(7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...I have been explaining that among those few people who thought having substantial wealth was a “problem” in the Greek and Romans worlds – that is, the few philosophers who thought about the issue (since for most people getting lots of money was precisely not a problem!) – the issue was never that it just wasn’t fair for some people to be barely able to get by, or worse to be starving to death, when others were blissfully rolling in the dough. The issue was that having lots of money almost always corrupted someone’s character, and having a bad personal character was a problem for the person personally (and for broader society) (but not because others were poor as dirt). The greedy, manipulative, self-centered, tyrannical personality was not someone you wanted to be or be around.
And so the problem with wealth was that it could hurt the person who had it. Those poor people: burdened with wealth! But what was the solution for them? We have seen: there were two well-attested options. At one extreme were those who argued you should simply give everything away (e.g., the Cynic philosophers); but the more moderate and by far more popular view was found among other philosophers, e.g., Platonic and Stoic philosophers. You can have wealth, but don’t be attached to it. And don’t spend your life trying to get it. It can just create headaches.
These latter views are expressed, for example, throughout the writings of the famous Roman philosopher Seneca (a tutor to the emperor Nero), who preaches against greed and high living (Epistle 108. 12); claiming that “having wealth is more torture than seeking it” (Epistles 115.16) and wishing that anyone wanting to get rich would consult with a wealthy person to see what it is really like (115.17). And yet, an incredibly wealthy man himself, Seneca does not argue that the problem is money itself; the problem is that it stirs up bad attitudes, making people self-important and haughty, unsettling their minds (Epistle 87. 31-32).
The way to deal with that is not by giving up the money, but by cultivating virtues that only wealthy people can have. For Seneca, in fact, wealth is a pathway to virtue, unavailable to anyone who is poor (On the Blessed Life, 20-24).
This may seem like a rich-man’s argument (again, it is), but Seneca points out that the poor literally cannot be obsessed with their wealth or unnecessarily worried about it. They don’t have any. Only the rich can choose not to be obsessed or worried. Money allows someone, therefore to develop virtue. So too the poor cannot give their money away to those who deserve it, only the rich can. More virtue.
For that reason,
So to whom would the wealthy give their money to be “generous”? Keep reading and you’ll see. To read you need to join the blog, but it’s inexpensive: and every penny actually *does* go to those in need. Click here for membership options
Congratulations on your new book, Heaven & Hell, being reviewed in the New Yorker. Big Time.
Yeah, I was really surprised. It’a an academic book!
When you are writing a mass-audience book, what level of education do you generally have in mind? And for an academic book, is that geared towards undergraduates or higher?
My target audience is usually interested adults at most any educational level who don’t mind having to think a bit. Most of my readers are probably college educated, some have more advanced training in a variety of fields. But I try to explain things in a way that most anyone can understand. The academic books are geared for people who have done advanced training in the field, e.g., academics who specialize in early Christianity and related fields (from grad students on up). Most of the academic books can be understood on some level, though, by determined readers who do not have advanced training.
Where did the wealthy keep their money?
I don’t have a complete answer, except that many of them had a secure room (and guards) in their house; but I need to dig deeper into the logistics of it all.
Bart, an apologist named Erik Manning (@Testify on Youtube) has written many rebuttals to your work. He works with Frank Turek and the McGrews, but he is a smart and earnest researcher. Below is a quote from a recent youtube video. Would you mind addressing the question in the last paragraph?
“Luke gets hard things correct, things too difficult to be written off as mere common knowledge. Bart can’t have it both ways here. If getting historical details wrong is evidence against the historical trustworthiness of Acts then getting them right is evidence for it.
To give just one example Ehrman has often argued that Luke is a sloppy historian because he supposedly botches the details of the census of Quirinius, and in making his case against the reliability of Acts he references Paul’s letters saying Acts contradicts them in numerous ways.
If the author of Acts went to the trouble of visiting all these places that he claims Paul traveled to, gathering highly specific information to use them in his realistic historical novel of Paul’s travels, then why in the world would he also contradict the Pauline epistles which were in wide circulation and much more readily available?”
That’s really the point. What evidence does he have that at the time and place Luke wrote the Pauline epistles were in wide circulation and readily available? It’s an interesting assertion, but I can’t think of a single piece of actual evidence for it. And the fact that Luke never mentions Paul writing letters (let alone the letters we have) or quotes the letters (we have) or shows any knowledge of the letter rather seriously speaks against it. But whatever one makes of that — what makes him think a) the letters were widely circulated and b) Luke knew them. (Seriously: what makes him think so, other htan supposiition?). In any event unless he can show that the census for the whole world to be taxed happened during the reign of King Herod (and under Augustus) then I’m not sure that it’s very convincing to offer as a refutation that Luke would have known Paul’s letters!! (See what a I mean?) (As to specific information in Luke. Yikes. I can write a novel about Rome and get hundreds of details right about the place; but the novel could still be a complete fiction. What kind of argument is that?)
Thank you so much for the reply! I think I will have to upgrade my membership to justify the time you take with my questions!
Related to this subject and the book you’re working on, I’m watching an interview with Tom Holland about his book “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind,” wherein he talks about how pervasive Christian ideas about the world are, even– or perhaps especially– where people are not even aware that many of our ideas in the West originate with or were inherited via Christianity. I was wondering if you were aware of this book (or Tom’s work generally) and, if so, what your take is on it.
Yup, it’s a very interesting and wide ranging book, covering the whole of Xn history (mine will be directed and focused) (and *hopefully* interesting!). I haven’t re-examined it since getting committed to doing this project a few weeks ago, but as I recall I found his basic thesis about charity fairly compatible with mine (he focuses on the issue in one of his chapters.)
Apart from historical accuracy when readying Acts and especially the Gospels anyone with basic knowledge of the Bible should be able to pick up on the repeating story line.
The fact historical data doesn’t support all the Bible is not a shocker. Look at Acts 12, Peter in Jail reads like a Jesus in the heart of the earth story. The events that follow in this chapter with Herod line up with Isaiah 14. Even the story of Herod and his brother Philips wife and John the Baptist is a Jesus story line. The gospels appear to be a parable in a parable in a parable if you know the symbology.
I am a believer in Jesus and strive to rightly divide the word of truth the best that I can using the common sense God gave me.
Glad to be here and looking forward to the Genesis lesson.
In my freshman year at college, we were required to take two semesters of “writing seminar.” The purpose was to work on writing skills, but we were allowed to select from scores of subjects and meet with a grad student who ran the particular 10-12 person group.
For my second semester, I chose “Medieval Poverty.” We read Piers Ploughman, Francis of Assisi, and about mendicant orders and so forth.
One striking idea I recall very well is that it was apparently considered very unvirtuous to be poor through no fault of your own, but very virtuous to become poor by choice (as in a rich young man becoming a poor brother).
I wonder if Francis of Assisi would have read any Seneca? He was the scion of a rich merchant, but I doubt Seneca was part of his tutoring, I could certainly be wrong.
In any case, the idea has legs, apparently.
Didn’t the government of Rome provide grain allotments to its citizens at one point? I know this is a little different than the individual giving out of charity, but I think it is at least worth analyzing and comparing. I suppose I do not know enough about the grain allotments myself and why the Romans thought they were important.
Yes, the allotment went to poor citizens of the city of Rome (not to non-citizens).disabledupes{9b106a1c283addde0850ec54e58e5d09}disabledupes
Off topic q – What’s your opinion on Mark 13:27 on whether the “his” was part of the original text?
“He will send the angels and gather *his* elect from the four winds … “
It’s in most manuscripts, but is missing from two of the oldest (that are not usually closely related to each other); and “his” may have been taken over from Matthew’s version. So I’d say on balance it probably was not originally in Mark. But it’s a close call.
thanks – and do you think in Mark’s version of the olivet discourse it is Jesus who does the choosing of the elect?
I think Jesus imagined the elect were self chosen. They are the ones who practice the ways of God.
“careerism, paternalism, kingly style, corruption, conspicuous consumption, local patriotism, desire to emulate, concern to uphold one’s rank, obedience to public opinion, fear of hostile demonstrations, generosity, belief in ideals.”
A fascinating list of motivations for public giving Bart; but maybe Veyne has omitted one: “to honour the Gods of the city”. Giving was always an action that both conferred honour on the donor, and paid due honour to the Gods; which itself could be argued was a strong benefit to all residents of the City – whether wealthy or not, whether citizens or not. Or to put it the other way round; failure to pay due honour to the City’s Gods could never be other than bad for the entirety of that city’s population.
The development of the concept of charity within a society based on scarcity will be an interesting exploration. The division between the haves and the have-nots must have been so stark.
Thank you for sharing an interesting, highly relevant and very good post (and thread)!
Why did early Christians encourage helping the poor and others outside their social class? Any reasons other than what Jesus taught?
It was a very strong element of the Jewish tradition from which they emerged. And I suppose most just thought that it was the *right* thing to do since God himself had tended to them when they themselves were in need.
Thanks for your reply! I will read more about it in the next day or two.