Loading...In my previous post I began to show that after Jesus’ death, his followers started to soften his message that it was necessary for his followers to give up all their material goods. In fact, Christian leaders started seeing the virtue of wealth in their communities and began to claim that wealthy people who gave of their goods generously (without getting rid of them all) could help provide salvation for their souls.
Such views become standard within the Christian tradition, creating two intriguing ironies for the religion, one related to the proclamation of Jesus during his life and other connected to the proclamation of the salvation he brought by his death.
Jesus’ own views of wealth came to be reversed by his later followers, making it possible for them to increase their numbers in a world not at all likely to follow his example and message of voluntary poverty for the sake of the kingdom.
On the other hand, precisely these missionary successes led subsequent generations of Christians to modify the original Christian understanding of the complete efficacy of Jesus death for salvation.
Interested in this? Hey salvation is at stake! Join the blog! Click here for membership options
So this charity eventually morphed into purchasing indulgences?
It would be interesting to trace the history to see how the centuryeis-later indulgences related to this much earlier idea of redemptive giving, as there are certainly important differences as well (one of which is that the doctrine of Purgatory does not come along in until the twelfth century)
If Jesus’ disciples gave up everything and then moved to Jerusalem where they had no homes, jobs, etc, how did they survive in Jerusalem? Relying on complete strangers to give them shelter and food?
Yup, probably.
At 70, I still have this model in my head of rich medieval nobles thinking they should give away all/most of their wealth to the poor just before they die, or through their wills, in order to avoid hell. (I suppose that model is one reason why I keep putting it off—though I do try to be generous.) I suppose it came from a combination of being raised Catholic and being fascinated by the Middle Ages.
For most of my life, stretching back to childhood, I’ve thought that anyone who takes the Great Commandment/Golden Rule seriously can’t justify having either more than the poorest people in the world or just enough to avoid truly serious suffering—whichever is greater. A contemporary ethicist, Peter Singer, advocates much the same thing from a utilitarian (and I think atheist) perspective.
It’s always seemed terribly inconsistent for the Catholic and other Christian Churches to not strongly advocate for a principle like this, especially now that so many Christian countries are so wealthy. The issue is not even addressed. But it’s nothing new.
But I don’t feel I can be too critical since I could do it on my own if I really wanted to.
Without arguing that the historical Jesus would find this sufficient, I find myself trying to come up with principles that could radically reduce poverty without expecting that the
affluent would become poor themselves. Except for the rare hero for justice, human beings just aren’t built like that. They need incentives. It should be possible to structure economic incentives so as to increasingly draw the world’s poor into an expanding global economy. Redistribution from the most affluent could probably be greatly increased without significantly damaging their work incentives. As people become more affluent and economically secure-and find more inherently rewarding work-they might become more compassionate and generous and be able to limit their own material needs in healthy ways.
The keys I think are to encourage people to be both as productive and as generous as possible. They need incentives to do both. The prospect of divestment and poverty is unlikely to be incentivizing.
I also wonder if a desperately poor person who was suddenly transferred to a life of modest comfort would be willing to divest himself or herself. I don’t think so. I think that says something about whether desperately poor people would expect us to do so.
“This was an issue early Christian leaders, including Paul, struggled with mightily.” It is one that many Christians today struggle with or, worse, pay no mind to.
Regarding the comment above about charity being better than prayer:
Some translations of 1 Cor 13 translate ἀγάπη (agapē) as “love” while others translate the word as “charity.” Which translation do you prefer? And does this passage relate to the idea that charity to the poor is greater than prayer?
It’s say it’s tricky. Love means so many things in modern English, ranging from desire to appreciation to like to lust to fanhood to commitment to…. well you know. But charity isn’t a word we use much any more for “doing good things for another”; it usually involves gifts to those we don’t know. I prefer “love” with a clear explanation.
Mark says Jesus’ disciples were amazed, and even more amazed, when hearing that it’s hard for the wealthy to enter heaven. If total material renunciation was required to be a disciple of Jesus, why would these disciples be amazed at learning about it? Moreover, their comment that “who can be saved?” likewise implies that they weren’t total renunciates (though that seems to be contradicted by Peter). In that same passage from Mark, we have Jesus telling the rich young man salvation was possible by following the law. Jesus then qualifies his remark, though the precise meaning of the qualification is unclear. What we have then from the earliest (and presumably the most accurate) record of Jesus on the need for material renunciation to achieve salvation is Jesus saying 2 different things: 1) that following the law is all that’s necessary for salvation, and 2) that becoming “perfect,” whatever that means precisely, requires giving all one has to the poor.
The nebulous meaning of Mark 10:17 on these points makes me doubt that Jesus taught “it was necessary for his followers to give up all their material goods.”
I have read that the majority of Christian churchgoers don’t even tithe their ten percent. And then there is the prosperity gospel.
Vast majority.
I have heard that in the heart of the Bible Belt, tithing is a common topic for sermons in some churches. For the vast majority of Christian churches, of course, tithing is practically unheard of, either in sermons or in practise. If someone told me that tithing is regularly mentioned in their church, I would be very concerned.
And yet, I have never been sure what to make of allegations of foul play in the omission of Deuteronomy 14:22 from the “tithe” entry of many concordances. Such an allegation can be found here: http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_tithe.html (article written by non-scholarly Christian).
Rowan Garrison’s presentation of ‘redemptive almsgiving’ is now nearly 30 years old; and more recent studies – by David Downs – suggest that its statement is anachronistic; in reading situations of 3rd/4th centuries back into the 2nd century.
Specifically Garrison’s proposals: “Under the umbrella of love-patriarchalism, wealth and labour were
honoured inasmuch as they served to relieve the poverty of fellow believers”; and, ” Redemptive almsgiving clearly has roots in the social conflicts within early Christianity”; both fail to take into account that atoning almsgiving was already a well-established principle in the LXX scriptures.
Downs states:
“It is not at all evident that the earliest Christian exponents of atoning almsgiving—including the authors of the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, 2 Clement, and Polycarp of Smyrna—inhabited worlds in which
Christian affluence was a problem that necessitated the creation of atoning almsgiving.”
Again, contrary to Garrison, Downs does not find ‘redemptive almsgiving’ as being developed in the Pauline epistles:
“Nowhere in Paul’s letters does the apostle intimate that sins can be cleansed, covered, lifted, or redeemed by almsgiving”
So we might propose a change from Paul’s atonement views, to those of the gospel writers – the latter giving more weight to LXX formulations?
I have to admit, I read Downs a couple of years before I read Garrison, and I found his refulation of GArrison’s views to be weak. I wasn’t sure why, but it seemed like he was trying to explain why he was writing a very similar book with a different tack, and had to show why his predecessor didn’t quite get it. But I didn’t find it compelling. I read GArrison just about three or four months ago and found it far more coherent and convincing. For what it’s worth! In any event, neither one of them is focusing directly on soteriological understandings of Jesus’ death per se, and both use their soteriological terms very generally (intentionally and understandably).
Recently I was reading your text book ‘The New Testament’ (admittedly only the third addition) and found the box where you set alongside one another the Lord’s prayer as rendered in both Luke and Matthew. This arrangement demonstrated that Matthew’s version (58 words) was longer than Luke’s (39) and was, you said, more similar in length to that found in the Didache.
However, when I looked at the respective passages in the Bible (KJV) Luke’s version appeared to have been expanded and, in fact, paralleled Matthew’s to a much greater degree than your textbook showed.
Please may I ask which manuscripts and bible version you were drawing on since it seems to be that when the KJV was produced the two gospels presented very similar wording. Is this, in fact, an example of how scribes (or at least the compilers of the KJV) adapted one passage so that it harmonised with another?
(I have since found that the NIV gives the versions of the Lord’s Prayer shown in your textbook but each of the three Greek NTs I have expand Luke’s to that given in the KJV).
Yes, the KJV is based on late Medieval manuscripts in which scribes made Luke’s version like the one they were familiar with in the prayer they themselves knew, which is the one in Matthew. In other words they harmonized Luke to Matthew. We know that because all the important and earlier manuscripts have the shorter version in Luke. It’s one of the real problems of the KJV. It is the most beautiful Englsih translation available, but it is based on late and less reliable manuscripts. (I don’t know which Greek NT’s you have, but they apparently are copies of the Textus Receptus, the version based on late manuscripts that was circulating starting in the early 16th century and on which the KJV is based. The standard Greek editions — UBS and Nestle-Aland and International Greek NT Project etc decidedly don’t have the long version)
Hi Bart,
This isn’t related to today’s post- but after listening to you, I started to become puzzled and intrigued about the knowledge/motives of the “church fathers” as the gospels were written and the generation or so after. Whoever wrote Matthew and Luke had Mark in front of them… they knew they were at least partially writing “theology” and not history. As these works were passed around the early church- some church leaders had to recognize these new gospels as such. Why/when did these then become adopted as historical?? How did it morph from Authors and some church leaders knowing it was theology to whole churches accepting them as history?? Did church leaders who knew better allow teaching them as history out of convenience or to convince people? Or did churches who didn’t know better receive them and mistake them as history?? Somebody along the way had to have known they were being dishonest- but where are those first dishonest links? In your opinion.
My sense is that the first readers of the Gospels (and probely the authors themselves) thought that hte events that happened in them actually happened. These were “proclamations of the Good News” — but I don’t think they thought the raw facts had been altered. THis was pretty much what happened. (If Matthew or Luke changed something in Mark, they were trying to make it “truer” to the way it really happened). So my sense is that the later church leaders were simply doing what all the other Xns were doing as well, taking the books as historical truths that had very deep spiritual realities (rather htan theological narratives with only slight connections with historical events)
1.Would Jesus have spoken western or eastern Aramaic ? Perhaps there’s a specific dialect Jesus spoke.
2. Are there any possible online dictionaries for eastern Aramaic?
3. Some scholars say Jesus may have known Hebrew for religious purposes. Would you agree?
Thank you.
1. Western 2. I din’t know 3. I don’t really know how we could decide. If he could actually read the Scriptures, yes. (the only passage in the NT where he is said to be able to read is Luke 4)
I’m a little confused by the “give up all their material goods” thing. Didn’t Jesus go to houses of followers Martha and Mary and so on to have dinner? Luke 10:38-42
Jesus didn’t say “Martha and Mary you need to sell your house.” And Jesus’ financial supporters weren’t really followers because they had enough to support him? It seems all very confusing.
Didn’t folks in the early Christian communities (Pauline letters) meet at peoples’ houses? So people apparently had houses instead of giving them away. And Paul complained that they ate too much at dinners, not that they shouldn’t be Christians in the first place.
As a group, the idea that all Christians would never own anything seems a bit impractical, as they would soon be seen at leeches on society, whatever their own noble intentions. As in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
People who gave up everything have always been at one end of the spectrum, e.g. Francis of Assisi. Their followers tend to return toward nice things, and then individuals who think they have gone too far start renewal movements. It’s a long and cyclical thread through some monastic orders.
Yes, the Gospel writers living many decades later do not fully represent Jesus’ own teachings. THe idea that all true disciples had to give up everything didn’t last long!
Prof Ehrman I recently created a thread over at the Forum entitled ‘Questions for Readers’ intended to get some idea of the literary interests of the contributors. I realize you’re very busy but I thought it would be interesting to get your responses if possible. Please answer some or all to the degree you wish either here or over at
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/other-relevant-issues/questions-for-readers/
Here are the questions.
1. What was the first book you remember?
2. What was the first book you bought for yourself?
3. What was a book you thought of as a discovery that nobody else seemed to know about?
4. Name a book that changed you.
5. Name the weirdest book you’ve ever read.
6. Name a classic work that everyone tells you is a work of genius that you dislike.
7. What is the book you own that you treasure most?
Thanks!
1. Hardy Boys; 2. Don’t know; 3. None. 4. Hundreds. One of the first, Lord of the Rings (I first read it in 8th grade) 5. Don’t know; I don’t read ones that ar weird. 6. I love most classics. I had a hard time with Romola. 7. Probably David Copperfield.
Thanks! Unless you object I’m going to copy your response over into the Forum thread. “Weird” is relative I suppose. I suspect after spending years reading apocalyptic you’re probably hard to impress. I’m currently reading the Hekhalot literature. I’m having a blast but some of it is pretty weird. Those folks definitely inhaled. My understanding is that there exists a silent film version of Romola starring Ronald Colman and Lillian Gish! Filmed on location!
AOK. Yeah, most of the really weird stuff I read is ancient, but I don’t like to use the term “weird” for it since to those living at the time with certain modes of thought it wasn’t weird at all. (a lot of Gnostic materials, e.g.) But truly bizarre modern writing (I don’t mean good science fiction) I avoid. Personal predilection.
The reason for the change in doctrine pertaining to wealth and goods is because the post-AD70 ‘believers’ weren’t genuine disciples of Jesus, which were always Jews or non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations. Since the need for the gospel ended in AD70, anyone claiming to be a ‘believer’ or new convert was actually a Greek cultured false convert to the post-AD70 faux version of Christianity.
The Didache was authored by someone who either wasn’t aware or disregarded that Israel’s redemptive narrative had ended in AD70. The so-called ‘church fathers’ (like Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius and Polycarp) were all Greeks bent on creating their own version of Christianity. When you read their letters, it’s a doctrinal mess. They’re all over the place, taking scriptures out of their proper Israelite context and trying to widen the scope to include non-Israelites.
The real Christianity is the Israelite version that ended in AD70. The Christianity you and other scholars refer to (as if it’s part of an linear, uninterrupted progression that began in the mid-first century and endures today) is the faux, Greek version.
Given the effort Paul goes to in appealing to church members who have either behaved badly or deviated from his teachings, it seems clear that for him, repentance is an ongoing possibility. I think Paul’s views were very clear in his own mind — what he struggled with was explaining them to others. As cited in the blog post, the author of Hebrews believes there is some point of no return, though no doubt scholars can argue at length about what he means, exactly, by “fallen away”.
Reading the blog archives, my attention was recently drawn to the mention of a treasurer in Romans 16:23, and I wondered what we can tell about Paul’s attitude towards money and wealth from the fact that he acknowledges a treasurer as a respectable thing to be. Clearly he acknowledges the importance of money and does not despise it per se. I’m not sure exactly what a treasurer is in that context.