For the first time in my life, I’m not really sure what I’m going to be arguing in the book I’m working on..
As I’ve said before, some months ago my publisher suggested I change course for the next book. Instead of what I had been focusing on for some months (a book on the canon – how we got the 27 books of the NT – a book that I’ll do soon as well, but not first), she said they would love to have a book about: Jesus the Socialist.
As always, with virtually every suggestion I get about virtually everything (academically related or otherwise), I was dubious, not sure I really wanted to do that. But then I thought about it for a while, and realized it could be really interesting. I had dealt with Jesus’ view of wealth in my last book Love thy Stranger, but this would be a different sort of thing, more along the lines of how Jesus’ views might relate to our modern economies.
On one level that seems kinda obvious
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!
Mixing political statements with theological and historical statements would only seem to divide your potential audience. ” The Economy of Jesus” would be a more flexible title what could be made more attractive with some twists “The Wealth of Jesus” or “Jesus versus Poverty”, etc. I like your idea of connecting to Luke 16:9.
I suggest you avoid diving too deeply into specific economic theories as they can also be divisive and highly disputable. It seems that simply defining and differentiating between Marxism and socialism is difficult enough right now for most people to grasp.
Ah, I’d say most people don’t konw there *is* a difference (rather than that they find it hard to differentiate)….
Yes, I”m not going to be pretending I’m an economist in this thing. But obviously some info will be important.
Jesus knew human nature too well to think socialism preferable to capitalism. Those of us who remember learning about the first settlers in Jamestown and how that “common store” system failed as it did in the Plymouth colony know with the lazy and incompetent among us, it could never work. Then, Raisa Gorbachev’s inability to believe that all over the USA stores were kept stocked to the brim, a sharp contrast to how their people had to line up to get just the basics, may have contributed to her husband trying to change their system in Russia.
I know you have already written the book, but Matthew 25 sounds a lot like Democratic Socialists. And you have often said something like, “It didn’t matter to Jesus” because it would be all over real soon. Can’t wait to read it. (“Dishonest wealth”? I’ve never focused on those words. Romans? Money changers in the temple? Crypto?)
My sense is that most people who are calling themselves Democratic Socialists these days are actually Social Democrats…. My view is that Jesus was more interested in how people treated others than in social / political / economic systems themselves =- at least I imagine that’s what I’ll be arguing.
Re: most people who are calling themselves Democratic Socialists these days are actually Social Democrats…
Yeah I think that’s correct. They don’t want to nationalize industry. They want a vigorous social safety net. I don’t know why they want to take on the “Socialist” label since this will automatically alienate half the country, including many of the very people who could benefit from their policies. We don’t need socialism. We need well-regulated capitalism.
What kinds of friends are these, who after you pay them, can welcome you into the eternal homes?
friends who have become richer, apparently.
is Jesus actually advocating the dishonest acquisition of wealth as long as it is later used for good, or is he speaking to people who already possess dishonestly gained wealth and telling them how to use it?
Good question. It appears though that the master praises the steward for “how he acted” — and what he did (his action) was fixing the books. No?
Exactly! The only way I can make sense of it is something like “this was a dishonest guy, worldly guy, if he can be so shrewd about his worldly future then why can’t you guys be equally shrewd about your heavenly future?”
But I can’t understand why the master would praise the manager
Hi Bart,
For a book title, “Jesus the Socialist,” is undoubtedly a winner, but as a statement of fact I’d argue that it can’t be (nor does “Jesus the capitalist” have a chance of holding water either). Why does historical materialism reject the notion of portraying Jesus as a “socialist” or as a “capitalist”? Because the modern workers and socialist movement didn’t (and couldn’t) exist 2,000 years ago. The nature of class-divided society and the state of the productive forces to reach the communist ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” couldn’t be realized yet. (You can have primitive communism though … everyone works according to ability and everyone is poor given the technological development, like in hunter-gather societies).
Modern Marxian socialism emerged, not just as an ideological current with the Communist Manifesto of 1848 being its first coherent, mass circulated statement of such, only once the technological advancement in at least a few “advanced” countries had occurred to make a bountiful economy for all a real possibility. Moreover, Marxian socialism rejected the early 19th century “Utopian Socialism” of Fourier and others their claim that “all men are not brothers.” (1of 3 sections)
I agree. Yo udon’t have any of this prior to industrializatoin, and predicting how Jesus might have thought about that is a fool’s errand….
And contrary to idealist accounts of the history of Marx and Engels, they did not arrive on the scene as full-blown geniuses spouting radical philosophies. They apprenticed under the leadership of the workers movement like the Chartists in Britain.
Progressive historical materialists and socialists are against social inequality and all forms of oppression (like sexism, racism and reactionary nationalism), revolutionary Marxist socialism does not define itself simply as a program for equality. First, it’s necessary to recognize that history is the history of class struggle. What made the emerging modern working class of the 19th century so distinctive from their predecessor was the complete stripping of the means of production from their hands–craftsmen and guilds became obsolete because modern machinery and automation meant that what a laborer had to sell was now just his labor for money which was exchanged for goods. The goal of socialists is to take control of the productive forces out of the hands of the incompetent, greedy, violent mass murderers that hold onto their class rule (capitalism) through the mechanisms of coercion (cops, courts and armies), and reorganize the productive forces on the basis of a planned economy on an international scale. (2 of 3)
Yup!
Bummer, I was looking very much forward to the Canon book. Oh well. Anticipation. Have to be patient.
A daunting task, Dr.
I’m curious which definition of “socialism” and “socialist” you’ll even start with. The word, in modern times, has been so abused as to mean nearly anything “we the people” want to collectively implement or regulate. Far from Marx’s original (and economically precise) definition.
Right: today social democrats are callibng themselves democratic socialists and most people think socialist = marxist = communist. None of this makes discussoin easy…
I guess the first question you need to answer is what is “socialism” in the context of this book? Is it simply a system where “the means of production” are owned by society and not individuals (or corporations)? Or does it mean more than that? Would “means of production” even have much meaning preindustrial revolution? Seems to me that it has to mean more.
But when I think of the early spread of Christianity, I think of the spread of communities. People coming together from all walks of life to commune in worship and taking that out into those communities. No one bothers anymore, but people used to say all the time that communism never works. I argued that was wrong in that we have lots and lots of examples of it working. They have just not scaled.
I don’t know if in context there would be differences between socialism and communism, but I wonder if the argument is that Jesus was such an optimist in that in the Kingdom of God the serving of others would replaces the human nature (maybe called sin) that we are told makes such system impossible? It would scale.
But you’re the scholar!
Nope, none of the systems that emerged out of the industrial revolution makes any sense in a first century context. So once that’s settled, one still can ask how Jesus might have viewed various systems. My argument is probably going to be that he would not have cared — his interests lay elsewhere (to the disappointment of so many people who want to apprpriate him for their agendas!)
It seems like one of your objectives might be figuring out what is, and what systems are best for humanity, and this Earth. That seems to be a lot of the objective in the things you do and write anyways. Maybe make it more of an upfront main objective instead of an underlying main objective?
One thing to think about is the use of the word “socialism”. The Nazis used this word, therefor, it doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. People may be talking about exactly the same things, but they get stuck on the word, and that kind of derails everything. Either people need to get over it and forget that the Nazis used this word, or we need to find another name/word for it.
I’d like to see a system that leaves people more time for the arts, invention, and philosophy/theology, and things like that. These things are mostly good for society. Though, as Thelonious Monk said, “Some art is reflective of what’s good in society, and some art is reflective of what is sick in society.”
Good Luck on your book. 🙂
Good nuance. They just want someone to be a contrarian to their former people, theEvangelists.
I think Jesus tracks to Values-Gated Socialism. There’s tons of analogies he uses about managing your *investments* while disparaging effortful *work* on the reg.
Also I decoded the Identity Doubling in the Four Gospels today! You’re the first to see (not that I didn’t think the Vatican knows):
Gospel of Mark: Naked Young Man
Gospel of Matthew: Jesus Barrabas
Gospel of Luke: Simon of Cyrene
Gospel of John: Thomas Didymos
It’s the plot point in each Gospel that tells you who is doubling Jesus’ identity in some form.
Then gJohn is the big revealer. Jesus’ regnal name may be signed in as the last word of his normal life story, Arabian Tallakhah style as Malchus – that’s a Nabataean royal name only.
It’s funny that even though over the years I’ve read the Book of Luke countless times, when you quoted Luke 16:9 it was like I encountered it for the first time. I don’t remember it at all.
I am not a trained health economist but I have worked closely with many great health economists. I would suggest that you explore some economic models that try to use religious social values to find a middle between laissez-faire capitalism and top down state socialism. Things like European Social Market Ecomonic Model view an active role for government to engineer social equity and socially responsible free markets. Just one suggestion which you may already be exploring.
Thanks. I’ll look into it. If you have any specific recommendations, let me onw.
I have a niece who works for the NHS in London who constantly describes what a mess it is in. Most Brits think its from lack of funding, but I has a long talk with several higher up administrators in the system that insisted the problems are principally structural and connected with bad management. That initially struck me as odd, given its intents and purposes.
I’ve never heard the “good parts” of the Epistle of James read aloud in church. Obviously not for the reasons that are obvious. I often point out that in capitalism excessive inequality is self-correcting, 1929 and 2007 having about equal high levels of inequality (alas, about the same level as today). Is that a feature or a bug? The wealth produced by capitalism has reduced but not eliminated poverty and suffering. Is that a feature or a bug? I credit/blame the rise in the popularity of socialism to artificial intelligence, the trillions spent on developing AI the economic rewards from which may only be realized by a few, with a risk of mass unemployment for the rest. The nature of capitalism is disruption, innovations motivated by the potential rewards coming at the cost of those displaced by the innovations. Ehrman opened my closed eyes and mind when I started following him decades ago. This book, this challenge, I expect will be the culmination of the journey for him and me.
Neither the economic base nor even a proto-form of social organization or thought existed in the time of Jesus that could have produced a socialist or capitalist movement. Where there’s a convergence of history so to speak is in the nature of the origins of Christianity itself and modern socialism, this essay by Engels in 1894 is illuminating: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/ As Engel wrote, “The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order.” [3 of 3 (part A with B next)]
Thanks. That link does not appear to work.
But it seems to work when typed in instead of clicked. At least for me.
This is a very narrow and potted condensation of the emergence of the modern socialist movement, so I’ll toss out a few references if you are interested in pursuing this further. But first, there’s a great and engaging movie by a Haitian director who gets the biographical and historical details of Marx and Engels’ emergence as leaders of the 19th century working class and revolutionary socialists so engaging and historically accurate in its details that is worth much more than ten-thousand words (The Young Karl Marx; directed by Raoul Peck): https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2496903193/?ref_=tt_vids_vi_t_2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoFXKDdPzJw)
As for a few works from the OGs themselves that make my points much better, I’d suggest this short list:
1) Lenin, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm
2) Trotsky, “Their Morals and Ours” https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm
3) Marx, Wage Labour and Capital, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
4) Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/
Best regards and looking forward to your next book. [3 of 3 (part B)]
Thanks!
In ordinary society, scarcity forces cooperation. But-if scarcity disappeared, it wouldn’t solve our fundamental human problem. Eliminating material-scarcity doesn’t eliminate relational-scarcity. You’d still lack love/power/recognition/forgiveness..
Announcing the arrival of God’s kingdom-Jesus calls abandonment of traditional wealth accumulation. Storing up treasures is useless if God’s about to fill the hungry/bless poor. So-Jesus wasn’t offering an economic system. ‘Sermon on Mount’ provides no economic blueprint. It’s a program of formation: Constructing a perfectly cooperative economy with selfish individuals results in problems of enforcement/corruption/free-riding.. Transform the human heart and the problem changes.
Jesus teaches neither socialism nor capitalism. He affirms personal agency/voluntary generosity while challenging wealth accumulation as life’s organizing principle. He calls for concern for poor, but not through a centralized economic program. His vision’s eschatological: live by values of coming kingdom before it fully arrives.
This illuminates Luke16:9. The manager recognizes wealth is temporary thus converts it into something eternal: relationships. Similarly, Jesus instructs using temporary wealth in service of eternal relationships.
God’s kingdom isn’t merely a world without scarcity, but where people no longer need one another to survive yet freely choose one another in love. Jesus prepares transformed people to live in abundance without turning abundance into self-worship(original-sin).
To the extent that Jesus was an apocalypticist, did he even have views on economics and politics and other such things concerning how a society should operate? Take his advice in Luke 18:22 to sell everything and give all to the poor. That’s one thing if God’s kingdom is coming the day after tomorrow and another if life will go on as usual. (And the man by his reaction shows that he didn’t believe the kingdom was coming quite so soon.) This leaves the historical question of how have Christians interpreted the teachings of Jesus as applicable in the non-apocalyptic world. By emphasizing the giving part of Luke 18:22, for example, some have reinterpreted it as meaning “give what you can to the poor without harming your bottom line (otherwise you wouldn’t be able to help later)” (a capitalist view) and others as “let’s have redistribution of wealth and everyone will be fine” (a socialist one). In either case, the interpretation comes not from Jesus but from a specific worldly perspective. Might Jesus himself not have thought the fuss irrelevant and not worth worrying about?
That’s pretty much my view….
I think HWoldke’s suggestion has legs.
Perhaps your book may find a parallel with Schweitzer’s work on the historical Jesus, where he objected to those who recreated Jesus according to their own worldview (much like the socialists and capitalists do), and recreated the historical Jesus according to his own 1st-century worldview?
Perhaps storing up heavenly treasure by giving to the poor prepares the giver for the imminent eschaton, rather than saying something about economic theory?
There could be a movement in Democratic Socialism. Critics call the movement as socialism or communism. The literature discusses the communist party and socialism during the depression age in the USA. Without the social programs with the New Deal the movement didn’t last. It’s fun reading about FDR’s attempt to get the attention of the Robber Barons and the stark reality of changing capitalism.
I think it would be a fun trip to write about.
I think part of the current problem is that American politicians advocating forms of Social Democracy have chosen to call themself Democratic Socialists.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have nothing but respect for you, so please know what I’m saying is said humbly and respectfully. I think “Jesus the Socialist” is beneath you. Ultimately it will be speculation more than scholarship.
As you’ve said a gazillion times (and I agree completely), Jesus was expecting the end imminently. THAT was his mindset. Not 1,993 years later.
In my respectful opinion, trying to juxtapose him into capitalism/socialism/democracy/communism/anyother-ism-or-acy) is an imbroglio of opinion that neither you (nor anyone) can give that will change a single person’s mind. It is all far, far too wide open. It’s not scholarship.
Trying to pigeon hole Jesus into a discussion of socialism seems so…. well…. bring him back to life in today’s world, show him science, cosmology, religions, economies, governments, germ theory, math, the Hubble deep field image, etcetcetc, and who on earth could guess what he would focus on?
Love you. Again, this is all said with utmost respect.
Yes, I can see how you would think that. But, well, you don’t know what I’m going to be saying, so I wouldn’t be too upset about it. I’m definitely not going to be arguing Jesus was a socialist. (or a capitalist or a marxist or a feminist or a gay rights advocate or a political revolutionary or a counter-cultural critics or….) And I”m not planning on having “socialist” in the title…
I recently saw a video discussing the alignment between the prosperity gospel and Laissez-Faire economics. I am unable to relocate the video, but my Google search led to other material online discussing this alignment. According to the prosperity gospel, poverty is the result of the individual’s lack of faith. Laissez-Faire economics emphasizes personal fiscal responsibility and minimal government safety nets. Would Jesus condemn the prosperity gospel and Laissez-Faire economics together or make a distinction between them? I don’t think he would embrace both.
FYI, I am in the middle of one the Great Courses entitled, “Capitalism vs. Socialism.” Prof. Stuart is a good speaker. As customary, the guidebook includes a bibliography. This might be something useful for your current research.
Yup, I know the course. As with most of the GC’s courses, it’s terrific. Thanks.
I don’t think Jesus would be able to get his mind around laissez-faire economics (or any kind of modern economics) but he certainly would be aghast at the premises of the Prosperity Gospel.
Regarding the extremely puzzling statement in Luke 16:9, the following explanation made the most sense to me: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/parable-of-the-unrighteous-steward-luke-1619-a-prudent-use-of-mammon/DE34B7EAD991C8870F6A1CE9E18EC55C
Thanks. I think it’s unlikely the parable was directed to those outside the Christian community, since Jesus says its lesson about using mammon needs to be taken up by his disciples and (other) children of light (not outsiders).
Hey Bart,
Speaking of your writing, I had an idea you might find interesting that popped into my mind some time ago.
Reading through the posts on your blog over the past year I’ve noticed your writing has a very distinct style, as is true for all writers. E.g. it seems like there are certain terms you like to use, a certain way you describe things, as well as certain personal views you tend to express etc.
So my idea is have you ever thought about hosting a sort of event in which you select people to write posts on your blog where they’re essentially claiming to be you and have to try to imitate both your writing style and beliefs, aka pseudepigraphy? Then posts that are genuinely written by you can be added to the mix and others have to guess which posts are authentic and which are forgeries.
Was thinking it might be a good way to demonstrate how pseudonymous writing in the ancient world might’ve worked and how we could distinguish between authentic and deceptive authorship. It’s a bit of a silly idea I know but thought I might as well put it out there.
Ha! Interesting idea. But what if I get 100 offerings???
Maybe you should reconsider whether you should do the book at all before you get to far down the line. Or at least set it aside for a while.
I’ve made good progress since I wrote that post and am getting increasingly excited about writing it, as I consider some of the important issues.
Maybe, you can add a co-author to the project; an economist or a historian of ancient economies.
You can discuss if any of the economic sayings go back to the historical Jesus, how the gospel writers and other NT authors view economics or monetary concerns.
The co-author could write about how these views flow into the wider Roman economic system. What does it mean for a portion of second-century Christians to be women and slaves? How does Paul’s communities and economic teachings compare and contrast with the wider world? How do they compare economically to the messages in the gospels?
Yup, I’m reading a bunch now on ancient economies, especially in Galilee, my focus. Very interesting material.
I relate to not knowing what your next project will be. Are you looking for suggestions? Recently, I’ve been thinking and reading a lot of stuff online about how pre-Babylonian exile Israel was polytheistic and worshipped Asherah along with Yahweh since at least the time of Moses. Recently I watched a great documentary on this on a cable channel. It pointed out how archaeologists have found two altars among pre-exile Israel sites; one for Yahweh and one for Asherah. If you write a book on that subject, then I’d be among the first to buy it.
You also mentioned how faith healing and prosperity gospel stuff are both shams. It’s amazing to me how many people fall for that stuff. If you write a book on the psychology of indoctrination and propaganda and its relationship to organized religion, then I’d be among the first to purchase it. That seems to be to be a very interesting subject to research. I look forward to your next book, whatever it is about.
I’m always open to suggestions! But I have a much better sense of where the book is going now than when I wrote that post.
My suggestion is that your thesis reflect the context of Jesus’ time when most everyone was poor, rulers imposed their will on you without your consent and death was all around you either through disease, starvation or violence. We have remnants of that today but not like it was in his day. So the most important economic issue in his day was not how to divide up the abundance but how to produce the abundance in the first place which was later solved by the industrial revolution and its economic offsprings. I think that Jesus saw the impending kingdom of God as a return to the garden of Eden where life was far better. If Jesus came back to life today, he would be astounded by the abundance that we have today. I believe that a partial reason for less religiosity today is that human economic and scientific progress has made life less precarious. Since Jesus lived in a completely different time, trying to understand his teachings through a modern economic understanding would be fruitless IMHO.
I would kindly ask where do you live and if you know any low/midle income country? Poverty (even abject poverty) is still widespread. It is true that measuring poverty (as income inequality) are more difficult than it sounds. That’s because international comparisons of incomes — and the international datasets we can use for this — have to rely on national data that is not directly comparable by default. But for example by the USD 3 a day income used by the World Bank the latest global estimates for 2025 show that around 800 million people are in extreme poverty. This is *extreme* poverty. Poverty is estimated to more than 50% on world population depending on the metodology. And from a moral or ethical point of view high inequality is equally important. I lived in several countries in Latin America and you can see massive poverty (even extreme) and astounding levels of inequality. In moral and ethical grounds (in light of Jesus’ teachings) is difficult not to be sensitive or even outraged by this situation. I think “love your neighbord” should not taken literally and see “neighbors” only around your own economic status or country (literally your “neighbordhood”)
Well, as a convert to Catholicism in Latin America, and immediately afterward to Liberation Theology in the ’80s, I think liberation theologians have much to say on this topic. I saw the hope that most liberationist Catholics—including me at the time, and perhaps even today—felt when the Sandinista movement, with many Christians involved politically and in the guerrilla, overthrew Somoza’s dictatorship in Nicaragua. Then came disillusionment with Nicaragua’s misfortunes, caused by its own errors and Reagan’s CIA intervention, followed by the shock of the communist world’s collapse. Not all followers of LT were fully Marxist, but some form of human socialism seemed possible. Nowadays, it is difficult to believe in a centrally planned economy. Yet, leaving aside Marxist-Leninist or Maoist economics, some of Marx’s analyses and critiques of capitalism remain alive and entirely relevant from a Christian perspective. If you doubt it, read *The Communist Manifesto*. I would love to see a workable alternative to capitalism—perhaps the interesting mix found in some Scandinavian countries, or what is called Green Capitalism. As for the relationship with Jesus, LT has much to say.
The concept for the book sounds great and I look forward to reading it!
Would love to know your take on Luke 16:9, which is one of those verses that makes me feel I really haven’t grasped the essence of Luke’s view of Jesus’ teaching (along with Jesus’ encouragement to buy swords, which I failed to follow up with you on another thread). What was Luke thinking? How do they fit in? Are they consistent or are they outliers?
For reference, the passage on the swords is in Luke 22:35-38:
“…the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless….’”
What sort of lawlessness is he encouraging his disciples to commit? Is this pericope just an unresolvable jumble, or does it indicate something substantive?
“Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth …” (Luke 16:9).
Be dishonest? That’s His advice? Is there a theme here indicating a certain disregard for legal norms?
I realize I’ve put in a lot of questions, but I’ll be happy with whatever you have time to say. Thanks in advance.
That verse may well be the key to my book. I think I’ve finally figured out what it means. I imagine I’ll be posting on it soon.
If we believe Acts, the first followers of Jesus lived in communities sharing all their possessions. A strong emphasis of their social work, which is still true in the Catholic Church, is taking care of widows and orphans. I believe this goes back to Jesus, who was an orphan, and his mother a widow. They first organized the Church, with a Bishop, council of 12, and deacons, to take care of widows and orphans. The Pauline “churches” were a mess, with some chanting, some prophesying, some talking in tongues, some shaking uncontrolled by the Spirit, much like evangelists today, because they didn’t have the same social emphasis. I guess, by the end of the 2nd century, some order on what is called today “the mass” was already established. Even when the Catholic Church attained enormous fortunes and the first rank on the social and political life, the care for the widows and orphans was a primordial social function. A case in point is the “Misericórdias” founded by Queen Leonor of Portugal in 1498. The “Misericórdia de Macau” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Casa_da_Miseric%C3%B3rdia_of_Macau) was an opulent house, more than the Governor’s palace, but still to take care of widows and orphans.
Here’s a possible title: The Root Of All Evil—How Christianity Shaped The World’s Economy.
Another option: The Root Of All Evil—How Jesus Became a Capitalist.
Something provocative! Because why not?
Why not indeed!