(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...So far I have been discussing why “wealth” was sometimes seen as a problem by moral philosophers in the Greek and Roman worlds. People who either have or want to have huge amounts of money are neglecting what they really need for ultimate happiness. And money can corrupt morals, making one greedy, rapacious, and inclined to general nastiness. These pagan ethical discourses are written by elites, for elites, concerned for the personal welfare of the elites.
Christians had different views, at least so far as we can tell from their writings. Whereas the “problem of wealth” was occasionally discussed among pagan moral philosophers, it became a central focus of interest in parts of the Christian tradition, starting with Jesus himself. For the historian of religions that comes as no surprise. Jesus himself was thoroughly Jewish and there are few aspects of Jewish ethical discourse more distinctive than the repeated emphasis both that the God of Israel was the God of the poor and that his people were to care for those who were in need. Far from being dismissed from polite thought and conversation – as in the elite discourses of the Greek and Roman words generally – the poor were front and center. Those who neglect the poor will be judged by God.
The view is strongly pronounced
This is one way the Christian movement revolutionized the world. Want to see more? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
This makes me think of the passage in Matthew 19 v16-24. The passage starts off with Jesus being called Good master and the question of what GOOD thing shall I do that I might have eternal life with the end game of treasure in heaven.
I’m at the mercy of a strong concordance but “Virtuous” seems to be the theme of the last few blogs so I’ll go with “good” as seen in this passage can imply to be virtuous.
Jesus asks the guy if he will be perfect he then tells him to sell all he has and give to the poor then he will have treasure in heaven. The questions however, what does he have, who are the poor, what is a treasure and where is heaven. To answer these questions you have to look at other parables, and investigate the Greek.
This basic ideology of helping the needy as seen in this passage did influence a transformation in benevolence but how would society be different if the expanded messages from this passage were implemented.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think about the cult of St. Mary? I’ve read the earliest prayer to her is the “Sub tuum praesidium”, dated to the 3rd (or 4th) century AD (curious if you support one dating or another).
How do you think this cult of the saints develop in general? And, with my presumptions in place, how come there was no massive resistance of this cult? Meaning no opposition to it, to be saw a violation of the second or first commandment, etc.
I’m not an expert on the worship of Mary — just the very early stages with books like the Proto-Gospel of James etc. The explicit discussion about Mary and her worship come after my period, expeicially starting in the fifth century.
Well that sounds interesting! So you’re saying worshiping her comes from the fifth century? How come? Is it only there that we see evidence of that? And what kind of evidence?
I was thinking this prayer from the 3/4th century would also be considered evidence. It comes from Egypt, so maybe it was just happening locally there, and it was not widespread?
As I said, I’m not an expert. But I do think (without much expertise) that the elevation of her to a divinely exalted status is a later development, including over the issue of whether she is approopriately addressed as “the mother of God” But I may be COMPLETELY wrong.
Dr. Ehrman,
I don’t know if you’re aware of the “Free Grace” theological movement. That in essence states that salvation is really by faith alone.
I was wondering from your perspective, how Biblical, in line with the Gospels/Letters of the NT, is this position?
And more broadly what soteriology do you find most biblical?
Than you!
My view is taht the Bible supports a number of soteriological positions, some of them not consistent with each other. I’m not familiar with the “free grace” movement, but of course the Protestant tradition as a whole began with a Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith (alone) apart from “works of the law.” That view is not Pauline in the way it was developed in the Protestant tradition — since Paul was not addressing the question of “doing good works” but of “doing the works of the Jewish law,” which is very different. My hunceh is that free grace is building off that Lutheran tradition (and most likely by people ho don’t know they are building on the Lutheran tradition!) (But just assume they’re simply depending on the NT)
Yes, they do know that, the position is based on the Gospel of John, like John 3:16, “that whosoever believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”.
As for Paul, yes, he mentions works of the law, but is there not a debate as to what that means? If it means strictly Jewish laws, like circumcision, etc. Or if it means Jewish laws + the moral law (aka don’t kill, don’t commit adultery). I mean when he says something like “is the law bad? By no means…”, if he would mean only the dietary law, etc. would he still say “Do we abolish the Law? By no means…”, because with respect to the dietary law and so on, he’s crystal clear that’s not the case (“let no one judge you based on a new moon or Sabbaths ”
The free grace theology is a basically once saved always saved, if you truly believed once in Jesus.
Oh yes, I was pretty sure they would quote verses. I was asking if they understand the historical precedents for their views as it evolved out of the oldest protestant tradition. Scholars of course, know all these issues inside out (e.g., the relation of Jewish law to Protestant teachings about “good works). “Once saved always saved” is, of course, a view within the Calvinist tradition.
Yes, exactly, well Free Grace is the sort of opposite side of the coin of Calvinism, in the sens e that in Calvinism, there is predestination on condition of perseverance. In other words, if you are predestined, you must by necessity, persevere in faith/good works.
Free Grace is the sort of opposite, if you choose to believe, truly believe, even once, the you are eternally secured no matter what. Because eternal life is… eternal.
So as opposed to Lutheranism/Calvinism, it affirms free will, Free Grace grew more out of Baptist theology (but all Protestants mostly root out of Luther, yes).
This is mostly based on the Gospel of John, which they consider the only evangelistic (as opposed to Luke for example, that empathizes repentance).
I find that true! However, in order to justify the postilion (think about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) the distinguish between “inheriting” and “entering” the kingdom of God, between salvation and fellowship with God.
I have some those distinctions, but I’m curious to hear what you think about it.
I don’t really have any view about the validity of one theological view of salvation over another. Historically, of course, early Christians had a variety of views, none of which is just like those endorsed by later Christians, including most Christian theologians today.disabledupes{d41759c9506d46379919d1030fde60db}disabledupes
Prof,
Did Christian groups from whom the ‘gnostic’ gospels originate also place an ethical premium on helping the poor? You mentioned that this Christian tradition of almsgiving ties in with Christianity’s Jewish origin. I was wondering if Christ-following groups with perhaps tenuous ties with Late Second Temple Judaism might have very different (or indifferent) views about the use of one’s wealth. Thanks.
I’m afraid we don’t know!
Dr. Ehrman: Just out of curiosity, what do you think Jesus or Paul would have thought about LGBTQ rights or transgenders? Do you believe the Bible has anything to say on this important matter?
If you’re asking what they would have thought if they were told about these issues while the continued to live and think in terms of their first century environments, they would not have understood the issues or assumptions of modenr thought and would therefore have rejected such things out of hand with no discussion; if you’re asking what they would have though if they were modern thinkers knowing what we know now, then I’d strongly argue that they would think what I do. 🙂
“No one with any historical sense would claim that Christians as a whole embraced, let alone fully implemented, this “new ethic.””
Not ‘as a whole’, perhaps; but the ascetic, eremitic (and subsequently monastic) impulses from the 3rd century onwards were seized on in considerable numbers – especially from poor and uneducated social groups – and very large numbers of Christians from all social classes followed and were inspired by them, in recognising, as ideals. the renunciation of property and family, and sharing with the poor .
As Augustine said: “The uneducated rise up and take heaven by storm; while we, with all our learning, here we are, still wallowing in flesh and blood…”.
Will your survey of Christianity and Wealth extend to early monasticism?
Yes, I’m planning on dealing with Anthony, Basil, etc…
I wonder if the original statements were references to people living piously in voluntary poverty, perhaps communal, rather than that social class at large. Jesus’s instruction makes more sense if he was telling the rich young man to sell all he had and donate it to a specific group, thereby being fully committed to piety. Judas’s objection about the waste of the expensive ointment makes more sense if The Poor was a specific group they supported financially. Even the thought that Jesus perhaps had told Judas to go give something to The Poor (when he really meant go through with the betrayal) makes more sense with a specific group as the reference. The beatitude makes more sense to me too, with voluntary poverty as the reference. The poor, writ large, aren’t more likely to be righteous than others. Some might speculate whether the Qumran Poor were the reference given John the Baptist’s similarities to the Essenes, but I think that is a bridge too far. Bart, I’d like to know your assessment about whether “the poor” in the early oral stages might have meant voluntary poverty and the meaning became obscured after 70 A.D.
It’s rare that a wealthy person starts a religious movement. From what we know of religious upstarts of the last couple hundred years, a prophet is generally a person on the fringes of society with few prospects for material wealth. He’s often given to making bold claims and promises to his followers. He lauds poverty as a virtue and may demand it of his followers, yet he’s not averse to material gifts and other material pleasures. All the gospels refer to the episode where expensive nard is applied to Jesus’ feet (which for mystical reaons he condones as an act more righteous than charity to the poor) as well as to (alcohol-fueled?) parties that arose the condemnation of the Pharisees. I know this is a deeply cynical view, but I can’t help but wonder if Jesus’ ministry was perhaps more hedonistic than we’ve been led to assume by the gospel writers. Perhaps it was a far more human story that matches the same template of prophets like Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and so many more.
Bart, in your latest post you say that”…some moral teachers, including Jesus, himself, urged a complete divestment of all material goods.” But the only time he specifically says this is when talking to the rich young man. Perhaps Jesus knew how attached the young man was to his riches and that complete divestment was necessary in his case. But perhaps not necessary for every rich man or woman. I don’t know if Jesus says this directly to any other rich person. I’m not rich so maybe I can still hang onto some material goods.
He also suggests it when Peter indicated they too had left everything for his sake, and it may be implied in his affirmatn that it is important to “love your neighbor as yourself,” — etc.
I’ve always had an issue with Acts, Chapter 5, The Sin and Death of Ananias and Sapphira.
Was Ananias and Sapphira part of the group that agreed to put all their money in one pile? Or were they a couple that sold their land and gave the group a portion of the money for reasons of their own? Perhaps they didn’t trust the group enough to give them all their wealth. Verse 3: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and the keep back part of the price of the land?” Satan, being the adversary, did his job by allowing them the ability to make their own choice. The generosity the couple offered was apparently not enough. And thus they died of the fear of God, or the mob killed them.
Makes me think of today’s Prosperity Gospel movement.
The problem was not that they did’nt give away everything but that they *lied* about giving it all away. God doesn’t like liars, and in this story decides to take away their lives… In context, they were in a community of others who had sold everything so that all cold share and have enough.
There seem to have been a few technical blog issues recently.
The comment subscriptions page (https://ehrmanblog.org/comment-subscriptions/), which appears as a link at the bottom of the emails we get when someone replies to a comment, has disappeared. This can occasionally be useful if people want to revisit their old comments.
Three old posts have had their publication date changed to 1 March 2022. I assume they were edited for some reason and the date was changed because the blog software has a bug in it. That’s a serious bug in any blogging software, and I’d advise getting it looked at.
But meanwhile . . . congratulations on 3001 posts! The post archive is now seven pages long.
Are you still (today) seeing problems? If so, send me an email. We were monkeying around with a few things and may have created a few porlbems. But I thought it was all resolved.
Wow, over 3000? I hadn’t noticed. Whoa….
Email sent, with the title “Response to blog comment”.
Thanks. I’ll get on it.
Were Christian attitudes recognizing the worth of the poor taken up by the slave population, who saw it as an indication that they were humanity and not just property?
Not in the ancient world, but certainly in the New World.