(9 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)
Loading...I have begun to contrast the Christian views of wealth and the need for the rich to help the poor with typical pagan views that placed almost no emphasis on helping those in need. It is impossible to understand the Christian emphasis on almsgiving without situating it in its originating context – the Jewish tradition, going all the way back in the oldest Scriptures of Israel.
Unlike the pagan tradition, the Hebrew Bible consistently pronounces God’s concern for the poor and repeatedly instructs those who have means to assist them. Thus in the Torah itself: “Give liberally and be ungrudging […], for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” (Deut. 15:9-11). Many of the most emphatic passages occur, as one might expect, in the prophets:
Blog members get beefy posts five times a week, with archives going back ten years. Why not join and get in on the goods? Click here for membership options
The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 illustrates the downside of failing to contribute to the social welfare.
Or at least about lying about how much you have contributed!
I suggest that the difference between the wealth stories in Mark and Luke can be explained in part as the declining expectation that the kingdom was about to arrive. Mark still expected it to happen any day, and of course once the kingdom came, there would be no further need for earthly wealth. Luke, on the other hand, showed a lot more uncertainty about the kingdom’s imminence, so he was willing for his rich man to keep some of his money for the time being.
Does that make sense?
Yup, does to me.
Your Isaish passages are great, being a woman I especially like v12 of Isa 3. Knowledge is power or is it? Sometimes the more knowledge we attain the worse off we are. We sure have devoured that vineyard in more ways than one. And let’s not forget the tree of knowledge incident which started this vicious cycle. Women have been carrying that cross long enough.
Funny you mentioned democrats and almsgiving, I was thinking the exact same thing this morning while doing some research on the words “letters and learned” in the bible. On that note, we could all use a little brain fast from time to time as in Isa 58, but the bible is so fascinating it’s hard to put it down.
Thank God for verses like Joshua 1:8 (I’m summarizing) the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, observe and do accordingly and THOU shalt make thy way prosperous and have GOOD success.
In 1988 Mrs Thatcher delivered a very controversial address to the Church of Scotland which came to be known as the “Sermon on the Mound”. The key part was where she pointed out that the Good Samaritan needed wealth to assist the injured man, which was seen as interpreting Jesus as not an enemy of wealth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mound
Who said that the Good Samaritan was “wealthy”? Thatcher is redefining “wealthy” to mean “not poor.” By her definition, both you and a billionaire are “wealthy” because you are not destitute. Therefore, Thatcher would say that you and the billionaire have the same class interests and “the poor” (and those who want to use government to help them) are your enemies and trying to “steal” what you’ve rightfully earned.
Thatcher also repeats a standard calumny against “socialists” (real or imagined), implying that their ideal society is one in which EVERYBODY is equally destitute. Therefore, if you don’t want to be poor, oppose unions, government benefits for anyone but the rich and never vote for Labour or any other left-of-center party.
I’m always intrigued when you point out insights you’ve had that aren’t necessarily consensus positions among scholars. (I think you’ve mentioned that your positions that Paul believed Jesus Christ existed as an angelic being before his birth, and your conclusion that Jesus was never taken down from the cross and buried are both non-consensus positions.)
To what extent is your current project on the role Christianity played in advocating charity for the poor in agreement with, or disagreement with, current scholarship?
It’s strongly consistent, I think. Nice change! 🙂
I seem to remember reading someplace that suggested that the original (aramaic?) word in the Matt 19:24 story was “rope” and was mistranslated to “camel” when the greek was written.
Yes, some have argued that the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the word Jesus himself used: “rope” and “camel” sound alike in Aramaic. I’ve never been convinced by that kind of explanation, since the Gospels were written in Greek by people who didn’t know Aramaic; I take “camel” to be a clever and witty way of making a point.
The fact that the gospel authors did not know Aramaic is beside the point, really. If *any* of the gospel sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine, then they were translated from Aramaic by someone earlier, who could have made that mistake; especially so if the sayings traveled mouth to ear for a few decades before being recorded in writing and/or being translated. Like you, though, I do think the camel works even better. Question: is there anything to the story of a gate in the wall of Jerusalem known as the Eye of the Needle, or was that just made up by rich (or wannabe rich) Christians?
The gate was indeed put into the wall, but centuries later apparently, based on Jesus’ saying itself.
Found a reference online which talks about this: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm
Sorry I know this just an aside to the main point of the topic, but thought it was an interesting point.
Edgar Whisenant came up with eighty-eight reasons that convinced him of the imminent return to Earth in 1988 of the cosmic judge of the universe. Some among his followers literally ‘sold the farm’, and donated the proceeds; a way, it seems, apart from setting aside enough for rent and groceries, using the rest to make a dramatic, one-time top-up of their celestial 401(k) – ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry?’
Long before Edgar, Jesus was similarly convinced that his own generation would literally experience the end. The passage in Mark 10:21 (‘sell all that you have, and give to the poor’) is much about using the time available to make up for opportunities lost, at the minor, temporary inconvenience of having to just scrape by. It is clearly not intended as long-term lifestyle advice.
Dr. Ehrman,
Romans and I Corinthians were in Marcion’s canon/collection.
Question #1: Are there major differences between Romans and I Corinthians in Marcion’s canon/collection and Romans and I Corinthians in
– Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
– Codex Sinaiticus (after 325 CE), or
– the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (commissioned in 382 CE)?
Question #2: If there were no major differences, did the Marcion versions of Romans and I Corinthians end up in
– Codex Vaticanus
– Codex Sinaiticus, or
– the Latin Vulgate
Question #3: Would you like to credit someone earlier than Marcion for collecting the letters of Paul?
For example:
Acts 19: 30-31 – Asiarchs were friends of Paul. Surely, the Asiarchs would preserve the great Pauline epistle to the Romans. The Asiarchs of the Commune Asiae could have been the agents that preserved their friend Paul’s Letter to the Romans, if not other letters in the Asian churches.
Thank you.
1. and 2.: We don’t have Marcion’s version and reconstructing it is an inordinately complicated business (it can only be done on the basis of quotations of his text in writings of church fathers, especially Tertullian and Epiphanius); in any event, the major differences would be between his version and all *three* of the ones you cite — i.e., much more basic than the differences the three tend to have among themselves; 3. 2 Peter 3:16 presupposes a collection of Paul’s letters long before marcion.
Bart Ehrman
2 Peter 3:16 presupposes a collection of Paul’s letters long before Marcion.
Steefen
Whoever wrote 2 Peter is aware of the letters of Paul. Peter is thought to have been martyred AD 68.
2 Peter dates between 65-68 and 100-150.
100 – Scheikle
100-110 – Knoch, Kelly
100-125 James, Vogtle, Paulsen
100-140 Callan
130 (E. Brown, Sidebottom)
150 (Stephen L. Harris); “Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
QUESTION 1: Where do you date 2 Peter?
QUESTION 2: In your book, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Essay 13, “The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for Textual Criticism, p. 247 and Essay 8, “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox,” p. 142, do you acknowledge and address second century anti-Marcionite redaction of scripture?
Markus Vinzent (Kings College) has put forth that Marcion brought forward teachings of Paul that were somewhat undesirable.
Since Acts was not included in Marcion’s collection but “Luke” presented different biographical information of Paul than is found in Paul’s letters, post-Marcion redactors of the New Testament were going for something different.
1. 120 CE or so. 2. I don’t have the book in front of me, but since you’ve cited the pages I think you can probably see if I do.
The page numbers came from the table of contents, using amazon’s “Look Inside” feature.
(I was wondering if the book belonged on my Wish List.)
Were there second century anti-Marcionite redactions of scripture?
You are known for deciphering and collecting changes to scripture. Anti-Marionite redactions would seem to be a major category of editorial changes.
It’s debatged whether some scribes altered the text in places to oppose Marcion; I think so — that’s part of what I discuss in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. But there was no major anti-Marcionite redaction/edition that we are aware of.
Mark 10:21 makes perfect sense if the Kingdom of Heaven is truly imminent as Jesus repeatedly assured those he preached to. However, in the world of history as it actually happened, the Kingdom did not arrive during the lifetimes of his followers and total divestment no longer made sense.
So it is that Jewish sages after Jesus continued to emphasize the great virtue of charity, but also warned against such excess enthusiasm in doing God’s will that you end up unable to sustain yourself and your family. Likewise, the rabbis of the Talmud insist that despite the supreme value of Torah study, even great scholars must have a mundane occupation to support themselves and their families, a “day job” if you will. This is something that many Haredim in Israel have chosen to forget.
Thread is getting more and more interesting. Great perspectives!
As you piece together for your new book – are you likely to cover subjects like – tithing, first fruit, and other money-realizing ventures and how they became a huge part of the Church? And also how they play out in the prosperity gospel today?
I’m not sure yet, but I’m thinking seriously about having a final chapter on the Prosperity Gospel.
After thoroughly studying the scripture posted yesterday, I understand the purpose of this blog.
My first epiphany moment came when I figured out the rapture theory was skewed. It was then my brain wheels began to turn as mentioned in Ezekiel and I ask myself, “Have I just experienced the rapture of 1 Cor 15? or is this the Holy Spirit and salvation? Wait a min, I thought I was already saved. Or is this the knowledge of good and evil? Who wrote this book that has influenced society in every aspect and why has it hypnotized so many in such a way to doubt appears to be a sin in itself?”
Obviously ambiguous questions and what keeps us coming back for more.
Thank you for what you do
Mat 6:3 When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what the right hand doeth
The popular “modern” Christian idea that you are saved by faith alone, charity is ineffectual because “you can’t buy your way into heaven”, and so forth, and even those who do good works are doomed and damned if they have not Jesus, and so on, are really quite nasty in my view. A total perversion, if that’s not too severe a thing to say. Eventually it might be possible to write a book with a title like: “How Christianity Killed Charity”. If I’m not mistaken the “prosperity gospel” teaches, in essence, that only those who are willing to throw money at mega-church pastors will be rewarded with “prosperity”– “Don’t you dare ignore me when I tell you to SEND MONEY! Don’t you DARE!” God will strike you down!!”
Dear Richwen, I don’t know how many Christians ascribe to the views you mention. To most Christians I know, the whole faith and works discussion is pretty arcane and not part of our lives. I don’t know how many Christians believe in the Prosperity Gospel, but looking at denominations they are probably the minority.
What about the Year of Jubilee and debt forgiveness? I don’t recall this ever being mentioned by the kind of Christians who love to cite Old Testament punishments for sexual sins. I’ve noticed that people who oppose student loan forgiveness, for example, base their arguments on the supposed moral unworthiness of the individual borrowers. The biblical Year of Jubilee makes no such distinction. Why isn’t it “Christian” to forgive debt in this way?
Everyone cherry picks!
Hello Blanca23. I’m assuming you are familiar with Professor Michael Hudson’s thoughts on Jesus, Judaism, Christianity and debt forgiveness? This 2017 interview summarizes them perfectly: https://renegadeinc.com/he-died-for-our-debts-not-our-sins/