Jesus was not an egalitarian. A critique of an anachronistic and idealist theory

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2002 by John H. Elliott

<< Page 1 Continued from page 3. Previous | Next

Democracy, which would presume some degree of equality between free, propertied males was considered by Plato and Aristotle as inferior to either monarchy or aristocracy. In discussing the three basic kinds of political constitution (monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy) and their respective perversions (tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy), Aristotle records the prevailing notion among elites that "the best of these is monarchy, the worst timocracy" (Eth. nic. 8.10, 1160a-b). Democracy and its perversion, timocracy, are both characterized by the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equals (Eth. nic 8.10, 1160b). Democracy, he notes, "is found chiefly in masterless dwellings (for here every one is on an equality), and in those in which the ruler is weak and everyone has license to do as one pleases" (Eth. nic. 8.10, 1161a). In contrast to modern political thought, democracy in antiquity, according to one of its most influential spokesmen, thus involved an equality limited strictly to free, propertied males and was associated with disorder, weak rule, and the license for self-serving. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that Dennis Duling warns that "the term [egalitarian] should be used with caution when describing a movement or group in antiquity," noting that "Ancient society was not 'egalitarian' in the modern Englightenment, individualist, political-philosophical sense in which equality is a self-evident human right and/or social goal for everyone" (1997:126). One advocate of the egalitarian theory, Schussler Fiorenza (1993:213-19; 1995: 14-18), expressly acknowledges that representatives of the prevailing view of the ancient world such as Aristotle and Plato were hardly advocates of the egalitarianism which she claims for the Jesus movement so even their views of equity serve only as a negative foil in her argument concerning the egalitarianism of the Jesus movement. Her claim that voluntary associations (koina, collegia, thiasoi) were egalitarian in their structure and comportment is refuted by other scholars (e.g. Schmeller). Crossan (1991: 263-64) claims egalitarian visions are typical of peasant societies in general and hence a priori plausible for the peasant Palestinian society of Jesus in particular. Peasant ideological visions of equality are one thing, however, and concrete social structures embodying equality are another. Crossan and colleagues fail to show that visions and ideas of equality actually were translated into new social realities.

Most Popular: How To Get Things Done: A Guide To Strategic Planning; 5 Super Tips To Get Rid Of Your Public Speaking Fear: How To Overcome Public Speaking Anxiety; 13 Job Interview Mistakes To Avoid; 3 Questions No Job Seeker Ever Wants To Be Asked?; The Fundamentals Of Revenue Forecasting

Accordingly, there is nothing in the Greco-Roman world and ancient peasant societies that would have served as an analogue or impetus for eliminating prevailing patriarchal structures and social inequity and for establishing any kind of community of equals. If such a social revolution were inaugurated by Jesus and his followers, this would have been a social novelty without parallel in the ancient world. Does the alleged New Testament evidence show this to have been the case? Let us see.

Featured White Papers

Jesus was not an egalitarian. A critique of an anachronistic and idealist theory

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2002 by John H. Elliott

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference