Bart D.E.
the most significant impact Christianity made on the social and political world of antiquity involved its insistence that those with means should provide for those in need. This idea that the powerful should help the weak, that those who have should support those who have not, upended the understanding of social relations in the Roman world.
As a bevy of studies has pointed out, , in the Roman world, when the wealthy elite gave money away it was not to assist those in need. It was either to help out those in their own socioeconomic class – for example, family members fallen on hard times – or to fund municipal projects such as the construction of buildings or the financing of public entertainments that would bring honor to themselves.
These contributions could indeed sometimes help those who were not well-off, who could use the public buildings and enjoy some of the gladiator shows. But that is not why the wealthy funded these projects. It was all about advancing their public recognition – that is, for personal gain. Nearly the only time wealthy leaders bestowed funds on the poor was to buy their vote.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
The Life of the Biblical Jesus Christ
Blessed are you who are now hungry,
for you will be satisfied.
Luke 6: 21
The Life of Octavian / Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus
- …As consul for the 11th time [23 BC], I bought up grain as a private individual and distributed twelve grain rations, and in my 12th year of tribunician power [12 BC], I gave 400 sesterces each for a third time. These handouts of mine never reached fewer than 250,000 men.
4. …As consul for the thirteenth time [2 BC], I gave 60 denarii each to the commoners who at that time were in receipt of public grain; these were a few more than 200,000 men.
Chapter 18: …I gave out distributions of grain and money from my own granary and assets, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes to many more.
Augustus, translated by Alison E. Cooley. Res Gestae Divi Augusti [The Deeds of the Divine Augustus],
Chapter 15 [Latin text], p. 74; Chapter 18 [Latin text], p. 78.
Seneca [teacher and advisor to Nero] believes true giving is not transactional. Reciprocity or gratitude – although they may be forthcoming – can neither be expected or demanded.
All about recognition, Bart?
[ My reply contains quotes and content from my book, Historical Accuracy.
Also see: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** ]
Steefen said
jbhodgeAlthough the people of Rome may not have been charitable to the poor, didn’t the Caesars give away grain to solicit support from the poor? Of course, that is not compassion which is to your point. But the truth is, no one can rule without consent from the population thus if 50% or greater are poor, then they need to be bought off. Also it was God’s decree that the Jews leave the corners of the field of crops to the poor and hungry, not Jewish compassion.
A good topic would be the existing Jewish view of poverty and wealth in the first century compared to the teachings attributed to Jesus. They were diametrically apart from the views and practices of the Jews of the first century.
Well the ancient world had no real social safety net so while charity existed it was usually left up to the largess of individuals. One irony is many modern Christians claim that it was Christianity that invented the idea of public charity at the same time as they oppose public charity and think it should be left up to individuals. So they think just like the pagans while crediting themselves for being greater than the pagans.
Stephen,
Great post!
The concept of charity and perhaps human mercy seems so easy and obvious, but to me the absolute confusion about it becomes apparent when I read the flip flop and reversals of Bart de Las Casas, patron saint of civil rights. As he flailed about with the horrors of the Christian mistreatment of new world people.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
Although the people of Rome may not have been charitable to the poor, didn’t the Caesars give away grain to solicit support from the poor? Of course, that is not compassion which is to your point. But the truth is, no one can rule without consent from the population thus if 50% or greater are poor, then they need to be bought off. Also it was God’s decree that the Jews leave the corners of the field of crops to the poor and hungry, not Jewish compassion.
A good topic would be the existing Jewish view of poverty and wealth in the first century compared to the teachings attributed to Jesus. They were diametrically apart from the views and practices of the Jews of the first century.