Loading...In the previous post I talked about how and why ancient Cynics condemned wealth – as in fact they condemned anything that a person had and considered important to their happiness and wellbeing. If wellbeing resides in things you possess, they can be taken away from you, leading to misery. And so, the key to happiness is not to be attached to anything. And the only way to assure that you’re *not* attached to something is not to have it at all. So Cynics maintained you should give it all away – for the sake of your happiness.
This was considered an extreme view, but it reveals an underlying sentiment among many ancient philosophers, that happiness cannot reside in your possessions. Most of these philosophers, though, maintained that the problem was not wealth per se, but a personal attachment it. For these thinkers, it was perfectly fine, even good, to be abundantly affluent. The (potential) problem was being obsessively attached to possessions and allowing wealth to control the course of life. That is: you could be rich if you did not feel a need to be.
This may sound like a bourgeois justification for inequality, injustice, and all the side-effects of lucre. And, well, it is. It’s important to emphasize that we only know of such views from
I try to be attached to my money, but it seems not be attached to me as it keeps seeking out other places to go than my bank account.
To the Greco-Roman Christian view of wealth, let me inject a compromise from the Indus Valley civilization. There are 4 things people desire from life – artha, dharma, kama, moksha – loosely translated as wealth, education/learning, pleasure and liberation. If you chase two rabbits in a forest, you will catch none. So the devout Hindu is encouraged to pursue each of these goals separately in the four ashrams, or stages, of his life – first, learning and devotion to his teacher; then pleasure of all sorts – archery, music and dance, good cuisine and good sex etc. In the third ashram he has a duty to acquire wealth so as to fulfil his obligations to his parents and to his children and to his community. When he arrives at the fourth ashram, he has discovered how fleeting and illusory learning, pleasure and wealth are, and so he looks for liberation by becoming a synaysi, giving up all of these and going into the forest and meditating. By regarding his pursuits as “duty” in each stage of his life, he is able to detach himself from his selfishness.
I wonder if the views of Antisthenes influenced the way the founders of America handled their own wealth. Looking forward to the next post!
It’s a good question. I don’t know how well the “founders” were read in Greek philosophy. Well, I’m sure Jefferson was.
James Madison studied Greek at Princeton (and was apparently very good at languages). John Adams appears to have read Plato in the original Greek. (He may have trained as a minister at Harvard, and ancient languages would likely have been a requirement.) It is quite likely that any of the founding fathers with higher level education had at least some Greek, as “classical” education was the model.
“The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution” (1967) by Bernard Bailyn is widely considered one of the best accounts of its subject matter. In it he notes that Jefferson and a very few others were well read in the classics (Greek and Roman). John Adams, by contrast, focused on Roman writers such as Cicero.
There are many citations to the classics in the literature of the period, but of these Bailyn says:
“But this elaborate display of classical authors is deceptive. Often the learning behind it was superficial; often the citations appear to have been dragged in ‘as window dressing with which to ornament a page or a speech and to increase the weight of an argument,’ as Dr. Johnson said, was ‘the parole of literary men all over the world.'” (p. 24 of the 2017 Harvard edition).
For what its worth.
I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as the rich are mean. If you look at many virtues not strictly related to wealth, though everything is easier with wealth often the better off do more of it, donating blood etc and the opposite is true too. In my experience it’s not that clear.
But it’s hard to see why anyone starves to death for lack of money, or goes without medication when billionaires exist.
Both views across the spectrum are egoistical.Neither view actually considered the state (suffering) of a poor person and in many ways demotes the poor to a lesser form of humanity if human at all. The “Poor” to them are nothing more than a “contrast” of themselves in which to measure themselves over. Without the Poor there is no Wealthy. Seems to be the state of American Christianity today…
Thats why they try and teach ethics in MBA programs.
Bart, you mention in your email the Matthew verse of it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man … etc. I believe it’s the Aramaic Bible that translates the word “camel” as “rope”, a translation issue. This would seem more logical, germane to the point made. Do you have an opinion?
Do you mean the Syriac Bible? I”m not familiar with an Aramaic one. But I”m not sure you mean that’s the *translation* in the version; the usual argument, instead, is that the Aramaic word for “rope” was very similar in sound and appearance to “camel” and that the Gospel writer reading / hearing the story in an earlier soruce/ oral tradition got it mixed up when putting it into Greek. That’s possible but not very persuasive to me.
Prof Ehrman,
q1. What leads up to the debate on whether the word is ‘rope’ or ‘camel’ in Matt 19:24 – “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…” ?
q2. If the historical Jesus did in fact make the statement, what could he have been alluding to based on his cultural context and the overall historical context of the passage; and
q3. What would be your reason (s) for thinking so?
Thank you.
1. Simply interpreters who can’t believe he’d say “camel.” Hey, it can’t be THAT impossible! (They say…) 2. I think he is just using a witty and rather humorous metaphor to make his point. It just CAN’T be done. 3. I think so because that makes the best sense of teh passage, and there’s nothing inherent in the passage, in my judgment, to require us to change the words that are in every surviving manuscript.
Prof Ehrman,
Thank you and as always, I appreciate your responses, a bit of further clarification here, please.
I read that there is a close parallel between the Greek word ‘kamelon’ (camel) and the Aramaic word ‘kamilon’ (rope). If the NT was authored in Greek by Greeks, could the first author who codified from oral history misheard and erroneously put down kamelon instead of kamilon. So that subsequent copying reproduced the same error, hence the reason its covered in every surviving manuscript?
What’s your view on this please? Thank you.
I think the argument is that two ARAMAIC words (camel and rope) were similar to each other, and that Jesus said “rope” but was mistaken to have said “camel.” Once the mistake was placed into the Greek account of the story, iut came to be copied regularly.
THat’s a major reason I don’t find the argument convincing. It presupposes taht the problem has to do with the similarity between Aramaic words. But the Gospels were written in Greek by people who probaby didn’t know Aramaic.
Just to mention, in metaphysics, “mind” is the foundation of everything, and our thoughts and imaginations are the vehicle forming our present and future world, individually and collectively. The Jane Roberts Seth material offers advice that if you “think” wealth you will obtain wealth. Yet as the genie in the magic urn offers a small number of wishes, wealth will evaporate in a split second when threshold to death arrives. Pursuing the inner knowledge and blessings of the whole of mind (all of life) will dissolve the illusion of death and bring the promised eternal blessings. Material wealth is thus fools good, actual worth is in realizing the temporal nature of our present surroundings and taming the mind so that through our thoughts and imaginations we procure an eternal wealth. This is the message of Jesus.
I think that Aristotle in the Politics warned against wealth inequalities, although not from a moral point of view, but simply as this would create envy which in turn would lead to civil unrest and possible revolution. Cicero in De Officiis thought that it was important not to show wealth ostentatiously as this would show poor taste and lead to a loss of reputation. However, the emphasis was on showing wealth, not possessing it.
Wasn’t much of the economic life based on patron/client relationships? Patrons created opportunities for those lower in rank and clients did services for the patron including honoring him at banquets. I believe that Matthew 22:1-14 referred to patron/client relationships in which the patronage is not reciprocated by the clients resulting in the king’s exacting revenge on the ungrateful clients.