Loading...In my previous post I showed that Jesus himself appears to have taught that his disciples (not just one or two of them) had to give up *everything* in order to be his followers. Most likely this insistence on voluntary poverty was related to his message that the Kingdom of God was to arrive soon, so people needed to devote themselves entirely to it and to spread the message before it was too late.
It is difficult to imagine that the Christian mission would have become massively successful if an entrance requirement was the complete divestment of property and a life of itinerate beggary. It is no surprise that after Jesus’ death (most of) his followers modified his discourse on wealth: what mattered was not voluntary abject poverty but generosity. That view came to be endorsed in later Gospel traditions – sayings placed on Jesus’ lips by story tellers and Gospel writers– and became the standard view among Christians down till today.
Already in Luke’s Gospel we find Jesus’ encounter with the fabulously wealthy Zacchaeus whom Jesus praises (unlike the rich man of Mark)–he gave half his money to the poor (Luke 19:1-10). By doing so he has earned entrance into the kingdom, even though he remained extremely rich. So too in later New Testament writings such as 1 Timothy: those who “want” to be rich are warned; but there are no condemnations for those who are already rich or orders for them to divest. Instead they are instructed to have the right relationship to their wealth, not to devote their entire lives to it, and to give some of it away generously (1 Tim. 6:9-10, 17-19). By now the radical injunctions of Jesus have fallen away: a bit of charity will bring eternal treasure.
Among the clear virtues of this alternative position are that it Want to read more? Join the blog! It costs very little, provides a whole lot, and every dime goes to charity! Click here for membership options
Question: How do we know Jesus was Jewish? Answer: He lived at home until he was thirty, he went into his father’s business, and his mother thought he was God.
Joke told by Freud as a character in the “Lieberman Papers,” a series of detective novels set in Vienna in the early 1900s whose protagonist is a (Jewish) psychoanalyst.
Yup, it’s a good one. I didn’t know where it started though.
To reiterate a question I asked about the previous post on this topic—do you think that Jesus’s central ethical teaching in the Great Commandment and Golden Rule insists on divestment? I see his core teaching pointing more toward some kind of equality, eg, even equality of wealth, than to divestment and poverty.
Also, would you say that Jesus’s insistence on poverty and divestment had more to do with putting God’s imminent kingdom absolutely first—so far ahead of other concerns as to make them almost non-existent—than with poverty itself, either for its own sake or for the sake of helping others? Jesus apparently said that a person cannot serve both God and wealth. (Is that likely to be historical?) So wouldn’t the safest way to put God far ahead of wealth be to divest oneself of all wealth?
That seems to me to be the best overall interpretation, better than an absolute demand for divestment and poverty. People can do their part to equalize the well-being of others without total divestment. But Jesus seemed to think it highly unlikely that someone could put God first without total divestment.
I think it is hard to say you love your neighbor as yourself if your neighbor is starving to death while you’re throwing away all the food that’s been sitting in the fridge for two weeks. I hate to say it because my fridge is a mess. I don’t see how Jesus’ ideal on all levels (golden rule etc.) is possible apart from voluntary poverty. I’ll be posting on this problem in a week or so.
Hello Dr. Ehrman. Thanks for these deep views. What is your opinion on the kingship parable which comes in Luke in 19:11-27 – which some scholars seem to think could be an allegorically developed version of the Gospel of Matthew 25:14-30 from the Q source material – and which could justifies for some Christians the possibility of making, for example, investments in the bank in return for remuneration thanks to the practice of interest rates? Is this an erroneous reading, and should we not instead see in the figure of the master/king a clever way for Jesus or the scribe to criticize despotic and greedy behaviour, of which the violent formulation at the end of Luke 19:27 would be the climax? From an opposite point of view, this violent ending couldn’t it be a later rewriting attempt to connect (through the interventions of the scribes?) the attributes of royal power and legitimate violence to the figure of Jesus, following the analysis of Marie-Émile Boismard in its study of the Coptic Matthew of the Schøyen manuscript (Cahiers de la Revue biblique nº55, 2003)?
Yup, I agree it is a development out of the Q material molded to Luke’s purposes, as clearest from the begining and end: Luke wants to show that the kingdom is NOT comign right away and that God will slaughter Jews for rejecting Jesus. In both Matthew and Luke, though, the parable is a *parable* — a symbolic story, It is not about money and investments. It is aboout what one does with the “wealth” given you when the “lord” is gone for a time. Do you make it grow or hide it. It’s talking about what one does with the heavenly treasure Jesus had provided by his life and death for salvation — do you increase the wealth through converting others, or do you just keep it for yourself.
Thank you for this clear answer, which I had not considered in this way. Doesn’t the fact of totally abandoning one’s possessions in order to enter the Kingdom echo, in a certain way and in a mode that would have been updated by Jesus in an original way, the rule of the Essene community as it is set out in the Dead Sea Scrolls and according to which the impetus had to give all its possessions to the community?
Yes, I think it was driven in both cases by an apocalyptic perspective.
“In my previous post I showed that Jesus himself appears to have taught that his disciples (not just one or two of them) had to give up *everything* in order to be his followers.”
Luke 8:2-3
…as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their own resources.
Are these women thought to be Jesus’ disciples? Do you think they were actually financing Jesus’ ministry?
They apparently did not give up everything since they were using their own resources.
They are not called “disciples” (women never are). Luke is indeed saying they financed Jesus’ ministry. And they certainly did not give up everything, that’s right. Luke ends up softening Jesus’ message on giving up all (i.e., I’m arguing that LUke’s portrayal does not fully represent th eviews of Jesus himself).
1. Luke says they financed Jesus’ ministry but do you think that is historical?
2. If Jesus’ disciples (men) had to give up everything, were these woman supporting the disciple’s families?
3. Do you think Jesus’ disciples were still working during his ministry (fishing, etc)?
1. I doubt it; it’s only in Luke, which wants to emphasize the importance of women in the ministry of Jesus. But it’s possible. 2. Apparently not in Luke. 3. They certainly don’t in the Gospels. I think they are probably right about that.
If it is not historical that the women financed Jesus’ ministry and Jesus’ disciples were not working, how did the disciples’ families survive since these people were likely hand to mouth?
We don’t know. I wish we did.
Hi Bart,
“Jesus himself appears to have taught that his disciples (not just one or two of them) had to give up *everything* in order to be his followers.”
Or the implication that all disciples need to give up all wealth has always been hyperbole?
Best,
James
If it was understood to be hyperbole, the rich man would not have walked away in sorrow becaus he couldn’t do it.
My previous comment that you replied to:
“Jesus himself appears to have taught that his disciples (not just one or two of them) had to give up *everything* in order to be his followers.”
Or the implication that all disciples need to give up all wealth has always been hyperbole?
Your reply:
If it was understood to be hyperbole, the rich man would not have walked away in sorrow because he couldn’t do it.
My reply to your reply:
First, I agree that the case of the rich man was literal, but that by itself does not imply that everyone who wants salvation needs to give away all their wealth.
Second, your previous post also looked at the beatitudes in Matthew and Mark. I imagine they trace back to Q while Matthew took the most liberty with them. Both versions of the beatitudes do not necessitate giving away all wealth when seen as not literal but pithy hyperbole.
Fair enough; but it appears to be what he demanded of his own disciples as well.
In Jesus’ perspective, would the wealthy man give his riches up towards the poor, or leave it to his family he leaves behind? Perhaps both?
Jesus tells him to give to the poor.
I don’t quite see what’s in it for the elm.
I never have either….
Do we know any record of a 50s famine in Judea? I always thought the collection was more about the other factor you mention; “a tangible expression of his missionary message”.
I”ve been looking into that and don’t have a clear answer yet. I don’t see it as an either/or though. Paul does stress that the collection was specifically for the “poor,” so famine or not, it is for those in serious need.
When Paul discusses his second Jerusalem trip in Galatians and it’s agreed he would minister to the Gentiles, we are told the only condition or instruction he is given is to “μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν” ‘They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor’ (Gal2:10).
If Galatians was composed about 48/49 (I think that’s the majority view – do you agree?) and this second trip to Jerusalem happened in the recent past, it may have occurred during the Claudian famine (I estimate 46-48) when concern for the poor would have been at its height since food would have been exceptionally expensive. Perhaps Paul is delivering aid from Antioch?
My hunch is that Paul took this instruction based on practical necessity and transformed it into “a tangible expression of his missionary message” – much in the same way Paul took Jesus’ death and resurrection and interpreted it with heavy theological meaning. So perhaps this request for aid may have been made out of necessity from a famine, but in the late 40s rather than the 50s, and Paul uses it as a means for uniting both wings of the church (and perhaps legitimising his ministry with Jerusalem)?
I don’t know much about the Claudian Famine, but for some reason I’ve always associated it with Judea. Paul is being exhorted to remember the poor in his mission field, outside Judea. I don’t think Galatians can be as early as 48-49 though. It’s usually dated a few years later. (if he converts in 33 or 34, and he first goes to Jersusalem 3 years later; and then again 14 years later…
I’ve got my info on the Claudian famine from 2 sources;
(1) Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2.5, 20.5.2, where he dates the famine under the procuratorships of Fadus and Alexander (they changed over in 46), and
(2) the Grapheion at Tebtunis, an Egyptian text discovered about 100 years ago that describes a doubling in grain prices in 45. Kenneth Gapp explains that this is likely due to anticipating the following spring’s harvest by observing the level of the Nile in late 45, and raising prices to prevent hoarding, rather than the crops failing in 45. (Gapp1936:259)
The Famine would probably begin in late 45 due to the increase in prices and really bite hard from 46 onwards due to crop failures that year. I suspect the immediate region around Egypt would have been hit hardest, which would include Judea. Perhaps more distant places in Syria would have been less affected if they sourced their grain elsewhere? If you had money, it was still possible to buy food – Queen Helena is said to have purchased figs from Cyprus and corn from Alexandria for famine relief.
Thanks. That’s helpful. I didn’t know if it extended into Asia Minor, Macedonia, Achaea, etc — the places Paul where was active for the most part.
The chronology of Paul’s movements in Galatians is an interesting puzzle, leading some to ask if he is anchoring the timeframe from his conversion, rather than sequentially? If it’s from his conversation in 32/33, then 14 years would take us to 46/47, probably at the height of the famine.
The other issue is why the Council met in the first place if Galatians had yet to be composed. Clearly, it was to decide on the Gentile question, but if no one had kicked up an almighty fuss about it, then why did it convene?
If the Jerusalem council occurred in 50 and Paul is writing after it had ruled then it makes little sense for Paul to bitterly complain about the Jewish missionaries the way he does – I think he probably would have made use of the ruling and their disassociation from the missionaries that caused the disturbance.
I think the 14 years has to *after* the 3, no? The ἒπειτα in both 1:18 and 2:1 seems decisive.
I haven’t done a great deal of research on this question, but I get the sense that scholarship is split. You have people like F. F. Bruce advancing the theory that Paul is anchoring the 3 and 14 years since he encountered Christ.
However, a straightforward reading suggests the chronology is sequential, and Paul’s 2nd Jerusalem visit is after 17 years. The use of ἒπειτα (‘then’) does suggest this at first, but it could also be read that Paul is dividing up his activity but anchoring the start point from conversion. Due to the emphasis Paul places on it (1:11-16) I think the idea is that “after X years” refers to his encounter with Christ, but the ‘then’ is the dividing marker between periods of time.
I think either reading is plausible, but given how Paul’s life is so oriented around his encounter with Christ, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s counting from there.
I don’t think it’s much of a split, but I could be wrong.
I haven’t seen any mention by you of the apparent community of shared goods in the early chapters of Acts that includes the delightfully dark story of Ananias and Sapphira. Is that community lifestyle being written off as an inexplicable oddity? Most scholars seem to dismiss its importance as a quickly passing and limited stage, or a particular approach of certain groups of the earliest Jesus-followers, and thus not needing much elaboration or examination. Yet I share some of Crossan’s orientation that an alternative common life in the Jesus-oriented communities based on mutual support and shared resources (at some level) was the real and practical attractiveness of the Jesus-movement. We don’t hear much about community organization apart from these limited instances, except for rare instances when Paul isn’t arguing some theological or pastoral care issue (maybe James?). Does the lack of such discussion indicate community sharing wasn’t being practiced, or on the other hand, that it was of such common practice that it was taken for granted? Also, didn’t the pre-Constantinian church have at least a residual emphasis on community sharing? Sorry to be so windy.
I didn’t deal with it in my posts, no. Such a thing would not be *impossible* of course, but given Luke’s emphasis on the massive unity and holiness of the earliest community, it appears to be presenting an entirely idealized view of the earliest Jerusalem church. Even in Acts, later, the Christians mean in the house of one of their members! The story of Ananias and Sapphira is legendary.
I think we could certainly call this a “stumbling blog” for many conservative Christians.
My typo of the month so far! Thanks for your continuing – apparently tireless! – work, I am about a hair’s breadth (I have thin hair) from abandoning my faith & culture of 30+ years, and work like yours makes me feel glad for it.
On this topic, the YouTube channel Religion For Breakfast discusses two theories about the “Camel and the Eye of The Needle” passages in the Gospels. The host suggests Christians over the centuries may have tried to soften the radicalness of Jesus’ original message, under similar pressures / motivations as per Bart’s post above. The clip is only about 14 minutes, and well worth a view IMO. The case presented by the host sounds pretty plausible to my ears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0Fm8aVApk