(11 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I talked about the widespread sense in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds that the affluent should give away some of their money. But to whom/what did they give it and for what reasons?
The basic answer involves an entire system of giving that is now widely known as “euergetism.” The term was coined by an early twentieth-century French scholar of antiquity, André Boulanger; it literally means (financial) “good work.” It is probably best translated into English as “benefaction.”
Euergetism widely involved two kinds of giving by those with wealth:
This post describes aspects of giving completely different from what we think of as “charity” today. Join the blog and you can see what it’s all about! Click here for membership options
Question: In Matthew 19: 21-22, when Jesus advises the rich man to give everything to the poor so that the rich man will obtain “treasure in heaven,” it sounds as though the purpose of giving to the poor is so that the rich man will gain a supernatural benefit for himself, not because Jesus finds giving to the poor to be good in-and-of itself. Is this what Matthew meant?
That appears to be one of the ultimate reasons for giving for Matthew (see 25:31-46); but also he seems to have a concern for the poor per se.
Do you consider Jesus’ sayings on taxes (Pay to Caesars what is Caesar’s and unto God what is Gods) historical and probably goes back to him?
I think it’s hard to know with that one.
I wanted to share some questions about economy in the ancient Mediterranean world. I’d had read something that tried to explain the slow decline of Rome as due to their lack of investment in trade goods. The Romans kept importing from the East and paying in gold and silver for lack of a valuable good in return. With out mining new gold and silver to replace the exported metals, Roman coins gradually lost purchasing power.
I wondered what sort of economists the ancient philosophers were. Naturally merchants understood why one would charge interest on loans. It seems no one understood investing, diversification, insurance, etc. No one encouraged industry for the sake of growth. I guess it was not an endeavor that would lead to virtue, or happiness. The brutally efficient Roman rulers merely conquered, enslaved, and taxed to make their economy work. It would be hard to imagine charity in such a dog eat dog world.
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about such issues yet. But I plan to find out!
The classic study of the Ancient Economy is in Moses Finley. Finley argues that the ancient understanding of ‘economy’ derives from household management and family status, not from considerations of commercial profit and loss. Roman ‘households’ could be vast enterprises including arable land in Egypt or North Africa; olive groves in Spain, wine in southern Gaul, timber in the mountains above the Rhone valley, fishing in the Aegean; and shipping linking them all. Goods and labour within these extended households are not so much ‘traded’ as ‘allocated’ or ‘rationed’.
The same principles generally applied in the civic realm to taxation and public expenditure. The Roman state did not collect taxes into a treasury, and then purchase supplies for the army from commercial suppliers; rather it estimated the supplies and monies needed to support a military unit, and then requisitioned as much of those supplies as taxation in kind on the provinces in and around where the unit was based. With transfers from provinces with fewer military units to those with more. Weapons and military gear (which could not be requisitioned) were manufactured directly in workshops established by the army.
Thank you Bart; this is looking really interesting.
Would I be correct in expecting you to be exploring the terminologies of “euergetism” and “leitourgia” as applied to public giving? Does euergetism replace leitourgia, in secular understanding; or rather – by this period – had leitourgia become a term for a particular expression of euergetism? Or do the two terms embody contrasting value systems?
The contextual point being that in the New Testament, the only reference to public giving as euergetism is pejorative: “The kings of the gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you.” (Luke 22:25).
Whereas references to giving as leitourgia are widely found – especially in Paul – and always positively: e.g Romans 15:27. “if the gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things.”
Behind this, no doubt, is the Septuagint use of leitourgia for priestly service in the Temple of Jerusalem; but Paul – while clearly referencing Temple sacrifice – apparently applies it to acts of charity amongst the all the faithful; and in service to the poor in general.
My focus will be on the contrast between euergetism and almsgiving; but yes at this point my plan is to deal with leitourgia as well. We’ll see!
Prof. are you not sleeping well these days? Looking at the time of your responses, and well, maybe restless😌
I’m trying to reply within a day (or two) of comments; but I’ve been in Italy for two weeks giving lectures for a tour and sometimes it’s not possible. Still, I think I”m *pretty* much pulling it off.
Bart, what do you make of Luke 19:26
“I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away”.
I think our billionaires follow this advice to the letter.
If you read the passage in context, it is not really about money, but about how peopel “invest” what they have received with respect to the coming kingdom of God; notice how Jesu s introduces the passage. It’s a parable warning peole not to sit around and do nothing with the “wealth” they have received with respect to the coming kingdom, but to spread and thereofer grwo the wealth. See what I mean?
Do you think that this attitude towards giving to the poor may have had something to do with the high prevalence of poverty in the ancient world? The idea is that since so many people in the ancient world were poor, the problem was too vast to be solved by charity. A rich man could give away his entire fortune and it would barely make a dent in the poverty problem.
I don’t think so — there were as many poor when the Christians came along. I haven’t decided yet, but I’m inclining to the view that it’s related to the reality that Roman (and Greek) ethics were not connected to the worship of the gods per se, so that there was no religious obligation to help those who were suffering. I’m thinking through it all and reading a lot on it….