There is a tendency to present the Twelve—i.e. the persons who were according to tradition the core of the Jesus movement prior to the crucifixion and also (with the exception of Judas and the inclusion of his replacement, Matthias) the core of the early Jerusalem church afterwards—as coming from the lowest rungs of society. And of course, compared to the great aristocrats of Rome and their colonial proxies throughout the empire, these persons probably were closer to the bottom than the top of the socioeconomic pecking order. But there's a vast distance between the very top and the very bottom, and locating the Twelve requires some greater nuance than "closer to the bottom." Let us then consider the evidence.
1) According to Mark 1:20, James and John worked with their father Zebedee as fishermen, along apparently with hired hands.
2) According to Luke 5:10, Simon [Peter] was partner with James and John. It is thus not unreasonable to suppose that his class background is comparable to theirs.
3) Andrew is Peter's brother, and thus whatever we say of one's class background likely also applies to the other.
4) Matthew is remembered as a tax collector (cf. Matt. 9:9). Essentially he was a private contractor, who collected taxes for Rome. He generated revenune for himself by demanding amounts in excess of that which was owed to Rome, and pocketing the difference.
5) The Twelve seemed able to abandon work as they pleased, going on extended journeys with Jesus throughout the Land. This would either be consistent with people unable to find work, or with people who were able to rely upon the labour of others to meet some if not all of their material needs. Given that we have evidence of at least five persons among the Twelve who were able to live in part or in full off the labour of others, the latter probable seems more probable than the former. Persons employing hired hands and farming taxes for the Romans would tend not to be among those so destitute that they just idly wondered the countryside.
Cumulatively, I would suggest that at least five of the Twelve were what G.E.M. de Ste. Croix called "the propertied class," i.e. those who did not have to work for a living. At the very least, they were probably close to this class. Now, as de Ste. Croix notes, this class was greatly varied, ranging from persons who owned medium-sized farms worked by slaves through to the richest of senators. It is really only meaningful when compared to the "unpropertied class." But the combination of apparent (at least partial) freedom from the necessity to work for a living with what we know about how they made their living, we should probably envision at least James, John, Simon Peter, Andrew, and Matthew as landing somewhere in this very broad, "propertied" range. (The term "necessity" is important here, for just because we read about Peter, James, John, and Zebedee engaged in work does not mean that they needed to—and again, the fact that they could so readily abandon their work would tend to suggest that in fact they might not). Insofar as we lack comparable data regarding the other members of the Twelve, it is hard to offer a comparable evaluation. We do know though they seemed to have comparable freedom from work as did Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew. It is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they occupied a similar class backgrond.
Comments
Post a Comment