In coming to grips with the issue of beneficence to the poor in Lukes gospel, we need
to address two methodological problems. Who were the poor in antiquity and to
what extent did ancient benefactors show any concern for (what we would call) the
destitute? In this paper, we will then investigate, focusing on the honorific
inscriptions,
Lukes portrait of the poor and the wealthy;
Lukes portrait of honorific benefaction culture;
Lukes alternate paradigm of beneficence for third generation believers.
This paper, originally delivered at International SBL 2013 (St Andrews, Scotland),
has been popularized for the every-day reader. The ancient documentary extracts
referred to throughout the paper are found in the Appendix and should be read in
conjunction with the argument presented.
1. Defining the Poor in Antiquity
The difficult task of identifying and modelling the poverty scales in antiquity has
consumed recent New Testament studies on poverty. The works of Meggitt, Scheidel,
Barclay, Friesen and Longenecker have dominated the discussion. The difficulty of
defining what poverty actually was in antiquity, given the conceptual slipperiness
of its Greek (ptochos; penes; penichros) and Latin terminology (the meaning of
which, Whittaker argues, is imprecise) remains a stumbling block. As Saller notes,
even the wealthy elite philosopher and tutor of Nero, Seneca, could blithely claim that
he was poor. Significantly, no exhaustive scholarly coverage of the Greek and Latin
terminology of poverty has been undertaken, with Longenecker only attempting a
limited foray. A detailed and critical coverage of this evidence would have placed us
in a stronger position for understanding Lukes evidence than the analysis of
hypothetical statistical scales.
Moreover, the visual evidence, although sparse, is ignored in the process. Three
examples will suffice:
(a) An Egyptian relief reveals the harsh social conditions for the destitute,
depicting starving nomads in a time of famine, their emaciated bodies
revealing the outline of their rib cages. At the bottom lower left of the relief, a
woman picks vermin from her hair with her left hand and conveys the morsels
to her mouth with her right hand.
(b) The Ashmolean museum statue of a gaunt Aphrodisian fisherman, with ribs
exposed, underscores the tenuous nature of his existence.
(c) At the British museum (Exhibit GR 1922. 7-12.6) there is a bronze figurine of
a grotesquely emaciated man carrying a wine jug and a cockerel.
These images employ a consistent iconography (exposed ribs, emaciation) in
identifying the poor and profitably intersect with the Lukan references to hunger
(Luke 1:53; 6:1, 3; 21, 25; 9:11b-17; 15:14-16; cf. 14:13). But even here caution is
required. Is the emaciation of the man carrying the cockeril and wine jug due to
malnutrition or physical disease (e.g. tuberculosis, cancer, parasitic infection), or
both? Does the presence of the wine jug and cockerel indicate that the man has some
minimal resources, or has he stolen these items because of his abject poverty?
Without sufficient context, these interpretative questions are impossible to answer.
God and, in one remarkable inscription (Extract 3.1), the perspective of covenantal
mercy (Hebrew: hesed) is also brought into the equation. Luke agrees with this in his
strong emphasis on divine eleos (Greek: mercy) impelling the beneficent actions of
Jesus and believers (Luke 1:54; 2:72-73; 6:36; 10:33, 37; 18:39). To be sure, the
eulogy of the Jewish elders for the centurion benefactor of the Nazarene synagogue in
Luke 7:4-5 reflects traditional benefaction motifs. For example, the language of
worthiness (v. 4: axios) has benefaction resonances, while the centurions love for
the nation (v. 5: agapa gar to ethnos) probably represents Lukes rewording of the
inscriptional zeal for the nation motif (New Docs 6 [1992], 25; cf. CIG 3.5361;
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 158-159). But the eulogistic restraint of the Jewish
elders in Nazareth stands in contrast to the benefaction motifs, moral accolades and
coronal honours of the Diaspora inscriptions honoring synagogue benefactors
(Extracts 3.2-3.2).
Therefore, Luke invests considerable time explaining why the poor, including the
destitute, are at the centre of Jesus messianic vocation:
(a) There is divine preference for the humble poor (Luke 1:52b, 53a; 6:20-21), in
the present and at the eschaton, over against the self-sufficient rich and the
arrogant rulers (1:52a, 53b; 6:24-25);
(b) In his Messianic declaration of the presence of the Isaianic age of salvation
(Luke 4:16-21 [Isa 61:1-2a; cf. 49:8-10; 58:6-7; 4Q521 2 II, 1-14; 11QMelch
II, 13-20]), Jesus prophetically announces that his Spirit-anointed ministry
(Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18 [cf. Isa 61:1a]; Acts 4:27; 10:38) effects the Sabbatical
cancellation of debts (Luke 4:18; cf. Deut 15:1-2) and the Jubilee release of
slaves (Luke 4:18; Lev 25:8-17). While the Sabbatical and Jubilee release, as
enunciated by Luke, embraces both spiritual and social dimensions, Jesus
envisages an upending of the social and economic relations of his day. Other
Lukan texts spell out a similar social agenda (Luke 7:22; 14:13, 21), including
the social elevation of the same marginalised groups mentioned in Luke 4:18.
(c) The divine power of overflowing grace (6:38) animates the believers
beneficence towards and love of the enemy (6:35a), as well as to the poor.
While there is embedded in this teaching the notion of recompense (6:38a,
38c; 18:29-30), the motif of overrun (6:38b: pressed down, shaken together
and running over) also points to the anterior richness of Gods grace and his
ability to furnish believers with whatever is required for diaconal ministry.
(d) We have already noted that because God has extended covenantal mercy to
believers (6:38; cf. 1:54; 2:72-73), they are to extend mercy to others (10:37).
The same principle is advocated because of Gods impartial kindness to the
ungrateful and wicked (6:35b), with the ungrateful being especially loathed
by the popular philosophers and the composers of the inscriptions.
To what degree does Lukes portrayal of the poor intersect with these visual and
inscriptional materials?
frenetic accumulation of goods in the search for security, status and pleasure (8:14;
9:25; 12:16-21), or have become embittered over the unsuccessful contest for a family
inheritance (12:13-15; cf. 16:13-14). Ultimately, all such activities are myopic,
focused on self rather than riches of God, and ignore Jesus call to costly discipleship
(12:21; 18:22-23). Not only does such a lifestyle exude indifference to the poor, but
also it manifests itself ethically in the exploitation of the weak for economic gain,
either via unmanageable debt or property acquisition (7:36-50; 20:26). Jesus,
therefore, reveals himself as an astute observer of the powerful elites and their unjust
and acquisitive behaviour.
Last, Jesus was intimately acquainted with the honorific culture of the local
synagogue (21:46), with its trappings of wealth and status (long robes), civic esteem
(formal greetings in the marketplaces), and special honours (chief seats in the
synagogues, places of honour at the banquets). Some of Lukes Graeco-Roman
audience may have been aware of honorific inscriptions rewarding synagogue
benefactors (often Gentile) in the Diaspora (Extracts 3.2-3.3), But, more likely, they
would have seen numerous equivalents of these honours in the ubiquitous GraecoRoman honorific culture, with its rhetoric of moral esteem and primacy of place for
the honorand. To cite but one example, the wealthy elites were given reserved front
row seats of honour in the theatre, the archaeological remains of which are still
present in the theatres of Priene, Aphrodisias and Hierapolis. For Jesus, however, this
exalting of self in a heated quest for primacy was anathema (Luke 14:7-11; cf. Prov
25:1-10).
5. Lukes Assessment of Benefaction Culture
In Luke 6:32-36 Jesus undermines the dynamic animating the ancient benefaction
system: namely, the actual return of honour (v. 32a) and favour (v. 33a), or with a
view to the future, the projected return of honour and favour (v. 34a). Deliberately
playing upon the ambiguity inherent in charis (vv. 32b, 33b, 34b) favour or
thanks Jesus explodes any idea that the disciples can expect any favour or
thanks returned. They are, after all, commanded to love and benefit their enemies (v.
35) the ungrateful and deeply suspicious recipients whom Jesus has chosen to test
the genuineness of the disciples love. In Luke 14:13-14 the same point is made in the
context of the honorific rituals associated with ancient feasts. In addition to the poor,
those marginalised by the Jewish holiness system the crippled, lame and blind
(IQSa 2.3-9) are to be invited ahead of all other dignitaries precisely because they
cannot reciprocate favour.
The sinners of the Graeco-Roman world, Jesus acknowledges (Luke 6: 33c, 34c,
35c), operate effectively within the benefaction system on the basis of self-interest
and reciprocity, but no one, other than God, consistently operates in a selfless manner
by nature. Ultimately, the kindness of God (v. 35) and his covenantal mercy (v. 36) is
the basis for Jesus alterative to the ancient benefaction system. The honorifics and
accolades (sons of the Most High) of this new system, while not unimportant, are
postponed until the eschaton (v. 35b; 14:14b). In sum, the unconditioned nature of
Gods covenantal mercy and his impartial kindness to the ungrateful and
wicked stood in contrast to Senecas understanding of clementia. In Senecas view,
the projected recipients of clementia should demonstrate their worthiness by
exhibiting a behavioural change. If this did not occur, justice would be compromised,
with the result that mercy would degenerate into the unstable emotion of pity
(misericordia).
Last, in contrast to the imperial and Herodian elites, who appropriated the
honorific of euergetes (Luke 22:25; Select Extracts 4.2, 4.4), the benefaction
community of Jesus is characterized by the abandonment of any status and titles in the
service of their Master, whose exemplum informs their personal sacrifice (22.26-27).
6. Reconfiguring Jesus Critique of Benefaction Culture
Jesus, along with the John the Baptist, demands in Lukes gospel that his followers
divest themselves of their wealth and give to the poor and the enemy (Luke 3:11;
6:30a, 35a; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13, 22; 18:22; 19:8). The poor are one of the several
marginalised groups that, according to Jesus Isaianic understanding of his Kingdom
mission (LXX Isa 61:1-2a; Lk 4:18-18), were at the heart of his missionary outreach
(4:18a; 6:20-21; 7:22). In Lukes gospel, however, Jesus also devotes considerable
attention to the operations of Jewish and Graeco-Roman benefactors. As we have
seen, he is critical of the reciprocity ethic animating the ancient benefaction system
(6:32-34; 14:12, 14a) and is dismissive of the honorific accolades that it spawned for
the Gentile kings (22:25). The indifference of the wealthy to the poor who are
excluded from the carefully chosen circle of the benefactors clients is graphically
underscored (10:29; 16:19-22), as is the myopic blindness of the wealthy to
eschatological judgement (12:16-21; cf. 6:24-25).
Notwithstanding, Jesus commends the Gentile centurion benefactor of the
synagogue (7:1-10), advocates the astute use of wealth to establish friends for the
Kingdom (16:9a), endorses the disciples dependence upon benefaction for their
mission (10:7; cf. 8:3b), and promises reward for the poor, not only in the present
(6:38; 18:30a) but also at the eschaton (6:20b, 21b; 14:14b; 16:9b; 18:30b). Jesus
praises an impoverished benefactor (21:1-3) and subsequently models the same
exemplum on the cross (3 supra).
Luke, in contrast to the other gospels, highlights the righteous character of Jesus
martyr-like death (23:40-41, 47), emphasising with inscriptional benefaction language
how Jesus, as soter (23:35b: allous esosen, sosato; 23:39b: soson seauton kai hemas),
delivered his dependents from catastrophe by experiencing the terrible consequences
himself. The derisive inscription of King of the Jews (23:38: epigraphe [cf. vv. 35b36a, 39b]) intended to mock rather than honour the impoverished benefactor in this
instance was placed above Christ on the cross. But, ironically, it pointed to his true
identity and messianic role (23:35b, 37b, 38b, 39b). Notwithstanding, the GraecoRoman sources are highly critical of benefactors who impoverished themselves, either
dismissing them for their lack of acumen, or rejecting them entirely as a kakos.
Furthermore, Jesus challenges his disciples with the new paradigm of the Servant
benefactor (22:26-27), criticising the self-promotion and officiousness of the imperial
and provincial elites. He celebrates the salvation of the unworthy benefactor
Zachaeus, who, though lacking moral esteem of the honoured (19:1-10), far surpasses
in generosity the local civic benefactors. In sum, Luke provides for his auditors, with
a view to his own age, a nuanced, paradoxical and unconventional portrait of Jesus
critical response to the beneficence of the local elites, the Herodian house, and
imperial overlords. But, in so doing, Luke also provides his auditors with new models
of beneficence that would challenge the assumptions and operations of GraecoRoman beneficence for third-generation believers.
2. Doctors as benefactors
2.1. Hands, Charities, D.68 (IG V 1145). Provenance: Gytheion. Honorand: Damadius . 86 BC.
came to practice in our city, showing himself second to none in his skill, as befitted his reputation,
and the best of [public] doctors, so laying claim to the highest regard of the magistrates and of our city,
and since he became a [public] doctor among us and, having practiced as such, was opportunely called
upon by the people, and during a stay of two years among us provided the due treatment, skillfully
serving those in need, showing unlimited energy and devotion (philotimia) in serving fairly all alike,
whether poor or rich, slaves or free or foreigners
2.2. Hands, Charities, D.65 (IG XII 1032). Provenance: Carpathos. Honorand: Brycous. 200 BC.
and since he has been irreproachable in all his dealings with us and has completed his stay of five
years, looking after the citizens and the rest of those dwelling at Gortyn, and has by the enthusiastic
and earnest application of his skill and his other care saved many from great dangers, never failing in
his energy; and since, when many allies were with us at the time when we were at war, he displayed the
same care for them and saved them from great dangers, wishing to show gratitude to our city .
S. Sorek, Remembered for Good, 49. Provenance: Jerusalem antiquities dealer, 1967. Round
limestone weight. IEJ 20 (1970): 97-98.