looking beyond the Roman world.
Another important topic is that of conditionality. Too many Christian groups in our own day are accused of giving only to other Christians, not just for pragmatic reasons of opportunity, but by policy and design. I wonder how consistently earlier Christians would have measured up against the standard expressed eloquently by 20th century author Henri Nouwen, who wrote: “it belongs to the essence of a Christian spirituality to receive our fellow human beings into our world without imposing our religious viewpoint, ideology or way of doing things on them as a condition for love, friendship and care.” When I was Christian myself, I would definitely have said that anyone who doesn’t agree with that is not really Christian.
“When I Needed A Neighbour” is a lovely if simple hymn, and would be an excellent choice for any church that has invited an atheist guest speaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grnEc0vhtyo
Christians Did Not Invent Charity and Philanthropy
What do you think about this article?
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12453
What do you think about this article?
Let me dispel a common myth: no, Christianity did not bring the idea of charity to the Western world.
The concept of charity and concern for the poor was already fully developed before the Christians borrowed the notion from their pagan and Jewish peers. It’s evident in Jewish wisdom literature, Cynic discourses, Stoic and even Epicurean moral theory, Aristotelian generosity and magnanimity, and the Greco-Roman institutions of philanthropia and euergetism. (On the role of influences on Christianity explaining its features generally, see On the Historicity of Jesus, Element 30, pp. 164-68). The idea of charity, welfare, the common good, sharing wealth, helping the poor was heavily ingrained throughout all ancient societies before Christianity. The Christians added nothing new. All they did was boast of being better at it. Which may have been as dubious a claim then as now. The data show poverty only increased under the Christians. For almost a thousand years.
I’d say it’s typical Carrier: forceful, belittling, and wrong!
The Christian concept of charity reminds me of Buddha’s teaching.
Buddha taught compassion and loving kindness and Right Livelihood.
jesus made justification for expensive pre-funeral fragrance on the basis that “you will always have the poor”
so jesus thinks that preventing his body from smelling of death is better than feeding poor and maintaining life.
He does seem to treat this as an exception….
jesus came to serve not to be served with the exception that his body require expensive service. the money which went for the service of jesus could have been spent and given to the poor, jesus does not even deny that it could have been given to the poor.
service to jesus’ body = prevent the stink of death
service to the poor = you will always have the poor, direct the oil to my body.
a body smelling good vs maintaining human life.
christ who came to serve chose an expensive pre funeral preparation.
Dr Ehrman,
I am having trouble understanding how a millennialist who thought God was coming soon to bring justice to the world very soon
Would worry about the poor in the short term and certainly not in the long term. Why would they be with us ALWAYS if a a Jewish God had anything to do with it?
Jesus believed that the kingdom that was coming soon would entail no suffering, and the people who would enter into it would be those who accepted its values — which means those who worked to relieve suffering NOW would be the ones God approves of THEN — even if it it just some time next year.
” (I should stress that a few authors do come to us from the lower levels. In the first three centuries CE, for example, many Jewish and most Christian texts were almost certainly written by economic non-elites. These authors must have had educations, but that does not mean they had money in the bank.)”
Would this have included Paul? Especially since he dictated his letters and when he did write, it was brief and with large letters?
Paul’s an interesting case: obviously well educated but apparently fromthe working class. Hard to know what to make of that. But yes, he was definitely not one of the elites.
Do you think Paul likely could not write well since he dictated his letters and when he did write, he wrote in large letters?
It was common for an author to dictate, especially anything of any length. I’m not sure what to make of the “big letters” – whether he didn’t write well, wasn’t skilled, had eye problems, or, well, just tended to write in big letters!
Will you also comment on how elements of Christianity found ways to reject/ignore Jewish and Jesus teachings about helping the poor? That covers everyone from Calvin to the Prosperity Gospel, so it could easily be a book in itself. But I’m hoping you’ll at least do an appendix or epilogue. We could use one in today’s world.
Yup, that’ll be a big part of it.
Dr. Ehrman, are you familiar with Distributism? It could be the solution proposed at the end of your book.
From Wikipedia: “Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world’s productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It has also partially influenced Christian democratic social market economy.
Distributism views both laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, favoring economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small to medium enterprises and large-scale competition law reform such as antitrust regulations.
According to distributists, the right to property is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Therefore, distributism advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership. Cooperative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Thanks. I hadn’t thought about dealing with it since I”m dealing with antiquity in the book. The problem of distributionism, of course, is how to implement and, especially, enforce it without state controls. I can say with some assurance it won’t happen with *this* congress!
I must correct myself since I meant to write: “It could be a modern Christian solution to overcoming the limits of charity that you could point to at the end of your book.”
You wrote: “I hadn’t thought about dealing with it since I’m dealing with antiquity in the book.”
Oh! I thought you were going to trace a history of Christianity’s impact on views about wealth and poverty from Antiquity to modern America in order to expose how capitalism and Christianity have become strangely aligned in the United States. Have you read Kevin Kruse’s book “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America”? Here is an interesting review: https://newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-how-capitalism-and-christianity-aligned-america
You wrote: “The problem of distributionism, of course, is how to implement and, especially, enforce it without state controls.”
State controls would be necessary to break up, and prevent the re-emergence, of monopolies. As for implementation, economist Yanis Varoufakis proposes a first step at the end of this inspiring 6 minute video titled “What Comes After Capitalism?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRowgD0ZZs
You wrote: “I can say with some assurance it won’t happen with *this* congress!”
I would argue that the institution of Congress itself needs deep reforms before we undertake any transformational policy program.
What strikes me about the differences between Christian and pre-Christian attitudes to wealth and charity is that, to my mind, there are fewer differences than might first appear on the surface. Wealthy Christians and Pagans may have given from their surplus for ostensibly different reasons, but it seems to me many of the motivations remained (and continue to remain) the same. Wealthy patrons continue to want their names prominently displayed on public and private works, monuments, educational institutions, etc., and are just as motivated to obtain the charitable tax write-offs as their ancient counterparts were to want to curry the Emperor’s favor.
In St. Paul’s I Corinthians 13:13 older translations of this passage including the King James Version have him saying ” and the greatest of these is charity.” Was this just a weaker translation of the Greek word for “love?”
Yes, the word there is “agape” and in the 17th century “charity” was a perfectly acceptable translation of it. But that’s not what I’ll be talking about; my issue is more “almsgiving”
Wow. Can’t begin to imagine how this will turn out. Two thoughts. One is on the rampant hypocrisy in Christian circles, with charity as with every thing else. Not that Christian’s have a corner on the hypocrisy market.
The other is wealthy city states like Venice in the mid centuries. They garnered great wealth through the salt trade revenue they enjoyed. A lot of that wealth flowed from patrons to artists of every stripe. What about those who lacked artistic skills? Any lessons there that could be applied to Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
Don’t forget that, at least in practice, Christian charity most often had strings attached.
” Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love”. Mother Teresa.
Did Paul see himself as a 2nd Jewish Messiah to the Gentiles?
He would not have called himself a messiah, but I think he DID think he was the one prophecied in Scripture as the one who would “bring light to the Gentiles.” Jesus brought salvation by his death, as predicted; Paul took the message to teh entire world as predicted (in the book of Isaiah). It’s a pretty exalted view to have oof oneself!
I am really looking forward to this book – a real change in the domination v. charity ethos. Will you get into any of the mechanics of Christian charity? For example, how were the charity items solicited, collected, stored and distributed? It seems if this was done on a city-wide scale, the Christians would have had to develop an organization to accomplish these tasks and leaders to run the organization. This infrastructure would tie in nicely with the growth of a hierarchical and organized Church. Did the charitable impulse, and the consequent organization to effect the charity, contribute to the definition and organization of the Church?
Yup, that’ll be part of it.
Have you thought about how you will distinguish your arguments from those of Peter Brown in his monumental study Through the Eye of the Needle (Princeton UP, 2012), which is currently, I believe, considered the standard work on this topic? Brown has a number of examples of “civic euergetism” that we would consider, more or less, poor relief. Don’t forget that most of the population of ancient Rome effectively lived on a daily ration of bread or grain distributed at public expense (the annona). But of course these gestures, as both you and Brown observe, operated within the economy of elite patronage and influence peddling in the ancient city, not necessarily out of a moral obligation to help the poor because your deity demands it. The key question is, I think, whether this new vision of Christian charity drew more on a radical new identification with the poor and powerless, or a radical re-conceptualization of private wealth as a hindrance to salvation.
Yup, his is the classic study — only ten years old and a classic! He is the most erudite historian of Christian late antiquity of our or time (probably by a good margin). But I do disagree with him on points. Not on points of factual knowledge — he knows *everything* — but on interpretation. I think he too readily sides with the Roman aristocrats and does not adequately consider the situation of the poor themselves; and I don’t think that the reward of treasure in heaven is the most revolutionary aspect of the Christian teaching; in terms of cultural effects, the very idea of giving to the poor I think is far more significant. (He of courses acknowledges the importance of the latter, but I think underplays it in part because he appreciates so much the pagan aristocracy that he is so knowledgable about and enthralled with.) At least that’ how I’m sseing it now. (As a case in point: the annona was ONLY for citizens. He plays that up. But what about the masses who were NOT citizens? He doesn’t really think much about them. And the annona, of course, was an urban phenomenon. What about the 80-90% of the population that was in rural areas? Had no effect on them.)
It looks to me like you’ll be making an important claim that some non-Christians and more than some Christian apologists will be find uncomfortable: that yes, a non-Christian scholar can provide strong evidence that Christianity’s take on charity was indeed unique in the Ancient World; and acknowledge that this was and is a good thing. But this uniqueness does not require a supernatural explanation. Looking forward to it!
I can hardly wait…but Christians are used to waiting.
Too soon! 😉
An interesting narrative but I wonder why ideas like the social contract and attempts to redistribute wealth and establish strong social safety nets seem largely post-enlightenment enterprises?
I’m curious WHY ancient Greek and Roman people thought of greed and stinginess as bad character traits or as immoral? Ususally, I think actions are considered immoral – very broadly speaking – if they cause harm to other people, which is why theft, assault, or murder are universally considered immoral. In the modern world, I would say we consider greed and stinginess as bad and immoral because they cause a person to take more than their fair share, *to the detriment of other people*. But if (rich) people in the ancient world were not concerned about the detriment of other people, what was their reason for deeming greed and stinginess undesirable? Why did ancient writers condemn such behaviour?
Yes, I’d say that’s one difference between most of us today and most of the elite of Greek and Roman antiquity; for them personal characteristics — “character” — mattered inherently, not just because of the bad (or good) effects they could have on others. It was a matter of WHO YOU wanted to be and should be, to maximize what it meant to be a decent and admirable human. Being tolerant and merciful to slaves was good for YOU. Wno cares about the slaves??
I have a question on one of the other potential books, the Pilate book. It seems like the Gospel of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate and various other apocryphal writings fell out of favor around the late Renaissance. Would you say that this was specifically the fault of Martin Luther advocating “sola scriptura” and decrying non-Biblical sources? Or was this decline in influence likely to happen anyway after the invention of the printing press?
The Protestants certainly rejected any authority given these books, and the ideas they taught (in this case the Harrowing of Hell). Had the world remained CAtholic and Orthodox, it’d be very interesting indeed to see which books would now be more widely in circulation!
I was under the impression that Caesar Augustus who, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana, claims he showed compassion to the poor and held the longest reign, (aprox 40 years), within those hundred plus years. Those who followed, showed less and less, progressively up to the tenth Emperor, who was the worst, during the writing to some of Revelations, concerning the beast. Or am I seeing this wrong?
I wouldn’t say there was a steady decline in personal character from Augustus onward. There were very different personalities and lots of ups and downs, between, say, Tiberius and Caligula; or Nero and Trajan. The second century is usually thought of as a very good period indeed. Most of the third century was hell….
Hi, Dr. Ehrman. I just finished watching a debate from Dr. Justin Bass. He finished his debate by saying if you read mere Christianity by CS Lewis, the gospel of Luke, and two other books then you shouldn’t have any doubt that Christianity is true. He said before rejecting Christianity you need to be sure you are rejecting the authentic Christian faith. I’m assuming he doesn’t believe Catholics and Pentecostals are true Christians. I just wanted your thoughts. I’m assuming Dr. bass is a reformed Calvinist but I’m not sure.
I don’t know if he’s Calvinist but he is certainly a conservative evangelical Protestant. I don’t remember him saying that, but I was a big C.S. Lewis fan myself as an evangelical. I now think his arguments in Mere Christianity etc. are very serious flawed and completely unconvincing (e.g., that the fact that many humans share a similar moral code proves that there must be a God. Uh, really? Can’t think of any other reasons for that? OK then….)
Good news Bart. I’m glad you chose this one.
My personal hope is that you will also discuss how the Church started to lose its way once it “married the empire”, and lost the plot completely once it was fully integrated into the power structures of the day, both historically and in the present.
As to “the poor you will always have with you”, this is not an inevitability, merely the result of greed and apathy. I can understand why Jesus would say that, but it need not be so. Richard Eskow, whom I rather like, has spoken about living in Romania before and after the collapse of Communism, and noted how before the collapse, he never saw a single homeless person. Once capitalism took over, he saw them everywhere. Whatever faults these systems had, at least they took care of people.
Adequate healthcare, education, shelter and wages should be available to all citizens of this planet.
This does bring up “Bread and Circus”? Rome and a few other cities depended on the grain production of Egypt, Britain and others including Judea. Supply problems in those places caused problems in Rome. Also, the increased urban culture seem to be a factor. A Romano villa could not let its labor starve.
Professor, I know your focus is early Christianity, but I hope your book will cover the medieval periods of Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire), by which point the church in the east ran a remarkable social services network of hospitals, orphanages and food pantries that rivals or exceeds our own.
I’ll get to the beginning of it, but I won’t be tracing it all the way through, since that would be an ENORMOUS book.
good stuff. looking forward to it.
Interesting subject. Looking forward to the next discussion.
What about Judaism?
That’s where it started.
the word you want is tzedakah
Sounds great! As a Christian, I always had a fear that Church Fathers perverted the unconditional message of charity of Jesus, because let’s face it, care for the poor can be a means of proselytism! And while I feel Jesus never did that (heals everyone from lepers to blind people on account of faith, yes, but also not always, sometimes just for free! Just for mercy!), reading Tertulian or so you get the impression having the poor at your side added numbers, and numbers means power.
Bart,
Great idea it will be fun following along your process!
2 questions:
1. Have you read Tom Holland’s book Dominion and if so what did you think?
2. Will your book also look at charity in the Eastern world under the influence of Taoism and
other Eastern traditions or be limited in scope to the West.
TY – have a wonderful day, SC
1. Yup. Broad based and extensive rather than focused like mine will be, but has made a significant impact. 2. Nope, I’ve decided to focus on the West, which is what I know about.
Bart,
And here is an article from Georgetown University about the importance of charity in Buddhism you may find interesting if you do happen to mention Eastern traditions :
https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/a-buddhist-perspective-is-universal-basic-income-genuinely-caring-compassionate-and-wise
Dr. Ernest C. H. Ng
Thanks!
Does this topic overlap with the idea of equality?
I’m reading Sapiens by Harari, and he claims that “Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God.”
Is that right? If so, is Christian charity closely associated with the idea of equality of the soul?
I’d say it’s more complicated than that, since there were others in antiquity who also believed in teh equality of the soul (e.g., Stoics). But Xty obviously asserted the greatest influence on thinking. (I love Sapiens btw!)
I understand that you may be contemplating a globalistic, abstract consideration of wealth and charity in ancient societies, including the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament. But haven’t you written that the fundamental message of some Hebrew prophets was society’s disregard for the poor as a violation of God’s commandments? Was that a criticism of wealth or just evidence of an early call for charity? And I had understood your thesis about Jesus as an Apocalyptic prophet that led to his command to sell all one’s goods, not as a call for social change, but as a realistic response to the need to prepare for an imminent Kingdom of God when money, in effect, would be irrelevant. I realize that this topic might appeal to your academic inclinations, but I wonder about its relevance for those of us who turn to you for a better understanding of the roots of our religious beliefs.
YEs, my view is that the Christians got their views ultimately from the Jewish tradition as found, in oldest form, in the Heberw Bible. But Jews, of course, didn’t take the view into the broader world or affect broader understandings among gentiles (until Xns spread such views and universalized them)
The “grain dole” is an example of concern for the poor.
The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “Bread and Circuses.”
“Roman politicians passed laws in 140 CE to keep the votes of poorer citizens by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”, became the most effective way to rise to power.”
Perhaps their concern was mostly to prevent riots in the street, but it was a form of concern for the poor.
Well, kinda. It was only for citizens. So tough luck if you weren’t. And the destitute almost certainly weren’t. And right — it wasn’t charity to help the poor; it was crowd control to prevent riots.
I agree with other commenters that “the poor you will always have with you” does not sound like something the historical Jesus could possibly have said. Surely he would have said, “the poor you will have with you for just a little longer, and then the Kingdom will come, and then poverty won’t exist anymore”. No?
Maybe that’s what he had in mind — hard to say!
Bart,
I’ve been thinking alot about this topic and I have a couple of other questions perhaps more philosophical
in nature and maybe something you wouldn’t want to go into in a trade book:
Why did Christian Charity not extend toward Native Americans?
What reasoning did Christians use to excuse the way Native peoples were treated all across the Americas for centuries?
TY have a good day, SC
1. Exactly. Professing charity practicing it ain’t the same thing. Not just native Americans. Look at Christians TODAY with their hateful acts toward others. 2. They had lots of flimsy excuses: bringing them civilization and salvation; God had given Europeans the land just as he had given the Israelitest the land; pagans were’t full people; etc.
What if the rich man in mark says
1. I will not continue to exist
2. The poor will always exist
3. I can deny the poor benefits given to me.
Thats exactly jesus’ argument in mark 14
Hi Bart.
I’m wondering if you will be covering the Biblical concept of the Jubilee in this book ?
Thank you.
I haven’t decided yet. I’ll almost certaily be covering Tobit and Sirach (among the Jewish apocrypha)
Thank you.
I think framnetp52 was asking if your new book will cover the concept of Jubilee when “each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family” , not the apocryphal book of Jubilee.
AH! I haven’t decided yet. I’ll certainly be dealing wiht *parts* of the anient Jewish tradition. (One issue with the year of Jubilee is whether it wsa ever actually observed or was just a literary construct/ideal)
Yes, that’s right. Thank you Truncated. Bart seems pretty busy, and I tend to ask a lot of questions, so I wasn’t really going to point it out.
Dr. Ehrman’s thesis is somewhat convincing. Some exemplary Christians have tried to help the poor; a Catholic doctrine is of a ‘preferential option for the poor’.
That said, I hope he deals with the obvious problem of practice. Perhaps Christians, too, were the first to say, “Love your enemies.” But there are few practitioners.
How will Dr. Ehrman deal with an obvious example from early US? The Massachusetts puritans (Calvinists). I have not investigated their eleemosynary practices; but *were* they generous? Given church control (theocracy), this is a good ‘test case’.
Lastly, two points. 1) I know Dr. Ehrman will credit the Jewish *precursors* of this ‘charity’ teaching . (Jews don’t exactly see themselves in that light!) Will he consider a contrary thesis: That Christian teachings about ‘almsgiving’ represent a devolution from Judaic theory and practice. For one thing, because of the ‘reward’ talk (beatitudes). 2) Supposing earliest Christians focused on the poor, with the Roman adoption of Christianity, that teaching/practice largely disappeared, as did admonitions against violence and war.
I know he’ll cover these topics with his usual erudition.
Yup, it’s very important to separate discourse (what people say about giving) from actual social practice. With antiquity, it is easier for us to access the discourse than to know what was going on on the ground.
1) Yes, the “reward” talk does change things. But also does the fact that Xns — at least some of them — were not focused *just* on others in their community; it’s harder to show that in Jewish circles at the time; 2. I don’t think it disappeared after Constantine at all, among Christians, as I’ll be trying to show. It’s only after Rome took on Xty that we begin to see such things as hospitals, and alms houses, and orphanages, etc. But I’m only at the beginning stages of research on it all.
Here are two references about the issue of the poor in Massachusetts Colony, the first being a famous speech of Governor Winthrop:
=========
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/149F/5-winthrop.html#:~:text=Members%20of%20the%20Puritan%20society,community%20through%20works%20and%20sacrifice.
Summary of John Winthrop’s
“Model of Christian Charity”
Winthrop, J. (1630/1838). A modell [sic] of Christian charity. Collections of the Massachusetts historical society, 3rd series 7:31-48. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society.
=======
Colonial Society of Massachusetts.
https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/3083
Colonial Society of Massachusetts.
Volume 69: The Eighteenth-Century Records of the Boston Overseers of the Poor :
The Historical Setting: the Boston Poor and the Records of the Overseers
The poor always ye have with you.
john 12:8
Even as they deplored the presence of the poor in their midst, the founders of Puritan Massachusetts and their successors accepted the inevitability of material as well as spiritual poverty even in their own godly and idealized communities
Thanks Bart,
It’s a really interesting perspective, and one which I’ve logged mentally under ‘What has Christianity ever done for us?’
If I read you correctly, charity to help the poor originated as a Jewish phenomenon, and Jesus’s emphasis on this in his teachings meant that the mass adoption of Christianity was the vehicle that spread it around the Western world?
I believe this concept is also carried in Islamic thinking too…
Keep up the great work.
Regards,
JK
I think “Charity” is a great choice for your next book, and I’m excited to read it someday. As a non-scholar, I often _feel_ like Christianity was a major cultural and moral advance when compared to what came before it. But I’m never sure when I’m giving credit for real progress, and when I’m just being culturally biased. So I’m hoping this will help me make sense of some of that.
The study of colonial Boston, referenced above, details the role of the Overseers of the Poor, City employees. Their aid to the poor–only bonafide residents– distinguished the ‘deserving’ vs. ‘undeserving’ ; transients were ‘warned out’ of the city. The ‘deserving’– e.g., widows and frail elderly– were taken into the almshouses. The ‘undeserving,’ however, were in need of correction and were assigned to workhouses, as in England, because they had a moral defect leading to criminality.
Sara Butler contrasts the ‘charity’ of medieval Xianity with the rigorous later categories. These were made official as follows ( her words) “…Pope John XXII [issued] the … bull ‘Cum inter non-nullos’ in 1323, in which the church rejected whole-heartedly the Franciscan doctrine of Christ’s absolute poverty. Henceforth, it was heretical to suggest that Christ did not own anything either privately or in common. The English cleric Richard FitzRalph …[affirmed] the proposition: Christ could not be mendicant, because ‘he possessed dominion over the created world.'[9] The Bible tells us that Christ was a carpenter, like his step-father Joseph. Thus, he had a livelihood, as should all men after Adam…”
Sara M. Butler, Legal History Miscellany: Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice
“ When did the Poor become Deserving or Undeserving? “ 20 February 2017
https://legalhistorymiscellany.com/2017/02/20/when-did-the-poor-become-deserving-or-undeserving/
I’d love to read this book. I’ve been reading as much Roman history as I can, and I was struck by the way the Romans differed from us in what they though wealth was for, at least up to the end of the Republic. The way I understand it they would have looked down on modern notions of using wealth to kick back and live in comfort. Rich men who retired early to enjoy easy, family life in the country were a laughing stock. As you mention elsewhere, the money, houses, banquets, were only a means to advance men in public (political) life.
I also am very interested in the patron/client system that everything seemed based around. From what I understand the patron had a “moral” duty to give his clients a certain amount of food/money a year, and for a surprisingly large number of Romans that was their main source of income. That and the government corn dole, and sacrificial meat, are the only kinds of Roman “welfare” I know about.
I hate that I’ve spoken to many christians who believe that “the poor will always be with you.” means we don’t need to try to reduce suffering.
The problem, of course, is that there was no one view os such things then, just as now. There were plenty of people who wanted to, and then did, kick back and take it easy. And client/patron relations were complicated, different from one person to the next. The corn dole was not welfare in our sense: there was no interest in helping out the poor. The dole went to *some* people, and only citizens.
Do you believe that the Christian charitable concern for the poor and sick contributed to and perhaps even was crucial to the final victory of Christianity in the Roman Empire?
Perhaps this concern gave people opportunity to fulfill their empathic needs, more than just helping those of their own families and classes, and thus leading to conversions to Christianity.
It is also claimed that the official Roman religion was formal and boring, that it couldn’t satisfy people’s spiritual needs. Therefore, many turned to the mystery cults, with strong emotions and suffering deities, especially the Mithras and Isis cults, AND to Christianty, which has similarities to the mystery cults. Those three (Mithras, Isis, and Christianity) are claimed to have been the main competing cults/religions in the 3rd century Roman Empire. Perhaps it was charity that led to the final victory of Christianity. (But I don’t know if charity played any role in the Mithras and Isis cults).
THat’s often argued about Xn charity, but in my book Triumph of Christianity I try to show that it probably was not a major factor. None of our early conversion narratives brings it up, e.g.