Jesus was not an egalitarian. A critique of an anachronistic and idealist theory

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2002 by John H. Elliott

Definitions of "Egalitarian," "Equal," and "Equality"

Since an understanding of the terms "egalitarian," "equal," "equality" is basic to any egalitarian argument, it will be best to commence with some definitions, so as to clarify these key terms at the outset. Such a procedure, of course, is self-evident, but surprisingly is not to be found in any of the writings of the egalitarian theorists.

"Egalitarian" is defined in THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1987, s.v.) as "1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life." As a noun it denotes "a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs, "a use first attested in 1880-85. The English term derives from the French egalitaire, egalite, which in turn derive from the Latin aequalis (from aequare, "to make level or equal") or from aequus, meaning "even," "equal" (WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, s.v.). For the term "equal" RHDEL gives as the first four meanings "1. as great as; the same as ... 2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc. 3. evenly proportioned or balanced ... 4. uniform in operation or effect." WNCD gives as meanings "exactly the same in measure, quantity, number or degree"; or "like in value, quality, status, or position"; or "characterized by justice, fair"; or "level," or "evenly balanced or proportioned"; or "having competent power, abilities, or means." "Equal" denotes "one having the same or a similar age, rank, station, talents, strength etc." The noun "equality" (from the Latin, aequalitas) is defined as the "character or condition of being equal"(WNCD) as well as "correspondence in quality, degree, value, rank, or ability" (RHDEL). The related, but distinguishable term "equity" (from Old French equite and ultimately the Latin, aequus, aequalitas) is defined in WNCD as "1. The state or quality of being equal or fair; fairness in dealing; 2. That which is equitable or fair."

Sociological dictionaries add salient sociological considerations. "Equality" is defined as "similarity of social status, rights, responsibilities, opportunities; an ideal principle realizable so far as social structure is concerned but conflicting with the results of the principles of liberty and competition, which lead to social selection, gradation, inequality. There is equal opportunity to become equal. Equality is a goal of social capillarity; the elite are not interested." (Fairchild, s.v.). "Egalitarianism," in turn is defined here as "The doctrine that all so-called social classes contain approximately the same relative proportions of genius, talent, mediocrity and defectiveness." (Fairchild, s.v.).

One thing that these definitions make clear is that "equal" and "equality" can, according to context, denote either exact sameness, on the one hand, or similarity, on the other. Second, "equal" can also have the sense of "fair," a quality determined not by mathmatical exactness or even similarity, but by some other social or cultural standard of measurement. In this case, "equal" has the sense of "equitable." Third, "equality" has meaning with reference to some quality such as age, talents, strength, social rank or station, economic class, political or legal status, or rights, reponsibilities or opportunity. Finally, social scientific discussion of equality notes that the conception of equality as a possibility for all human society did not arise until the 18th century with its altered economic, social and political conditions and its secular optimism concerning the possibility of social transformation. The process of such transformation led from a notion of "the basic equality of membership in a society" in the eighteenth century "to include political rights in the nineteenth century and certain social rights in the twentieth century." (Halsey 1989: 261-62). On "equality" and "egalitarianism" (criteria and instances) see also Tawney 1931; Oppenheim and Kristol (1968: 102-11).