Jesus was not a peasant.

[fallingblood]

I tried this subject awhile back, but it didn't go very far. So this time, I'm making the OP shorter and see where it goes. If you want to read my longer argument, here it is:Previous Article.

The idea that Jesus was a peasant really took off with John Dominic Crossan in his work, The Life of a Mediterranean Jew. Crossan has to expand the definition of peasant, as the term evolved out of 15th century France, and in particular, in regards to farmers. Which he does try doing, but by doing so, changes the class structure.

The problem is that Jesus is not a peasant by the standard definition, which lists a peasant as a social class of poor famers, who either own/rent a small piece of land, or labor on such. Jesus, from what we know, was not a farmer, nor did he own any land.

In regards to Jesus, the term peasant is often used to characterize Jesus as being poor and of a lower social class. Much of this has to do with associating Jesus with being a tekton (often translated as to carpenter, but could refer to just a general laborer). This comes from two passages. One in Mark states that Jesus is a tekton, while the second passages claims that Jesus's father was a tekton.

If we consider such a passage to be true (and as I showed in my longer article, there is reason to doubt such statements), the problem is that Jesus had been away from his village for some time when these statements are made. They only fill in his previous life, and not his current situation. Whatever may have been Jesus's previous occupation, it no longer is the manner in which he makes a living. Instead, Jesus is a religious leader, who has found some other way to support himself, and his immediate followers (at least 12 disciples, as well as additional women and individuals who followed him). And this can not be seen as a recent change, as we are told that Jesus obviously leaves his family and follows John the Baptist for some period of time.

Looking at the actual followers of Jesus, there are also hints that he surrounded himself with people of means. The women who follow Jesus appear to be independent women, who are able to support the men through their own means. The disciples themselves are also composed of at least one tax collector, as well as the Zebedee brothers who appear to own a successful fishing company (as they have to hire others). In addition, Jesus also appears to search out others who have wealth, such as tax collectors.

It isn't just Jesus who appears to be better off though. His family seems to be quite taken care of. James appears to be well educated, and also does not have to do manual labor. According to Paul, there are other brothers of Jesus who take up the movement as well, and are able to support themselves in that manner. The followers of Jesus also appear to have taken care of the mother of Jesus, as well as other widows, suggesting that they did have some wealth.

Jesus then does not appear to be a peasant, but instead, someone who has the means to be quite educated, is able to travel, and is able to support a relatively large group of followers. This would be no small effort. The view of Jesus being a peasant just is not historically secure.

 

[Sleeppy]

He had help. They all had things they could do or sell. My impression is that he stayed away from acquiring or even carrying extra assets. When he didn't have a boat, he walked over the sea. When he and Peter needed tax money, they caught a fish with money in its mouth. Etc.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Interesting. I've heard similar POVs stating that Jesus was given gifts at birth; gold, frankincense and myrrh. Many people followed Jesus. He was considered a rabbi by some and might have accepted donations.

I think where some may get tripped up is the reoccurring point that God does not want people to hoard. God will provide what you need. Don't be lazy, but avoid the entanglements of a worldly lifestyle.

Mark 6:8-9 (NIV)
8

These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus, from what we know, was not a farmer, nor did he own any land.

I suspect that you presume to know far more than you in fact do know.

 

[Levite]

I tried this subject awhile back, but it didn't go very far. So this time, I'm making the OP shorter and see where it goes. If you want to read my longer argument, here it is:Previous Article.

The idea that Jesus was a peasant really took off with John Dominic Crossan in his work, The Life of a Mediterranean Jew. Crossan has to expand the definition of peasant, as the term evolved out of 15th century France, and in particular, in regards to farmers. Which he does try doing, but by doing so, changes the class structure.

The problem is that Jesus is not a peasant by the standard definition, which lists a peasant as a social class of poor famers, who either own/rent a small piece of land, or labor on such. Jesus, from what we know, was not a farmer, nor did he own any land.

In regards to Jesus, the term peasant is often used to characterize Jesus as being poor and of a lower social class. Much of this has to do with associating Jesus with being a tekton (often translated as to carpenter, but could refer to just a general laborer). This comes from two passages. One in Mark states that Jesus is a tekton, while the second passages claims that Jesus's father was a tekton.

If we consider such a passage to be true (and as I showed in my longer article, there is reason to doubt such statements), the problem is that Jesus had been away from his village for some time when these statements are made. They only fill in his previous life, and not his current situation. Whatever may have been Jesus's previous occupation, it no longer is the manner in which he makes a living. Instead, Jesus is a religious leader, who has found some other way to support himself, and his immediate followers (at least 12 disciples, as well as additional women and individuals who followed him). And this can not be seen as a recent change, as we are told that Jesus obviously leaves his family and follows John the Baptist for some period of time.

Looking at the actual followers of Jesus, there are also hints that he surrounded himself with people of means. The women who follow Jesus appear to be independent women, who are able to support the men through their own means. The disciples themselves are also composed of at least one tax collector, as well as the Zebedee brothers who appear to own a successful fishing company (as they have to hire others). In addition, Jesus also appears to search out others who have wealth, such as tax collectors.

It isn't just Jesus who appears to be better off though. His family seems to be quite taken care of. James appears to be well educated, and also does not have to do manual labor. According to Paul, there are other brothers of Jesus who take up the movement as well, and are able to support themselves in that manner. The followers of Jesus also appear to have taken care of the mother of Jesus, as well as other widows, suggesting that they did have some wealth.

Jesus then does not appear to be a peasant, but instead, someone who has the means to be quite educated, is able to travel, and is able to support a relatively large group of followers. This would be no small effort. The view of Jesus being a peasant just is not historically secure.

I can certainly understand why you would want to disabuse people of calling Jesus a peasant, since Jewish society at that time-- or, for that matter, Roman society either-- didn't work the way that the feudal and neo-feudal societies that had peasants worked.

Granted, I am no scholar of ancient Greek, but I have been told several times by people I suppose more knowledgeable than myself in that field that the term "tekton" can imply a skilled artisan of some sort: carpenter, mason, builder, joiner, something along those lines. Presuming that is the case, such individuals were not equivalent to poor subsistence farmers, but were as close as ancient times had to a middle class. They were financially secure, but not wealthy, and usually made enough money to pay for some luxuries, like advanced education. Basic education was not overly expensive, or hard to come by, but advanced education required time, and more money; which needed well-paying steady work to fund it.

The earlier, more likely, strata of stories about Jesus in the Talmud tell us he was a renegade from the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua, which means that he was a person who had invested considerable time, effort, and probably money, in educating himself highly. As I have always said, I am inclined to believe these stories, if for no other reason than the parables and sermons attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels-- often supposed the earliest portions of the narratives-- reflect a style of midrash unmistakably characteristic of a scholar trained in a rabbinic academy.

If Jesus was like the Rabbis who were once his compatriots, he would have been a trained scholar who worked for a living at some other occupation. There were other Rabbis who were builders and similar artisans-- he would hardly have been unique.

Granted, it seems from the gospel narratives that Jesus abandoned his "middle-class" lifestyle for a deliberately ascetic itinerant lifestyle, as many charismatics of his time also did-- a set of choices that seem consonant with influences from some ascetic movement, akin to the Essenes or Qumranis, which I would assume reflect ideas he picked up after leaving Rabbinic training. But in any case, that lifestyle, then, must be seen not as indicative of Jesus' overall social standing, inherent social class, or potential income earning ability, but of a lifestyle resulting from a philosophical choice.

 

[nash8]

The women who follow Jesus appear to be independent women, who are able to support the men through their own means.

Jesus was withoutdoubt "Pimpin".

But in all seriousness, I agree with your assertation. My personal view of Jesus was that he was sort of a robin hood type character. But instead of taking from the rich, the rich openly gave to him, and he in turn gave it to to the poor, because he grew to a level where he no longer needed the money other than to provide himself food and drink.

I think Paul saught to bring this type of "robinhoodness" into other areas of the Roman empire, but was not as charismatic as Jesus, so he had to water down the religion so to speak in order to get people to donate. Especially since many of them would not have directly known Jesus. Then Rome caught wind of how this religion worked, and figured it would be a pretty good business plan, which it was.

 

[crossfire]

I'm gonna repost this from another thread:

I don't think anyone has disputed that Jesus was from a poor family. Even in Luke 2:21-24 you can see that Mary presented 2 doves for her purification at the temple instead of a young male sheep and a dove, as per the allowance for "one of insufficient means" at Leviticus 12.

His family was poor enough to qualify as "one of insufficient means" for the reduced childbirth purification offering at the temple.

 

[Walkntune]

What's important to understand about Christ is he was tempted with all the kindoms of the world and their splendor yet he overcame. He not only laid down all materialism but even his very life for the sake of love.

 

[nash8]

I'm gonna repost this from another thread:
His family was poor enough to qualify as "one of insufficient means" for the reduced childbirth purification offering at the temple.

Very nice ma'am, but what can you offer about the wealth of the family as Jesus grew older? Do you have any scriptural evidence to support that Jesus' family was poor during the time of Jesus' ministry?

 

[Straw Dog]

I think that the importance of Jesus' historicity is overrated and has no direct association with the justification of our natural values. Without Jesus, many of us would still value universalism and benevolence. What people seem to actually be concerned about is the content of his character. We're enchanted by his capacity for forgiveness and we feel inspired by his boldness and perseverence in seeking authenticity despite severe opposition. It is his excellence of character that makes him an example of what it means to be fully human.

 

[nash8]

I think that the importance of Jesus' historicity is overrated and has no direct association with the justification of our natural values. Without Jesus, many of us would still value universalism and benevolence. What people seem to actually be concerned about is the content of his character. We're enchanted by his capacity for forgiveness and we feel inspired by his boldness and perseverence in seeking authenticity despite severe opposition. It is his excellence of character that makes him an example of what it means to be fully human.

But in my personal opinion, that is directly involved in his historicity.

 

[Straw Dog]

But in my personal opinion, that is directly involved in his historicity.

Why?

Don't you feel equally inspired by your favorite fictional character?

 

[crossfire]

Very nice ma'am, but what can you offer about the wealth of the family as Jesus grew older? Do you have any scriptural evidence to support that Jesus' family was poor during the time of Jesus' ministry?

Nope.

Other than Joseph being a tekton, and he and Mary qualifying for the reduced purification sacrifice. If Jesus was also a tekton, one might expect him to have a similar financial status. But, you never know.

 

[nash8]

Why?

Because Jesus' actions are his historicity. If you can determine what basis formed why Jesus acted the way he did then you are simaltaneously discovering his historicity, and the reasons for all the "benevolent" stuff that you talked about. Also, from my perspective, I think the historicity that is usually presented in scholarly circles is not the whole truth, not neccesarily because it's intentional, but because the majority of the evidence has been destroyed.

Don't you feel equally inspired by your favorite fictional character?

Mmmmmh, honestly I can't say one way or another. I can't neccesarily say more, but I can definitely say differently.

Nope.

Other than Joseph being a tekton, and he and Mary qualifying for the reduced purification sacrifice. If Jesus was also a tekton, one might expect him to have a similar financial status. But, you never know.

But you do have that he hung out with a lot of people that might have been considered "well off" by their listed occupations.

 

[Straw Dog]

Because Jesus' actions are his historicity. If you can determine what basis formed why Jesus acted the way he did then you are simaltaneously discovering his historicity, and the reasons for all the "benevolent" stuff that you talked about. Also, from my perspective, I think the historicity that is usually presented in scholarly circles is not the whole truth, not neccesarily because it's made up, but because the majority of the evidence has been destroyed.

I suppose that my intentions have gone off topic here.

I believe that virtue and well-being are ends in-and-of themselves. The reason for benevolence is that many of us naturally value and seek to cultivate benevolence. A theological or historical justification is beside the point.

 

[crossfire]

But you do have that he hung out with a lot of people that might have been considered "well off" by their listed occupations.

Well, he hung out with all sorts of people--including tax collectors and even Samaritans (gasp!)