Cultural and historical background of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A series of articles on |
|
Jesus Christ and Christianity |
|
Non-religious aspects |
|
Perspectives on Jesus |
|
Jesus in culture |
-
This article — a part of the Jesus and history series of articles — discusses the cultural and historical background of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, without regard to his divinity, or to his existence as an actual historical figure.
The story of the cultural and historical background of Jesus is the story of a tempestuous time when Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity first diverged. As historian E. P. Sanders has observed, of all the religions that existed within the Roman Empire, only two have widespread followings today, namely Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, both of which have their origins in Roman-occupied Palestine/Israel (the Levant region, Iudaea Province), both of which claim to be based on the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and the historical experience of the Jewish people.
According to the Gospels, Jesus lived in Judea and the Galilee (modern day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan) around the first half of the first century. Most Christians of all denominations take the Gospels to be a reliable and (largely or wholly) accurate account of Jesus' life. However, there are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others who agree that Jesus lived, but do not accept the Gospels as a literal account of his life.
This article is based largely on the scholarship of this latter group, which includes most critical Bible scholars[1] and historians, who accept the Gospels are valid historical sources, but examine them critically, as they would any other historical source. In particular, they reject supernatural elements such as miracles and exorcisms; and view the Gospels as written from the point of view of, and in order to support, the emergence of an orthodox Christianity between 100 - 300 CE, also called Early Christianity.
Many scholars and other students of the life of Jesus feel that an account of his life must be viewed, and can only make sense when placed, within his historical and cultural context, rather than purely in terms of Christian orthodoxy. Such a study foregrounds the forces which were at play in the Jewish and Roman cultures at that time, and the tensions, trends, and changes in the region under the influence of Hellenism and Roman occupation.
Contents
|
[edit] First Temple Era
The ancient land of Israel (also called the land of Canaan, Palestine and Judea and Samaria) is situated on the easternmost coast of the Mediterranean, the westernmost part of the Fertile Crescent. Historically a crossroads for intercontinental trade, it was situated between the ancient empires of Egypt to the south, Greece and later Rome to the northwest, and Assyria, Babylonia, and later Persia to the east. The settlement of this area by various groups, including Canaanites and Phoenecians, and the origins of the ancient Israelites is a complex and much-debated topic; see History of ancient Israel and Judah. This geographical area is relatively small, perhaps only 100 miles north to south and 40 or 50 miles east to west.
In the 1st century, when Jesus was supposed to have lived, most Jews were impoverished and politically marginalized. Various Jewish elites and social movements, grappling with both their own heterogeneous beliefs and practices and Hellenistic culture, and in competition for secular and religious power, argued over religious and politically significant issues such as the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God. These institutions and issues had their origins some centuries earlier, around 1000-586 BCE, in the so-called "First Temple Era".
[edit] Priests and Kings
The religion of ancient Israel, like those of most ancient Near Eastern societies, centered on a Temple, served by a caste of priests, who sacrificed offerings to their god. Priests (Kohens) claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, which was believed to have been appointed by God to care for the Tabernacle and perform the priestly rituals. During the First Temple Era the priests were limited to their work in the Temple; political power officially rested in the hands of a king who was believed to rule by divine right.
In ancient Israel, as in most societies at that time, the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy. According to the Hebrew Bible, the first Israelite king was Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, although the tribe of Judah anointed Saul's protegeé and son-in-law, David as their own king after Saul's and his son's death in the battle with the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:2-10; 2 Samuel 2:4). After David reigned over Judah seven years and six months, he became king of all the tribes of Israel for thirty-three years (2 Samuel 5:1-5).
According to the Hebrew Bible, God told the prophet Nathan of his love for David and his descendants, and had Nathan convey these assurances to David:
- Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever. (II Sam 7:11-16)
Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26–27 refer to David as the son of God; most interpret the word "son" in these contexts metaphorically, in accordance with usual ancient Hebrew poetic style, to mean that God loved David and that there would be a descendant of David who would be as a son to God, either spiritually, or in terms of love, or pleasing to God, rather than literally. Geza Vermes has argued that the term "son of God" was often used to refer to the monarch.
The religious authority of the priests was also formalized at the time the First Temple was constructed, around 950 BCE, when the high priest Zadok anointed David's son Solomon king, and was legitimized and limited by the monarchy.
After the death of Solomon, his kingdom fragmented in civil war into two kingdoms, being the Kingdom of Israel, which was destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BCE in the North, and the Kingdom of Judah (capital Jerusalem) in the Center and South. (The terms "United Kingdom" and "Divided Kingdoms" are often used respectively when discussing this period, to denote respectively the united kingdom in the time of David and Solomon, and the twin separate kingdoms that followed)
Both the Temple and the Davidic Monarchy were destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, when most Jews were forced into exile.
[edit] Prophets
In most ancient Near Eastern societies sacrifice was the primary form of worship, and many such societies also had myths about gods as well as laws which they believed were given to them by gods. The Children of Israel similarly had sacred texts (which would later be redacted into the Torah), which they believed were written by prophets under divine inspiration, or dictated by God himself.
In addition to being lawgivers and social reformers, various prophets also forcefully criticized the king, elites, or the masses and provided visions of a better life (stories about, and writings purportedly by, these prophets were eventually redacted into the Tanakh in the Second Temple Era). In the south (the kingdom of Judah, or Judea), the tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern. In the north (the kingdom of Israel), it was epitomized by Elijah and Elisha, who healed people and performed other miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (Crossan 1992: 137-167). These prophets were a potent political force.
Orlinsky, in W.H. Allen's World History of the Jewish People, comments:
- The seer-priests located at shrines and the roving bands (of the kind associated with Elijah and Elisha) depended for a living mainly on the relatively stable agricultural elements, the landed gentry and the petty farmer; and when the monarchy came along they were anti-monarchical in principle... The seer-priest began to lose ground as first the United and then the Divided Kingdom established itself. This was true far more in Judah, where the Davidic dynasty became firmly established, than in Israel to the North where different circumstances prevented any dynasty from maintaining itself for more than a generation or two. Thus "Gad the prophet" was David's "visionary" just as Nathan served Solomon as prophet and Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun were his visionaries. It appears the reign, and even the very person, of Solomon dealt the power of the seer-priests a very heavy blow. The Bible makes clear that this monarch himself constituted priest and diviner (as well as merchant, government head, etc), as witness his central role in offering sacrifices to God and in receiving dream-messages from Him.
[edit] Second Temple Era
[edit] The Persian Period
In 539 BCE the Persians conquered Babylon and in 537 BCE, inaugurated the Persian period of Jewish history. In 520 BCE Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple (completed 515 BCE). He appointed Zerubbabel (the grandson of the second to last Judean king, Jehoiachin) governor, but did not allow the restoration of the kingdom. The influence of Zoroastrianism on monotheism, Judaism, as well as Christianity are still the subject of academic debate.
Without the constraining power of the monarchy, the authority of the Temple was amplified, and priests became the dominant authority. However, the Second Temple had been constructed under the auspices of a foreign power, and there were lingering questions about its legitimacy. This provided the condition for various sects to develop within Judaism over the coming centuries, each of which claimed to represent "Judaism". Most of these typically discouraged social intercourse, especially marriage, with members of other sects.
The end of the Babylonian Exile saw not only the construction of the Second Temple, but, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, the final redaction of the Torah as well. Although the priests controlled the monarchy and the Temple, scribes and sages (who later became the rabbis) monopolized the study of the Torah, which (starting from the time of Ezra) was read publicly on market-days. These sages developed and maintained an oral tradition alongside of the Holy Writ, and identified with the prophets. According to Geza Vermes, such scribes were often addressed using a basic term of respect, "lord."
[edit] The Hellenistic Period
The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began in 332 BCE when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Upon his death in 323 BCE, his empire was divided among his generals. At first, Judea was ruled by the Egyptian-Hellenic Ptolemies, but in 198 BCE,the Syrian-Hellenic Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus III, seized control over Judea.
The Hellenistic Period saw the canonization of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and the emergence of extra-Biblical sacred traditions. The earliest evidence of a Jewish mysticism tradition surrounds the book of Ezekiel, written during the Babylonian Exile. Virtually all known mystical texts, however, were written at the end of the Second Temple period. Scholars like Gershom Scholom have discerned within the esoteric traditions of the Kabbalah(Jewish Mysticism, which were restricted to sages), the influence of Persian beliefs, Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism.
2 Esdras 14:45-46, which was written in the second century CE, declares: "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people." This is the first known reference to the canonized Hebrew Bible, and the seventy non-canonical texts may have been mystical; the Talmud suggests other mystical traditions which may have their roots in Second Temple Judaism.
The Near East was cosmopolitan, especially during the Hellenistic period. Several languages were used, and the matter of the lingua franca is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke Aramaic among themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed throughout the entire eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Judaism was rapidly changing, reacting and adapting to a larger political, cultural, and intellectual world, and in turn drawing the interests of non-Jews. Historian Shaye Cohen observed:
- All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an island unto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term "Hellenistic Judaism" makes sense, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic." (Cohen 1987: 37)
[edit] Cultural Struggles with Hellenism
Many Jews lived in the Diaspora, and the Judean provinces of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee were populated by many Gentiles (who often showed an interest in Judaism). Jews had to grapple with the values of Hellenism and Hellenistic philosophy, which were often directly at odds with their own values and traditions. Broadly, Hellenistic culture saw itself as a civilizor, bringing civilized values and ways to peoples they thought of as insular or either backwards or degenerate.
For example, Greek-style bath houses were built in sight of the Temple in Jerusalem, for instance, and even in that city the gymnasium became a center of social, athletic, and intellectual life. Many Jews, including some of the more aristocratic priests, embraced these institutions, although Jews who did so were often looked down upon due to their circumcision, which Jews saw as the mark of their covenant with God, but which Gentiles viewed as an aesthetic defacement of the body. Consequently, some Jews began to abandon the practice of circumcision (and thus their covenant with God), while others bridled at Greek domination.
At the same time that Jews were confronting the cultural differences at their door, they had to confront a paradox in their own tradition: their Torah laws applied only to them, but their God, they believed, was the one and only God of all. This situation led to new interpretations of the Torah, some of which were influenced by Hellenic thought and in response to Gentile interest in Judaism. It was in this period that many concepts from early Greek philosophy entered or influenced Judaism, as well as debates and sects within the religion and culture of the time.
[edit] Political Struggles with Hellenism
Generally, the Jews accepted foreign rule when they were only required to pay tribute, and otherwise allowed to govern themselves internally. Nevertheless, Jews were divided between those favoring hellenization and those opposing it, and were divided over allegiance to the Ptolemies or Seleucids. When the High Priest Simon II died in 175 BCE, conflict broke out between supporters of his son Onias III (who opposed hellenization, and favored the Ptolemies) and his son Jason (who favored hellenization, and favored the Seleucids). A period of political intrigue followed, with priests such as Menelaus bribing the king to win the High Priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war.
Huge numbers of Jews flocked to Jason's side, and in 167 BCE the Seleucid king Antiochus IV invaded Judea, entered the Temple, and stripped it of money and ceremonial objects. Jason fled to Egypt, and Antiochus imposed a program of forced hellenization, requiring Jews to abandon their own laws and customs under threat of slaughter. At this point Mattathias and his five sons, John, Eleazar, Simon, Jonathan, and Judah Maccabee, priests of the Hasmon family[2] living in the rural village of Modein (pronounced "Mo-Ah-Dein"), assumed leadership of a bloody and ultimately successful revolt against the Seleucids.
Judah liberated Jerusalem in 165 BCE and restored the Temple. Fighting continued, and Judah and his brother Jonathan were killed. In 141 BCE an assembly of priests and others affirmed Simon as high priest and leader, in effect establishing the Hasmonean dynasty. When Simon was killed in 135 BCE, his son (and Judah's nephew) John Hyrcanus took his place as high priest and king.
[edit] The Hasmonean Period
After defeating the Seleucid forces, John Hyrcanus established a new monarchy in the form of the priestly Hasmonean[2] dynasty in 152 BCE — thus establishing priests as political as well as religious authorities. Although the Hasmoneans were popularly seen as heroes and leaders for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the religious legitimacy conferred by descent from the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era.
[edit] The Emergence of the Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees
The rift between the priests and the sages grew during the Hellenistic period, when the Jews faced new political and cultural struggles. Around this time the Sadducee party emerged as the party of the priests and allied elites (the name Sadducee comes from Zadok, the high priest of the first Temple).
The Essenes were another early mystical-religious movement, who are believed to have rejected either the Seleucid appointed high priests, or the Hasmonean high priests, as illegitimate. Ultimately, they rejected the Second Temple, arguing that the Essene community was itself the new Temple, and that obedience to the law represented a new form of sacrifice.
Although their lack of concern for the Second Temple alienated the Essenes from the great mass of Jews, their notion that the sacred could exist outside of the Temple was shared by another group, the Pharisees ("separatists"), based within the community of scribes and sages. The meaning of the name is unclear; it may refer to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power.
During the Hasmonean period, the Sadducees and Pharisees functioned primarily as political parties (the Essenes not being as politically oriented). The political rift between the Sadducees and Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai choose between being king and being High Priest in the traditional manner. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. Alexander was succeeded by his widow, whose brother was a leading Pharisee. Upon her death her elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and her younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.
[edit] The Roman Period
| Topics in Roman government | |
|---|---|
| Roman Kingdom | |
| Roman Republic | |
| Roman Empire | |
| Principate | Dominate |
| Western Empire | Eastern Empire |
| Ordinary magistrates: | |
| Extraordinary magistrates: | |
| Offices, titles, and honorifics: | |
| Politics and law: | |
| edit | |
The conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus culminated in a civil war that ended abruptly when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE and inaugurated the Roman period of Jewish history. Pompey ended the monarchy and named Hyrcanus high priest and ethnarch (a lesser title than "king"). 6 years later Hyrcanus was deprived of the remainder of political authority and ultimate jurisdiction was given to the Proconsul of Syria, who ruled through Hyrcanus's Idumaean associate Antipater, and later Antipater's two sons Phasael (military governor of Judea) and Herod (later known as Herod the Great) (military governor of the Galilee). Hyrcanus became a "client ruler" of a vassal state on behalf of the Romans. As with most Roman territories, the local ruler was obliged to provide support and tribute to Roman activities, and expected to ensure Rome was not troubled by the territory, in return for which he was otherwise allowed broad autonomy to rule as he chose. In 40 BCE Aristobulus's son Antigonus overthrew Hyrcanus and named himself king and high priest, and Herod fled to Rome.
[edit] Political rule and climate during the Herodian Dynasty
In Rome, Herod the Great sought the support of Mark Antony and Octavian, and secured recognition by the Roman Senate as king, officially confirming the termination of the Hasmonean dynasty. Despite an attempt to appease the people by marrying Mariamme, a Hasmonean princess, Herod was an unpopular ruler, perceived by some as a foreigner and a Roman puppet. Actions such as his notoriously murderous treatment of his family and of the last Hasmonaeans, and his plans to expand the Second Temple, made him more disliked among pious Jews. He is said to have been a positive influence economically on the region, have kept Jewish laws fairly carefully, but suppressed, often in a bloody manner, all incipient protests. Herod founded a minor dynasty, which meant that several different people who feature in this context and in the Gospels were also all called "Herod".
After Herod's death in 4 BCE, various radical Jewish elements rose in revolt: Judas in the Galilee, whose followers tore down the Roman Eagle that had adorned the Temple; Simon in Perea, a former slave of Herod, who burned down the royal palace at Jericho, and Athronges in Judea, a shephard who led a two-year rebellion. The Syrian legate Varus took command of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, and immediately put down the uprisings, killing thousands of Jews by crucifixion and selling many into slavery. Rome quickly re-established governance and divided Herod's kingdom among his sons: the southern part of the territory (Judea and Samaria) was given to Archelaus, Herod Antipas was named tetrarch of the Galilee and the southern Transjordan (Peraea), and Philip received the northern Transjordan (Batanaea).
Archelaus antagonized the Jews as his father had, and in 6 CE the emperor Augustus acceded to a delegation by placing Judea and Samaria under the indirect rule of a Roman prefect (or after about 44 CE a procurator), and the direct rule of a Roman-appointed high priest instead. Both of these titles were administrative officers, rather than nobility. Other than Temple officers dealing with trespass within the bounds of the temple, the Prefect was the only person authorized to sentence anyone to death, seen as an essential power in maintaining rule and military discipline. As an autonomous local ruler, the prefect was not answerable to Rome for their exercise of this power, whether the person executed was Roman or Jew. They had access to limited military capability (a few thousand troops for the country), enough for most incidents but not enough for serious trouble, because Rome itself governed more by proxy rather than by day to day military might. In the event of a serious threat to peace, the Prefect or Procurator would request Rome's support, for Judea this would typically be provided by the Syrian legate.
The first prefect of Iudaea Province was Coponius (6 - 9 CE); the prefect who ruled from 26 to 36 CE was Pontius Pilate. Annas was high priest from 7 to 14 CE, when he was succeeded by his son-in-law Caiaphas, who served until 36 CE. Jesus is commonly believed to have preached and died around the period 30 - 33 CE.
During this period Judea and Galilee were effectively semi-autonomous client-states under Roman tribute. For the most part, Jews were willing to pay tribute (although they complained when it was excessive), and absolutely refused to allow a graven image in their Temple although some emperors considered imposing one. The primary tasks of the tetrarch and high priest were to collect tribute, convince the Romans not to interfere with the Temple, maintain stability, and ensure that the Jews not rebel.
This system of rule by proxy, whereby the ruler provided peace and support for Rome if needed, and gained autonomy in turn, was a delicate balance. For example, it was in the ruler's interest to collect as much tax as he could, without formenting an unacceptable level of discontent. Likewise they could be harsh, but if they were seen as too bloody, the subjects might turn to Rome for help, and Rome (not wanting unnecessary rebellions and understanding that subject missions of this kind were not undertaken lightly) was often responsive to such pleas. Under the regional ruler would come his own administration, with individual villages, towns and subject populations usually being ruled by their own native elders and other leaders. Thus, with the exception of matters such as overall policy and tax, most of day to day life in the region was effectively self-governing by the subject population.
In 57 BCE the Proconsul Cabineus established five regional synhedria (Sanhedrins, or councils) to regulate the internal affairs of the Jews. The Sanhedrinae was a legislative council of 71 elders chaired by the high priest, that interpreted Jewish law and adjudicated appeals, especially in ritual matters. Their specific composure and powers actually varied depending on Roman policy.
Although the office of high priest was theoretically life-long, the Romans regularly deposed the high priests in favour of new appointees. Due to the manipulations of Annas, however, the temple remained in control of one family for most of the first century until it was destroyed. Annas was high priest from 7-11 CE. His son-in-law Caiaphas was high priest from 18-22 and 24-36. His sons Eleazar (23-24), Jonathas (37), Theophilos (38-42), Matthias (42-44) and Ananias (63) all became high priests. The Gospel of John reports a separate trial of Jesus before Annas (in addition to the Sanhedrin), and if this took place, it was perhaps because many considered him to be the legitimate high priest.
Popular understanding says that the Jews under Rome were a highly oppressed people. Whilst there were oppresive taxes at times, brutal or ruthless rulers in regard to insurrection, and occasional friction over religious matters, for the most part it was a tried and tested system of rule that worked very well. For example, there was no official Roman presence in the Galilee at all, and in Judea the Roman administration and force was very limited, with one Roman of rank supported by what E.P. Sanders describes as "a handful of troops", stationed at the Antonia Fortress, who lived amongst the non-Jews in Caesarea Palaestina. The area was not annexed by Rome in the sense that Gaul was, and was left to rule itself as far as was consistent with the Roman benefit and political needs. The importance of the area was not in Romanization, but in its location, as the route between regions such as Syria and Egypt where Rome primarily sought profit and as a buffer state against the Parthian Empire. Josephus identifies this as a period of increasing rebellion, but a contrasting view is that rebellions broke out at the point where rulers changed, famine or other crisis struck, or new rules (especially those impacting on religion) were imposed (see Sanders 1996: 28-29). In part, it was peaceful at other times because of the understanding that certain lines could not be crossed with impunity by either side, without problems arising. Potential rebellion was one such line, so was excessively brutal rule or disruption of religious matters. However the potential for war existed at every moment, because it might take only one officer or member of the public on either side reacting to some small incident which would cause a spark leading to a fire. Hence both Jewish leaders and Roman leaders, acutely aware of this, had strong motives to use the forces at their command to ensure no such small spark could arise and get out of hand.
[edit] Religious and Cultural Life During the Roman Period
During the Roman period, Aramaic and Greek continued to be the most important languages in the region. Procurators like Pontius Pilate (a Roman from Rome) would most likely have spoken Latin in private, but would probably have used Greek to handle day to day business in the province, though it is also possible that he used Aramaic for this. Scholars debate whether everyday people or Jesus himself spoke any other languages than Aramaic, perhaps some rudimentary Greek or Latin, and (as Jews) Hebrew.
According to the Torah, Jews were required to travel to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices at the Temple three times a year: Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot. Although many Jews attempted to do so, many could not due to the large distances involved. Consequently, Jews developed new institutions to supplement the Temple. Outside of Roman Palestine, Jews established proseuchai (house of prayer). Within Roman Palestine, Jews established synagogues (meeting houses). Synagogues served primarily as local civic-centers, but people in synagogues and proseuchai developed practices based on and paralleling practices in the Temple. For example, people in the proseuchai imitated the Temple practice of reciting the Shema twice daily.
E.P. Sanders comments on the large gatherings caused by the Jewish festivals, in his book "The Historical Figure of Jesus":
- "The Roman prefect and additional troops came to Jerusalem during the major festivals to ensure that the huge crowds did not get out of hand. Public assemblies were on the whole carefully watched in the ancient world, and the festivals in Jerusalem were known to be hazardous. During the 150 or so years before Jesus' death, we know of at least four substantial upheavals that began during a festival - this despite the fact that both Jewish and Roman rulers were prepared for trouble and had forces nearby." (Sanders 1996: 23)
[edit] Factions, groups and cults in the Roman period
According to the Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus, the three parties in contemporary Judaism were the Pharisees and Sadduccees and Essenes, the last of these three being apparently marginalized and in some cases retired to quasi-monastic communities.
[edit] Sadducees and Pharisees in the Roman period
There is a record of only one high priest (Ananus, in 62) being a Sadducee, although scholars generally assume that the Sanhedrin was dominated by Sadducees. The Pharisees, primarily scholars and educators, were politically quiescent, and studied, taught, and worshipped in their own way. Although popular and respected, they had no power.
During this period serious theological differences emerged between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Whereas Sadducees favored a limited interpretation of the Torah, Pharisees debated new applications of the law and devised ways for all Jews to incorporate purity practices (hitherto limited to the Temple) in their everyday lives. Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees also believed in (and introduced) the concept of the resurrection of the dead in a future, messianic age.
[edit] New Prophets
During this time a variety of other religious movements and splinter groups developed. A number of individuals claimed to be new prophets, in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha. The Talmud provides two examples of such Jewish miracle workers around the time of Jesus. Mishnah Ta'anit 3:8 tells of "Honi the Circledrawer" who, in the middle of the first century BCE, was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain. On one occasion when God did not answer his prayer, he drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour.
Mishnah Berakot 5:5 tells of Hanina ben Dosa, who in the generation following Jesus cured Gamaliel's son by prayer (compare with Matthew 8: 5-13). A later story (In the Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 33a) tells of a lizard that used to injure passers-by. Hanina ben Dosa came and put his heel over the hole; the lizard bit him and died.
Such men were respected for their relationship with God but not considered especially saintly; their abilities were seen as one more unknowable thing and not deemed a result of any ultra-strict observance of Jewish law. These men were sometimes doubted, often respected, and even (according to Geza Vermes) addressed by their followers as "lord" — but never considered "saviors" or "messiahs."
[edit] Messiahs and Millenial Prophets
The English word "messiah" is derived from the Hebrew word mashiyakh or moshiach (he: משיח), meaning "anointed one." But this word has had other meanings, for different groups of people at different times. We cannot immediately assume that when Jews, or indeed Jesus and his followers, used the word, they used it the same way as people do now.
For many Christians today, "messiah" refers to the personal and divine savior of all humankind, an apocalyptic notion of messiah, as one who will usher in the end of history by resurrecting the dead and by executing God's judgement over humankind. This apocalyptic vision has its origins in Jewish culture during the Babylonian Exile and the Second Temple Period. Nevertheless, it existed alongside a nationalist notion of messiah, as one who will defend the Jews against foreign oppressors and rule the Jews justly, and by divine right. This nationalist vision has its origins in the Hebrew Bible, and endures among Jews today.
In the Hebrew Bible, "messiah" was originally used to refer to formally appointed High Priests and kings. The Essenes and the Mishnah, edited in 200, uses the term mainly to refer to the High Priest. By the time of the Roman occupation, however, many Jews also used the term to refer to a descendant of King David who would restore God's kingdom (see the passage from II Samuel quoted above [1]. Thus, although all Jewish kings were anointed, not all kings were considered messianic. The Hasmonean kings (162 BCE - 56 BCE) were not descended from David, and did not claim to have established God's Kingdom. After the Roman occupation and the fall of the Hasmoneans, many Jews seeing these as the end of days, hoped that the Romans would somehow fall or be replaced by a Jewish king. They were divided as to how this might occur. Most Jews believed that their history was governed by God, meaning that even the conquest of Judea by the Romans was a divine act. Thus, the majority of Jews accepted Roman rule, and did not look for, or encourage, messiahs. They believed that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king only through divine intervention at a time of God's choosing. The word 'moshiach' came to be used for the one who would achieve these things.
During this period a new class of prophets emerged who hearkened back to Moses and Joshua as harbingers of national liberation. These men did not claim to be messiahs, and did not rely on physical force, but did lead large movements of people (from the hundreds to the thousands) to act in ways that, they believed, would lead God to restore his kingdom. For example, in 36 a Samaritan led a large group up Mount Gerizim, where they believed Moses had buried sacred vessels (echoing Moses' ascent up Mt. Sinai). Pilate blocked their route and killed their leaders. Josephus, who elsewhere expressed prejudice against Samaritans, suggested that they were armed. But the surviving Samaritans appealed to the Syrian Legate, Vitellius, that they were unarmed and that Pilate's actions were excessively cruel. As a result, Pilate was sent to Rome and ultimately dismissed from his post as procurator. Another such prophet was Theudas, who, sometime between 44 and 46 led a large group of people to the Jordan river, which he claimed he could part (echoing Moses at the Red Sea and Joshua at the Jordan river). Fadus, the procurator who succeeded Pilate, blocked their route and killed Theudas. An "Egyptian Prophet" (it is unclear if the prophet came from Egypt, or was invoking Moses' Egyptian origin) led thirty thousand around the mount of Olives and sought to enter Jerusalem until stopped by Felix, the procurator who succeeded Fadus.
[edit] Sicarii, Bandits, and Zealots
Various groups also resisted the status quo by force of arms. In many cases these groups did not have a clearly defined revolutionary program; in some cases they were opposed more to urban elites than to the Romans per se. These groups took on different forms, with different methods in the North than in the South.
In addition, bandits or brigands had been active in the region. Social historians have suggested that bandits are common in peasant societies; often poor men who identify with other peasants, but who seek to acquire wealth and political power. When Herod was still military governor in the Galilee, he spent a good deal of time fighting bandits under the leadership of Ezekias. These bandits are best understood as a peasant group whose targets were local elites (both Hasmonean and Herodian) rather than Rome. Ventidius Cumanus (procurator 48 to 52 CE) often retaliated against brigandry by punishing peasant communities he believed to be their base of support. When a Galillean pilgrim on way to Jerusalem was murdered by a Samaritan, the bandit chief Eliezar organized Galilleans for a counter-attack, and Cumanus moved against the Jews. The Syrian legate Quadratus intervened and sent several Jewish and Samaritan officials to Rome. The Emperor Claudius took the Jewish side, and had the Samaritan leaders executed and exiled, and turned one named Veler over to the Jews who beheaded him. Thus, widespread peasant unrest of this period was not exclusively directed against Rome but also expressed discontent against urban elites and other groups; Roman policy sought to contain the power of the bandits while cultivating Jewish support.
During the Great Revolt in 66, Josephus was sent to command the Galilee. He raised an army primarily of local bandits who pillaged nearby Greek and Roman cities (including ones occupied by Jewish elites), including the administrative centers of Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Gabara. This suggests that they were concerned primarily with gain or social insurrection against local elites, rather than a political revolution against Roman occupation. When Roman legions arrived from Syria, the bandit army melted away.
The Romans employed a scorched-earth policy in its fight in the north, driving thousands of peasants sourthwards towards Jerusalem. Between 67 and 68, these peasants, perhaps led by bandits, formed a new political party called the Zealots, which believed that an independent kingdom should be restored immediately through force of arms. It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic claims. The Zealots imprisoned members of the Herodian family, killed the former high priests Ananus ben Artanus and Joshua ben Gamaliel, and put on trial the wealthiest citizens. It is possible that they believed they were purging elements who whom they believed would have surrendered to the Romans. But these purges also reveal the great social divide between Jewish peasants and aristocrats at this time. They formed part of a social revolution: although they ultimately lost to the Romans, elite groups like the Hasmoneans, Herodians, and Sadducees would never again have power in Roman Palestine.
[edit] Towards a Historical Jesus
Most historians view the Gospels not as an objective account of Jesus, but as the product of men writing at a particular period, and grappling with particular theological as well as political issues. Specifically, they assume that after Jesus' death, his sayings, and stories about him, circulated among his followers until, at some point — probably in the last few decades of the first century — someone (or a group of people) wrote down his sayings in Greek (see Q document), and someone edited and organized stories about his life into a historical narrative, the Gospel of Mark. As these two documents circulated among Christians, other historical narratives were edited and organized. By the fourth century, Christian authorities had chosen four Gospels as authoritative accounts of Jesus's career, and ascribed them to the authorship of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. This period coincided not only with the institutionalization of Christianity but with its break with Rabbinic Judaism — a break that involved both the rejection of Rabbinic teachings, and a turn towards Gentiles for new converts. Moreover, just as Rabbinic Judaism was in part the Pharisaic response to their acknowledgment that the Temple would not be rebuilt in their lifetimes, Early Christianity reflected the acknowledgment of early Christians that the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth was not to happen in their lifetimes. The critical analysis of the Gospels involves, at least in part, a consideration of how these concerns affected the Gospels' accounts of Jesus.
According to historian Paula Fredriksen (1988: 5), critical scholars rely on four basic criteria for extrapolating an "authentic" historical account of Jesus out of the New Testament sources:
- dissimilarity: "if the earliest form of a saying or story differs in emphasis from a characteristic teaching or concern both of contemporary Judaism and of the early church, then it may be authentic."
- coherence: "if material from the earlier strata of tradition is consonant with other material already established as probably authentic, then it too is probably authentic."
- multiple attestation: if material appears in a number of different sources and literary contexts, then it may be authentic."
- linguistic suitability: "material with a claim to authenticity should be susceptible of Aramaic rendering, since Jesus did not teach in Greek, the language of the documents."
As Fredriksen observes, these criteria do not guarantee an accurate historical reconstruction. Nevertheless, she argues,
- If something stands in the gospels that is clearly not in the interests of the late first-century church — disparaging remarks about Gentiles, for example, or explicit pronouncements about the imminent end of the world — then it has a stronger claim to authenticity than otherwise. Stated briefly, anything embarrassing is probably earlier. (1988: 6).
Even these criteria are not sufficient to recover "what really happened." They can, however, enable historians to suggest "with reasonable security what possibly happened, what probably happened, and what could not possibly have happened.
According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: John's baptism, and Pilate's crucifixion, of Jesus. These events are mentioned in all four gospels. Moreover, they do not conform to Jewish tradition, in which there are no baptized and crucified messiahs. They are also embarrassing to the early Church. John the Baptist's prominence in both the gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus's mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus's death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John.[3] Accordingly, the gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).
All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this fact is consistent with Jewish accounts of Roman cruelty in general and Pilates cruelty in particular. However, it was problematic for the early Church for two reasons. First, crucifixion was the penalty for political insurrection, but the Church claims that Jesus died for theological reasons. Second, crucifixion was a Roman punishment, but as the early Church turned from the Jewish community to Gentiles for converts, it needed to distance itself from rebellious Jews and criticisms of Roman rule. Thus, while Fredricksen calls into question the divergent gospel accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death, she accepts the basic claim that Jesus was crucified.
Aside from the fact that the gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredricksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971, Jesus Seminar) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning and not crucifixion, see also Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus.
- Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty had, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.
[edit] Overview
Christians accept as a tenet of their faith, that Jesus actually lived, and that he had a divine connection to Jehovah (Yahweh), "The God of Abraham and Moses". Most Christians believe that he was the "Son of God" though the phrase means different things to different sects. The Biblical accounts of Jesus' life, the Gospels, give differing accounts of that life. These accounts, though different, do agree on some points.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, although he grew up in Nazareth. Matthew and Luke provide two different genealogies to show that Joseph was a descendant of David. Mark, the earliest Gospel, begins with Jesus' baptism, at which time Mark has a voice from heaven calling Jesus his beloved son. Christians do not view these different accounts as irreconcilable, but most critical Bible scholars see these variations as evidence of alternative views of Jesus, some of which may have developed only after Jesus' death.
- Jesus may have been born in Nazareth, and Joseph may have been his biological father. The assertion that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Jesus was the son of Joseph and a descendant of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.
- Jesus may have been anointed by John, at which point he could literally claim to be messiah, which means "anointed one." The phrase "son of God" was often used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to an especially righteous person (see Names and titles of Jesus); some suggest that God adopted Jesus as His son when Jesus was baptized by John, a view known as adoptionism.
- the account of the Virgin Birth, and the claim that "son of God" means that Jesus was literally God's son and divine, represent a Christian view that may have developed during the period when Christianity was breaking away from Judaism. Virgin births of a flawless divine Son of God who is sacrificed are similar to beliefs of other, non-Jewish, religions at the time, and these may have influenced early Christianity, especially as larger and larger numbers of non-Jews were drawn to the new religion.
Most of the material in the Gospels focus on the last year of Jesus' life, around 30 - 33 CE, and likewise most scholars focus on this period.
The Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet Yohannan (John) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (in Hebrew, Kinereth; in Greek, Gennesaret). Although there were many Phoenician, Macedonian, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus having healed someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels, and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:24-30). Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns. The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house, where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples. These activities were typical of the magician-prophets common in the Galilee at the time.
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers) he moved towards the Davidic capital of Judea, Jerusalem, and began preaching in the wildernesses of the Negev and Jordan, including occasional forays into Samaria. He ended his ministry in Jerusalem (the synoptic Gospels suggest that his ministry lasted around one year and was spent mostly in the Galilee; John suggests that his ministry lasted something more than two years and was spent mostly in Judea). These activities were characteristic of millennial prophets.
Jesus seems not to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different – and for most Jews, opposing – positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, and preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea. (According to Geza Vermes, that Jesus' followers addressed him as "lord" indicates that they likened him to notable miracle workers and scribes. see Names and titles of Jesus)
However, many of Jesus's teachings echoed the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Jesus' assertion of hypocrisy may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). In general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is stricter than the teachings of the House of Hillel. [4]
Finally, Jesus's declarations that the kingdom was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views and the political views of the Zealots.
Many scholars argue that it is likely that, like most Jews, Jesus believed that the restoration of the monarchy would be accomplished by God, not by any movement of Jews. However, he did believe that this restoration was imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best about his claim to actually be the presumptive monarch. That he speaks of twelve disciples is probably symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a metaphor for "all Israel". According to Geza Vermes and other historians, that his followers referred to Jesus as "messiah" and "son of God" indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).
Talk of a restoration of the monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation, and Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, when popular and mob emotions were already running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. Thus, during these festivals, such as the Passover, when Jesus came to Jerusalem, the population swelled – and outbreaks of violence and riots were common. Critical scholars suggest that the high priest feared his talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state would likely spark a riot, see also Jesus and the Money Changers. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak of violence. Critical scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.
[edit] The Great Revolt and the Destruction of the Temple
By 66 CE Jewish discontent with Rome had escalated. At first, the priests tried to suppress rebellion, even calling upon the Pharisees for help. After the Roman garrison failed to stop Hellenists from desecrating a synagogue in Caesarea, however, the high priest suspended payment of tribute, inaugurating the Great Jewish Revolt. In 70 the Temple was destroyed. The destruction of the Second Temple was a profoundly traumatic experience for the Jews, who were now confronted with difficult and far-reaching questions:
- How to achieve atonement without the Temple?
- How to explain the disastrous outcome of the rebellion?
- How to live in the post-Temple, Romanized world?
- How to connect present and past traditions?
How people answered these questioned depended largely on their position prior to the revolt. But the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans not only put an end to the revolt, it marked the end of an era. Revolutionaries like the Zealots had been crushed by the Romans, and had little credibility (the last Zealots died at Masada in 73). The Sadducees, whose teachings were so closely connected to the Temple cult, disappeared. The Essenes also vanished, perhaps because their teachings so diverged from the issues of the times (primarily isolationists, the destruction of the Second Temple was of no consequence to them; precisely for this reason, they were of little consequence to the vast majority of Jews).
Two organized groups remained: the Early Christians, and Pharisees. Some scholars suggest that it was at this time, when Christians and Pharisees were competing for leadership of the Jewish people, that accounts of debates between Jesus and the apostles, debates with Pharisees, and anti-Pharisaic passages, were written and incorporated into the New Testament.
[edit] The break between Christians and Jews
As with many religions, no precise date of founding is agreed by all parties. Christians traditionally believe that Christianity began with Jesus' ministry, and the appointment of the Twelve Apostles or the Seventy Disciples, see also Great Commission.[5]
By contrast, many historians argue that Jesus was Jewish, and that his life and teachings must be understood in the context of 1st century Judaism. Moreover, they depict first and second century Judaism — especially after the destruction of the Temple — as being in a state of flux, consisting of a variety of sects. Many view Christians as much as the Pharisees as constituting competing movements within Judaism that decisively broke only after the Bar Kokhba's revolt, when the successors of the Pharisees claimed hegemony over all Judaism, and Christianity emerged as a new religion.
[edit] The Emergence of Christianity
According to prevalent Jewish beliefs, Jesus' failure to establish the Kingdom of God, and his death at the hands of the Romans, invalidated any messianic claims (see for comparison: prophet and false prophet). Paula Fredriksen, in From Jesus to Christ, has suggested that Jesus' impact on his followers was so great that they could not accept this failure. According to the New Testament, some Christians believed that they encountered Jesus after his crucifixion; they argued that he had been resurrected (the belief in the resurrection of the dead in the messianic age was a core Pharisaic doctrine), and would soon return to usher in the kingdom of God and fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy. Others adapted Gnosticism as a way to maintain the vitality and validity of Jesus' teachings (see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels). Since early Christians believed that Jesus had already replaced the Temple as the expression of a new covenant, they were relatively unconcerned with the destruction of the Temple.
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, and then the defeat of Bar Kozeba, more Jews were attracted to the Pharisaic rabbis than Christianity — perhaps because, in the aftermath of the revolt, many Jews were afraid that talk of a new king and a new kingdom would provoke Roman wrath, or because most Jews did not feel that the destruction of the Temple signified the abrogation of their covenant with God, or because Jesus' central teachings (to love one's neighbor, and to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might) were also fundamental to Jewish teaching and therefore had no special appeal. When Christians could no longer attract a large number of followers from among other Jews they turned to Gentiles as potential converts, distanced themselves from the politically and spiritually difficult relationship with Judiasm and Jews, and emerged as a new religion. This distancing was a long and gradual process. Some Christians were still part of the Jewish community up until the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, see also Jewish Christians. As late as the 300s, John Chrysostom strongly discouraged Christians from attending Jewish festivals in Antioch, which suggests at least some ongoing contact between the two groups in that city. Similarly for the Council of Laodicea around 365. See also Sabbath, Quartodeciman, Constantine I and Christianity.
According to Daniel Boyarin, in A Radical Jew, Paul of Tarsus combined the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic opposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false). Judaism is a corporeal religion, in which membership is based not on belief but rather descent from Abraham, physically marked by circumcision, and focussing on how to live this life properly. Paul saw in the symbol of a resurrected Jesus the possibility of a spiritual rather than corporeal messiah. He used this notion of messiah to argue for a religion through which all people — not just descendants of Abraham — could worship the God of Abraham. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews (except see Noahide Laws), Pauline Christianity claimed to be the proper religion for all people. In other words, by appealing to the Platonic distinction between the material and the ideal, Paul showed how the spirit of Christ could provide all people a way to worship God — the God who had previsously been worshipped only by Jews, and Jewish Proselytes, although Jews claimed that He was the one and only God of all (see, for example, Romans 8: 1-4; II Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 3: 14; Philippians 3:3). Although Boyarin roots Paul's work in Hellenistic Judaism, he sees this Platonic reworking of both Jesus's teachings and Pharisaic Judaism as essential to the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion.
[edit] The Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism
Of all the major Second Temple sects, only the Pharisees remained (but see Karaite Judaism). Their vision of Jewish law as a means by which ordinary people could engage with the sacred in their daily lives, provided them with a position from which to respond to all four challenges, in a way meaningful to the vast majority of Jews.
Following the destruction of the Temple, Rome governed Judea through a Procurator at Caesarea and a Jewish Patriarch. A former leading Pharisee, Yohanan ben Zakkai, was appointed the first Patriarch (the Hebrew word, Nasi, also means prince, or president), and he reestablished the Sanhedrin at Javneh under Pharisee control. Instead of giving tithes to the priests and sacrificing offerings at the Temple, the rabbis instructed Jews to give money to charities and study in local Synagogues.
In 132, the Emperor Hadrian threatened to rebuild Jerusalem as a pagan city dedicated to Jupiter. Some of the leading sages of the Sanhedrin supported a rebellion (and, for a short time, an independent state) led by Simon bar Kozeba (also called Bar Kochba, or "son of a star"); some, such as Rabbi Akiba, believed Bar Kochbah to be messiah, or king. Up until this time, a number of Christians were still part of the Jewish community. However, they did not support or take part in the revolt. Whether because they had no wish to fight, or because they could not support a second messiah in addition to Jesus, or because of their harsh treatment by Bar Kochba during his brief reign, these Christians also left the Jewish community around this time.
This revolt ended in 135 when Bar Kochba and his army were defeated. According to a midrash, in addition to Bar Kochba the Romans tortured and executed ten leading members of the Sanhedrin. This account also claims this was belated repayment for the guilt of the ten brothers who kidnapped Joseph. It is possible that this account represents a Pharisaic response to the Christian account of Jesus' crucifixion; in both accounts the Romans brutally punish rebels, who accept their torture as atonement for the crimes of others.
After the suppression of the revolt the vast majority of Jews were sent into exile; shortly thereafter (around 200), Judah haNasi edited together judgements and traditions into an authoritative code, the Mishna. This marks the transformation of Pharisaic Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism.
Although the Rabbis traced their origins to the Pharisees, Rabbinic Judaism nevertheless involved a radical repudiation of certain elements of Phariseism -- elements that were basic to Second Temple Judaism. The Pharisees had been partisan. Members of different sects argued with one another over the correctness of their respective interpretations, but there is no significant record of any such debates. After the destruction of the Second Temple, these sectarian divisions ended. The term "Pharisee" was no longer used, perhaps because it was a term more often used by non-Pharisees, but also because the term was explicitly sectarian. The Rabbis claimed leadership over all Jews, and added to the Amidah the birkat haMinim (see Council of Jamnia), a prayer which in part exclaims, "Praised are You O Lord, who breaks enemies and defeats the arrogant," and which is understood as a rejection of sectarians and sectarianism. This shift by no means resolved conflicts over the interpretation of the Torah; rather, it relocated debates between sects to debates within Rabbinic Judaism.
[edit] Discussion
Some other important points about Jesus in this context are:
- By the time of the Second Temple, Judaism was not entirely a religion in the hands of a priestly clique. That is, it was less inclined to be esoteric and more inclined to allow lay people to form their own views and discuss the laws and wishes of God. To quote E.P. Sanders again (Sanders 1996: 48), at the time of Jesus, "All Jews, like the pharisees, believed they should understand the divine law and obey it... from time to time individuals stood up and claimed to be the truest representatives of God. In general terms, this is where Jesus fits. He was an individual [who was] convinced that he knew the will of God."
- Our primary secular source is Josephus. But copies of Josephus' writings have for the most part only come down to us as preserved by Christian monks, who could not resist the temptation to revise them for theological purposes. So we have only very limited ways to know what of his writings are original regarding Jesus, and what might have been added or deleted at some time in the ensuing centuries. We know for comparison, that other sources were heavily edited by the Church during the Middle Ages, and whole tractates and sections of the Talmud that were perceived as referring to Jesus in a way that conflicted with theology were deleted or heavily edited. We also have what appears to be a version of Josephus that remained in Arabic hands and which reads significantly differently (and more down to earth) in this same section. An indirect way of measuring the perception of Jesus at the time is that Josephus - a specialist writer on the Jews and the region - included in all his writings, precisely one paragraph on Jesus, no more. (Main article: Josephus on Jesus)
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Most critical Bible scholars and historians consider the Gospels this way. Exceptions include such scholars as Paul L. Maier (vice president Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), N. T. Wright (Bishop of Durham) and D. A. Carson (professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), who study the Bible and its historical context as Christians, and treat the Gospels as broadly reliable historic documents.
- ^ a b Josephus traces the term "Hasmonean" to the great grandfather of Mattathias, known as hasmon.
- ^ Jesus remained more influential than John in Christianty. However, for some minor sects and branches such as Mandaeism, John contines to be more influential
- ^ Neusner, Jacob A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-7735-2046-5. Rabbi Neusner contends that Jesus' teachings were closer to the House of Shammai than the House of Hillel.
- ^ From the viewpoint expressed in the Gospels, Christianity could be said to have first emerged with a structure — a Church — when Jesus appointed "seventy" and sent them to the "harvest" (ie, missionary work) in Luke 10.
[edit] Reference Sources
[edit] Primary sources
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 93CE
- The Tanakh (the redacted collection of Jewish religious writings from the period)
- The New Testament (the half of the Christian Bible that provides an account of Jesus's life and teachings, and the orthodox history of the early Christian Church)
- the Talmud (the main compendium of Rabbinal debates, legends, and laws)
[edit] Secondary Sources
- Akers, Keith. The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity (New York: Lantern Books, 2000). (Foreword by Walter Wink.)
- Boyarin, Daniel A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity 1997 ISBN 0-520-21214-2
- Catchpole, D. R. 1971 The Trial of Jesus: a study in the gospels and Jewish historiographyfrom 1770 to the present day Leiden: Brill
- Cohen, Shaye J.D. 1988 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah ISBN 0-664-25017-3
- Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties 2001 ISBN 0-520-22693-3
- Crossan, John Dominic 1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, ISBN 0-06-061629-6
- Ehrman, Bart The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, ISBN 0-19-515462-2
- Fredriksen, Paula Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity ISBN 0-679-76746-0
- Fredriksen, Paula 1988 From Jesus to Christ ISBN 0-300-04864-5
- Meier, John, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus,
- v.1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991 ISBN 0-385-26425-9
- v.2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994 ISBN 0-385-46992-6
- v.3 Companions and Competitors, 2001 ISBN 0-385-46993-4
- Neusner, Jacob Torah From our Sages: Pirke Avot ISBN 0-940646-05-6
- Orlinsky, H. M. "The Seer-Priest" in W.H. Allen The World History of the Jewish People, Vol.3: Judges 1971 pp.269-279.
- Pagels, Elaine The Gnostic Gospels 1989 ISBN 0-679-72453-2
- Sanders, E.P. The historical figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1996, ISBN 0-14-014499-4
- Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press, 1987, ISBN 0-8006-2061-5
- Schwartz, Leo, ed. Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People ISBN 0-394-60413-X
- Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels ISBN 0-8006-1443-7
- Vermes, Geza, The Religion of Jesus the Jew ISBN 0-8006-2797-0
- Vermes, Geza, Jesus in his Jewish context ISBN 0-8006-3623-6
