|
The historical background of the
New Testament and its times must be viewed in conjunction with the Jewish
matrix from which it evolved and the Hellenistic (Greek cultural) world
into which it expanded during a period of Jewish religious propaganda. It
is difficult, however, to separate the phenomena of the Jewish and
Hellenistic backgrounds, because the Judaism out of which the church arose
was a part of a very Hellenized world. The conquests of Alexander the
Great culminated in 331 BC, and the subtle but strong influence of Greek
culture, language, and customs that was spread by his conquests united his
empire. Jews in both Palestine and the Diaspora (Dispersion) were,
however, affected by Hellenism, as in ideas of cosmic dualism and rich
religious imagery derived in part from Eastern influence as a result of
the Greek conquests. Greek words were transliterated into Hebrew and
Aramaic even in connection with religious ideas and institutions as, for
example, synagogue (religious assembly), Sanhedrin (religious court), and
paraclete (advocate, intercessor). It could be argued that the very
preoccupation with ancient texts and tradition and the interpretation
thereof is a Hellenistic phenomenon. Thus, what may appear as the most
indigenous element in the activity of the Jewish scribes, sages, and
rabbis (teachers)--i.e., textual
scholarship--has its parallels in Hellenistic culture and is part of the
general culture of the times. The thought worlds merged, confronted each
other, and communicated with each other.
After Alexander's death the empire
was split, and first the Ptolemies, an Egyptian dynasty, and then the
Seleucids, a Syrian dynasty, held Palestine. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a
2nd-century-BC Seleucid king, desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem; a
successful Jewish revolt under the Maccabees, a priestly family, resulted
in its purification (164 BC) and in freedom from Syrian domination in 142
BC. This began the Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty, which appropriated the
powers both of king and of high priest. This reign, which created
dissatisfaction on the part of other groups who considered their own
claims falsely usurped, lasted until internecine strife brought it to an
end. John Hyrcanus II, a 1st-century-BC Hasmonean king, appealed to Rome
for help, and Pompey, a Roman general, intervened, bringing Palestine
under Roman rule in 63 BC. John Hyrcanus, given the title of ethnarch, was
later executed for treason (30 BC), thus ending the Hasmonean line, but
Jewish independence had come to an end by Roman occupation. (see also Index:
Hasmonean dynasty)
The Herods who followed were under
the control of Rome. Herod the Great, son
of Antipater of Idumaea, was made king of Judaea, having sided with Rome,
and he ruled with Roman favour (37-4 BC). Though he was a good statesman
and architect, he was hated by the Jews as a foreigner and semi-Jew. Jesus
was born a few years before the end of his reign, and "the slaughter
of the innocents," young children of Bethlehem who were killed as
possible pretenders to Herod's throne, was attributed to Herod. After his
death, Palestine was divided among three of his sons: Philip was made
tetrarch of Iturea (the northeast quarter of the province) and ruled from
4 BC until AD 37. Herod Antipas became
tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea until AD 39 and, like his father, was a
builder, rebuilding Sepphoris and Tiberias before he was banished. Herod
Antipas had John the Baptist beheaded and treated Jesus with contempt at
Jesus' trial before him, before sending him back to Pontius Pilate, the
Roman procurator (AD 26-36) at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion. Archelaus
was made ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea but was removed by AD 6
for his oppressive rule, and Judaea then became an imperial province,
governed by procurators responsible to the emperor. (see also Index:
Herodian dynasty)
Two other Herods are mentioned in
the New Testament: Agrippa I (called "Herod the king," AD 37-44)
had James, the brother of John, killed and had Peter arrested; and the
last of the Herods, Agrippa II, king of Trachonitis (c.
AD 50-100), welcomed the procurator Festus (c.
AD 60-62), who replaced Felix (c.
AD 52-60) for the trial of Paul.
In AD 66-70 there was a Jewish
revolt while Nero was emperor of Rome (54-68). When he died and was
succeeded by Vespasian, his former army
commander (69-79), the siege and final destruction of Jerusalem
occurred (AD 70). Before this event, Jewish Christians had fled, perhaps
to Pella, and Yohanan ben Zakkai, a leading Jewish rabbi, with a group of
rabbinical scholars, fled to Yavneh, where they established an academy
that gave leadership to the Jews. Under the emperors Trajan (98-117) and
Hadrian (117-138), Jews in Egypt and Mesopotamia rebelled and again fought
unsuccessfully against Rome in Palestine for forbidding the practice of
religious rites, and, under Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Bar Koziba), a Jewish
revolutionary messianic figure, the final Jewish war was waged (132-135).
After this defeat Jerusalem became a Roman colony; a temple to Jupiter was
erected there, and Jews were prevented from entering the city until the
4th century.
When the Romans had entered
Palestine in 63 BC, they practiced a relatively humane occupation until c. AD 66-70. They did not interfere with religious practices unless
they considered them a threat to Rome, and their rights of requisition
were precise and limited.
From both the New Testament and
extrabiblical material the main religious groups or parties in Palestinian
Judaism may be discerned. Such descriptions, however, may be somewhat
biassed or apologetic. Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (died c.
AD 40), Josephus, a Jewish apologist to the Romans (died c.
100), and sectarian writings found at Qumran near the Dead Sea
in 1947 that date back to about c. 200
BC and end about AD 70 all provide data about the respective Jewish
religious groups in Palestine in the 1st century BC and the 1st century
AD. The Pharisees (typically Jesus' opponents, although his ideas may have
been close to their own), the Sadducees, and the Zealots are mentioned in
the New Testament. The Essenes were described by Philo and Josephus, but
new evidence from their own writings makes their group better understood (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran).
The Pharisees (possibly spiritual
descendants of the Hasidim [Pious Ones], who were the exponents of
Maccabean revolt) were strict adherents to the Law. Their name may come
from parush--i.e., "separated"
from what is unclean, or what is unholy. They were deeply concerned with
the Mosaic Law and how to keep it, and they
were innovators in adapting the Law to new situations. They believed that
the Law was for all the people and democratized it--even the priestly laws
were to be observed by all, not only by the priestly class--so that they
actually had a belief in a priesthood of all believers. They included Oral
as well as Written Law in their interpretations. Though they did not
accept the Roman occupation, they kept to themselves, and by pious acts,
such as giving alms and burying the dead, they upheld the Law. Their
interpretations of Law were sometimes considered casuistic because they
believed they must find interpretations that would help all people to keep
the Law. Their underlying hope was eschatological: in the day when Israel
obeyed the Torah, the Kingdom would come. The Pharisees were called
"smooth interpreters" by their opponents, but their hope was to
find a way to make the living of the Law possible for all people. In their
meal fellowship (havura) they
observed the laws strictly and formed a nucleus of obedient Israel. The
Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead and had a developed
angelology.
The Sadducees, more conservative
and static, consisted mainly of the old priesthood and landed aristocracy
and, perhaps, some Herodians. They were collaborators with Rome. They did
not believe in resurrection because they found no Old Testament
enunciation of such a doctrine. In a way, they seemed to respect the
Pharisees in legal matters; but both the Pharisees--because they were a
bourgeois rather than a popular movement--and the Sadducees--because they
were aristocrats--rejected the 'am
ha-aretz (People of the Land), who were no party but simply the poor,
common people whom they considered ignorant of the Law.
The Zealots were revolutionaries
who plotted actively against the Roman oppression. That the Pharisees did
not react in this way was perhaps because of their belief in Providence:
what happens is the will of God, and their free will is expressed in the
context of trust and piety in conjunction with an eschatological hope of
winning God's Kingdom through obedience to Law.
Though the Essenes of the Dead Sea
Scrolls are not mentioned in the New Testament, they are described by
Philo, Josephus, and Eusebius, a 4th-century Christian historian. With
publication of the Essenes' own sectarian writings since the 1950s,
however, they have become well known. They did not have any really new
ideas, but their founder, the Teacher of Righteousness, believed that he
knew the interpretation of the prophets for his time in a way that was not
even known to the prophets of their own day. Their withdrawal into desert
seclusion was in opposition to the ruling powers in the city and the
Temple of Jerusalem. They lived apart from society in constant study of
the Scriptures and with a firm belief that they were the elect of Israel
living in the end of days and to whom would come messianic figures--a
messiah of David (royal) and a messiah of Aaron (priestly). Membership in
their group and acceptance or rejection of its founder determined their
place in the age to come. After a long period of probation and initiation,
a man became a member of this elect community that had strict rules of
community discipline that would seal or destroy his membership in their
New Covenant. Ritual lustrations preceded most liturgical rites, the most
important one of which was participation in a sacred meal--an anticipation
of the messianic banquet, to which only the fully initiated members in
good standing were admitted and which was presided over by representatives
of the Davidic and Aaronic messiahs. From what is known of them, their
communities were celibate, living "in the presence of the
angels" and thus required to be in a state of ritual purity. Their
laws were strict, their discipline severe, and--unlike Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Zealots--they were not simply different parties within
Judaism but a separate eschatological sect. The Pharisees did have lodges
and a common meal, but membership in the Pharisaic party did not, as it
did with the Essenes, guarantee a place in the age to come; and the
attitude of the Pharisees to a leader or founder was not, as it was to the
Essenes, one of the bases on which such place could be attained. Thus, the
Essenes--as the early Jewish Christians--were an eschatological Jewish
sect. They believed that they alone, among those living in the end time,
would be saved. The apocalypticism of the Essenes and the early Christians
had many similarities, but the Christians had a higher eschatological
intensity because they already knew who the Messiah would be when he came
in the future at the Parousia (the "Second" Advent), and they
also had a recollection of the earthly Jesus, knowledge of the risen Lord,
and the gift of the Spirit upon the church. Both communities lived in an
era wherein the cosmic battle of God versus Satan-Belial was taking place,
but the Christian community already had the traditions of Jesus' victory
over Satan and the experience of his Resurrection. Both Essenes and
Christians were sects with tightly knit organizations, but the church had
a historically based messiah. The Essenes probably were killed or forced
to flee from their wilderness community c.
AD 68, yet some of their ideas can still be traced in the ministry of
John the Baptist (who might have been an Essene) and in the thought world
of the New Testament (see also JUDAISM ).
With the expansion of Christianity
into the Hellenistic world either to Jews or increasingly to Gentiles,
there were various reasons why the Christian message that spread, for
example by Paul, met the needs of the Hellenistic Age and world. There was
no lack of religions, but there was a crisis of upheaval, unrest, and
uncertainty and a desire to escape from mortality and the domination of
unbending fate. There was also a desire to win personal knowledge of the
universe and a dignified status within it--i.e.,
a religious identity crisis. City-states with their cults of civic
gods were unstable, because men changed from place to place and the gods
of the city were distant from individual needs and anxieties. After
Alexander's conquests, the resulting religious syncretism did not meet
individual needs and longings that were increasingly becoming conscious.
Many Gentiles turned to Judaism, at least as "god fearers," and
later to Christianity. There were also "mystery religions," the
secrets of which were known only to the initiate, which may have arisen
from Eastern fertility cults with their dying and rising gods and were
transformed in the Hellenistic Age to cults of a saviour god whose dying
and rising gives personal immortality. Such mystery cults often provided
meaningful relationships with fellow initiates.
There were elements in the Greek
world that may have come from the East, partly Egyptian and Babylonian,
which gave rise to astrology. The basic conviction of astrology was that
the heavenly bodies were deities that in a direct way control life and
events on earth. An older idea of tyche,
or "fate," originally signified the chance element in the
universe, a capriciousness that increased insecurity. Astrology
transformed this into a fate or destiny in which everything is strictly
regulated by celestial deities. Man's problem, then, is that of finding
security from overwhelming powers outside human control. One way is to
"read a horoscope." Because the heavenly deities are systematic
and orderly according to astronomic observation, this order and regularity
can be exploited to see how and in what way events will happen and can
perhaps be used or avoided. Another way is to deal with such forces
through magic. From the Hellenistic period many magical papyri with
formulas for dealing with sicknesses, demons, and other adverse forces
have been found. Magic attempts to manipulate and control what affects the
world by a kind of participation in the event.
Solutions were also sought in
philosophy. Socrates, a 5th-century-BC Greek philosopher, was largely
concerned with the search for the "good," the good life. After
Plato and Aristotle, however, philosophical systems sought to supply man's
longing for inward security and stability. These were sought not by an
in-depth understanding of reality but by ad hoc constructions--a new
dogmatism for providing infallible plans and attaining immediate
security--that the age demanded. Those philosophies were crude
constructions that gave shelter and were defended by an unyielding
dogmatism as absolute truths; if they were proved false, they would remove
their promised security. Epicureanism,
founded by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC), was basically a
philosophy of escape, and its goal was serenity and tranquillity, a
negative concept characterized by absence of fear, pain, and struggle.
Fate, providence, and the afterlife were eliminated to deny the anxieties
they provoked in terms of control, reward, or judgment. Epicurus attempted
to meet this crisis by adopting a completely material view of the
universe, including the soul, and thereby eliminating interference by
deities both in life and after death. He did believe in the gods; but
they, too, lived in their own perfect tranquillity, away from the
universe. The Epicurean was both self-reliant and at peace with the
absence of pain. There was also emphasis on friendship and the development
of close communities.
Zeno, a 3rd-century-BC
philosopher, was the founder of Stoicism.
Stoicism was a rule of life that held that all reality was material but
was animated by a rational principle that was at the same time both the
law of the universe and of the human soul. The wise man then could accept
and learn to live a life in conformity to this permeating reason without
letting anything affect him. He responded to duty and accepted it.
Cynicism
was a philosophy that maintained a cosmic view of life with a method of
dealing with crisis by reducing man's needs to a minimum. Later in the
Hellenistic period, a group of Stoic-Cynic preachers arose and, in New
Testament times, wandered around calling men to repent and change their
lives from sin to virtue.
The Christian message adapted
itself to this Hellenistic situation of crisis and proved a successful
answer: Jesus was proclaimed as Lord and
Saviour, Baptism was practiced as a form of initiation and a passage from
death to new life, and the Lord's Supper was celebrated as a sacral meal.
The obvious difference between Christianity and the mystery religions is
that a historical person, Jesus, forms the center of cult and devotion;
his titles came from his Jewish background. Adaptation took place out of
the Jewish matrix of Christianity--and Hellenistic terms that were
meaningful were also used, such as illumination and regeneration. Such
terms are not to be found in the earliest origins of Christianity but in
the communication of the Christian message to a new environment. Among the
religious and philosophic needs of the time was that of a cult that
provided for the needs of the individual along with a community of
worship. Christ as Lord was viewed as universal, and his teachings made
the universe understandable, as well as providing a basis for ethics. In a
period of expansion, all religions are to some extent syncretistic, as is
the case of Christianity in the 2nd century. Such a phenomenon belongs to
a religion in a time of strength. Though universal, however, Christ was
believed to have an exclusive claim, and in this there was security and
relief for the anxieties of the period. The church was more than a
philosophy; it had a social and enduring structure. It also reached out to
all men--not only to those regarded as the best of men. It called them to
a new life and gave them a new home and community, the church.
Though the fact that Jesus was a
historical person has been stressed, significant, too, is the fact that a
full biography of accurate chronology is not possible. The New Testament
writers were less concerned with such difficulties than the person who
attempts to construct some chronological accounts in retrospect. Both the
indifference of early secular historians and the confusions and
approximations attributable to the simultaneous use of Roman and Jewish
calendars make the establishment of a chronology of Jesus' life difficult.
That the accounts of Matthew and Luke do not agree is a further problem.
Thus, only an approximate chronology may be reconstructed from a few
somewhat conflicting facts. The points of reference are best taken from
knowledge of the history of the times reflected in the passages. (see also
Index: anno
Domini, before Christ)
According to Matthew, Jesus was
born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, thus before 4 BC. In
Luke, chapter 2, verses 1 to 2, Jesus is said to have been born at the
time of a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Such a census did
occur, but in AD 6-7. Because this was after Herod's death and not in
agreement with a possible date of Jesus' baptism, this late date is
unlikely. There may have been an earlier census under another governor; an
inscription in the Lateran Museum records an unnamed governor who twice
ruled Syria, and the suggestion has been made that this was, indeed,
Quirinius and that in an earlier time a reported census according to Roman
calculation might have been carried out c. 8 BC, one of a series of such. With such speculation and the
combined evidence of Matthew and Luke, an approximate year of birth might
be 7-6 BC.
In Luke, chapter 3, verse 23, it
is stated that Jesus' ministry began when he was about 30 years of age.
This would not come within the dates of the procuratorship of Pontius
Pilate (AD 26-36), and the age might simply approximate a term for
Jesus' having arrived at maturity. In Luke several dates are implied to
assist in dating the Baptism of Jesus: the 15th year of Tiberius (c. 29, according to his accession as co-emperor with Augustus),
while Pontius Pilate was in office (during 26-36), while Herod Antipas was
tetrarch (4 BC-AD 39) and Philip tetrarch (4 BC-AD 37). These limits make
a speculation of Jesus' Baptism and the start of his ministry c.
AD 27/28.
The duration of Jesus' ministry
can be an average of the one year, as indicated in the Synoptic Gospels
(Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or about three years as indicated in John, based
on various cycles of harvests and festivals. This would be about two
years. Because Jesus was crucified before 36 and his ministry started
about 27/28, he then was crucified about AD 30 (see also JESUS
).
For the chronology of Paul's
ministry, there are also some extra-biblical data: According to Josephus,
Herod Agrippa I was made ruler of all Palestine by the emperor Claudius in
AD 41 and reigned for three years. His death was thus in AD 44. A famine
in Claudius' reign took place when Tiberius Alexander was procurator of
Judaea (c. 46-48), and Egyptian
papyri suggest (by reference to high wheat prices) that the date of the
famine was about 46. The Gallio inscription at Delphi (in Greece) gives a
date for Gallio, proconsul of Achaia when Paul was at Corinth. It notes
that Claudius was acclaimed emperor for the 26th time. This would bring
the date of being declared emperor to about 52 and Gallio's term of office
(about one year) to about 51-52.
The chronology of Paul's
missionary journeys and the dates of his letters have been the object of
an investigation made difficult by the fact that the account in Acts does
not agree with Paul's own letters, which are, of course, more reliable.
With the help of external
references, some degree of absolute chronology might be sought--with
several years' margin both because of uncertainty as to extra-biblical
dating and much ambiguity about internal evidence. Although Paul would be
in a better position to know his own situation, often his letters are, in
their present form, combined fragments from various times (see below The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians ;
The Letter of Paul to the Philippians
). A chronology can be reached by comparing Paul's accounts of his
journeys and sojourns with those reported in Acts. Given references in
Acts and the Gallio inscription, it is possible to place Paul in Corinth
in AD 51, and, since he was there for 18 months, it can be assumed that he
began his missionary work sometime in 49 (he had previously been in
Thessalonica and Philippi and in Troas and Asia Minor). This probably fits
in with the "expulsion" of Jews from Rome about AD 49, thus
indicating that Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, two Roman Jewish
Christians, in Corinth at this time. This indicates that he was at an
"apostolic conference" at Jerusalem sometime shortly before this
(a comparison of chapters 13 and 15 of Acts with chapters 1 and 2 of
Galatians shows that the author of Acts made two visits out of the one
recorded by Paul), which was either in 49 or 48.
Though the dates in Galatians 1
and 2 are uncertain--not indicating whether they refer to 17 years in toto or only 14 years, because half years were equated with whole
ones--they do establish the call of Paul to become a Christian in 31 or
about 34-35. Working in the other direction, it is known that Paul wrote
to the Thessalonians from Corinth, thus indicating a date of about 50 as
probable for the writing of I Thessalonians.
From Corinth, Paul went to
Ephesus, where, according to Acts, he remained (probably in prison) for
three years. This would place him in Ephesus during the period 52-55, thus
allowing time for a journey from Corinth via Ephesus to Antioch and then
back to Ephesus. A sequence given in Acts, chapters 16 and 18, shows two
possibilities for Paul to have been in Galatia that work in agreement with
Galatians, chapter 4, verse 13, demonstrating that Galatians was written
from Ephesus about 53-54. Ephesus can also be the location from which came
I Cor., Phil., and probably Philem.
II Corinthians appears to have
been written from Macedonia during 55. From the dating of the periods of
Felix and Festus in office at Caesarea (mid-50s) and from the events in
Felix' time of office, it is probable that Paul was in prison under Felix
by 56.
Thus, data of Acts 18 and 20
regarding the journey and sojourn at Corinth can be correlated with data
in Romans 15 to place the epistle to the Romans in about the year 56,
before the journey back to Jerusalem, ending in the arrest of Paul in 56.
The two years of Acts 24:27 can then be explained as the time during which
Paul was in prison at Caesarea, so that in 58 Paul was before Festus and
was sent to Rome.
That Paul was then in Rome for two
more years is established in Acts chapter 28, verse 30. It can be
concluded that Paul died sometime after 60, possibly during or before the
Neronian persecution of 64 (cf.
I Clem. 5). All this does not resolve the question of a possible Spanish
journey nor give precise dates and locations for II Thessalonians,
Colossians, Ephesians, or the Pastoral Letters (see also PAUL
).
|
