Michael Hudson is an economist for whom I have always had a lot of time, for a great many reasons.
He has a new book out this year. It's called ‘…And Forgive them their Debts: Credit and Redemption'. I like the idea. It's explosive. He argues that the real life Jesus (and whatever you might think about his status, I think there was a real life Jesus) did not teach about sex and sin. Hudson argues he taught about economics and debt. As is noted on his own blog:

”The Christianity we know today is not the Christianity of Jesus,” says Professor Hudson. Indeed the Judaism that we know today is not the Judaism of Jesus either.
The economist told Renegade Inc the Lord's Prayer, ‘forgive us our sins even as we forgive all who are indebted to us', refers specifically to debt.
“Most religious leaders say that Christianity is all about sin, not debt,” he says. “But actually, the word for sin and debt is the same in almost every language.”
”‘Schuld', in German, means ‘debt' as well as ‘offense' or, ‘sin'. It's ‘devoir' in French. It had the same duality in meaning in the Babylonian language of Akkadian.”
The idea harks back to the concept of ‘wergeld', which existed in parts of Europe and Babylonia, and set the value of a human life based on their rank, paid as compensation to the family of someone who has been injured or killed
”The payment — the Schuld or obligation — expiates you of the injury caused by the offense,” Dr Hudson said.
People tend to think of the Commandment ‘do not covet your neighbour's wife' in purely sexual terms but actually, the economist says it refers specifically to creditors who would force the wives and daughters of debtors into sex slavery as collateral for unpaid debt.
“This goes all the way back to Sumer in the third millennium,” he said.
Similarly, the Commandment ‘thou shalt not steal' refers to usury and exploitation by threat for debts owing.
Controversially he argues:

The economist says Jesus was crucified for his views on debt. Crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents.
”To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views,” says Professor Hudson. “He was a threat to the creditors.”
Jesus Christ was a socialist activist for the continuity of regular debt jubilees that were considered essential to the wellbeing of ancient economies.
I am well aware that this will offend some. Is it plausible. I offer this, from Luke, Chapter 4:
16 Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been raised. On the Sabbath he went to the synagogue as he normally did and stood up to read. 17 The synagogue assistant gave him the scroll from the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
19 and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.[e]
20 He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the synagogue assistant, and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed on him. 21 He began to explain to them, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled just as you heard it.”
Let me be quite clear: I am not seeking to convert anyone to anything. I am seeking to discuss the importance of a particular religious understanding and its role and impact on our society.
Is Hudson right? I think it plausible. And just read the Lord's Prayer in this light (this is from the same modern translation that I used above, from Luke 11):
2 Jesus told them, “When you pray, say:
‘Father, uphold the holiness of your name.
Bring in your kingdom.
3 Give us the bread we need for today.
4 Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who has wronged us.
And don't lead us into temptation.'”
Why not bring in your kingdom is it meant a debt jubilee? And then read sin as debt. And daily bread as the means to survive. And what have you got? Hudson's hypothesis. And then we might have a Christianity obsessed with true justice and not, as it has been for too many for far too long, sexual repression. That is interesting, I think.
I am looking forward to the book.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“And then we might have a Christianity obsessed with true justice and not, as it has been for too many for far too long, sexual repression.” Not to mention the oppression of women, heretics, non-believers etc. I have long been dismayed by the way religious figures largely ignore issues of social and economic justice which they should be shouting about from their pulpits if not the roof tops. They are part of the Establishment.
I think it was Gore Vidal who thought Christianity was an ideal belief system in the eyes of the powerful for it preached salvation in the hereafter and not the present and that we lesser mortals just had to put up with our oppression until then.
There’s no doubt in my mind Jesus was a revolutionary who was crucified for his dangerous economic and political ideas. You can kill men but you can’t kill ideas – for that you require spin and distraction and there’s nothing as distracting as sex.
Thus, 2,000 years later, the greatest empire the world has ever known is consumed by culture wars that hinge around gender, sexuality and race while ignoring class, economics and climate/ecology. Fiddling while Rome burns.
I first came across this subject matter in Hudson’s book ‘Killing the Host’ where he talks of debt jubilees in Jewish culture, and how both Christianity and Islam took a dim view of usury (interest on money lent).
Apparently these attitudes also existed in societies (as traditions) long before the Abrahamic religions and were passed on to them as ancient wisdom as to how to manage the economy.
I also read in Hudson’s book that The Temple was used to produce money in some cases. If this is the case, then here we have money being produced with moral authority – not just under the guise of commerciality or just a tool to aid trade. The prospect of such morality in the production of money to me is amazing. And reinforces why a courageous government or ruler is justified in printing it for its people.
I am not religious at all but I have friends who are and I have been telling them that although I do not fundamentally believe in the concept of God, I believe in the concept of Jesus – not as the son of God – but as a radical who knew that something was not quite right in his time and sought to do something about it. Jesus to me now (devoid of the religious element) is about justice and fairness. And common sense.
In Michael Moore’s film ‘Capitalism – A Love Affair’ – the film maker from a Catholic background and whom once wanted to be a priest interviews a number of priests. Not one of them supports the current capitalist system and all of them believe that Jesus would have had something to say about it. He would have opposed it.
As an atheist I am particularly struck by this statement attributed to Jesus in a booklet called ‘Who Do You Say I am?’ (Catherine Butcher, 2017).
‘Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out by religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me – watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly’ (p.56).
What is not to like about this? I do not believe in a God. But from what I have read of Jesus I whole heartedly approve and support what he has to say. Devoid of religiosity his words are good, reasonable and sensible propositions for the human race.
Does this make me a follower?
It might – but not in a religious way. I follow this blog because I largely agree with what is being proposed here and would love to see the ideas here tried .
Our political and economic systems are a mess that just pile on misery to those who have the least means.
Money is becoming more evil in my view. Something that was created merely to enable trade has now become THE false God in the rich of societies around the world. And a source therefore of malevolent power.
I too look forward to this book but I have been wrestling with his essay ‘The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations’ (1993) since reading Killing the Host and that is a real eye opener in itself. We must take this stuff seriously and ask why we have the world we have now.
I’d be very interested in what the C of E has to say about the book.
I suspect they will ignore it….
“I’d be very interested in what the C of E has to say about the book.”
When you say C of E , Pilgrim are you referring to the Tory Party at prayer? If so I suspect Richard’s response is probably close.
A belated Happy New Year to Richard and all readers.
The 1382 vernacular translation of the Lord’s Prayer by John Wycliffe (Hipswell 1331 – Lutterworth 1384),
“forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”.
Unfortunately it did not end well for Wycliffe either!
As Michael Hudson suggests is commonplace
David Graeber’s Debt: the First Five Thousand Years has interesting things to say on this topic.
Andrew:
I just finished Graeber’s book. Excellent read, highly recommend it.
Many internet MMTers have slated David for not understanding MMT. I think he gets it perfectly. He just understands an awful lot more besides! His recourse to actual anthropological evidence on the way different societies conceptualise money and debt is a breath of fresh air in a field chock full of fairy tales and just-so-stories.
OK – thanks for the recommendation – yet another book on the list.
Fr Chris Fitzpatrick once gave a wonderful sermon on Jesus & the moneylenders. Why, he asked, did Jesus suddenly become so incensed by the moneylenders, who had been in the temple for many years? why, in fact, were moneylenders in the temple at all?
His answer was that the guardians of the temple expected monetary offerings. That obviously wasn’t possible for the poor rural people who dealt exclusively in livestock. Therefore, those people had to queue up at what was less a moneylender than an exchange to get their cows, sheep & goats ~weighed & exchanged for coinage. If you think about it,its obvious that you would’nt want people actually bringing their animals into the temple.
Fr Chris argued that Jesus must have become incensed at the way the moneylenders were treating the farmers. Offering very poor rates per Cow, Sheep or Goat & taking a massive commission for themselves. As a rural man Jesus knew how much it cost to bring those animals to market & how the peasants were being ripped off by the slick city dwellers.
Anyway…it sounds plausible to me
And me
Jesus had very, very little to say about sex. I can think of only two verses in the New Testament to that effect.
He had a lot to say about fair dealing in business and the need to provide for widows and the poor.
I will leave it to the reader to speculate why it is that wealthy and poweful Christians with an authoritarian streak are happy for you to believe that Jesus was first and foremost an authority on sexual morality.
Bonus scriptural snippet: the harshest moral admonition in the Bible – “The Sin cries out to heaven for vengeance” – is pronounced for only four offences against God and Man: wilful murder; the sin of Sodom – a list of failings which includes refusal of hospitality as much as sexual perversion; oppressing the poor; and depriving the workman of his wage.
In short: performative Christianity in politics and business bases itself on selective readings of the canonical Christian texts. We should all be more forthright in rebutting this flimsy rationalisation over immoral acts, and their Bible is as good a place to start as any.
Agreed
Ah – but perhaps Jesus was a Tory: “To those that have shall be given; from those that have not shall be taken away”
I confess I never took that at straight reading
My tongue was well in my cheek when I wrote this.
And talking of a Tory Jesus, was it not the Great Thatcher who pointed out that the Good Samaritan could only do his neighbourly deed because he had the money – and so could give aid to a fellow businessman?
I am being ironic, note.
A more socialist Jesus may be heard in the statement that one cannot serve God and Mammon.
And not to store up treasures on earth where rust and moth will rot them, but rather in heaven…….. etc.
The ‘beauty’ of any script based theology is that it is open to wide interpretation.
There is something for everyone in the Bible (not a book, but a library)- from instruction on the principle and practice of genocide to the invocation to Love thy neighbour as thyself.
George Bernard Shaw’s ‘The Black Girl in Search of God’ is an interesting read.
One could just as sensibly create a religious tradition around the collected works of Shakespeare. Indeed in many respects it could work rather better than the Bible if only because the tales are of more recent societies.
The film ‘Zardoz’ (not the greatest work of the genre of cinema) posits a future world where the wiZARDof OZ is the seminal religious book. (The story of what the Wizard of Oz is actually about, incidentally is fascinating. It’s apparently all about the iniquities and inequities of the financial system. The Yellow Brick road being a symbol of the gold standard and the three characters representing the industries of agriculture, (Scarecrow) manufacturing (Tin Man) and the military(?) (Lion). You’ll find it on Utube somewhere. If I’ve roused your curiosity. Highly recommended.
Mike
Discuss: “To those who have” etc in the light of the Beatitudes and the Magnificat.
Sounds like a good book. I shall look forward to reading it alongside the work of the Bruderhofer, Philip Britts, edited by Jennifer Harries.
I am no learned scholar to opine as to whether Jesus meant “debt” or “sin” in the Lord’s prayer; but I do agree that he was concerned with social justice: “what you do for the least of these you do for me”. And he said very little about sexual morality but repeated the injunction to “love one another” – and our “neighbour” – many, many times. What is “love” but to want the very best for someone, to respect them deeply, and to care for their wellbeing. And “our neighbour” is basically anyone we meet. A society based on those principles would incorporate the policies you are advocating in this blog, Richard. Keep up the good work!
I am no expert in religious matters but I have kept up an interest in Latin and Greek since school. So I looked up the original versions. In the Latin version the words used are ‘debita’ and ‘debitoribus’ which clearly mean ‘debt’ and ‘debtors’ not trespass and trespassers or sins and sinners. And in the original Greek the words are ‘opheilemata’ – ‘what is owed’ and ‘opheiletais’ ‘those who owe’ which are again debts and debtors. Interestingly the translation of ‘forgive’ may also be a bit iffy. The original Greek uses ‘aphiemi’ the normal word used to cancel or release someone from a debt. In the Latin it is ‘dimitte…debita mostra.’ Clearly meaning ‘dismiss our debts.’ Using ‘forgive’ is not unreasonable when talking about debts but the word is more usual in a moral context in English. In both Latin and Greek the words were common in a legal or financial context.
Thank you
Alan McGowan says:
January 8 2018 at 9:18 pm
“I am no expert in religious matters but I have kept up an interest in Latin and Greek since school. So I looked up the original versions.”
Hmmmm…. for original let’s agree possibly ‘earliest extant versions’ at best. But I don’t disagree with the thrust of what you are saying.
The ‘literal’ truth, ie that which is written down has a great hold on the imagination of the people. See Richard’s blog on the power of spurious ‘authority’ of the garbage that spews forth form the mass media. Specifically in that case The Telegraph.
Biblical Logic Opposing USURY
If there is no God, then there is no objective right and wrong.Â
If God does exist, opinions are not authoritative, else
humankind’s power (desire) is determinative; what does
God think on the issue? Christians say, look to Biblical veracity.
 (1) We are all obligated to live into God’s will/justice.
 (2) God’s will/justice is expressed in the Bible.
 (3) Bible opposes mammon[1]
 including usury and usurious behavior.
 (4) Therefore, the practice of usury is against God’s will, or is objectively wrong.
To resist this reasoning, one must deny either that
 (2) God’s will/justice is expressed in the Bible. Or else deny that
 (3) the Bible opposes mammon including usury and usurious behavior.
_________________
  *http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-24.htm
[1] Matthew 6:24 — You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than [to] the other. You cannot serve both God and money [i.e. “mammon” as riches, or anything in which you trust and on which you rely; per Amplified Bible]. (the poverty and justice bible, biblesociety.org.uk; contemporary English version 2008)
“Biblical Logic Opposing USURY”
Which just goes to show why one is on a hiding to nothing arguing with a person holding a faith-based position.