In Roman society, the upper classes operated according to their own social “common sense” that determined how they viewed themselves in contrast to people with less money, less prestige, and less power. Their social values and self-presentation, which would later be at odds with certain Christian teachings, were not monolithic: in some contexts, Roman writers idealized austere peasants and criticized the extravagantly wealthy; at other times, any association with agricultural or manual labor would be an easy way to attack an enemy or dismiss a rival. Roman writers of the first and second centuries CE reflected (and helped to establish) the conventional ideas about social and economic status, which would be the starting points for upper-class worldviews in Late Antiquity. In addition to sharing much of the mindset of the broader society, Christian writers in the early Empire also drew upon Jewish and Christian sacred texts when they discussed issues related to economic disparity and social hierarchy. This chapter will examine these conventional Roman social attitudes and then turn to focus on the early Christians. The contrast between how upper-class Roman writers and early Christian writers (many of whom were also from well-off backgrounds) viewed social and economic divisions – such as the value they placed on manual labor – will provide the basis for examining how the social “common sense” would change in Late Antiquity.

Christian scriptures raised questions about the prevailing social order by proclaiming that the meek would inherit the earth, the exalted would be humbled, and the wise of this world would be cast down. Jesus message was initially spread by manual labors who lacked the credentials that typically proved one’s spiritual or cultural authority. But, by the mid-fourth century, Christianity did not seem to pose a threat to the status quo. Well-off Christians continued to maintain their high status and to express their advantages through their behavior and appearance. Likewise, Christian communities did not rally for social reversals on earth, nor did they expect their leaders to be manual laborers like the apostles. The domestication of socially disruptive Christian teachings that had begun with the second- and third-century apologists continued in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, when a generation of influential church leaders produced what would become the standard answers about many questions on doctrine and biblical interpretation. In order to understand the factors at play when these theologians and preachers dealt with the social critique embedded within their religious tradition, it is necessary to take into account their social and economic backgrounds, as well as the prevailing upper-class attitudes toward wealth, poverty, social status, and manual labor.

During the lengthy, complex, and uneven process of Christianization in Late Antiquity, various aspects of “common sense” were changing. Recent studies of attitudes about sexuality, wealth and poverty, and slavery have examined how worldviews adjusted while traditional Roman culture was absorbing Christian values, and vice versa. This book aims to contribute to these discussions by examining the friction between the traditional social values of the Roman elite and the potential social radicalism of Christian teachings. How did upper-class Christian authorities make sense of their own social, economic, and cultural privileges while embracing a religious tradition founded by carpenters and fishermen? What social values did well-born Christian writers exhibit or promote when they addressed each other and laypeople in their letters and treatises? What social values did they exhibit or promote when they addressed laypeople in their sermons?

Some of the teachings of the New Testament were far from intuitive for members of the Roman upper class. For instance, Paul’s attention to the social position of God’s messengers might have seemed peculiar to well-off, educated bishops in Late Antiquity.

In a letter included in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine and in Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, the emperor expressed his concern about widespread discussions of theology. Constantine viewed the debates as the result of “unprofitable idleness.” If qualified authorities wanted to examine theological questions, they needed to do so in private.

When church leaders discussed the apostles and called attention to their low social standing, they were dealing with new ideas about equality and respect for lower-class people – new, that is, to Greek and Roman social thought. The social values and understanding of virtue based on biblical teachings meant that upper-class, educated Christian leaders sometimes promoted ideas that challenged their own claims to authority. In many cases, though, in addition to their development of new social ideas, we also see how upper-class Christian leaders in Late Antiquity tended to accommodate the bible’s most radical social critiques or proclamations (such as the call to renounce private property or to reject worldly wisdom) into something less threatening to existing social, economic, and cultural hierarchies. Instead of attempting to dismantle their own society, they could point to the emerging ascetic movement as the right way to enact the egalitarian ideals of the bible. The potential upheaval of honoring the lowly and asking the elite to renounce their power and prestige could instead be ordered within the confines of ascetic communities and overseen by church authorities. Asceticism made the new virtues of a simple life and a humble attitude more accessible to upper-class Christians and less threatening to social order.

Late antique authors sometimes described humility (tapeinophrosynē; humilitas) as the key to all other virtues and good deeds. John Chrysostom’s praise for this virtue was particularly emphatic: humility was the “mother, and root, and nurse, and foundation, and bond of all good things: without this we are abominable, and execrable, and polluted.” The admonitions of the Jewish prophets made the importance of this virtue clear, and the central narrative of the New Testament reinforced it. The belief that God humbled himself by becoming human and then chose working class people as his messengers was at the core of the Christian understanding of humility.

Chapter 2 examines the production and exchange of oil and wine during the Minoan Palatial era. By comparing the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial periods, it is possible to see changes to commensal exchange, gift exchange, and commercial exchange that suggest an increase in the dependency between people and these two commodities.