As I’ve indicated, my plan is, or rather was, to write a book that argued that Christians radically changed the understandings of wealth and the practices of “giving” once they took over the empire. They, in effect, invented what we think of as “charity.”
As I have talked it over with my literary agent and the editors at Simon & Schuster, I have decided that my study needs to be placed in a broader cultural context. Rather than focusing exclusively on the transformation of ancient understandings of wealth and the concomitant social practices of giving in isolation from their larger ideological contexts, the book will address an even more transformative Christian innovation in ancient ethical discourse, one that provided the impetus for these understandings and use of wealth.
It will take several posts to explain the shift in my thinking. Here’s the starting point:
Ethics were just as important to inhabitants of the Greek and Roman worlds as they are to people today. But the criteria for evaluating “proper” behavior were very different, focusing almost entirely on personal happiness and character. By contrast, largely because of Jesus’ own Jewish roots, Christianity adopted a razor-like focus on “others,” urging attitudes and actions directed to their best interests. Unlike anything the pagan world had ever seen, Christians insisted that all human interaction be guided by love.
The Broader Context
“Love” in this context was not an emotion, a feeling, or an attitude. It was a practice. Love meant helping those who were in need, in emotional and practical ways, even if it involved personal sacrifice. The Christian rhetoric that placed care and service for others at the heart of ethical behavior was not simply different from the Greek and Roman moral discourse that proceeded it, it was precisely contrary.
I am obviously not trying to say that Greeks, Romans, and others in antiquity were unacquainted with the concept of love. Ancient Greek — the lingua franca of the empire – employs numerous terms for “love” (e.g., PHILIA, EROS, STERGŌ, AGAPĒ,); each term can suggest a different nuance (roughly: PHILIA, fondness for another; EROS, passionate love; STERGŌ, familial love; AGAPĒ, love that is interested in the well-being of the other), but their meanings overlap and some of them can be used interchangeably. Moreover, Greek and Roman literature of all kinds – epics, tragedies, comedies, novels, biographies, essays, moral treatises, poetry — is replete with themes of love, whether erotic, family, friendly, or communal. But on virtually every linguistic and literary level, the understandings of love differed from the practices envisioned by the emerging Christian rhetoric. In pagan literature and broadly throughout Greek and Roman culture, love as an altruistic practice – that is, activity meant to promote the well-being of others – was virtually always directed toward those connected to a person related by blood, status, or socio-economic class. Those outside these connections – that is, the vast majority of “others” – were not only beyond the reach of loving action, they were explicitly to be outside of it, according to both actual moral discourse and almost universally attested common sense.
Enemies were to be hated (some ethicists insisted on the point); foreign towns, cities, and empires could be conquered without remorse; enforced slavery was everywhere accepted (it was nowhere considered ethically problematic); the powerful were to dominate the weak, the men the women, the adults the children. Domination was, so to speak, the dominant ideology, simply accepted rather than queried.
Were there no ethics? Yes indeed, ethics were a prominent part of ancient discourse. Both philosophical and popular writings addressed and promoted “proper” or “virtuous” behavior. But with remarkable consistency, these prescriptions focused on one’s own well-being and personal character. From classical Greek times (especially with Aristotle), decisions connected with personal behavior were principally driven by a concern for eudaimonia, which can be translated as (personal) “prosperity,” “well-being,” or “happiness.” Soon afterward and into the Roman period, the major Hellenistic philosophical schools (e.g., Stoicism, Platonism, Epicureanism) began to focus almost exclusively on ethical concerns (as opposed, for example, to metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics), and promoted ways of living that could bring meaning, self-satisfaction, and inner contentment in a troubled and difficult world, where everyone – from emperor to slave – was necessarily confronted with the realities of existence and, therefore, unpleasant, awful, and truly terrible circumstances. Some of “virtues” variously advocated were meant to shelter a person from emotional pain (e.g., “self-sufficiency”), others to control anxiety and agitation (e.g., “self-control”), others to earn the respect of others (e.g., “generosity”). But none of them was directed to the well-being of other people per se. There was no ethical imperative to “love” another or promote their well-being, especially through an act of self-sacrifice.
This may sound counter-intuitive, exaggerated, and hopelessly generalized. But on my desk right now are a Routledge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, a college-level introduction to Ancient Ethics, and a monograph on Greek and Roman ethics by one of the great historians of philosophy of our time, Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness. In none of them does “love” appear in the index (though there are plenty of references to courage, desire, happiness, human nature, justice, pleasure, self-sufficiency, temperance, wisdom, and so on). Next to them sits the Cambridge Companion to Ancient Ethics, which does have three brief discussions of “love,” – but only “erotic/passionate love,” not love directed to the benefit of another. The Christian idea that someone should treat others in a way to promote their well-being is simply not part of the ancient Greek and Roman discourse.
I am not saying that ancient people did not feel affection for others or act in ways that displayed their feelings. Most spouses, parents, and friends were just as affectionate then as now, and normally acted accordingly. But I am saying that this kind of natural affection was not part of the ethical discourse designed to promote right behavior. There was no “ought” in acts of heart-felt tenderness.
**************
I will continue with these thoughts in posts to come.
“Enemies were to be hated (some ethicists insisted on the point)”. This made a bulb light up in my brain. In Matthew 5:43 It says that Jesus said “You have heard it said ‘you shall love you neighbor and hate your enemy…'” I’ve never found that statement in the Hebrew text. I wonder if that could be an indication that the words in the Matthean passage were post-Jesus words by a follower familiar with Greek ethics. What do you think?
Yup, it’s not in the OT per se! Matthew is either drawing an implication from there (“kill the Canaanites!”), stating what he sees as the logical corrolary to loving (only) your “neighbor,” or drawing it from the wider culture. In this case, though, it wouldn’t be only Greek ethics but, well, just about everyone’s ethics!
Do you think has changed your view much on how christianity took over the empire or its all just a part of the story?
No, this hasn’t affected my view of the Triumph.
Which of the Greek words for love was used most prominently in the NT, eg, in love your neighbor as yourself? Which is used in relation to love of God?
I’ve always understood that “agape” was normally used for Christian love but maybe that is a big oversimplification?
It’s the main word used, along with philia.
Recently I’ve begun to wonder if love of God was usually/often thought of as the love of a servant/slave for his/her master. It seems to me that things like loyalty, obedience, gratitude, admiration, and even a healthy and respectful fear would be more prominent in love of a master/God. Does that capture one of the major meanings of love of God in the NT?
How could a human do something for the well-being of God; Pleasing God? Worshipping God? Obeying God? It doesn’t quite compute in my mind.
Dependence/reliance might be another important element in love of a Master/God.
Do you read the bible? There is one relationship you missed Parent/child Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Many people don’t have a good relationship with their parents so perhaps this verse seems more like Master/slave relationship. But if you can imagine every possible positive aspect of a Parent/child relationship then that is this verse. Think of all the positive adjectives you can to describe a relationship safe, close, loving, protected, cherished, supported…etc… then think of the bad parts of a relationship—now imagine God actually being hurt by the things we do in our relationship with him…can God’s feelings be hurt by us?
The concept of marriage—a loving man and wife and that love giving birth to life. Filling the earth with life. That is exactly why God created us—for family. Family is the reflection of God’s heart. (good families that is). Read Romans 8 then you will realize we don’t love God—–he loved us. You have it backwards.
Yup, all those things are showing love to God, a response to what he himself has done.
I’d love to see a book on the history of parousia. What were the origins of this idea that has haunted Christians throughout history? When and how did the idea take root and what were the original variations? Did followers always believe Jesus himself would return? Or like John the Baptist taking the role of Elijah, was Jesus’s mission a role that could be assumed by someone later? Why wasn’t belief in salvation through believing in the crucifixion and resurrection enough? Why a second coming? What was left undone?
Rev. Moon(who I once followed) taught that Jesus failed in the “role” of messiah to build God’s kingdom on earth (but succeeded by dying for humanity, thus elevating believers after death in the spirit realm when Jews failed to believe). The idea is that the “role” passed on, given complex theological conditions (explained in the group’s text Divine Principle), to Moon, who planted the seeds of God’s kingdom by establishing a holy family and “grafting” others to it through mass wedding ceremonies, a tradition to be continued until the kingdom comes “like a thief in the night,” supplanting the old order.
Buddha had much to say about love and Hindus, a bit too. After Alexander, there were monks, bramins and their texts all over the Greco-roman world. Some must have taken note?
Yes, Greek and Roman moralists talk of love a lot too. The question is what they *say* about it.
What most interests me about this topic is the “why?” Why the radical differences in ideas about ethics and charity between the Jewish/Christian and Hellenistic worlds? I suppose it has to be ultimately chalked up to societal evolution in different cultural and historical circumstances. Was it perhaps because of ancient Israel’s unique geographic location at the intersection of great empires, making it a target of one conqueror after another, that made it easier for them to sympathize with the downtrodden of society? I’d like to see you address this question somewhere in your book, even if it’s just your personal opinion/speculation.
Yes, I’ll be going into that as much as I can.
Bart: “… largely because of Jesus’ own Jewish roots …”
This is remarkable. Please explore this more deeply. Ultimately Judaism is responsible for giving the ethics of love to the Western world?
Yes, of course! Concern for the downtrodden, the poor, the outcast, the marginalized. It’s all in the prophets and comes to be universalized in the Jesus movement.
Bart: “Yes, of course! Concern for the downtrodden, the poor, the outcast, the marginalized. It’s all in the prophets and comes to be universalized in the Jesus movement.”
Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that this message is found in the prophets. But if Judaism is ultimately responsible for giving the ethics of love to the Western world (even to the whole world?), that’s almost enough to make me start believing in revelation again. Was this message of the prophets unique in the entire world?
I doubt it! But the ethos was against the idea of giving to those most in need. It’s in the Jewish tradition because of their doctrine of (the one) God rooted in traditions like the exodus.
Bart,
Hector Avalos has some comments on this in The Bad Jesus that would challenge this view.
See chapter 2 – The Unloving Jesus / Loving the Enemy in the Ancient Near East page 34.
“Non-Christian writings from before the time of Jesus, as well as those contemporary with Jesus, enunciate the love of enemies.”
1 example from Counsels of Wisdom
“Requite with kindness your evil doer. Maintain justice to your enemy. Smile on your advisory.”
Babylonian Wisdom Literature
Lambert
Oxford: Clarendon Press 1960
pages 100,101
See also morals in Ancient Mesopotamia – Lambert pages 184 -196
There are other examples and exploration of the idea that Jesus and later Christianity was some type of radical innovator when it comes to love in this chapter and scattered thru the book.
Thanks for your time!
Yup, there are some examples and even more *apparent* examples of exceptions.
Bart,
In addition to Avalos also see: Forgiveness, Pity, and Ultimacy in Ancient Greek Culture – David J. Leigh 2004
Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism a comparative study – Thornsteinsson
Oxford U Press 2010
Notes how Christianity has perpuated stereotypes about Greek religion
SC
The thing to do is to read the Hellenistic philosophical writings themselves. In many ways it becomes clearest in discussions of whom to help when they are in need. Seneca, Plutarch, and others have numerous discussions of it, and it ain’t what the Christians were saying. (Whether they were *doing* what they were saying is a different question). You might want to look at these two works that you mention, in any event. Leigh begins his study, for example, by pointing out that: “A study of the earliest Greek literature and philosophy indicates that the Greeks developed a strong sense of justice and law as related to both gods and humans, but did not develop a concept of forgiveness or mercy.” That’s exactly right. And justice did not mean “justice for *all*”
disabledupes{68b46d2f4bc7afe9a120931710d2d502}disabledupes
Bart,
The conclusion of Leighs study:
“He (Stevens) also finds a remarkable number of instances of pity in the works of Ennius, Cicero, Virgil, and Horace, as well as some of the playwrights.
Although the Stoics did not admit pity as part of their rational ethic because of pity’s foundation in human emotions, Epicureans, such as Lucretius, considered the discovery of mercy and pity to be a major sign of progress in human civilization (Ibid., p. 431). Thus, one can conclude that the ancien worlds of Greece and Rome provided the seeds of a virtue that would later be transformed into the power of forgiveness – unconditional absolving of another’s offense -in Christianity.”
Also see Thorsteinssons work (a comparative study)
I’ve read alot on this and there is an upward trajectory from earlier periods already in place in Greek/Roman thought…
TY,
SC
Bart,
excerpts from:
Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality Runar Thorsteinsson Oxford
“Seneca puts the Stoic position in plain terms: ‘Nature begot me loving (amantem) all people.’”
“As we have seen time and again, the Stoics agree that human beings are both social beings and good by nature, and thus that it lies in their very nature to care for and help their neighbours. This is an essential aspect of the Stoic theory of oikeiōsis, a theory that is fundamentally other-regarding and community-oriented. The theory is grounded in the principle of universal humanity, which teaches that, as all have equal share in the divine and all-pervading λόγoς (ratio), every human being is sacred simply on account of his or her being.”
“The final chapter, Chapter 10, discussed the ethical scope of the Christian and Stoic texts, that is, the question of whether the texts teach unqualified universal humanity or not. It was concluded that, contrary to common opinion, there can be no doubt that the Stoic texts teach such universal humanity, while the Christian texts do not. The latter reserve the application of their primary virtue for fellow believers, and thus set an important condition in terms of religious adherence.”
TY,
SC
Wow! This just makes 1 Corinthians 13 even more beautiful! And it shows how radical the parable of the good Samaritan really was. I am very excited for this book
The moral and ethical teachings attributed to Jesus are quite similar to the moral and ethical teachings in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and other Eastern religions and philosophies. Three links below give woefully incomplete examples of this. But, as I understand it, that is one of the reasons why some have conjectured that Jesus went to India during his so-called lost years. The teachings the New Testament ascribes to Jesus are quite close to the practice of Dana, for example, in the aforementioned religions. It seems to me that the idea of Jesus in India has fallen out of favor among scholars these days but I would be curious what people on this blog think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%81na
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics
https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/traditions-of-giving-in-hinduism/
What were the main differences between Judaism and early Christianity’s focus on “others”?
Well, both Jews and Christians were hugely diverse, so there was not a consistent view. The biggest difference between the two is that Christianity took over the empire and so spread the views.
Would you say the Buddhist idea of compassion, or loving-kindness is essentially the same as other-directed love in the Judeo-Christian tradition?
What’s interesting is that in Buddhism there are two schools that seem to parallel the different ethical models you compared, but in this case more complimentary than conflicting; one regarding personal development (Theravada school) the other very self-sacrificing and other-centered in practice, the bodhisattva tradition in the Mahayana school.
I’d say that there are probably a number of religious traditions with similar teachings, though none that I know of in the Greek and Roman worlds.
Bart,
A few last points on this I promise! Then I’m moving on…
There are other relevant books and articles in the extensive footnotes of Avalos work directly related to this topic other than the ones listed. You may wanna check those out.
One could just as plausibly argue that the most radical innovations of Christianity unfortunately lay on the other side, the dark side, of the ledger:
1. Charging an entire people with deicide and all the horror that has brought the last 2000 years
2. Condemning most of mankind to eternal torture/punishment
And those are my final thoughts on this topic – Good luck with the book!
SC
My view is that the dark side is by far the easier to expound upon.
Bart,
Thought of 3rd:
3. The greatest love of all is learning to love yourself. Christianity teaches the exact opposite of that…with all the pain that brings to a human mind.
I’m sorry but, much like T. Holland in Dominion, you seem to be grabbing at the low hanging fruit here. I’m sure it will sell well though…so theres that.
Thanks,
SC
I’m curious about the whole in-group vs out-group thing. It seems to me that the Hebrew scriptures still very much retain that kind of mentality (e.g. differences in the treatment of Israelite vs foreign slaves, charity being mostly toward people of the in-group, etc.). Based on my admittedly shallow understanding of the cultural context of the different sections of the Bible, it seems Jesus started expanding that idea to include those who were seen by 1st-centiry Jews as “outsiders,” and Paul took it even further saying that it wasn’t even limited to those who adopted Judaism. Am I seeing this correctly?
I’d say that’s right in basic terms, though of course it’s a lot more complicated. IN part it’s not just Jesus but other Jewish teachers who made that move; and Paul expanded *salvation* to gentiles but he still had a very strong in-group/out-group perspective.
Good read Bart. When I look at the love language of the Greeks , Eros is probably the easiest to adapt and Agape the most difficult in our world today. I read an article years ago about Mahatma Gandhi who tried to suppress his sexual appettite by having a female cousin sleep nude beside him. Wonder if it worked ? I think the Christian message was a resounding ” Agape”, to shed thyself for others unconditionally. Difficult to do!!
I think a lot of people wish they had thought of that….
One strange thing is that Agape was not a noun in usage in Greek circles before Christinity.
Dr. Ehrman,
I like this change (hopefully additive) to your approach. One of the things I have learned from you, and try to remember, is the historical background of the way cultures/people saw things as new ideas were developing.
My tendency was to simply say people were rapidly trying novel things of all sort, however, this appears to be far from the case. Being able to see that through enculturation or devotion or fear, etc things remained and had to be adapted or overcome over time.
I attended the Zoom session when you revealed your two options for your next book. I tried to talk you out of this topic, but alas, to no avail!
I know this topic is very nuanced and requires a much greater understanding of history than I posses, but if I think about the short statement you make to summarize the book, “…focusing almost entirely on personal happiness… by contrast… Christianity adopted a razor-like focus on “others”…” It just doesn’t hold true for me. While the basis of the personal happiness may have been different, Christians were just as concerned for their personal happiness. They were told that by doing charitable things NOW, you’ll be really happy later. Of course, by “later” they thought “very soon later”, due to the apocalyptic teachings.
I hope you’ll consider going into present day differences between Christian and Non-Christian views (and more importantly, actions) of charity. I’m not sure, but it would seem possible that current data on NonChristians being more charitable would hurt the thesis of the book.
Oh, I’m not saying that Christians were ACTUALLY uninterested in personal happiness! I’m saying that the Christian *rhetoric* was to give to others even if it meant self-sacrifice; that sometimes happened on the ground, but not usually. And no, nothign in the modern world will affect the thesis of my book. There are debates, as you may know, about who’s the most charitable these days. Christains give a lot more of their resources than others, but often it’s to support their own religion rather than to those in need.
It strikes me that, as Christianity became more and more widespread in pagan society, the more also it became ethically assimilated. Not only was there some influence of Christian ethics in the previously pagan world, as you have been discussing, but Christianity too was changed. Your paragraph detailing the ways in which Domination played out as the driving principle of pagan ethics sounds all too similar to the Christendom of later centuries. It strikes me that it was not until the Enlightenment that Christians began–some of them, slowly–to turn back from this ethical apostasy.
You say that Christians, “in effect, invented what we think of as charity.” Yet you also credit earlier Jewish traditions of charity at least to some extent. In your earlier post on charity (June), you indicate that Christian views of wealth and giving were “rooted in the Jewish tradition”. And in this post: “… largely because of Jesus’ own Jewish roots, Christianity adopted a razor like focus on other, urging attitudes and actions directed to their best interests.” How is Christian charity different from earlier Jewish versions? Is it more appropriate to say that Christianity refined the Jewish concept of charity and spread it to the broader GrecoRoman world?
Yes, I’d say that the followers of Jesus took over the traditional Jewish emphasis on caring for the poor and expanded it to include all poor, not just “co-religionists” — at least in their rhetoric. There were some Jewish teachers who urged something similar, but they, of course, did not have the kind of world-wide impact Christians did. And so institutions such as the public hospital and the orphanage are Christian innovations.
Was early Christian love (other centred and giving) unreservedly directed towards everybody or was it more directed to other Christians? When shown to outsiders was it more to get them converted than to simply care for their wellbeing with no strings attached? Even today a lot of Christian love for outsiders is tied to missionary activity.
Starting with Paul, the line was usually “to everyone” but “especially to the household of faith.”
“They, in effect, invented what we think of as “charity.”…”It is scarcely known, let alone appreciated, that this entire ethical landscape of antiquity was transformed with the triumph of Christianity” …”The Christian rhetoric that placed care and service for others at the heart of ethical behavior was not simply different from the Greek and Roman moral discourse that proceeded it, it was precisely contrary.”
How to stump a philosopher: Ask them for an original thought.
Who among us has ever had an original thought? An idea that is in fact contrary to our own culture? Let alone an idea that is worth spreading. The quotes above sound like hyperbole—perhaps to sell a book. But if these ideas were really that good –then that sounds transcendent.
Are we putting this moral structure on a pedestal? That’s what this discussion sounds like. Or are we just saying “meh….it was different in its day” That is the NEXT question.
Well, I think someone had to have original thoughts at some point, since otherwise there wouldn’t be any thoughts. 🙂 But no, I’m not meaning to say that this is the msot important thing that has ever happened in the human race!!
well if preferring(or allowing) the success of your neighbor was part of this train of thought then the exponential decline in poverty in the world is the result isn’t it? The most important thing that has ever happened in the human race!! An ideology can easily keep people in poverty—ask Mao