Peter Oakes, "Methodological Issues in using Economic Evidence in Interpretation of Early christian Texts" in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, edited by Bruce Longenecker and Kelly Liebengood.
… In studying the first few centuries of the Christian movement, any attempt to isolate economics from other social factors such as politics would be doomed. As Karl Polanyi argues, all ancient economies were “embedded economies.” Financial decisions in such economies were rarely taken for financial reasons alone. For example, the nature of patron-client relationships ensured constant distortion of what we might expect to be market interaction. Distribution of resources was dependent much more on power relationships than on the market.
With this in mind, what counts as economic evidence? When, as an undergraduate, I took a course on economics, I remember the lecturer defining it as “the study of the allocation of scarce resources.” In one major current textbook, Michael Parkin defines it as “the social science that studies the choices that individuals, businesses, governments, and entire societies make as the cope with scarcity and the incentives that those choices.” Air is not scarce, so it is generally free. Breathing is not unusually an economic issue. Wine is not free. Its production and distribution require land, water, transport, storage, and labor, all of which are scarce resources. We will return to wine production in a little awkward for an ancient context. The focus on choice is problematic in a society where most economic activities are governed more by custom or compulsion. I suppose it works fairly reasonably as long as one remembers that the choices lie with the powerful elite. The stress on incentives might be useful, but only if it is realized that, for most people, they were generally of an “offer you can’t refuse” type. There was not the kind of varying levels of inducement that a modern market system might include.
Oakes also breaks down the social stratification of Roman society according to a poverty scale developed by Stephen Friesen ("Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So Called New Consensus," JSNT 26 (2004) : 323-361.)
Imperial elites - 0.04% - Includes a few retainers and local royalty.
Regional or provincial elites - 1%
Municipal elites - 1.76% - Includes some merchants.
Moderate surplus resources - 7%? - Includes some merchants, some traders, some freedpersons, some artisans (esp. those employing others), and military veterans.
Stable near subsistence (with reasonable hope of remaining above min. to sustain life) - 22%? - Includes many merchants and traders, regular wage earners, artisans, large shop owners, freedpersons, and some farm families.
At subsistence level (and often below minimum to sustain life) - 40% - Includes small farmers, laborers, artisans (esp. employed), wage earners, most merchants/traders, and small shop owners.
Below subsistence level - 28% - Includes some farm families, unattached widows, orphans, beggars, disabled, unskilled day laborers, and prisoners.
Recent Comments