Loading...As I indicated in my previous post, the ethics of Christian love (and the very term used for it) differed from what could be found broadly in the Greek and Roman worlds. This different understanding of love had concrete practical implications, especially in how early Christians understood charitable giving.
That will be the next part of my book, The Origins of Altruism, as I explain here as I continue to extract from the initial sketch of the book I’ve written for myself.
******************************
Part Three: Charitable Giving (chs. 6, on the Greco-Roman world, and 7, on Jesus and his later followers)
Since love in the teachings of Jesus and then agapē in the early Christian movement was not an emotion, connected with personal feelings or passion but a kind of disinterested activity in relation to others, including strangers, its most concrete manifestation involved providing resources for those in need.
In the broader Greek and Roman worlds, virtually all the discussion of personal resources (money and goods) focused on the very wealthy. Moral philosophy was written by elites to audiences of elites. The “problem” with wealth throughout this literature was not that some very few people were filthy rich and most everyone else was dirt poor. The problem was
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!
Hi Bart, I recently re-subscribed to hopefully gather your thoughts on a couple of things. I am not sure if I can post questions on these blogs unrelated to their topics, but I guess I’ll find out! 😛
If you had to pick a Christian (or Christianish) tradition which you believe to hold to the most accurate Christology, from a NT and Early Church perspective…which would it be? Jehovah’s Witnesses?
I’d say a very big part of the problem is that in both the NT and (especially) the early church, there wasn’t a single Christological view, but many of them, some of them completely at odds with one another.
Professor Ehrman, a quick question about charity and translation. Matthew 19:24 says (in English) that “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Not knowing ancient languages, I looked online and found three possible interpretations (apart from the concept of an actual camel going through an actual needle eye).
(1) The original Greek was likely “kamilos,” meaning “knot,” which became mistaken for “kamelos,” meaning “camel.”
(2) In Aramaic [?] the word “gamla” means both “camel” and “thick rope.”
(3) The “Eye of the Needle” was a narrow gateway into Jerusalem. Since camels were heavily loaded with goods and riders, they would need to be un-loaded in order to pass through. Therefore, the analogy is that a rich man would have to similarly unload his material possessions in order to enter heaven.
Which do you think is right and why? Thanks!
Yes, people have long wanted to get around the impossibility of this one! In terms of these solutions
1. I’m don’t think there is an ancient Greek word kamilos; to my knowledge the word first occurs in a 10th century source (900 years after the Gospels), and only once? 2. Since the Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic, it doesn’t seem like a confusion of an Aramaic word would have led to a confusion for the Greek authors. (In any event, the Aramaic word refers to the kind of massively thick rope used holding a ship, a hawser); 3. the gate in Jerusalem didn’t exist in the time of Jesus; it first appeared in the Middle Ages, probably called that after this passage.
Almost certainly Jesus is using a humorous metaphor to make his point. It ain’t possible. With God it’s possible. But, NOT because he’ll save a rich person, but because he’ll inspire a rich person to give away his wealth so that he can enter the kingdom.
Hi Bart, perhaps you’ve opined on this already but I would be interested in your opinion on Saul, the Pharisee -> Paul, the apostle’s conversion. What really happened from a naturalistic perspective. Seems he pursued a very natural and opportunistic motivation very much in the vein of modern day “apostles” starting cults, churches, new religions, etc. perhaps he was just the first of many or perhaps he was just the most popular, influential, and charismatic? Now that I’m asking this I bet you cover this in your book about the success of Christianity?
Ah, that’s the topic of my podcast in a couple of weeks. And yup I devote a chapter to it in my book Triumph of Christianity. Short answer: I’m pretty sure Paul saw something that he believed was Jesus. (Hallucination? Dream? Mistaken identity? Christians would say … Jesus!)
Prof Ehrman,
Per the teachings of the historical Jesus, what, in your view, was the primary motivation for giving and helping the poor—to make entry into the kingdom or the need to help the poor and needy? If it is the former, can’t it be argued that, just as in the Graeco-Roman world, the primary/ underscoring reason was that of personal gain as opposed to the need to assist the poor?
In my part of the world, often times, some Christian giving, in my opinion, appears predicated on some personal gains—a blessing, a break-through, a reward in the hereafter, or a command.
My view is that it is impossible to get into anyone’s head to figure out how their various motivations balance out and which is dominant, and moreover, it’s usually impossible for any of us to be completely clear about what’s driving us. But I will say, that at least in our surviving literary texts, the motivation that is almost always urged for charity is “treasure in heaven.”