How Poor was Jesus? and Mary's cousin Elizabeth?

[Tis_Bearself]

I have taken Colonial Cooking workshops where you prepare a meal the way people would have done it in the late 1700s. It takes all day, requires a ton of physical labor, and when you think about somebody doing that every day on top of washing and mending and tending the garden and the livestock, like women did, and caring for babies and young children on top of that, it’s a tough job.

I would imagine it was even harder in the year 1, in a much less fertile climate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Even on Elizabeth and her husband

What was their spirit of poverty ?

We know they lived devot holy lives and God blessed Zacharia with his wife with their son John

So was their lifestyle offensive to God ? Apparently not

Jim

 

[BartholomewB]

on top of washing and mending and tending the garden and the livestock, like women did, and caring for babies and young children on top of that, it’s a tough job.

And drawing water from the well, or from a river, or from the Sea of Galilee, and then carrying the water home in a bucket balanced on the top of your head. Every drop of water the household needed for everything, all day long …

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I learned in my workshops that colonial people pretty much didn’t wash their dishes because of that, having to draw/ carry water. They used a piece of bread to clean remnants from the plate…then they just used it again without washing for the next meal.
I would imagine when /if plates got really grungy they were washed eventually but it wasn’t a daily thing.

 

[billsherman]

While tekton can mean anything, many “scholars” are now saying he was a day laborer and had no real skills.

Which “scholars” are writing this?

“Tekton” can’t mean anything. Textual exegesis has broadly concluded that the word was used in the first century to refer to a skilled craftsman. This hasn’t been seriously challenged in years.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

“Tekton” can’t mean anything. Textual exegesis has broadly concluded that the word was used in the first century to refer to a skilled craftsman. This hasn’t been seriously challenged in years.

This was also my understanding, but I was hoping someone else would respond as I don’t want to monopolize the thread.

The Wikipedia definition of “tekton” in the article of the same name is as follows:

The Ancient Greek noun tektōn (τέκτων) is a common term for an artisan/craftsman, in particular a carpenter, wood-worker, mason, builder or teacher engineer. The term is frequently contrasted with an iron-worker, or smith.

Wiki articles on any sort of Biblical subject are frequently challenged, so I would imagine if there was some serious scholarly dispute over the meaning of the term, it would be in the article. The article does contain a discussion of whether the word “tekton” might be interpreted to mean a scholarly man generally and not necessarily a craftsman. But there is no suggestion that a “tekton” is some mere unskilled day laborer.

 

[mythbuster1]

True, the Torah leaves enforcement of the tithes and offerings up to God, though the Pharisees were certainly scrupulous about it, even to the point of tithing garden herbs. Many times, the prophets chided Israel for neglecting the Levites and offering bad sacrifices.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Well, Mary and Joseph were poor enough that Joseph offered two doves instead of lambs or cows at Jesus’ dedication at the temple.

True, even if their income was above average they may have given money/assets away to the poor. It does not matter what one earns but what one keeps to determine one’s lifestyle.

 

[Hodos]

I think we are also making way too many assumptions about how much a first century skilled laborer made in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. Quite frankly, it was probably still a fairly marginal existence. It is very evident that Jesus was extremely familiar with agricultural work, which I would suspect some or all of his immediate family hired themselves out as day laborers during the sowing and harvesting seasons in order to supplement the income that Joseph may have brought home. That’s just my opinion, but I think its a fairly decent assumption given how prominently and specifically agriculture plays in Jesus’ parables.

 

[ReaderT]

Like @John10 already said, Jesus lived in poverty. He had “no place to lay His head” (Luke 9:58).
He was simple and humble:

“Light is the property of a star, as simplicity and humility are the property of a holy and God-fearing person. Nothing distinguishes more clearly the disciples of Christ than a humble spirit and a simple way of life. The four Gospels should shout this aloud.” --St. Hesychios the Priest

 

[TMC]

Like @John10 already said, Jesus lived in poverty. He had “no place to lay His head” (Luke 9:58).
He was simple and humble:

I agree that Jesus was simple and humble, but I don’t agree that Luke 9:58 means that he lived in poverty. I don’t read that passage to mean that Jesus could not afford a place to live, but rather that following Jesus means forsaking the comforts of home.

 

[ReaderT]

I don’t read that passage to mean that Jesus could not afford a place to live, but rather that following Jesus means forsaking the comforts of home.

I’m no infallible interpreter of the Bible, but Jesus seems to be talking about his own condition here: “the Son of Man has no place to lay His [own] head”, that seems to mean he didn’t have a bed / house

 

[TMC]

I’m no infallible interpreter of the Bible, but Jesus seems to be talking about his own condition here: “the Son of Man has no place to lay His [own] head”, that seems to mean he didn’t have a bed / house

I read it in context with the rest of the passage, which is about what it takes to follow Jesus. But I am also not a biblical scholar.

 

[BartholomewB]

Jesus seems to be talking about his own condition here: “the Son of Man has no place to lay His [own] head”, that seems to mean he didn’t have a bed / house

This saying is not generally understood to mean that Jesus comes from a family background of poverty and homelessness. The usual interpretation is that Jesus’ purpose here is to chill the scribe’s enthusiasm by stressing the privations of the life he has chosen to lead as a wandering teacher.

 

[GEddie]

Even that is speculation.

For all Scripture tells us, SJ could have prospered in Egypt. Certainly as one of the richer Roman provinces (definitely relative to Judaea), there was building work there.

SJ was able to choose where he/BVM/IHS would live after Egypt. Those living hand to mouth don’t have that luxury.

No doubt they were less prosperous than the future Saint Peter (whose home in Kefar Nahum was huge even by 1900s standards), because SP wasn’t chased around the Mideast. But Scripture doesn’t say that IHS & family were ever particularly poor.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Mary888]

No doubt they were less prosperous than the future Saint Peter

When Christ collected His Apostles they left their previous life IMMEDIATELY. They did not say “wait, Lord, I have a huge house and family and such and such”. The Scripture tells us they followed Him immediately.
So it does not matter how huge St. Peter’s house, which he left, was.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, by the time of Luke 9, Jesus had willingly forsaken the comforts of his home to travel around preaching and curing people in his public life. He seems to have done a lot of couch-surfing. He did this partly to set an example for his Apostles and disciples whom he expected to live a similar life after his Ascension. There is no reason to think Jesus couldn’t have gotten a carpentry job or other work (he was literate, which would have opened some doors) and gone home to stay with his mother and possibly other family, as he presumably had been doing for his entire adult life up to age 30 when his public life began.

 

[BartholomewB]

As I understood the OP’s question, the intention was to ask about Jesus’ family background, not so much about the hardships he faced after he left home to become a wandering teacher.

 

[Mary888]

As I understood the OP’s question, the intention was to ask about Jesus’ family background, not so much about the hardships he faced after he left home to become a wandering teacher.

Yes. And my reply was referring to the fact that his family had to fortune, on His mother’s side, they had given it up to Temple.

 

[BartholomewB]

And my reply was referring to the fact that his family had to fortune, on His mother’s side, they had given it up to Temple.

Is that a known fact?