tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1006479003534298455.post3333310506424008804..comments2023-10-12T07:59:31.827-04:00Comments on Antiquitopia: Reading Luke's Economic Absences and Alterations (Part 10)Jared Calawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1006479003534298455.post-51678166064242461742008-12-16T17:33:00.000-05:002008-12-16T17:33:00.000-05:00Dear Richard,I have not thought about this particu...Dear Richard,<BR/><BR/>I have not thought about this particular omission of Paul's collection. It is something I would need to look into a bit more, and perhaps I'll have a little time over winter break.<BR/><BR/>But if we think of Paul's collection from the standpoint of Luke-Acts, it seems very half-hearted, no? It seems more like those who "give out of abundance" or give and hold some back for themselves (as in Ananias and Sapphira) instead of, in each case, giving all. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it might be difficult to maintain this rather utopian vision of the early Christian community holding all things in common on a broader scale. It seems logistically difficult once you have a series of loosely interrelated communities. It might be possible to narrate, however, on this broader scale...sort of having a series of communatarian groups who are interrelated to one another.... But, then again, I doubt that Paul would have been able to attract very many to that lifestyle. Again, this is just my speculative musing, but hopefully I can turn to this in the next few weeks if I have spare time.<BR/><BR/>As to your second question, Jesus' message gets de-radicalized rather quickly. In the second century CE, Clement of Alexandria wrote a treatise entitled "Who is the rich man who shall be saved?" based upon the story of the young rich man who was unwilling to give everything he owned to the poor and follow Jesus which prompted Jesus' saying, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." He was able, through some exegetical virtuosity, to argue that Jesus was NOT referring to material money, but to the vices that weighs one down. It was rather typical a middle-Platonizing move, actually, to equate something considered bad in the text with vices and good things as symbols for virtues. As such, the rather wealthy man, Clement, was able to claim Jesus for the wealthy.<BR/><BR/>You could argue that we see a slight de-radicalization already in Matthew in the "blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT," but that would involve arguing whether Luke's version precedes Matthew's version or vice versa.<BR/><BR/>Of course, throughout history, there are those who did take Jesus' words at face value, who did sell all they owned and gave it the poor...at least, in hagiographical literature (St. Anthony, for example, or perhaps your own example of St. Francis). Basically, to find people who did do this, you have to go to the hermits hanging out in the desert, or many nameless monks in history.Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1006479003534298455.post-85741753579559206392008-12-16T17:20:00.000-05:002008-12-16T17:20:00.000-05:00Jared,I have just read your series. I'm sorry that...Jared,<BR/><BR/>I have just read your series. I'm sorry that I missed it before.<BR/><BR/>Any idea why Acts does not mention the collection from Galatia, Achaia or Macedonia? Was it to protect those involved from retribution, or is there a better explanation?<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, there are different portraits of St Francis. In the early biographies he is very loyal to 'lady poverty' and does not allow his 'brothers' to have any personal wealth or to indulge in book learning. The later biographies de-radicalise him. Are there parallels here with the way that Jesus has been de-radicalised over the centuries?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com