Loading...I don’t recall hearing or reading anyone make the case that Jesus and his disciples survived during their time of itinerant ministry by foraging. But it’s an idea that makes a good bit of sense and there is some evidence for it in the Gospels.
In this post I explain why it seems to make sense; I’ll deal with some of the evidence in the next post. Let me say I’ve only started thinking and reading about all this – so this is my first attempt to articulate my thoughts (at this point).
In most developed countries today,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Much food for thought Dr E. 😬 (sorry).
The story of the Cambodian refugees made me think that, not that long before, native Americans had no trouble living off the land (as hunter gatherers) in North America.
I mentioned in a previous post that if Jesus and his followers stopped working and left their families for an extended time, their families would have been put in a very bad situation of not being able to meet their normal hand to mouth existence. Jesus and his followers may have been able to survive on a daily basis by foraging and/or gleaning and their families may have been able to survive with plots to raise their own produce but the abandoned families would certainly be put in a dangerously bad situation.
I mentioned before that if the “headquarters” for Jesus’ ministry was Capernaum and Jesus’ family was living in Capernaum, it seems more likely that Jesus and his followers continued to work part-time and have their ministry be local. Kind of similar to what you have mentioned that Paul likely did. Paul set up a leather shop in a town and preached to those who came to his shop.
How you heard this explanation be given for how Jesus, his followers and their families may have survived?
No, I haven’t. I guess the evidence against it is the passage that appears at least to record a historical reality in which Peter and the others are praised for leaving behind HOmes, partents, spouses, children and lives for the sake of the kingdom. Sounds like they’re not living at home.
I don’t think the NT indicates that Jesus’ famiy lived in Capernaum. That’s simply the place he himself used as a king of home base for the ministry.
“,,, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake…”
Do you think this statement goes back to Jesus where in Mark and Matt he says “for my sake?”
I doubt if he said “for my sake” but more likely “for the sake of the kingdom”
Mark: “Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake…”
Matthew: “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or[a] children or fields for my name’s sake…”
Luke: “And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God…”
Luke is the first one to say “for the sake of the kingdom.” Does it seem unlikely that Luke would be the one to make a correction to use Jesus’ actual words since he is using Mark as his source?
Yup, probably.
Great analysis, but that passage is in Leviticus 19, not 22.
Do you remember Euell Gibbons who wrote Stalking the Wild Asparagus?
Yes indeed!!
Dr. Ehrman,
It seems to me that Jesus’ acceptance of financial support could raise an interesting tension with some of his own teachings. He repeatedly tells people to give what they have to the poor and to follow him. Given that, do you think Jesus would have accepted substantial financial support from wealthy followers, or would he have challenged them to give more directly to the poor instead? More generally, how do you think Jesus understood the role of wealthy patrons in supporting his ministry?
It may be that he understood himself to be one of the poor, and thought that supporting him meant supporting the spread of the gospel of the coming kingdom.
Off topic, you suggest in your blog “new-boxes-oral-traditions-and-the-dates-of-the-gospels” that no gospels had been written during Paul’s life since “if anyone would have known about the existence of written accounts of Jesus’ life, it would have been him. Probably they did not exist yet. On the other hand, early non-canonical authors such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (see chapter 28) do seem to know some of the Gospels”. Elsewhere you’ve pointed out that there were lots of gospel accounts written by the time Luke wrote Luke around 80-85 CE since Luke writes that many others have constructed such written accounts and his is a more orderly account. For both of these things to be true, that would mean between roughly 70 CE and 80 CE a surge in written accounts of Jesus’ life must have occurred.
Do you think such a surge happened and, if so, what events prompted such a surge?
Yes, I think there probably was a surge of sorts (I’m not sure how many Gospels would = surge) starting in the 70s. I’m not sure Ignatius and Polycarp show it, since they were writing over a half century after Paul’s death. But you’re right, if Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q, John tc were written around 70-95, and if Luke claimed “many” had written them by his time: it does seem like a big literary movement was afoot.
The reason is disputed. Or reasons. Ws it because eyewitnesses were no longer around and there needed to be written versions? Is it becuase there were so many disparate stories and views of Jesus that authors (there being far more literate Christians then than, say, 20 years earlier) felt a need to record the “right” view (as Luke suggests). Maybe both those things and others?
Some people have suggested that the Fall of Jerusalem brought it about, but I’ve never really understood the logic of that (i.e., why/how that would work).
I had not really thought about the possibility of gathering food from nature, because I had assumed that Jesus and his disciples were busy preaching every day. It is true that Peter and John, for example, were fishermen. And if one follows the Synoptic Gospels in imagining Jesus’ public ministry as much shorter, perhaps only several months and largely during the warmer season, then subsistence through fishing, foraging, occasional agricultural labor, hospitality, and small gifts may have been possible.
Bart compared the situation with Cambodia. My wife and I lived in Myanmar for about four and a half years, and although the country was very poor—at that time the average monthly income was only about US$100—I was told that it was not really a place where people commonly starved, partly because food from nature was relatively abundant in a tropical climate.
By contrast, much of Israel outside oasis areas seems quite barren. Could people really obtain enough food from nature in such an environment? Or was the area around the Sea of Galilee, especially near Capernaum, quite different from that general image?
Could this also suggest that the three-year ministry implied by John’s Gospel is probably not historical?
Apparently Galilee was quite different from Judea in terms of agricultural and wild produce. Still is. The wilderness in Judea is a stark conrast with what you find up north.
In the ancient mindset, trying to harvest 100% of your field was a form of serving Mammon. By refusing to scrape the bottom of the barrel, a landowner actively rejected the spirit of accumulation.
The Core Contrast
Mammon is about Accumulation: It is the relentless drive to gather, stack, and hoard wealth. It treats resources as a private score to be maximized.
Gleaning is about Leaving Behind: It is the intentional choice not to maximize profit. It leaves the excess so that others can survive.
Insightful topic, Dr. Ehrman: Jesus and his disciples as foragers offers a fascinating theological bridge to Genesis. Jesus’s lifestyle seems to reject Cain’s agrarian revolution—which introduced land ownership, heavy labor, and anxiety over yield—and embraces Abel’s nomadic, pastoral reliance on divine providence.
Coincidentally, this topic made me look at my leftover barbecue in a new light. The unconsumed meat left on the grill visually resembled an ancient sacrificial altar. Anthropologically, ancient sacrifices were communal barbecues, but Biblical law strictly forbade leaving leftovers to spoil (Leviticus 7:15). It shows how far we’ve come: our modern surplus is the ultimate evolution of Cain’s system of accumulation, whereas Jesus calls us back to the immediate, day-to-day dependence of the forager.
The Cultural Conflict: Abel’s pastoral life relies on nature without altering it. Cain’s farming represents ownership, manipulation, and agricultural anxiety. Jesus’s nomadic trust rejects Cain’s system, returning to Abel’s worldview.
The First Offerings: Cain offered the fruits of human labor and environmental control. Abel offered life’s natural gift. Later, biblical gleaning laws reminded landowners that fields belong to God.
Jesus as the New Abel: Foraging on the Sabbath, Jesus bypassed the agrarian economy. He rejected human-manufactured offerings, becoming the ultimate sacrifice.
So inspirational, I had to make a topic, and to explain Adam’s [wise as Serpent] guilt
Finally, The Topic About Me: Adam, and Eve
Ish and Isha’s Frail Flight from Eden VS Jesus’ claim about Mother Hen
https://adamthefirst.substack.com/p/finally-the-topic-about-me-adam-and