Jesus

Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Synagogues

A third factor in the “background” of the Gospels is Judaism, but specifically the form (s) of Judaism representing in the so-called Second Temple Period.  This period technically runs from 538 BC through AD 70, but the focus of attention is usually on the later part of that period because of the documentary evidence. We simply have a wealth of writings from the Maccabean period (after 165 BC) through the end of the first century, including the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus and Philo.  There are many more documents which date to this period as well.  In addition to the texts, the archaeology of the later part of the Second Temple period is far more detailed than the pre-Maccabean period.  Over the next couple of posts I want to unpack a few important elements of Second Temple Judaism as background for reading Jesus.  This is not a complete treatment of the topic – there is far more to be said (books to be written lectures to be given, etc).

One feature of Jesus’ ministry which in the Gospels is his teaching in the Synagogue.  Since many Jews could not regularly travel to the Temple to worship, the synagogue was the center of spiritual life. Prayers and the study of Scripture was of importance to the spiritual life of the Jews. In fact, Philo indicates the primary purpose for going to the synagogue was to study scripture (On the Creation of the World, 128).

How often the average Jew studied the scripture is unclear. This may refer to simply going to the synagogue and heard the scripture read (especially for the non-educated who would not be able to read.) Scrolls were expensive, only the wealthy would be able to own a scroll to study.  Communities bought scrolls for use in the synagogue.

Synagogue at Gamla

While we do not know when the synagogue was first used, we do know of synagogues dating to the first century (in the town of Gamla and one in Masada and the Herodian, likely built by Zealots long after Herod’s time). Often synagogues were built over the site of an older building, accounting for the lack of first century archaeological remains. The synagogue at Tiberias was large enough to hold a crowd gathered to discuss the impending war (Life, 277, 280, 290-303). We know from the Bible that both Jesus and Paul taught in synagogues regularly.

Philo describes the synagogue meeting which took place on Sabbath: a priest or elder would read from the scripture and comment on the text while people listened, then anyone who was moved to comment would do so. Usually they simply sat in silence and listened. Essenes were taught in the law everyday, but more so on the Sabbath.

The synagogue as designed with benches around the perimeter to encourage participation by all in attendance (Mark 1:14-15, 6:1-5). This facilitated discussion of scripture after it was read. While there may be an attendant, it is wrong to think of him as a “pastor” since his role has making the building ready for those who came to study.

It is not surprising to read in the Gospels that Jesus frequently visits synagogues to teach. A traveling rabbi might be asked to read scripture and perhaps give a brief comment or homily on a text. This might be a small group of men gathered to study or a larger Sabbath service.  Synagogues were small in the first century, so Jesus’ teaching there would have been intimate and likely with a great deal of discussion and questions.  These opportunities gave Jesus a chance to interact with Jews who were interested in studying scripture, giving him the opportunity to present the coming “Kingdom of God” to people who were likely looking forward to it the most. Often Jesus encounters resistence in the synagogue from other teachers (scribes or Pharisees), but this is nothing unusual since the method of teaching frequently used at the time was “scribal debate.”

Masada Synagogue

It is important to understand Jesus in the context of first century Galilee, and this includes his visits to small synagogues to talk about the Scripture with a few people at a time.  It is not helpful to think that these synagogues were large forums where Jesus was able to speak to hundreds at a time in a Christian-style pulpit.  These were small gatherings where Jesus could expect to find people who were interested in what the Hebrew Bible said and how in applied to their lives at that particular time in history.

Jesus went to where people were and engaged in the type of discussion they might have expected in that place.  Some people think Jesus established a church (rented a local gym, started Saturday night services, worked up a rocking praise band, etc.) He was not creating “church” but working within Judaism to understand the Scripture. Perhaps there is something of a model for ministry here!

Background to the Gospels: Part 2 – Hellenism

A second important element for the background of the Gospels is the pervasiveness influence of Hellenism after Alexander the Great. Hellenism refers to Greek language and culture, and as Mark Strauss comments in Four Portraits, “Alexander’s enduring legacy for New Testament background is his promotion of the process of Hellenization” (96). After Alexander everyone in the Near East were in some respects “hellenized.” They spoke Greek, Greek fashions were dominant, certain features were expected in “Greek cities” (gymnasiums, theaters, etc.)  If a city or region rejected these sorts of things, they were considered backwards.  To be “Greek” was be a citizen of the world.

The struggle against Hellenism is the “plot” of the intertestamental period – how will the Jews react to this new culture imposed by foreign occupiers?  How can one keep “Jewish Traditions” in a world which is increasingly Greek (or later, Roman)? There will be some Jews who are as completely hellenized as possible, yet others will resist and cling to Jewish traditions.  These were factors which led to the Maccabean Revolt in 165 B.C. as well as the Jewish Revolt against Rome in A.D.66.

There are several indications that many Jews accepted Greek culture. Jews with Greek names are common. The most obvious example is that of Onias II and his brother Joshua. This priestly family battled for control of the high priesthood in the years leading up to the Maccabean revolt. Joshua took the Greek name Jason and attempted to re-found Jerusalem as a Greek city, complete with a gymnasium near the temple.

In reaction to growing Hellenism, the Hasidim, or “pious people,” did not want to have anything to do with Greek culture.  They believed that Jewish culture was from God and that anyone that adopted Greek ways was committing idolatry and apostasy. This conservative movement will develop into the “parties” of the New Testament period including the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes.

These problems did not end when Rome absorbed Palestine into the empire. Some Jews had no problem with the Romans. Herod the Great, for example, was more Roman than Jewish. The Sadducees could work with the Romans to maintain power in Jerusalem. The question was not “should we Hellenize,” but “how far can we Hellenize and remain loyal to God?” For example, everyone spoke Greek, if you wanted to communicate to the culture around you (sell your goods, travel, etc), Greek was unavoidable. But is it permissible to study the Hebrew Bible in a Greek translation? There were many Jews who did not speak or read Hebrew, the only way to hear God’s word was through the Greek translation (the Septuagint).

In the background of the whole New Testament is a struggle between conforming to a foreign culture (Greek, Roman) and clinging tenaciously to the boundary markers of Judaism (Sabbath, circumcision, food traditions, monotheism). What I find interesting is that Jesus never rejects these boundary markers and they rarely come up in his teaching. He has some rather pointed criticisms of the Pharisees and their Sabbath and cleanliness traditions, but he does not reject Judaism in favor of Hellenism.

There is the same sort of struggle Christians have in a contemporary setting. We cannot avoid the world; even the Amish interact with non-Amish world! But how far that cultural engagement can go without destroying the core values is always one of the main topics of discussion for the Church. Does the background plot of the New Testament help with this struggle?

Background to the Gospels: Part 1 – The Hebrew Bible

In the previous posts on the Gospels, I talked about historical and literary context. But in order to understand the gospels, it is also important to place it in a biblical context. Christians reading the Gospels tend to bracket out world history, imagining the stories something like an epic Hollywood production from the 1950s. While this is the “Greatest Story Ever Told,” I cannot think of a worse way to place the Gospels in their proper historical context!  For this reason, I plan several posts on the “background” to the Gospels.  In Simply Jesus, N. T. Wright covers much of this material and calls is a “perfect storm” of conditions which result the events of the Gospels.

The primary “background” for the Gospels is the Hebrew Bible. Anyone who approaches the Gospels without a knowledge of the history and culture of the Hebrew Bible will not appreciate fully the claims made by the Gospels. Jesus interprets the Hebrew Bible in his teaching, the writers of the Gospels interpret Jesus through the lens of the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. In the apostolic period (Acts, Epistles), the Hebrew Bible is the foundation for doing theology and evangelism.

The “plot” of the Hebrew Bible is assumed by Jesus and the writers of the Gospels. I find the “creation – fall – redemption” summary adequate, although there is a great deal more to the story than those three words can express. In the Hebrew Bible, God is working to deal with the problem of fallen humanity through Israel. But his chosen people are far from perfect, often “falling short of the glory of God.” Since their leaders rarely responded properly to God’s revelation, the nation went into exile in 722 B.C and 586 B.C. Since that time, Israel and Judah have lived among the Gentiles. Even those who lived in the land of Promise still lived under foreign domination.

As N. T. Wright has (frequently) pointed out, the real exile never really ended.  By the first century there were some Jews at least to thought of the exile as ongoing and looked forward to an ultimate Son of David who would end the exile and re-establish some sort of kingdom for the remnant of faithful Jews. That conclusion to the story of the Hebrew Bible is found in texts like Ezekiel 37, or Daniel 9 and was well known in the first century. If Wright is generally correct, this expectation of the nearness of the restoration of Israel is important for understanding both John the Baptist and Jesus, since they proclaim that the “kingdom of God is near.”

The Jewish backgrounds of the New Testament have been historically downplayed by Christian scholars until very recently. In the art the Church produced for nearly 2000 years, Jesus is usually a white European. There was a general ignorance of Hebrew and a real hatred for the Jewish people which hindered anyone who wanted to study the literature of the Hebrew Bible. To a large extent this prejudice has lessened in the last fifty years, but there is still some resistence to understanding the Gospels in the light of the early Scripture.

I think that reading the Gospels in the light of the Hebrew Bible makes more sense of the data we find in these books.  More importantly, the theology of the Hebrew Bible is the proper context for the stories, not later Christian theology.

What are some other ways the Hebrew Bible helps us understand the Gospels?

What Are the Gospels?

As Mark Strauss points out in his Four Portraits One Jesus, it is important to understand the genre of a document before attempting to read it with understanding.  We do not read the newspaper the same way we read C. S. Lewis, nor do we read Lewis the same way we read the Bible.  One of the problems is that modern readers approach the Gospels with the assumption that they conform to modern literary genre:  they are either history or theology.

Various explanations of the possible literary genre of the four gospels have been offered. Most Christians approach the gospels as biographies of Jesus. The do have some biography-like elements, but they are not biographies by the standards of the modern world. Only two show any interest in his birth, only one story occurs before his public ministry, and the majority of the material comes from the last week of Jesus’ life. Most biographical questions are left unanswered.

A few scholars have suggested that the gospels are patterned after Greco-Roman Aretalogies. This is a “divine man” biography, the history of a famous hero that has been built up to make him a god-like person (a biography of a god-like person, Julius Caesar, for example.) The Greek word aretai means “mighty deeds.” Aretalogies are the records of the mighty deeds of a god or hero. An example from the second century is Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana. When Josephus describes Moses in Against Apion (2:154-158) he expands the praise beyond the biblical material.  (For more on Aretalogy, see David L. Tiede, “Aretalogy” in ABD 1:372-373.)  It does not seem to me that the biblical material over-plays the case for Jesus as God.  The stories that do appear seem muted and Jesus never really comes right out and claims to be divine in a way that would end all debate.

Based on Luke 1:1-4, it is possible to read the Gospels as historical documents. Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel and the prologue to Acts to be writing history. That stories are not created by Luke is evident in his claim to have sought the eye witnesses to the events. The tradition that Mark wrote his gospel based on the preaching of Peter indicates that Mark was well-versed in the eye-witness testimony of Peter. Mark appears to be used by both Matthew and Luke, Matthew also being an eye-witness. John supplements this material with his own eye-witness testimony, albeit from a theological angle at a much later date.

But even if the Gospels contain history, they must be considered theological documents as well. Consider John 20:30-31, where the author of the fourth Gospel states that his purpose was to convince the readers of a theological fact (“Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”) and that by believing this theology, the reader might “have life in his name.”

While John’s gospel is the most theological of the four, the other gospels are not simply historical and non-theological. Matthew, Mark and Luke have clear theological agendas. One cannot approach these documents without getting into the question of who Jesus is, who he claims to be, and how the gospel writers present him in their telling of the story.

The Gospels are therefore best described as historical-theological documents. The gospels are most similar to Greco-Roman biographies or history texts. Once we step into the world of the first century and study what history looked like then, we discover that the gospels are not all that removed from the standard of history writing for the time. Luke especially follows some of the conventions for writing good history in the first century.

Perhaps it is best to conclude that the genre is unique:  the Gospels are theological biographies. They contain historical data that is presented through a theological filter. The writers are selective of the material available, recording only the events of Jesus’ life which  make a theological point.  For the most part, these writers are demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is fully human, that he died as an atoning sacrifice for mankind. This make a historical, theological and literary study of the gospels legitimate, they are all of three of these genres combined in something of a unique fashion.

Does this definition of “gospel” as a historical-theological book help make more sense of the books as we read them?  Are we in danger here of giving up history?  Let me know what you think.

Bibliography. The issue of the genre of the Gospels is covered by Craig Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 235-240; Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 323-325, Willem S. Vorster, “Gospel Genre” in ABD 2:1077-1079; David Aune, “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C. H. Talbert’s What Is a Gospel?” Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, (ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSNT, 1981) 2:9–60.

Is The Supernatural Possible?

The third question Wilkins and Moreland use to introduce Jesus Under Fire concerns miracles. All scholars of historical Jesus have to ask, “Is the supernatural possible in ancient and modern times?” To me, this is two questions, are miracles possible, and if they are, were they present in the ministry of Jesus and his followers? (For the purpose of this post, I do not really want to deal with the second half of the question, are they present in the modern world.)

All four of the Gospels present Jesus as a miracle worker. He demonstrates his control of nature (walking on water), he heals, casts out demons from possessed people, and even raises the dead. In a pre-modern worldview, miracles can and do happen. God heals or reveals himself in extraordinary ways. Until the modernist worldview was applied to the Bible, there was no reason to doubt Jesus’ miracles.

A worldview based on the Enlightenment would never accept these stories because the supernatural simply cannot happen.  Or maybe a better way to say this it is that the record of an ancient miracle can never be submitted to a scientific test to determine if it is really a miracle.  Think of the Mythbusters as a classic example of rationalism. If someone walks on the water, Adam and Jamie are going to look for the rocks, proving that there is a rational reason for the apparent miracle.  They will “bust the myth” since they assume that miracles are impossible.  The same rational mind that dispensed with “ghosts and goblins” also got rid of waking on the water.

Post-modernism is more open to the supernatural.  Although someone with a postmodern worldview might be antagonistic toward Jesus, they would not rule out the possibility of the supernatural occurring. The problem with postmodern approaches to the Gospels is that the historical value of the text really does not matter for much.  The literary meaning of the text is more important, what the read draws out of the text that is meaning.

For the evangelical Christian there should be no problem with the idea that God did miracles in the biblical materials. The definition of a miracle is important. A miracle is a supernatural event which reveals something about God. A miracle is outside nature, something which by definition the Mythbusters can’t test. But it is also something which reveals God, not simply a strange event which has no real explanation. (Please note: this does NOT mean that God is going around appearing on moldy tortillas in Guadalajara to reveal himself!)

In the gospels, Jesus does miracles in order to reveal something about himself and his relationship with God, specifically that he is the Messiah. If a messiah appeared in the first century and he did not do miracles, he would not have been taken seriously as a messiah. In Matthew 12:38, for example, the Pharisees ask Jesus to do some sort of sign. This indicates that for the Pharisees, the messiah ought to be giving a sign of some kind. (Ironically they do not believe the miracles he has done, and when asked, Jesus does not give them a sign.)

Of the three questions I have used to introduce historical Jesus studies, this is the one that requires a certain amount of faith. I can show rationally that there was a Jesus and that much of what is said about him in the Gospels is accurate. I can show that the gospel writers were not creating myth but explaining who Jesus was and what he claimed to be. But it is very difficult to show that Jesus did miracles without falling back to my pre-conceived view that God can do miracles if he wants to.