visit a jailed Christian leader. Meals, books, and money are sent to him, and
the local Christians spare neither expense nor effort to assist him. We may
also see an outsider’s view of Christian activities reflected in Tertullian’s
polemical boast against the pagans: “The practice of such a special love
brands us in the eyes of some. “See,” they say, “how they love one another”(for
they hate one another) “and how ready they are to die for each other”
(they themselves would be more ready to kill each other)” (Apol.39.7,
emphasis mine; see, further, Apol.42).
In order to assess the difference between Christian and pagan charity,
we have to consider what pagan charity was like (see Hands 1968; also
Phillips 1930, 8–14; R.M. Grant 1977, 100–101; Countryman 1980, 25–26,
103–14; Banks 1983, 317–18; Mullin 1984, 19–21; Garnsey and Woolf 1989,
154; Mitchell 1993, 2:81–83). There are two aspects to this issue: general
charity in the Greco-Roman world, and charity specifically in response to
illness. A simplification, but one that is basically true, is that the various
forms of Greco-Roman charity were motivated by philotimia(love of pub-
lic honour) rather than altruism; however, some philosophers (Cicero,
Seneca) advocated lack of concern for personal gain in philanthropic acts,
and some groups (Pythagoreans, Essenes, Therapeutae) had communal
sharing and common property. Nonetheless, whether we are considering
philanthropy, euergetism (doing good deeds), public benefactions and var-
ious sponsorships (e.g., doles, feasts, festivals and games, buildings), or gifts
from a patron to a dependent client, the evidence overwhelmingly sug-
gests that the majority of people undertaking these things did so for the
acclaim they would receive. Even the mutual support of voluntary associ-
ations was based on the principle of reciprocal return. Thus, L. William
Countryman (1980, 26) makes the interesting observation that the nou-
veaux richessought to imitate the established elite by demonstrating that
they, too, were public-spirited. Those who were not eligible for public office
still could benefit small groups of their fellow citizens by becoming patrons
of clubs.
The conventional modern assessment is that these people achieved
their reward in this life (honour, support in personal causes) whereas the
Christians expected heavenly (i.e., deferred) rewards. True enough, but to
a needy person receiving subsidized grain, a free meal, or access to the
gymnasium or baths, the benefits were as tangible as they would have
been if a Christian had done them. While the sick and the poor were not
targeted as recipients of Greco-Roman charity, they would have benefited
from these efforts from time to time. A pervasive expectation in Greco-
Roman society was that the wealthy and elite should contribute gener-
“Look How They Love One Another” 225