Aaryaman Sheoran,

September 14, 2016,

FHS 10.1: Poverty, Wealth, and Social Change

A study on Ancient Society and Wealth: Greek, Roman, and Jewish

Justo L. Gonzales, in his book, Faith and Wealth: A history of early Christian Ideas on the
Origin, Significance and Use of Money examines the Greek, Roman and Jewish ideas
towards society, poverty, and government while describing their differneces. He clearly
writes in the modern world, with an emphasis on comparing social attitudes of different
periods.
The book displays how the ideas of philosophers developed over time into todays complex
financial system. Gonzales argues that the three systems of thought varied immensely and
had numerous divisions within them. To this end, he describes the various Greek, Roman and
Jewish philosophers who contributed to the discussion on The Meaning of wealth and the
manner in which it should be acquired, employed, and distributed (3)
Describing the Greeks, Gonzales insists that the majority of Greek philosophers focused on
the role of wealth to create the ideal state. This was the source of great disagreement between
the thinkers, some of whom wanted strong state governing the populace, while others
supported the idea of a natural state. All philosophers did however agree on the fact that an
excess of concentrated wealth was detrimental to the state and strong limits to cap wealth
should be implemented. This attitude stemmed from the fact that the Greeks saw wealth as
corrupting and a distraction from the accumulation of wisdom. However, to achieve these
goals, there existed multiple routes. Plato advocated a communist state where all property and
human would be held in common to each other, divided into four different classes. (5-6)
Aristotle refuted this, calling for the existence of private property. According to him, this
would create a strong middle class which would act as the backbone of the state. (8)
Adding to the divisions were the cynics, who believed that the state should be anarchist, and
the stoics, who differentiated wants into those that should be fulfilled and those which are

Aaryaman Sheoran,
September 14, 2016,
FHS 10.1: Poverty, Wealth, and Social Change
unnatural. (12) This illustrates Gonzales point about multiple different points of view within
the same civilization.
Gonzales writing about the Roman and Jewish intellectuals presents a lot more homogeneity.
He asserts that in the Roman Empire, it was not the business of the state to be concerned for
their needs. (19) Wealth in the Roman Empire was not seen as an evil and conspicuous
consumption was accepted, if not encouraged. This view was echoed by Roman philosophers,
who defend private property rights jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus abtundi with a surprising
zeal and condone the beggaring the poor as it allows wealth to be concentrated in more
worthy hands. Wealth, rather than poverty, was the virtue to be sought, and taxes were
regressive. This in turn made the rich richer and the poor worse off. (16) In Rome, taxes were
seen as a burden and were not meant to redistribute wealth but in fact were seen as punitive
and a sign of conquest. (19)
In contrast to this, the Jewish school of thought had a strong religious influence behind it.
This meant that all societal actions were guided by the tanakh. Consequently, property rights
were a lot more limited and society was geared to help the needy. An abuse of private
property was seen as an affront to the Holy Land, as all property was directly owned by God.
In Jewish society, Gonzales argues that God had particular concern for the poor. (21)
Specific allowances were made for the poor, which included re-distribution of wealth in kind,
and anyone who needed food or drink could take it from a field in moderation. Furthermore,
along with the rights of God and the rights of the property, Jewish society also placed upon
property the rights of the needy, which allowed the destitute a share of the gains from all
property. (23)

Aaryaman Sheoran,
September 14, 2016,
FHS 10.1: Poverty, Wealth, and Social Change
Therefore, it is easy to see the differences between the cultures and their attitudes towards
wealth and its concentration. Greek beliefs vilified wealth, roman attitudes celebrated it, and
Jewish principles encouraged a system of compassionate wealth.
That said, all three societies have remarkable similarities in their abhorrence for usury, which
is similar to Islam. Indeed, some similarities can be found between Judaism and Hinduism
too, as Hinduism encourages its disciples to make the most of all opportunities given to create
wealth, while maintaining a positive social karma, much like Judaism. Thus, it is fair to
argue that ancient views towards poverty and wealth were considerably varied, but did find
some common ground.