A Challenge to the “New Consensus” by Justin Meggitt
3. 3. 2007
1
Name: Jindrich Pospisil
Matric No: 0503723p
Course Name: NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY & TEXTS : SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC
APPROACHES TO EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Lecturer: Dr. Louise J. Lawrence
Session: 2005/2006 (2nd semester)
Essay: 1st of 3
Date: May 2006
A Challenge to the “New Consensus” by Justin Meggitt : A Survey of a
Proposal for even “Newer” (“Old”er?) Consensus.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. The “Old Consensus” and the “New Consensus”
3. Justin Meggitt – Paul, Poverty and Survival
4. The Critique of Meggitt’s work
5. Conclusion
“Any approach to history is guided by the methods, presuppositions and convictions
of the researcher, and the adoption of a merely empirical interest in the data must be
seen as a concealment of (implicit) theory, which theoretically-conscious works aim to
render perspicuous and therefore open to critical scrutiny.”
- David G. Horrell1
1. Introduction
In this essay I would like to introduce the main theses of Justin Meggitt’s book Paul,
Poverty and Survival that has made a remarkable impact on recent New Testament2
scholarship. I will also delineate the discussion that his book has elicited.3 In a sense this
essay might also be viewed as an introduction to my second essay, where I compare the
arguments of the “New Consensus” with those of Meggitt on several particular examples in
detail.4
1 HORRELL, Approaches, 10.
2 Further “NT”.
3 I will do that briefly tracing several critical reviews (by David G. Horrell and James C. Paget) and articles
(written by Dale B. Martin and Gerd Theissen).
4 See my second essay.
2
2. The “Old Consensus” and the “New Consensus”
Since the majority of Meggitt’s book comprises an argument against the “New
Consensus” amongst scholars, let us first briefly delineate what is meant by that term.
In the second century Celsus described the church as excluding educated people
because the religion was attractive only to “the foolish, dishonourable and stupid, and only
slaves, women, and little children.”5 The view that the majority of Christians belonged to the
lower classes has been pointed out (though for quite different reasons)6 by many historians
and theologians. Of particular importance in shaping the last century’s common view of Paul
and his congregations was the work of Adolf Deissmann. Having compared the language of
the NT with the vulgar koinē of the nonliterary papyri, he concluded that the writers of the NT
belonged to the lower classes (though he placed Paul in the “middle and lower classes”).7 So
the “prevailing viewpoint has been that the constituency of early Christianity, the Pauline
congregations included, came from the poor and dispossessed of the Roman provinces.”8
However, from cca 1960 on, scholars have started to look at the evidence afresh,
concluding that
“[i]f one takes account of the whole body of sources relevant to this set of questions, and avoids
arbitrary generalizations from a few of them, the inference is unavoidable that the adherents to the
Christian religion present a virtually exact mirror-image of the general social stratification in the Roman
empire. And that was so from the beginnings depicted in the NT documents.”9
Similar results led Abraham Malherbe in 1977 to suggest that “a new consensus may
be emerging.” In his The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul
(1983) Wayne Meeks confirms this “emerging consensus”: “A Pauline congregation generally
represented a fair cross-section of urban society.”10 Scholars have started to call the view that
the early Pauline churches incorporated people from different social levels and economic
backgrounds the “New Consensus”11 in contrast to the “Old Consensus”, which generally
assumed that the members of the Pauline congregations “came from the poor and
dispossessed of the Roman provinces.”12
David Horrell, assessing the situation in 1999, writes that while the ”new
consensus”…remains at present quite firmly in place, questions have begun to be raised,
notably by Justin Meggitt.”13 Let us have a look at Meggitt’s essential work.
5 Celsus quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 51.
6 Cf.: “The notion of early Christianity as a proletarian movement was equally congenial, though for quite
different reasons, to Marxist historians and to those bourgeois writers who tended to romanticize poverty.”
(MEEKS, Christians, 51). It is also worth to be reminded here, that sociologically the make-up of sectarian
groups (early Christianity being amongst them) are normally the poor and marginalized.
7 Deissmann quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 52.
8 MEEKS, Christians, 52.
9 W. Eck (1971) quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 214.
10 MEEKS, Christians, 73.
11 As the representatives of the “New Consensus” are considered especially: G. Theissen, W. Meeks, A.
Melherbe, D.B. Martin, D.G. Horrell, M.Hengel, J.C. Paget, J. Becker and others.
12 MEEKS, Christians, 52.
13 HORRELL, Approaches, 196.
3
3. Justin Meggitt – Paul, Poverty and Survival
In his book Paul, Poverty and Survival14 Meggitt wants to “examine the economic
reality encountered by the churches associated with Paul and the responses that it provoked
amongst their members.”15 Reading his book one senses that Meggitt is enormously
concerned to challenge the “New Consensus”, which, as he notes “has gone almost entirely
unchallenged for the last two decades.”16 In essence, Meggitt’s main thesis is that Paul and the
Pauline Christians should be located amongst the poor, the non-élite of the Roman Empire,
whose lives were characterized by a harsh struggle to obtain the bare necessities for
subsistence in a context of absolute poverty and deprivation. He also suggests that these early
Christians developed particular survival strategies in this harsh economic situation, notably
that of “mutualism”, a strategy seen particularly in Paul’s “collection”.
After a brief Introduction Meggitt’s first major concern is to outline an appropriate
Context of interpretation. Here he looks to the work of historians concerned with the study of
“History From Below” and “Popular Culture”. That is to say:
“The literary output of the privileged classes of the Empire provides a large and easily accessible body
of evidence…However, such material is atypical and unrepresentative… The élite literary sources still
have some value in New Testament exegesis…but they can no longer be allowed to dictate our
understanding of its social background: a context of interpretation needs to be constructed that tries to
give voice to the lived reality of the other 99% of the population.”17
Meggitt appeals that other evidence, such as that provided by legal texts, epigraphy
and archaeology, must be brought into play, stressing that “an ‘appropriate context of
interpretation’, however poor, must be preferable to one that is inappropriate, however full.”18
Then Meggitt seeks “to reconstruct the norms of urban economic existence for
members of the Pauline churches.”19 After pointing out that “the economy of the Graeco-
Roman world was ‘primitive’ and governed by political capitalism” he states perhaps the
most crucial presupposition of his work, postulating that “[t]here was no mid-range economic
group within the Empire of any importance… Rather, society was split into two distinct
groups, with a wide gulf separating them.”20 According to Meggitt wealth and political power
were concentrated in the hands of the élite 1%, while the non-élite 99% lived in poverty. “The
underdeveloped, pre-industrial economy of the Graeco-Roman world created enormous
disparities of wealth, and within this inequitable, rigid system the non-élite of the cities lived
brutal lives, characterised by struggle and impoverishment.”21
Having postulated that, Meggitt addresses The Economic Location of Paul and the
Pauline Churches. Here he maintains that in the delineated economic realities “Paul and the
Pauline churches shared in this general experience of deprivation and subsistence. Neither the
apostle nor any members of the congregations he addresses in his epistles escaped from the
harsh existence that typified life in the Roman Empire for the non-élite.”22 About Paul the
artisan Meggitt says: “There are no good grounds for qualifying our earlier estimation of Paul
14 MEGGIT, J.J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburg : T&T Clark, 1998.
15 MEGGITT, Paul, 1.
16 MEGGITT, Paul, 100.
17 MEGGITT, Paul, 12-13.
18 MEGGITT, Paul, 40.
19 MEGGITT, Paul, 41.
20 MEGGITT, Paul, 49-50. The italics in the former quotation are Megitt’s.
21 MEGGITT, Paul, 73.
22 MEGGITT, Paul, 75.
4
as a man who shared fully in the destitute of life of the non-élite in the Roman Empire, an
existence dominated by work and the struggle to subsist; someone who from his youth
repeatedly experienced toil and hardship, hunger and thirst, exposure, and homelessness.”23
Unsurprisingly he then goes on to make similar claims (in clear conflict with the “New
Consensus”) about Pauline Christians as a whole:
“The Pauline Christians en masse shared fully the bleak material existence which was the lot of more
than 99% of the inhabitants of the Empire, and also…of Paul himself. Statistically this is unremarkable.
To believe otherwise, without clear evidence to the contrary, given the near universal prevalence of
poverty in the first-century world, is to believe in the improbable.”24
Meggitt divides the evidence for the “New Consensus” position into two categories: 1)
that which appears to be indicative of the existence of affluent groups within Pauline
communities, and 2) that which appears indicative of the existence of affluent individuals
there.
1) Groups. Here Meggitt starts with perhaps the central NT text in the sociological
interpretation of early Christianity – 1 Cor. 1:26.25 He attempts to prove that “[t]he meaning
that Paul was intending to convey by his use of such terms in 1 Cor. 1:26 is…more elusive
than has traditionally been assumed” and hence “[w]hilst they are indeed socially descriptive,
it is impossible to be certain what exactly they describe.”26 So he concludes that “[t]he
problems over discerning the meaning of Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:26 mean that, contrary to
the recent reconstructions of the ‘New Consensus’, the verse can no longer be taken as
unambiguous evidence of the presence of the élite, or near élite, within a Pauline church.”27
For Meggitt the same goes for 1 Cor. 4:10.28 Theissen’s proposals that the conflicts over the
meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8-10) and over the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34) reveal social
stratification within the congregation are also discussed and rejected.29 Thus Meggitt’s
conclusion is that “we have no solid grounds for assuming the elevated economic status of
groups within the Pauline churches.”30 He then moves to:
2) Individuals. First, he discusses the criteria used by Theissen to indicate high status
– references to houses, services rendered and travel31 – arguing that none of these necessarily
indicates wealth or élite status. For example, since “slave ownership was not beyond the
means of the non-élite…[t]he inclusion of a slave in person’s household can therefore indicate
little about the householder’s socio-economic status. A Christian having a ‘household’ cannot
serve as a probable [so Theissen] indicator of elevated social status at all.”32 Perhaps the most
crucial case in the discussion is that of Erastus.33 Here again Meggitt concludes that the
evidence adduced by supporters of the “New Consensus” is unconvincing. “Our initial
23 MEGGITT, Paul, 96.
24 MEGGITT, Paul, 99.
25 “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were
powerful, not many were of noble birth.” (NRS)
26 MEGGITT, Paul, 105. “By itself Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:26 can tell us nothing concrete about the social
constituency of the congregation he addresses except that a small number were more fortunate than the others.”
(MEGGITT, Paul, 105-106).
27 MEGGITT, Paul, 106.
28 “We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held
in honor, but we in disrepute.” (NRS)
29 I discuss his arguments as well as the arguments of his opponents in my second essay.
30 MEGGITT, Paul, 128. Meggitt’s italics.
31 Cf. THEISSEN, Social Setting, 69-119, esp. 73-96. (In fact, Meggitt at this point leaves aside the first
Theissen’s category – “References to offices” and discusses it later on).
32 MEGGITT, Paul, 129-132. Meggitt’s italics.
33 Rom 16:23. I will have a closer look at this case in the second essay.
5
economic characterisation of the Pauline communities therefore still stands: they shared fully
in the bleak material existence that was the lot of the non-élite inhabitants of the Empire.”34
Given this economic context, Meggitt then asks what “survival strategies” Pauline
Christians employed. First he discusses traditional auvta,rkeia (“self-sufficiency”), almsgiving
and hospitality. Although he sees hospitality as more prominent than the others, he regards all
these strategies as relatively unimportant. As “by far the most prominent in the letters of the
apostle”35 he sees “mutualism”. By this term he attempts to describe economic relationships,
“economic mutualism” of the early Christian communities, “found principally in so-called
‘collection’, something which absorbed a great deal of Paul’s attention during his life as a
missionary and appears in nearly all is major epistles.”36 Collection, Meggitt argues, was
“aimed at promoting material well-being” and was “thoroughly mutual in its character”, also
because of “[t]he material assistance given was understood as something that would, in time,
be returned, when the situation was reversed.”37 Moreover, Meggitt interprets the situation of
Jerusalem church as facing a problem caused by a localized food shortage, and thus similar
problems elsewhere could well be met by a similar response. In short, “[e]arly Christian
mutualism fulfilled a very real need.”38
Hence, in conclusion Meggitt’s thesis is that “Paul and his followers should be located
amongst the ‘poor’ of the first century, that they faced the same anxieties over subsistence
that beset all but the privileged few in that society.”39
Meggitt’s book represents a radical reassessment of prevailing consensus. His
hypothesis seems to me to be well argued and persuasive. However, (despite my weak
knowledge of the social structure of the ancient world), I have found it quite difficult to
believe that 99% of the society would have been as homogeneous as Meggitt has presented it
to be.
Nevertheless, since he has brought into the discussion a remarkable amount of new
data, all of which he convincingly included in his hypothesis, his work obviously could not
pass without meeting with a large response from learned scholars.
4. The Critique of Meggitt’s work
From the many reviwes of Meggitt’s book I have chosen the ones of David G.
Horrell40 and James C. Paget,41 and I will outline their critique below. In addition, Meggitt’s
work had made such a remarkable impact on the scholarship, that in 2001’s issue of The
Journal for the Study of the New Testament42 we can find three relevant articles. In the first
two of them, two main exponents of the “New Consensus”, Dale B. Martin43 and Gerd
34 MEGGITT, Paul, 153. Meggitt’s italics.
35 MEGGITT, Paul, 157.
36 MEGGITT, Paul, 158.
37 MEGGITT, Paul, 159. He bases the later on 2 Cor. 8:14. (“…your present abundance and their need, so that
their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance.” [NRS]) and also 1 Thess. 4:9-
10 and 2 Thess. 3:6-12.
38 MEGGITT, Paul, 164.
39 MEGGITT, Paul, 179.
40 HORRELL, Review.
41 PAGET, Review.
42 No. 84.
43 MARTIN, Review Essay.
6
Theissen,44 present their objections against Meggitt’s new proposal, and in the third one Justin
Meggitt writes his Response to Martin and Theissen.45 (The discussion has been ongoing
[among others] with Theissen’s article Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community :
Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” [2003]). The scope of this
essay does not allow me to present their points, but I will delineate here at least some of
them.46
Review by David G. Horrell (1999)
Horrell points out Meggitt’s “enthusiasm to undermine the ‘New Consensus’” and he
defends the view that the“[e]vidence surely indicates at least some degree of social and
economic distinction within the ranks of the non-élite.”47 He then draws attention to Meggitt’s
“mutualism”:
“Meggitt’s argument that mutualism is the most prominent form of economic relationship evident in the
Pauline epistles depends not only on the importance ascribed to the collection (which does indeed
occupy a good deal of Paul’s attention) but also on the somewhat less compelling argument that the
practice of material mutuality is indicated in II Cor. 8:14. While such mutuality may well have been
intended, Meggitt’s case for it being a prominent form of economic relationship among the Pauline
communities is weakened by the fact that we know directly of no other such collections (except perhaps
from Acts 11:27-30), that Paul’s major collection took some considerable time to prepare (hardly quick
enough to alleviate a short-term food shortage), and that there is surely special significance attached to a
collection being delivered to Jerusalem and nowhere else.”48
Review by James C. Paget (2000)
Paget (who is apparently impressed by the fact, that Meggitt’s influential book is a
Ph.D. dissertation) makes a very apt comment: “If one is able to argue that 99% of the Empire
lived in a condition of impoverishment, then in a sense the question of the social make-up of
the churches is already answered and one is prima facie inclined to one view rather than
another.” He also touches on Meggitt’s “mutualism” based on the “collection”, pointing out
that “with the possible exception of Acts 11:27-30, we know of only one collection, namely
that for the church in Jerusalem, to which Paul probably accorded considerable significance
for reasons other than the mutualism which Meggitt so eloquently describes (it should never
be forgotten what an important role Jerusalem played in the mind of the pre-Christian and
Christian Paul).”49 He moreover addresses the explicit mentioning of the “poor” in Gal 2:10
and also asks “how does the epistle of James with its concern for possessions and wealth in
general, fit into his [Meggitt’s] general economic description.”50
Review Essay by Dale B. Martin (2001)
Dale Martin (among others) points out “Meggitt’s simplistic dichotomy.”
“The very question at issue is whether using one simplistic category for 99 per cent or more of the
population of the Roman empire clarifies more than it distorts. Can one simplistic category, into which
44 THEISSEN, Structure.
45 MEGGITT, Response.
46 In my second essay I will focus on three of the most crucial issues under the discussion in detail, picking up 1)
Conflict over the Meat Offered to Idols, 2) Conflict Over the Lord’s Supper and 3) The Case of Erastus.
47 HORRELL, Review, 27.
48 HORRELL, Review, 27.
49 PAGET, Review, 281-282.
50 PAGET, Review, 282.
7
all early Christians admittedly may be placed, help us understand noted diversities among early
Christians and the potential conflicts caused or exacerbated by them? Meggitt’s claim that he must use
only one category so that he can show what they all had in common asks the reader to concede the
dispute on Meggitt’s terms.”51
In other words: “If one grants Meggitt his simplistic dichotomy that splits the ancient
population into categories of 1 per cent élite versus 99 per cent poor, one could accept much
of his thesis.” In terms of “mutualism” he characterizes Meggitt as being “in the
uncomfortable position of positing a new, distinctive, indeed unique invention on the part of
the Pauline Christians—a social economic strategy found nowhere else in the ancient
world…Historians are rightly sceptical of absolute uniqueness in historical accounts.”52
After Martin has attempted to demonstrate that “Meggitt ignores any possible
ideological reading of biblical statements”53 he concludes:
“Meggitt’s challenge is a serious one. But its flaws—methodological over-simplification, misleading
rhetoric, tendentious use of sources, and the absence of comparative contextualization for the notion of
‘mutualism’— render it an unsuccessful challenge and a problematic historical proposal. Perhaps it will
spark helpful debate, but it has done little to offer a viable alternative.”
“Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt” by Gerd Theissen (2001)
G. Theissen starts his review of Meggitt’s book by reviewing The History of Research.
Here he interestingly notes that “there was neither an ‘old consensus’ in the nineteenth
century nor did there develop a ‘new consensus’ in the twentieth century. The latter was
rather a renewed socio-historical interest with different results.”54 As he outlines The Problem
of a Comprehensive Picture of Society as a Whole, he articulates “the crucial question” of the
debate:
“…how to make a sociological classification of the great majority of the city population, which was
situated below the class of the decurions, that is, beneath the politically powerful families. There is no
doubt that most Christians belonged to this urban majority. According to Meggitt, this majority was a
homogeneous mass, struggling for survival and earning not much more than was necessary for
subsistence, and often less than that. The social homogeneity of so many people is extremely unlikely in
sociological terms. Such a huge mass must have been socially structured.55
As one of the supports he gives for his argument is The Shepherd of Hermas, who
speaks of the rich and the poor among Christians.
Theissen thoroughly defends his older opinions,56 but he concludes that he has been
rethinking some of his old ideas by discussing Meggitt’s ideas and his criticism.57 Theissen
closes: “Meggitt’s book advances the social history of early Christianity. Our results will be
better and more precise than they had been before. However, I have the impression that they
51 MARTIN, Review Essay, 55.
52 MARTIN, Review Essay, 63. Cf. “Meggitt’s ‘mutualism’ is a romantic wish that little accords with the social
dynamics and struggles depicted in the pages of the New Testament.” (MARTIN, Review Essay, 64).
53 MARTIN, Review Essay, 63. Cf. “The way Paul talks about the collection for Jerusalem, for instance, is
accepted simply as the way things were (p. 159), with no regard for the possibility that it is precisely in Paul’s
interest to mask hierarchical difference by means of the language of reciprocity.” (MARTIN, Review Essay, 63).
54 THEISSEN, Structure, 66.
55 THEISSEN, Structure, 72.
56 THEISSEN, Social Setting. I will outline some of his thoughts in my second essay.
57 Note that he now speaks about “love patriarchalism and social stratification” and “mutualism and social
homogeneity.” (THEISSEN, Structure, 84).
8
will not be far away from those ideas and assumptions that Meggitt criticizes as ‘the new
consensus’.”
5. Conclusion
“Naturally, the ‘New Consensus’ can hardly be expected to collapse overnight, and
counter-arguments will no doubt be made. It may be…that it requires considerable
qualification rather than outright rejection. But the view that there are members of the
elite within the Pauline congregations now looks hard to sustain. On the basic
argument that Paul and the Pauline Christians shared in the bleak material existence of
the urban non-élite in the Roman Empire, Meggitt will almost certainly turn out to be
right.”
- David G. Horrell about Meggitt’s book58
At first glance one might be surprised reading in Meggitt’s Response to Martin and
Theissen that59 his Paul, Poverty and Survival “did not attempt to provide an alternative to the
‘new consensus’ or a fresh explanation of the conflicts in the Pauline churches.” He
characterizes (explains) his attempt this way: “[T]he book is intended to provide a study of the
material realities experienced by Paul and the members of the Pauline communities.” Perhaps
so. However, a reader of the reviews of Meggitt’s monograph and some other relevant studies
might be puzzled to what extent the search for “the material realities experienced by Paul” are
(resp. is possible to be) driven purely descriptively60 and to what extent the ideology behind
the search (theology, philosophy; in Meggitt’s work perhaps just the fact, that he has the
“New Consensus” somewhere in mind) shapes such a study (cf. the quotation of D. Horrell at
the beginning of this essay).61
Finally, reading Meggitt’s book I have found most striking his radical (simplistic)
dichotomy (splitting the ancient population into only just two categories; see above). As with
all such clear cut dichotomies, I opine, one can find a real value of them only with a
recognition of their limitations.62
Bibliography
MARTIN, D.B. “Review Essay : Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament. 2001, No. 84, 51-64.
MEEKS, W.A. The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New
Haven / London : Yale University Press, 1983.
MEGGITT, J.J. “The Social Status of Erastus.” In Novum Testamentum. 1996, Vol. 38, No. 3,
218-223.
MEGGITT, J.J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburg : T&T Clark, 1998.
MEGGITT, J.J. “Response to Martin and Theissen.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament. 2001, No. 84, 85-94.
HORRELL, D.G. “Review of Justin J. Meggitt’s Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Reviews in
Religion and Theology. 1999, Vol. 6, No. 1, 24-28.
58 HORRELL, Review, 28.
59 While also referring to a note in his book. (Note 118 on p. 99).
60 Which is a question, that within NT (resp. biblical) studies goes back to the “Gablerian dichotomy” (1787).
61 Surely we may also point out to precariousness of the label “New Consensus”.
62 Although Meggitt recognises this (see MEGGITT, Response, 86), I do not see this being clear in his book.
9
HORRELL, D.G. (ed.). Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation.
Edinburgh : T&T Clark, 1999.
THEISSEN, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1982.
THEISSEN, G. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities : Some Critical Remarks on J.
J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
2001, No. 84, 65-84.
THEISSEN, G. “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community : Further Remarks on J. J.
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
2003, Vol. 25, No. 3, 371-391.
Bibleworks. Version 6.0.005y. BibleWorks, L.L.C., 2003.
Name: Jindrich Pospisil
Matric No: 0503723p
Course Name: NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY & TEXTS : SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC
APPROACHES TO EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Lecturer: Dr. Louise J. Lawrence
Session: 2005/2006 (2nd semester)
Essay: 1st of 3
Date: May 2006
A Challenge to the “New Consensus” by Justin Meggitt : A Survey of a
Proposal for even “Newer” (“Old”er?) Consensus.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. The “Old Consensus” and the “New Consensus”
3. Justin Meggitt – Paul, Poverty and Survival
4. The Critique of Meggitt’s work
5. Conclusion
“Any approach to history is guided by the methods, presuppositions and convictions
of the researcher, and the adoption of a merely empirical interest in the data must be
seen as a concealment of (implicit) theory, which theoretically-conscious works aim to
render perspicuous and therefore open to critical scrutiny.”
- David G. Horrell1
1. Introduction
In this essay I would like to introduce the main theses of Justin Meggitt’s book Paul,
Poverty and Survival that has made a remarkable impact on recent New Testament2
scholarship. I will also delineate the discussion that his book has elicited.3 In a sense this
essay might also be viewed as an introduction to my second essay, where I compare the
arguments of the “New Consensus” with those of Meggitt on several particular examples in
detail.4
1 HORRELL, Approaches, 10.
2 Further “NT”.
3 I will do that briefly tracing several critical reviews (by David G. Horrell and James C. Paget) and articles
(written by Dale B. Martin and Gerd Theissen).
4 See my second essay.
2
2. The “Old Consensus” and the “New Consensus”
Since the majority of Meggitt’s book comprises an argument against the “New
Consensus” amongst scholars, let us first briefly delineate what is meant by that term.
In the second century Celsus described the church as excluding educated people
because the religion was attractive only to “the foolish, dishonourable and stupid, and only
slaves, women, and little children.”5 The view that the majority of Christians belonged to the
lower classes has been pointed out (though for quite different reasons)6 by many historians
and theologians. Of particular importance in shaping the last century’s common view of Paul
and his congregations was the work of Adolf Deissmann. Having compared the language of
the NT with the vulgar koinē of the nonliterary papyri, he concluded that the writers of the NT
belonged to the lower classes (though he placed Paul in the “middle and lower classes”).7 So
the “prevailing viewpoint has been that the constituency of early Christianity, the Pauline
congregations included, came from the poor and dispossessed of the Roman provinces.”8
However, from cca 1960 on, scholars have started to look at the evidence afresh,
concluding that
“[i]f one takes account of the whole body of sources relevant to this set of questions, and avoids
arbitrary generalizations from a few of them, the inference is unavoidable that the adherents to the
Christian religion present a virtually exact mirror-image of the general social stratification in the Roman
empire. And that was so from the beginnings depicted in the NT documents.”9
Similar results led Abraham Malherbe in 1977 to suggest that “a new consensus may
be emerging.” In his The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul
(1983) Wayne Meeks confirms this “emerging consensus”: “A Pauline congregation generally
represented a fair cross-section of urban society.”10 Scholars have started to call the view that
the early Pauline churches incorporated people from different social levels and economic
backgrounds the “New Consensus”11 in contrast to the “Old Consensus”, which generally
assumed that the members of the Pauline congregations “came from the poor and
dispossessed of the Roman provinces.”12
David Horrell, assessing the situation in 1999, writes that while the ”new
consensus”…remains at present quite firmly in place, questions have begun to be raised,
notably by Justin Meggitt.”13 Let us have a look at Meggitt’s essential work.
5 Celsus quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 51.
6 Cf.: “The notion of early Christianity as a proletarian movement was equally congenial, though for quite
different reasons, to Marxist historians and to those bourgeois writers who tended to romanticize poverty.”
(MEEKS, Christians, 51). It is also worth to be reminded here, that sociologically the make-up of sectarian
groups (early Christianity being amongst them) are normally the poor and marginalized.
7 Deissmann quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 52.
8 MEEKS, Christians, 52.
9 W. Eck (1971) quoted in MEEKS, Christians, 214.
10 MEEKS, Christians, 73.
11 As the representatives of the “New Consensus” are considered especially: G. Theissen, W. Meeks, A.
Melherbe, D.B. Martin, D.G. Horrell, M.Hengel, J.C. Paget, J. Becker and others.
12 MEEKS, Christians, 52.
13 HORRELL, Approaches, 196.
3
3. Justin Meggitt – Paul, Poverty and Survival
In his book Paul, Poverty and Survival14 Meggitt wants to “examine the economic
reality encountered by the churches associated with Paul and the responses that it provoked
amongst their members.”15 Reading his book one senses that Meggitt is enormously
concerned to challenge the “New Consensus”, which, as he notes “has gone almost entirely
unchallenged for the last two decades.”16 In essence, Meggitt’s main thesis is that Paul and the
Pauline Christians should be located amongst the poor, the non-élite of the Roman Empire,
whose lives were characterized by a harsh struggle to obtain the bare necessities for
subsistence in a context of absolute poverty and deprivation. He also suggests that these early
Christians developed particular survival strategies in this harsh economic situation, notably
that of “mutualism”, a strategy seen particularly in Paul’s “collection”.
After a brief Introduction Meggitt’s first major concern is to outline an appropriate
Context of interpretation. Here he looks to the work of historians concerned with the study of
“History From Below” and “Popular Culture”. That is to say:
“The literary output of the privileged classes of the Empire provides a large and easily accessible body
of evidence…However, such material is atypical and unrepresentative… The élite literary sources still
have some value in New Testament exegesis…but they can no longer be allowed to dictate our
understanding of its social background: a context of interpretation needs to be constructed that tries to
give voice to the lived reality of the other 99% of the population.”17
Meggitt appeals that other evidence, such as that provided by legal texts, epigraphy
and archaeology, must be brought into play, stressing that “an ‘appropriate context of
interpretation’, however poor, must be preferable to one that is inappropriate, however full.”18
Then Meggitt seeks “to reconstruct the norms of urban economic existence for
members of the Pauline churches.”19 After pointing out that “the economy of the Graeco-
Roman world was ‘primitive’ and governed by political capitalism” he states perhaps the
most crucial presupposition of his work, postulating that “[t]here was no mid-range economic
group within the Empire of any importance… Rather, society was split into two distinct
groups, with a wide gulf separating them.”20 According to Meggitt wealth and political power
were concentrated in the hands of the élite 1%, while the non-élite 99% lived in poverty. “The
underdeveloped, pre-industrial economy of the Graeco-Roman world created enormous
disparities of wealth, and within this inequitable, rigid system the non-élite of the cities lived
brutal lives, characterised by struggle and impoverishment.”21
Having postulated that, Meggitt addresses The Economic Location of Paul and the
Pauline Churches. Here he maintains that in the delineated economic realities “Paul and the
Pauline churches shared in this general experience of deprivation and subsistence. Neither the
apostle nor any members of the congregations he addresses in his epistles escaped from the
harsh existence that typified life in the Roman Empire for the non-élite.”22 About Paul the
artisan Meggitt says: “There are no good grounds for qualifying our earlier estimation of Paul
14 MEGGIT, J.J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburg : T&T Clark, 1998.
15 MEGGITT, Paul, 1.
16 MEGGITT, Paul, 100.
17 MEGGITT, Paul, 12-13.
18 MEGGITT, Paul, 40.
19 MEGGITT, Paul, 41.
20 MEGGITT, Paul, 49-50. The italics in the former quotation are Megitt’s.
21 MEGGITT, Paul, 73.
22 MEGGITT, Paul, 75.
4
as a man who shared fully in the destitute of life of the non-élite in the Roman Empire, an
existence dominated by work and the struggle to subsist; someone who from his youth
repeatedly experienced toil and hardship, hunger and thirst, exposure, and homelessness.”23
Unsurprisingly he then goes on to make similar claims (in clear conflict with the “New
Consensus”) about Pauline Christians as a whole:
“The Pauline Christians en masse shared fully the bleak material existence which was the lot of more
than 99% of the inhabitants of the Empire, and also…of Paul himself. Statistically this is unremarkable.
To believe otherwise, without clear evidence to the contrary, given the near universal prevalence of
poverty in the first-century world, is to believe in the improbable.”24
Meggitt divides the evidence for the “New Consensus” position into two categories: 1)
that which appears to be indicative of the existence of affluent groups within Pauline
communities, and 2) that which appears indicative of the existence of affluent individuals
there.
1) Groups. Here Meggitt starts with perhaps the central NT text in the sociological
interpretation of early Christianity – 1 Cor. 1:26.25 He attempts to prove that “[t]he meaning
that Paul was intending to convey by his use of such terms in 1 Cor. 1:26 is…more elusive
than has traditionally been assumed” and hence “[w]hilst they are indeed socially descriptive,
it is impossible to be certain what exactly they describe.”26 So he concludes that “[t]he
problems over discerning the meaning of Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:26 mean that, contrary to
the recent reconstructions of the ‘New Consensus’, the verse can no longer be taken as
unambiguous evidence of the presence of the élite, or near élite, within a Pauline church.”27
For Meggitt the same goes for 1 Cor. 4:10.28 Theissen’s proposals that the conflicts over the
meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8-10) and over the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34) reveal social
stratification within the congregation are also discussed and rejected.29 Thus Meggitt’s
conclusion is that “we have no solid grounds for assuming the elevated economic status of
groups within the Pauline churches.”30 He then moves to:
2) Individuals. First, he discusses the criteria used by Theissen to indicate high status
– references to houses, services rendered and travel31 – arguing that none of these necessarily
indicates wealth or élite status. For example, since “slave ownership was not beyond the
means of the non-élite…[t]he inclusion of a slave in person’s household can therefore indicate
little about the householder’s socio-economic status. A Christian having a ‘household’ cannot
serve as a probable [so Theissen] indicator of elevated social status at all.”32 Perhaps the most
crucial case in the discussion is that of Erastus.33 Here again Meggitt concludes that the
evidence adduced by supporters of the “New Consensus” is unconvincing. “Our initial
23 MEGGITT, Paul, 96.
24 MEGGITT, Paul, 99.
25 “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were
powerful, not many were of noble birth.” (NRS)
26 MEGGITT, Paul, 105. “By itself Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:26 can tell us nothing concrete about the social
constituency of the congregation he addresses except that a small number were more fortunate than the others.”
(MEGGITT, Paul, 105-106).
27 MEGGITT, Paul, 106.
28 “We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held
in honor, but we in disrepute.” (NRS)
29 I discuss his arguments as well as the arguments of his opponents in my second essay.
30 MEGGITT, Paul, 128. Meggitt’s italics.
31 Cf. THEISSEN, Social Setting, 69-119, esp. 73-96. (In fact, Meggitt at this point leaves aside the first
Theissen’s category – “References to offices” and discusses it later on).
32 MEGGITT, Paul, 129-132. Meggitt’s italics.
33 Rom 16:23. I will have a closer look at this case in the second essay.
5
economic characterisation of the Pauline communities therefore still stands: they shared fully
in the bleak material existence that was the lot of the non-élite inhabitants of the Empire.”34
Given this economic context, Meggitt then asks what “survival strategies” Pauline
Christians employed. First he discusses traditional auvta,rkeia (“self-sufficiency”), almsgiving
and hospitality. Although he sees hospitality as more prominent than the others, he regards all
these strategies as relatively unimportant. As “by far the most prominent in the letters of the
apostle”35 he sees “mutualism”. By this term he attempts to describe economic relationships,
“economic mutualism” of the early Christian communities, “found principally in so-called
‘collection’, something which absorbed a great deal of Paul’s attention during his life as a
missionary and appears in nearly all is major epistles.”36 Collection, Meggitt argues, was
“aimed at promoting material well-being” and was “thoroughly mutual in its character”, also
because of “[t]he material assistance given was understood as something that would, in time,
be returned, when the situation was reversed.”37 Moreover, Meggitt interprets the situation of
Jerusalem church as facing a problem caused by a localized food shortage, and thus similar
problems elsewhere could well be met by a similar response. In short, “[e]arly Christian
mutualism fulfilled a very real need.”38
Hence, in conclusion Meggitt’s thesis is that “Paul and his followers should be located
amongst the ‘poor’ of the first century, that they faced the same anxieties over subsistence
that beset all but the privileged few in that society.”39
Meggitt’s book represents a radical reassessment of prevailing consensus. His
hypothesis seems to me to be well argued and persuasive. However, (despite my weak
knowledge of the social structure of the ancient world), I have found it quite difficult to
believe that 99% of the society would have been as homogeneous as Meggitt has presented it
to be.
Nevertheless, since he has brought into the discussion a remarkable amount of new
data, all of which he convincingly included in his hypothesis, his work obviously could not
pass without meeting with a large response from learned scholars.
4. The Critique of Meggitt’s work
From the many reviwes of Meggitt’s book I have chosen the ones of David G.
Horrell40 and James C. Paget,41 and I will outline their critique below. In addition, Meggitt’s
work had made such a remarkable impact on the scholarship, that in 2001’s issue of The
Journal for the Study of the New Testament42 we can find three relevant articles. In the first
two of them, two main exponents of the “New Consensus”, Dale B. Martin43 and Gerd
34 MEGGITT, Paul, 153. Meggitt’s italics.
35 MEGGITT, Paul, 157.
36 MEGGITT, Paul, 158.
37 MEGGITT, Paul, 159. He bases the later on 2 Cor. 8:14. (“…your present abundance and their need, so that
their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance.” [NRS]) and also 1 Thess. 4:9-
10 and 2 Thess. 3:6-12.
38 MEGGITT, Paul, 164.
39 MEGGITT, Paul, 179.
40 HORRELL, Review.
41 PAGET, Review.
42 No. 84.
43 MARTIN, Review Essay.
6
Theissen,44 present their objections against Meggitt’s new proposal, and in the third one Justin
Meggitt writes his Response to Martin and Theissen.45 (The discussion has been ongoing
[among others] with Theissen’s article Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community :
Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” [2003]). The scope of this
essay does not allow me to present their points, but I will delineate here at least some of
them.46
Review by David G. Horrell (1999)
Horrell points out Meggitt’s “enthusiasm to undermine the ‘New Consensus’” and he
defends the view that the“[e]vidence surely indicates at least some degree of social and
economic distinction within the ranks of the non-élite.”47 He then draws attention to Meggitt’s
“mutualism”:
“Meggitt’s argument that mutualism is the most prominent form of economic relationship evident in the
Pauline epistles depends not only on the importance ascribed to the collection (which does indeed
occupy a good deal of Paul’s attention) but also on the somewhat less compelling argument that the
practice of material mutuality is indicated in II Cor. 8:14. While such mutuality may well have been
intended, Meggitt’s case for it being a prominent form of economic relationship among the Pauline
communities is weakened by the fact that we know directly of no other such collections (except perhaps
from Acts 11:27-30), that Paul’s major collection took some considerable time to prepare (hardly quick
enough to alleviate a short-term food shortage), and that there is surely special significance attached to a
collection being delivered to Jerusalem and nowhere else.”48
Review by James C. Paget (2000)
Paget (who is apparently impressed by the fact, that Meggitt’s influential book is a
Ph.D. dissertation) makes a very apt comment: “If one is able to argue that 99% of the Empire
lived in a condition of impoverishment, then in a sense the question of the social make-up of
the churches is already answered and one is prima facie inclined to one view rather than
another.” He also touches on Meggitt’s “mutualism” based on the “collection”, pointing out
that “with the possible exception of Acts 11:27-30, we know of only one collection, namely
that for the church in Jerusalem, to which Paul probably accorded considerable significance
for reasons other than the mutualism which Meggitt so eloquently describes (it should never
be forgotten what an important role Jerusalem played in the mind of the pre-Christian and
Christian Paul).”49 He moreover addresses the explicit mentioning of the “poor” in Gal 2:10
and also asks “how does the epistle of James with its concern for possessions and wealth in
general, fit into his [Meggitt’s] general economic description.”50
Review Essay by Dale B. Martin (2001)
Dale Martin (among others) points out “Meggitt’s simplistic dichotomy.”
“The very question at issue is whether using one simplistic category for 99 per cent or more of the
population of the Roman empire clarifies more than it distorts. Can one simplistic category, into which
44 THEISSEN, Structure.
45 MEGGITT, Response.
46 In my second essay I will focus on three of the most crucial issues under the discussion in detail, picking up 1)
Conflict over the Meat Offered to Idols, 2) Conflict Over the Lord’s Supper and 3) The Case of Erastus.
47 HORRELL, Review, 27.
48 HORRELL, Review, 27.
49 PAGET, Review, 281-282.
50 PAGET, Review, 282.
7
all early Christians admittedly may be placed, help us understand noted diversities among early
Christians and the potential conflicts caused or exacerbated by them? Meggitt’s claim that he must use
only one category so that he can show what they all had in common asks the reader to concede the
dispute on Meggitt’s terms.”51
In other words: “If one grants Meggitt his simplistic dichotomy that splits the ancient
population into categories of 1 per cent élite versus 99 per cent poor, one could accept much
of his thesis.” In terms of “mutualism” he characterizes Meggitt as being “in the
uncomfortable position of positing a new, distinctive, indeed unique invention on the part of
the Pauline Christians—a social economic strategy found nowhere else in the ancient
world…Historians are rightly sceptical of absolute uniqueness in historical accounts.”52
After Martin has attempted to demonstrate that “Meggitt ignores any possible
ideological reading of biblical statements”53 he concludes:
“Meggitt’s challenge is a serious one. But its flaws—methodological over-simplification, misleading
rhetoric, tendentious use of sources, and the absence of comparative contextualization for the notion of
‘mutualism’— render it an unsuccessful challenge and a problematic historical proposal. Perhaps it will
spark helpful debate, but it has done little to offer a viable alternative.”
“Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt” by Gerd Theissen (2001)
G. Theissen starts his review of Meggitt’s book by reviewing The History of Research.
Here he interestingly notes that “there was neither an ‘old consensus’ in the nineteenth
century nor did there develop a ‘new consensus’ in the twentieth century. The latter was
rather a renewed socio-historical interest with different results.”54 As he outlines The Problem
of a Comprehensive Picture of Society as a Whole, he articulates “the crucial question” of the
debate:
“…how to make a sociological classification of the great majority of the city population, which was
situated below the class of the decurions, that is, beneath the politically powerful families. There is no
doubt that most Christians belonged to this urban majority. According to Meggitt, this majority was a
homogeneous mass, struggling for survival and earning not much more than was necessary for
subsistence, and often less than that. The social homogeneity of so many people is extremely unlikely in
sociological terms. Such a huge mass must have been socially structured.55
As one of the supports he gives for his argument is The Shepherd of Hermas, who
speaks of the rich and the poor among Christians.
Theissen thoroughly defends his older opinions,56 but he concludes that he has been
rethinking some of his old ideas by discussing Meggitt’s ideas and his criticism.57 Theissen
closes: “Meggitt’s book advances the social history of early Christianity. Our results will be
better and more precise than they had been before. However, I have the impression that they
51 MARTIN, Review Essay, 55.
52 MARTIN, Review Essay, 63. Cf. “Meggitt’s ‘mutualism’ is a romantic wish that little accords with the social
dynamics and struggles depicted in the pages of the New Testament.” (MARTIN, Review Essay, 64).
53 MARTIN, Review Essay, 63. Cf. “The way Paul talks about the collection for Jerusalem, for instance, is
accepted simply as the way things were (p. 159), with no regard for the possibility that it is precisely in Paul’s
interest to mask hierarchical difference by means of the language of reciprocity.” (MARTIN, Review Essay, 63).
54 THEISSEN, Structure, 66.
55 THEISSEN, Structure, 72.
56 THEISSEN, Social Setting. I will outline some of his thoughts in my second essay.
57 Note that he now speaks about “love patriarchalism and social stratification” and “mutualism and social
homogeneity.” (THEISSEN, Structure, 84).
8
will not be far away from those ideas and assumptions that Meggitt criticizes as ‘the new
consensus’.”
5. Conclusion
“Naturally, the ‘New Consensus’ can hardly be expected to collapse overnight, and
counter-arguments will no doubt be made. It may be…that it requires considerable
qualification rather than outright rejection. But the view that there are members of the
elite within the Pauline congregations now looks hard to sustain. On the basic
argument that Paul and the Pauline Christians shared in the bleak material existence of
the urban non-élite in the Roman Empire, Meggitt will almost certainly turn out to be
right.”
- David G. Horrell about Meggitt’s book58
At first glance one might be surprised reading in Meggitt’s Response to Martin and
Theissen that59 his Paul, Poverty and Survival “did not attempt to provide an alternative to the
‘new consensus’ or a fresh explanation of the conflicts in the Pauline churches.” He
characterizes (explains) his attempt this way: “[T]he book is intended to provide a study of the
material realities experienced by Paul and the members of the Pauline communities.” Perhaps
so. However, a reader of the reviews of Meggitt’s monograph and some other relevant studies
might be puzzled to what extent the search for “the material realities experienced by Paul” are
(resp. is possible to be) driven purely descriptively60 and to what extent the ideology behind
the search (theology, philosophy; in Meggitt’s work perhaps just the fact, that he has the
“New Consensus” somewhere in mind) shapes such a study (cf. the quotation of D. Horrell at
the beginning of this essay).61
Finally, reading Meggitt’s book I have found most striking his radical (simplistic)
dichotomy (splitting the ancient population into only just two categories; see above). As with
all such clear cut dichotomies, I opine, one can find a real value of them only with a
recognition of their limitations.62
Bibliography
MARTIN, D.B. “Review Essay : Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament. 2001, No. 84, 51-64.
MEEKS, W.A. The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New
Haven / London : Yale University Press, 1983.
MEGGITT, J.J. “The Social Status of Erastus.” In Novum Testamentum. 1996, Vol. 38, No. 3,
218-223.
MEGGITT, J.J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburg : T&T Clark, 1998.
MEGGITT, J.J. “Response to Martin and Theissen.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament. 2001, No. 84, 85-94.
HORRELL, D.G. “Review of Justin J. Meggitt’s Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Reviews in
Religion and Theology. 1999, Vol. 6, No. 1, 24-28.
58 HORRELL, Review, 28.
59 While also referring to a note in his book. (Note 118 on p. 99).
60 Which is a question, that within NT (resp. biblical) studies goes back to the “Gablerian dichotomy” (1787).
61 Surely we may also point out to precariousness of the label “New Consensus”.
62 Although Meggitt recognises this (see MEGGITT, Response, 86), I do not see this being clear in his book.
9
HORRELL, D.G. (ed.). Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation.
Edinburgh : T&T Clark, 1999.
THEISSEN, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1982.
THEISSEN, G. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities : Some Critical Remarks on J.
J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
2001, No. 84, 65-84.
THEISSEN, G. “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community : Further Remarks on J. J.
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
2003, Vol. 25, No. 3, 371-391.
Bibleworks. Version 6.0.005y. BibleWorks, L.L.C., 2003.