Loading...Some Christian writers thought having lots of money was a very serious problem – both because it made rich folk focus on something other than spiritual realities and because it was not just or godly for some people to be loaded when others were starving.
And so we have ancient Christian authors urging the wealthy to give away all their material possessions for a greater good and practice rigorous asceticism. The “good” in this case was very different indeed from what was promoted in the broader Roman world — where what mattered was helping with the city’s finances and assisting those of one’s own family or socio-economic class, in exchange for acquiring a higher personal status — since for Christians involves helping the indigent. But the personal motivation is roughly the same: it is a matter of “working out your salvation.” That is, it is largely about one’s own well-being.
Other writers, however, argued that wealth was not itself evil or necessarily a trap, an obstacle to the good and holy life. Righteous people could continue to enjoy their wealth while using it to good ends. These writers urged the rich to be generous, but not to impoverish themselves. Doing this would bring even better results both for others and themselves. Wealthy beneficence, in this view, was a cherished Christian virtue. As in the pagan world, this became the most popular Christian view (among the rich!), for rather obvious reasons. The rich could stay rich so long as they didn’t care much about their riches and gave a chunk of them away for others.
What really set the early Christian view apart from the views of the broader Roman world was
This post and the ones that follow show a major transformation Christians brought to the world. To find out, keep reading. To keep reading, join the blog! Click here for membership options
I’m guessing the weeding feast went up in smoke. Hopefully the brownies were good!
I was interested in your statement about the historical figures about whom legends grew. How much historicity do the apostles have? Was twelve a guess, a nice round number? A magic number? What historical facts do most scholars agree upon? Names, birthplaces? Can facts be drawn from the best preserved community memory of these figures? (I’m ashamed to admit I have looked into “Lives of the Saints” for entertainment purposes only.)
We know very little, unfortunately. 12 does appear to be the number; the names vary a bit among the Gospels. Outside the NT we have almost no reliable information. The community memory is almost entirely legendary.
Your discussion of the differences between pagan and christian attitudes toward wealth remind me of Nietzsche’s Genealogy or Morals in which a Master Morality (pagan) is contrasted with a Slave Morality (christian). It was taught to me at least that that this distinction was not intended to actually be historical (despite Nietzsche’s express claim in the essay). I’m wondering if you as a historian give any credence to the historicity of Nietzsche’s Master/Slave morality?
I think he’s onto something, even if I would put it a bit differently, and I thought about using him in my book; but in the end decided it would simply complicate things.
This post is truncated
That usually means there’s a problem with the renewal of your membership. Click Help and let Support know, and someone will help you out.
It can also mean you’ve been logged out and just need to log back in, if your membership is up to date.
What about the parable of the 10 talents? The good and faithful servant didn’t give all the entrusted gelt to the poor, but put it to capitalist use. Elsewhere in the gospels we have Jesus assigning ultimate good to the total renunciate of money, but also to he who multiplies his wealth (albeit for the sake of multiplying his master’s wealth.)
If you look at the parable in context it is using “money” not as a literal commodity but in reference to receiving something that needs to be grown in relationship to the Kingdom of God. Those with the good news entrusted to them need to make converts rather than keep the truth to themselves.
I’ve read that some ancient church writers taught this parable ‘upside down’, meaning that the one who hid the talent was the only respectable person. The master was ‘hard, reaping where he did not sew’ which can be interpreted as taking what did not belong to him, and the servants who increased their returns were doing so in ways against the law, which says they can’t profit from other Jews. So the only honest person in the tale is the servant who hid the talent and returned it to the master. Have you read this interpretation? What do you think?
I can see how a modern person might read it that way, but it sure doesn’t seem to be the way it’s presented in the text itself! The point of the passage is to show what someone is supposed ot do with all the good things given her — not hide them away but increase them.
Here is a quote from an article I read about this parable: “There Eusebius is quite
explicit that the hero of the story is the third slave who refused to cooperate in the
investment schemes of the greedy master (Theophania 22).”
Also, a number of ancient Rabbis apparently considered this as a tale of an evil rich person. Also, the book Sirach says “A rich man will exploit you if you can be of use to him, but if you are in need, he will forsake you.” Even Jerome says “Every rich person is either a thief or the heir of a thief” (In Hieremiam II.V.2; CCL LXXIV 61).
The master tells the servant who hid the talent that he should have invested the money with the bankers, so that the master would receive his money with interest. What does this mean?
It means that you should not hide the treasures you’ve been given but multiply them. It’s an allegory for the salvation given by Jesus; don’t keep it hidden adn to yourself: spread it.
Dr. Ehrman:
Did you see this argument by Jimmy Akin, linked at http://jimmyakin.com/2022/03/where-was-josephs-residence.html, that he put forth regarding Joseph’s two residences in Nazareth and Bethlehem, reconciling Matthew and Luke on that point (a bulleted summary at the end of the page may save you reading time)? He put up an entire list of links engaging with all of your points (most of which you’ve dealt a lot with), but here, he goes into some detail and musters historical sources about family ties, country houses (using African cultural practices; not sure that’s helpful though), what it meant to “own” property in the ancient world (including inheriting it while living elsewhere), how common it was to move for work, and how Luke describes Bethlehem as Joseph’s “own city” (2:3-4) and Nazareth as Joseph and Mary’s “own city” (2:39). Akin concludes Joseph thus had two residences, with stronger ties for legal/governmental purposes to Bethlehem, indicating it was his primary place of legal residence.
Any chance you might give this a brief post, perhaps as a weekly question? It seems a novel idea, even to you!
Yes, he sent it to me. And no, I’m not really much interested in pursuing it. I thibk anyone who is familiar with the socio-economic conditions of rural Israel at the time will find it completely implausible. But it’s a valiant effort!
I have always been sceptical about the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts after supposedly lying to the Holy Spirit about money. More likely, they were poisoned at the order of Peter as a lesson to anyone else in the early church that wasn’t prepared to pool their resources.
More likely still it’s just a legend.
This is kind of a random question, but since the Apocalypse of Peter comes up in your latest book… does any scholar seriously advocate that the “Apocalypse of Peter” mentioned in the Muratorian canon was something else? E.g. it was referring to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (which would be really strange) or some other, lost work?
I don’t think so. We know that the (Greek) Apocalypse of Peter was widely known at the time of the Muratorian canon, and all teh books it lists are proto-orthodox (certainly not Gnostic!).
Dr. Ehrman
I have 6000 questions but here
I pick only a few:
– Is there any evidence outside
the good book to support the
historicity of protomartyr Steven ?
– Did the process for capital punis-
ment by Sanhedrin in reality resemble
that of Steven’s trial in book of acts?
-I have read that among many other
checks and balances, if the court
unanimously voted for execution,
then they had to let the accused walk
because it showed that the court
must have been biased or rigged.
-Steven allegedly stands before 23 or 71
jewish judges and he gives them a crash
course in judaism which incidently is
filled with errors and antisemitic
remarks by the way.
1. No, nothing historical that is independent of Acts; 2. No; 3. That’s all legendary aI”m afraid; 4. I wouldn’t say anti-semitic; I would say anti-Temple. (Other Jews at the time were anti-Temple, including the Essenes)
Were anti-Temple Jews in the minority?
Yes, definitely.
That’s funny Jesus telling the couple their offspring may become lazy and good for nothing!True!?!
An unrelated question: it seems reasonable that the historical Jewish Jesus would not have been into drinking blood, not kosher. How did the NT writers make the leap to Jesus asking people to symbolically drink his blood? I get the theology of Jesus replacing the sacrificial Passover lamb, but As a Torah observant Jew do you think Jesus actually asked people to symbolically drink his blood, and do you think competition with the cult of Dionysus influenced this?
Yes, it’s a bit jarring; my sense is that Jesus hismelf would never have said such a thing, but once the commemorative meal involving bread and wine was widely celebrated, it was a natural connection. Early on the idea was not that the participants were eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but were instead celebrating the meal remembering that he offered his body to be broken and his blood to be shed. That changed into a more sacramental understanding over time.
This story goes completely against God encouraging Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply!”.
Question about twins – In the ancient world, were the Greek Didymus or Aramaic Thomas actually given names? In that case, both should get the name. Or were they nicknames applied later, perhaps to distinguish a lesser twinned sibling from the better known one? Are there any known cases where both twins were so named? (Judas Thomas and Jesus Thomas)
Normally not. The second one out was simply named Didymus. Off hand I can’t think of a Didymus with another name. I’ll have to think about it though.
Regarding the Acts of Thomas (in India) — Can you recommend a book containing translations of all 5 of the respective Acts of Peter, John, Paul, Andrew, and Thomas? What I see on Amazon are devotional or worse. Thanks!
Yup. J. K. Elliott, New Testament Apocrypha.
Prof Ehrman,
Didymus Thomas (Gospel of John) ; Judas Thomas (Acts of Thomas); Judas, son of James (Gospel of Luke); Jude, brother of Jesus (Gospel of Mark)
Q1. Do these names suggest the same individual?
Q2. If not, kindly advise on who the various personalities are?
Q3. Could the variance (if any) be a probable discrepancy or evidence of different traditions underpinning them?
Thank you.
Not the Son of James, but the others are *supposedly* (though not actually) the same person. Later authors were claiming to be Jesus’ brother Jude, and thought of him as Jesus’ own twin. Neither is historically right though….