Economics & Revolt

How the rich got richer in a supposedly ‘closed’ 1st century economic environment.

In his book “The Ruling Class of Judea” Martin Goodman seeks to explain the many dynamics leading up to open revolt in Judea in 66AD. The revolt, he contends, was fueled by many fires, not the least of which was worsening economic conditions. Such conditions are eluded to in the Epistle of James, where he frequently gives counsel concerning the dynamics between the rich and the poor. Also, these New Testament Era economic dynamics should be kept in mind:

--A Jewish person confessing Jesus as the Messiah would likely be expelled from the Synagogue. (Jn 9;22, Jn 16:1-2). This would have REAL economic implications, as fellow Jews (even one’s own family) would be forbidden to have dealings with him/her.

--The decision of the Jerusalem Church to hold everything in “common” (Acts 2:44ff) was perhaps necessitated by the above situation. NOTE: the communal nature of the Jerusalem church was evidently not echoed in the more prominently Gentile congregations outside of Judea, but there are parallels to the Qumran community (the Essenes). In other words, choosing to live communally may have been both for economic reasons AND because the community had “apocalyptic” sentiments—meaning, they expected the end of the world to occur immanently.

--46-48AD there was a famine in Palestine. Congregations outside the area agreed to pool resources for assistance (see Acts 11:27ff), although the New Testament is unclear as to how many and what type of collections were taken.

Now to Goodman’s point…
He cites two sources of increased income during the era. First, thanks to the “pax Romana,” (the peace of Rome) it was safe to travel, thus enabling pilgrims from all over the empire to visit Jerusalem for religious festivals. Anyone who’s ever been to Frankenmuth MI, or any other “tourist town” will note that there’s always a vendor, or two, or twenty, making a buck off the tourists. In other words, those in and around Jerusalem who had money to begin with were able to make more thanks to the tourist/pilgrims.
Second, and somewhat more sinister, Goodman maintains that the upper strata were able to attain great wealth through “land grabs.” Being a peasant farmer on a tiny plot of land was a tough way to eek out a living, but there were many such people. Sadly, any number of things could put the “family farm” in jeopardy—unexpected illness or death, bad weather, etc. At such times, the peasant farmer had little choice but to borrow. Yet, any kin he may have would likely be just as poor and unable to lend. His only choice would be to turn to the upper strata of the aristocratic rich. Jewish law forbade charging interest on loans (though some did anyway), but money would be lent if the peasant farmer used his land as security. When or if he was unable to repay the loan, the rich creditor would seize the land and increase his already vast holdings. The end result is that the peasant farmer is reduced to the status of tenant farmer/renter (at best), or if desperate enough, he may turn to a life of banditry, as many did.
Goodman states: “That this was a prime route to extending landed property seems probable because there is plentiful evidence for the extent to which cash loans were made in first century Judea. The evidence that survives is mostly about the debtors in such transactions. These were the men who, the Rebels hoped, might be eager to join the revolt when the debt archive was burnt in Jerusalem in 66AD. But for every borrower there must be a lender, and the expected enthusiasm at the destruction of the archives makes it clear that no social ties existed between debtor and creditor.”
Goodman’s point about the absence of “social ties” goes to his central thesis, that by the time open revolt occurred, the Jewish ruling class of rich/landed elite (perhaps one or two percent of the total population) were viewed with the same loathsome hatred as Rome by the Rebel/Zealots and a growing number of rank and file peasants. In other words, to strike a blow at the ruling aristocracy was just as good as striking a blow against pagan Rome.