“Attitudes to the Poor in New Testament Times”

See article here.

---

The first note I'd like to make is that the social classes of our day (I speak as a Westerner) bear little resemblance to those in ancient societies. Jeffers asks us to "Imagine a society in which the gulf between the upper class and all others was so wide that their members had virtually nothing in common. Imagine that you were forbidden by law to marry someone of another class, and upward mobility was frowned upon. Imagine a legal system that always favored the upper class. Imagine a society in which, with very few exceptions, your status at birth determined the course of your future life. While we may be able to think of examples of this kind of separation in American society, it is nothing like the chasm between those at the top and those at the bottom in Roman society that existed at all times in every place." (The Greco-Roman World, p.181)

The second note is about the penês (people who did manual labor) and how they were viewed. It is true that they were dependant upon others, though I don't suppose we moderns would really note that--it doesn't matter to us. So once again we are at odds with the intricacies of honor-shame societies. The craftsman is dependant on others, but then again, it's others who require the skills of the craftsman. Keep in mind, though, that what's being presented in that quote is an elite class perspective. Consider, "Romans considered wealth an essential requirement of the virtuous life. In contrast with the popular American idea that the wealthy are less honest because power corrupts, the Roman elite believed that only the rich could afford to be honest. They reasoned that the poor must do whatever is necessary to survive and so are more likely to lie, cheat and steal." (The Greco-Roman World, p.189) Whereas we would often praise artisians for their skill (and pay them large sums of money for public works), this apparently was not the case in ancient times.

The ptôchos, however, were at the bottom rung of the social ladder. Maybe they could not even obtain meat or wine. Apparently they had extraordinarily little honor. And there was a whopping 15% of the total population of these folks.

Regarding the application of the social structure to Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 7:17, 24, such a piece of the picture of Paul is important, but I do believe Paul would not have held a 100% strictness on this--close to 100%, but not quite. The reason is Jesus; a Galilean, son of a carpenter, who fought and won a lot of honor in his time. Maybe I'm off the mark here; I'm not really sure if Jesus changed class. If 'prophet' or 'messiah/king' was a class, then that carpenter boy certainly did. On another note, I believe that the average modern person would NOT like this at all (and maybe think it absurd and irrational). We would certainly move up the economic ranks if we could (winning the lottery would be nice).

Tiberius' rule was 14-37 AD, so the gospels are near the middle of the heavy taxation Neyrey speaks of.

The rich get richer--indeed. Social reform was very rare; the only meaningful social revolutions needed to be done by powerful upper class lads. I remember reading about an Emperor (one of the 'mighty five' or something like that, who went on to be the Emperor) who made several important reformations. Otherwise, social change came at the hands of disaster, or military force. (So it was thought! Jesus taught another way.) But due to the social structure and how there was no drive for equality at all, the gulf between the rich and the poor only grew wider.

The Plutarch quote is funny (wealth isn't about you, it's about your image), but it shows how the drive for honor would determine behaviour.