Técnicas e instrumentos de investigación

Though the issue of politics and power contributed significantly to the social strata in the Lucan world of Jesus, it is generally acknowledged that economic factor also plays some roles in defining the social polarization of the Greco-Roman world. It can be characterized as a period of extreme inequality in terms of its socio-economic conditions, (Elser, 1996).

Schmidt (1987) puts it thus, “there was widespread oppression of the overpopulated mass of the lower classes, high taxation, natural disasters, and societal polarization aggravated the situation” (p.19). Taxation constitutes much of the agony of the Jewish people. For the details of the effect of taxation, both the civic and temple, to economic crisis and decline, Schmidt (1987) has this to say, “The total taxation of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus,

73

civil and religious combined, must have approximated the intolerable proportion of between 30 and 40 per cent” (p. 20-25).

The problem is not simply that very few percentage of the populace are has more than enough and while others are hungry and naked and homeless; the depth and reality of the problem is that those who were rich had power over those who were poor. But more importantly the socio-economic system supports and constantly increases them, so that the rich get deliberately richer while the relatively poor get poorer and have less control of their future.

Stambaugh and Balch (1986) put it thus:

in terms of power, influence, money, and the perceptions of the time, we can divide the population of the Roman world into two main categories, those with influence and those without it, the honourable and the humble, those who govern and those who were governed, those who had property and those who did not, the upper category was very small, the lower, very large (p. 110).

Such society was marked with exploitation of the poor, and ostentation, the conspicuous or vulgar display of wealth and success, especially designed to impress people. Kim (1998),on his part describes it thus, the “Greco-Roman world is to be considered as one which was designed particularly for the elite group of the society, while the rest of the society just existed for helping those privileged to enjoy their lives conveniently” (p. 255). Other contributing factors to poverty in Greco-Roman ancient times, apart from unbalanced social structure which contribute to socio-economic stress, as Schmidt (1987) had mentioned, were natural phenomena, the frequent famine, and droughts.

74

In such a socio-economically tough society, unless the wealthy took action to help the poor survive; they might on a daily basis face starvation and even death. Though there were some benefaction programmes both in the government and private sectors, this occurred on an irregular basis, not from philanthropy or civic spirit, but from the interest of the wealthy for reward. Benefactions made by the wealthy were not out of willingness or self-sacrifice or from Jewish law of charity or almsgiving, but from selfish interest: the wealthy benefactors in return expected to be given honours. This seems in love for public recognition, which was expressed in forms of titles, inscriptions, statutes and other privileges. Benefactors also expected repayment of loan as debt thereby subjecting multitude of people as debtors.

Though the merchants and artisans have some degree of wealth, and to some extent control of financial markets, there was still dichotomy between them and the aristocrats. The aristocrats treat them as poor on the ground of having deficiency in political power. Esler (1996) sums it thus “They totally isolated themselves from political power, and were not allowed to entertain themselves in a social atmosphere like the nobility” (p. 272). Initially as comradeship, those who engaged in the same professions began to gather in certain places in order to have social events, for entertainment and for burials (Kim, 1998 and Esler, 1996). So the have-nots in the Greco-Roman world suffered discrimination and unfair dichotomous treatment from the hands of both the political juggernauts and the affluent merchants.

The demand for tribute to Rome and taxes to Herod in addition to the tithes and offerings to the Temple and priesthood dramatically escalated the economic pressures on peasant producers, whose livelihood was perennially marginal at best. After decades of multiple demands from multiple layers of rulers many village families fell increasingly into debt and were faced with loss of their family inheritance of land. The impoverishment of families led to the

75

disintegration of village communities and the fundamental social form of such an agrarian society. These are precisely the deteriorating conditions that Jesus addressed in the Gospel of Luke: impoverishment, hunger, and debt (Crossan, 2008).

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16.10-31) evokes a realistic portrait of this socio-economic world in the time of Jesus and Luke. Luke begins by giving brief descriptions of social backgrounds of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man he describes as “was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day and at the gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores” (Luke 16.19-20). Hock (1987) asserts that Lazarus’

condition represents the poor populace subjected under extreme environmental stress, hunger and untreatable diseases (Snodgrass, 2008). Hultgren (2000) stresses that this life is made manifest in kind of attire they put on which is usually made of purple which depicts the royal colour and gate also signifies wealthy house or mansion. The combination of fine linen and purple clothing depicts the luxurious living of the rich in the ancient world and in particular the rich man in the parable. It is particularly fitting for royalty and those proud of their wealth. Old and New Testament and inter-testament books support that purple was rare and expensive because of the difficult process of obtaining the best dye from marine snails ( Sir. 40.4, 1Macc.

8.4, 10.20, 62, 64; 11.58; Esdr. 3.6; Mark 15.17, John 19.2, Judg. 8.26, Esth.8.15, Prov. 31.22, Dan.5.7, Acts. 16.14. Rev 19.7, 14). The fact that there is a ‘gate’ at which Lazarus lay means that the rich man lives in a mansion surrounded by a wall designed to keep the ‘have-nots’ at a distance and outside the centre of merriment. These divergent socio-economic backgrounds of the rich man and Lazarus are a typical picture of the wealth-centred Greco-Roman world of Luke’s gospel. The world of two extremes: a very few elites on the top and the majority of poor population with dehumanizing conditions on the bottom. Hultgren (2000) sums it thus:

76

In terms of power, influence, money, and the perceptions of the time, we can divide the population of the Roman world into two main categories, those with influence and those without it, the honourable and the humble, those who govern and those who were governed, those who had property and those who did not, the upper category was very small, the lower, very large (p. 112).

The survey of the socio-economic background of Luke reviews that Luke portrays a picture of Greco-Roman world as that of unjust dichotomy of very few rich and a large population of poor who live little above hungry line, together with its gross exploitation and injustice. Luke also pictures Jesus as social reformer whose mission is to fight against this socio-economic disorder.

With this in mind, one can understand why the materials on poor and possession run like thread in the gospel of Luke.

The socio-economic background of Luke can be summed up as follows:

1. A world of very few wealthy elites who have great wealth and whose wealth gives them great power, but the majority of the population suffer from degrees of abject poverty and marginalization.

2. A world characterized as a period of extreme inequality in terms of its socio-economic conditions.

3. A world where the over-populated low class was subjected to frequent exploitation through high taxation by the few elites.

4. A world whose socio-economic system supports the broad inequality between the rich and the poor so that the rich get deliberately richer while the relatively poor get poorer and have no control of environment.

77

5. A world where the rich display their wealth always through feasting, eating, drinking and clothing.

6. A world where the elites and the poor live in ghettoes with little or no traffic between them.