The Historical and Cultural Context and Background of the Historical Jesus

This page is here to introduce you to the historical and cultural context in which the historical Jesus lived. The main focus is on background. By background, what do we mean here? [Contemporary events, religious beliefs, practices, politics, influences, etc.] Why is this important? Why shouldn’t we just skip all this background stuff and spend this time studying the New Testament or Jesus himself?

How many of you have traveled to other countries at some point? I’m going to tell you a true story about an American who traveled once to a country in the Middle East. Upon arrival he headed to the custom official’s window and handed him his passport like this [give passport with left hand] and said ‘Here’s my passport’. The customs official looked at him angrily and said: “You Americans all think you are better than everyone else!” and with that, he threw the passport back at the American traveler.

What went wrong? What did our innocent, unsuspecting American do to get such a response? One simple thing: he gave the passport with his left hand! For us in the West, this is meaningless; for those from the East, it is highly significant. The American had no way of knowing that for this customs official and everyone else in that country the left hand is unclean (apparently due to customs that existed before the invention of toilet paper, but we’ll not get into that now). The customs official likewise had no way of knowing that for Americans either hand will do, and it was pretty much impossible for him to interpret the gesture in any way other than as a sign of aggression and insult.

Why am I telling you this story? What does it have to do with the background of the New Testament and of the historical Jesus? The answer is this: if this kind of major misunderstanding and culture shock can occur between two contemporary cultures in the world today, when our world has become such a small place through the internet, TV and other media, then how much more likely is it that when we read the New Testament we will be prone to misunderstand it? Because the New Testament was written in another language, in another cultural context, at another time in history – almost 2,000 years ago. The chances that we will misunderstand the New Testament are great, and it is for this reason that we seek out background information – information about its cultural setting, its historical setting, its geographical setting, its religious setting; information that we hope will illuminate the meaning of the New Testament.

“I know you understood what you thought I said, but I don’t know if you realize that what you heard isn’t what I meant!”

In other words, there is in the process of communication the danger that a listener will misunderstand. We already saw how an action with no bad intentions became a gesture of insult when it crossed a cultural boundary. I’d like you to consider this next example as another instance of the same phenomenon.

I don’t know how many of you watch soccer. At any rate, once the Romanian soccer team was in France for a big match against the French team. The Romanians won, and they were delighted…until, that is, they read a headline in the next day’s paper, which said:

How do you think the Romanian soccer team reacted to this headline? They were outraged. ‘They are making us out to be gypsies’ they complained, and the complaints and scandal and apologies echoed even into the corridors of the French parliament. Why? Because for Romanians, gypsies are not very clean, not very trustworthy people with a tendency to steal. In France, however, the gypsies are renowned for their musical abilities. And so it is that the expression made its way into the French language ‘to sing or play like a gypsy’, which means ‘to do something expertly’. What happened is that a few simple words were spoken by one person with a particular intention, and those words were heard by another person and interpreted differently. Why? Because the words crossed a cultural boundary in the process. Words only have meaning in context. [The words ‘dimpled chad’ were meaningless 20 years ago and will (hopefully) be meaningless once again in 20 years from now. But in our time, these words came to have a particular meaning and significance.]

When the authors of the New Testament wrote, they could not imagine what 21^st century American readers would be like, with their special needs, reading-situation, etc. They wrote to be understood by people of their own time. Now we cannot ever put ourselves precisely in the shoes of either the authors of the NT or their earliest readers. But what we can do is find out as much as we can about the context in which both author and readers lived, in the hope that this will shed light on the meaning of what was written.

Whenever we have a conversation with someone, we assume a great many things. We don’t need to spell everything out, especially if we are having a conversation with a friend about a subject that we have spoken about at length not long before. And that is just what is happening in the Epistles – Paul is having a conversation about matters that both he and his readers are equally aware of. In the same way, if we read Mark 13:14, we can see a concrete example of the relevance and importance of background information. Mark mentions the ‘desolating abomination’, and then goes ‘wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean? Let the reader understand!’ But today’s reader in all probability will not understand, unless she or he has looked into the background of the Book of Daniel, the events of the so-called 'intertestamental period', and so on. Thus, in short, the aim of this course is to help the reader to do precisely what Mark asks him or her to do: understand.

If we think of jokes, they may help us to see why context is important for getting the point. Let me give an example: Back before the fall of the Soviet Union, in Gorbachev’s time, two men were standing in line waiting for bread. The line was so long the people in the back couldn't see the front of it. Eventually, one man said to the person next to him "That's it, I've had enough, I'm off to kill Gorbachev." And off he went. After some hours, he returned. The man he'd spoken with earlier asked him "Did you really go to kill Gorbachev?" "Yes" the man replied. "So, did you do it?" the other man asked expectantly. "No," he said. "Why not?" the other man asked, to which the man replied: "There the line is twice as long as this one!"

If we wrote this joke down, and someone a thousand years from now found it, how easy would it be for them to understand? They certainly would wonder who Gorbachev was. They would certainly wonder what the Soviet Union was. They might also wonder whether people anywhere in the late 20^th century really had to wait in lines for bread. All this shows how often, without knowledge of the context, we won’t get the punch line. Thus, New Testament background is important if we are to get the point, to laugh at the NT authors’ ‘jokes’ (if I can put it that way), and in general to understand what they talk about and refer to and why.

However, in many cases the problem is not that we don’t understand so much as that we think we do understand. Often, cultural presuppositions, church traditions and other similar factors lead us to read the text one way, whereas someone from a Middle Eastern, Mediterranean or some other culture much closer to that in which the New Testament was written than our own would read the text and understand it differently. (A case in point is Luke 2:7, which we will look at later).

General Thoughts on the Bible and Culture

In talking about context, one of the most important aspects of context is culture. All of us use the word, but what exactly is culture? Culture is the set of shared assumptions, values, customs, and symbols that a society has in common. It is a pattern of learned behavior shared with others in a society. It is shared by all within the society in question, and thus appears 'natural'. For example, eating is natural, but eating with fork and knife is cultural. Sleeping is natural but sleeping on beds is cultural. Belching is natural but considered unacceptable in many cultures; in others, it is not only not frowned upon but a standard way of expressing that the food was good! Similarly nakedness is natural and yet the covering or uncovering of different parts of the body is regarded differently in different cultures and societies. Each culture has assumptions about things like clothing, buying, age and youthfulness, education, family and change. Culture is mostly made up of assumptions that are so taken for granted in the society in question that what is in fact cultural appears natural to those within that society.

Culture has been called the ‘software of the mind’. All human beings have the same basic ‘hardware’, the same basic type of brain (although men and women have them wired somewhat differently). However, from birth onwards we are programmed differently, and many of us run different operating systems. If you have ever tried to run a program from one type of computer on another, you may have found that it did not work or that you received error messages. The same happens when we have contact with other cultures. We rely daily on 1000 cultural cues and assumptions concerning what is polite, what is appropriate, etc. When these cease to work, we experience ‘culture shock’, which is almost like an error message in our programming. Something does not compute!

All human beings are 100% the same, 50% the same and 50% different, and 100% different, as I will now show you:

A good example of cultural difference is in the way different cultures view time. In traditional (i.e. most Eastern and African) cultures, trust and friendship is more important than time. One does not hurry on to business matters – first one chats with those one will be dealing with, even if this delays the start of the meeting. In this way, one builds trust and relationships. In the West (i.e. Western Europe, the U.S., Australia and much of South America) one’s schedule is to be adhered to strictly. Business dealings do not generally involve friendship. By prolonging a meeting’s length, one is likely to upset one’s associates and to give an impression of untrustworthiness because one appears unable to keep faithfully to one’s schedule and appointments. We may thus compare the following (Taken from Paul Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology) :

Westerners feel that Easterners are dishonest and rude when they come 20 minutes to half an hour late to an appointment. But when an Easterner says ’11:00’ he or she means ‘between 11 and 12’. In contrast Westerners divide time into strictly-measured hours, minutes and seconds, into which one carefully arranges one’s plans, appointments, and activities so as to fit exactly and not cause delays to one’s own or anyone else’s plans. Neither is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ necessarily, but they certainly are different, and when persons with different assumptions come into contact there is great room for misunderstanding!

[How is this relevant to Biblical studies? The invitations to the banquet in Luke 14:16-23 might seem unfair from our clock-oriented perspective (we would never call someone and say ‘Come now; everything is ready’), whereas in a non-clock-oriented culture it seems reasonable, and the excuses in contrast seem lame]

Similar differences can be seen in other areas. Different views on age can be seen in the fact that Westerners will go to great lengths to hide the effects of aging which in fact bring honor and authority to someone from the East. Different views of commerce can be seen in the fact that in the East relationship matters, and thus one bargains and haggles. In the West, commerce is impersonal and prices are regarded as stable things that the seller sets and the buyer either accepts or goes elsewhere.

Acts 19 is a Biblical example of the way that society, religion, culture and economy are intertwined. David Burnett writes, “The oneness of culture needs to be appreciated especially in relation to Christian witness. We cannot think that we can replace the religion of the people by Christianity without radically affecting the rest of their culture. Their religion is interwoven with the whole culture and any change will have far-reaching repercussions”. The evangelical statement of faith called the Lausanne Covenant affirms that in every culture there are (1) things which reflect God's image and are thus to be embraces, and (2) things which reflect human sinfulness, which are thus to be challenged by the Gospel. Every culture has positive and negative aspects, and the Christian church in every culture has ‘blind spots’, where it has accepted the prevailing culture’s values without examining them critically in light of the Gospel.

The study of human cultures is called anthropology. Louis Luzbetak writes, "Because the mission of the church is to human beings, and because anthropology is the systematic study of such beings, a basic knowledge of this science is a must for anyone involved in mission". Culture is also important because (1) the Bible is not regarded by Christians the way Muslims regard the Qur’an. It is a document written by inspired individuals which reflects their cultural context, and because (2) our own cultural assumptions, and those of the authors of books we read and of preachers we listen to, will affect the way we interpret the Bible.

Culture as New Testament Background

I think it has already become clear that culture is important for correctly understanding the Bible or any other ancient sources relating to the historical Jesus. However, an obvious question is where and to what extent we have access to the culture of the first century Greco-Roman world that provides the background to the New Testament writings. If we want to understand a modern culture, we can go live there or interview those who live in it. These options are (obviously) not available in the case of the NT. What are our options?

(1) We have the writings of the NT and other writings from around the same time. These are useful, but will not provide many of the essential details we need, since culture is precisely what tends to be assumed rather than explicitly stated. It is precisely what ‘everyone knows’ and thus no one feels the need to say. However, at the very least the more literature of this time we survey, the more we opportunities we’ll have to check and double check the cultural assumptions and/or models that we bring to the text.

(2) We have cultures today that appear to be more traditional and closer to the values of the NT world than 21^st century North American culture is. I am referring here to the cultures of the Mediterranean and Middle East and their vicinities. These cultures will not provide us with details such as marriage customs, but some of the more general aspects like honor-shame values systems appear to be very similar. Thus these cultures, if nothing else, provide an alternative perspective that challenges us not to read the NT from a parochial, North American perspective.

(3) We also have a combination of the two in the early (and not so early) eastern translations of the Gospels and other NT writings into languages such as Syriac and Arabic. Translation involves interpretation, and thus one can glean insights into how the translator understood the NT writing in question.

Kenneth Bailey asserts that “The crucial questions are those of attitude, relationship, response, and value judgment. What is the attitude of a sleeping neighbor to a call for help in the night? What is the relationship between a landowner and his renters? What is the expected response from a father when his son requests his inheritance? What value judgments do the renters make regarding the steward when he suggests the reduction of rents?” (Bailey, Poet & Peasant, p.35). This suggests that culture is crucial to interpretation on both ends of the process. On the one hand, cultural assumptions would provide the necessary presuppositions in order to respond to what Jesus said or what Paul wrote in the intended way. On the other hand, in order to understand and/or communicate the same ideas today, we may need not so much to translate the words as to find a way to make the same impact and have the same effect for readers and hearers today.

Examples of culture and NT interpretation

Several aspects of culture in NT times (and in many non-Western cultures today) focus on interpersonal and inter-group relations, whereas we today would treat the same issues and aspects of life in an impersonal manner. As I mentioned briefly in relation to the discussion of time, in many other cultures things like business dealings have to do with relationship, whereas for us we do not want anything beyond polite conversation with a store salesperson, and if we are in a hurry we would prefer that he or she get straight to the point and sell us the item we are looking for! Most Americans have heard that in the East one does not just buy; first one bargains. Many Americans on holiday do not have time for this and think that they are simply buying, in an impersonal, Western fashion. But in fact, they are being rude. The cultural assumption in these cultures is that one forms a relationship with the salesperson, and together you reach a fair price. One who will not bargain presumably thinks he is superior to the seller, above forming a personal relationship.

In these cultures the focus is also more on the group than on the individual. Some have taken this to mean either that ‘there is no individual sense of identity’ or that ‘these cultures are less egotistical and selfish than our own’. Neither of these statements is true in an unqualified sense. While one had a responsibility (in decreasing degrees) to one’s immediate family, to one’s village community, to one’s ethnic group, one felt no moral obligation to those outside of one’s society. This is the point being addressed in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus is stretching the moral responsibility of being a neighbor beyond anything most of his contemporaries would recognize.

To take a concrete example from life in this sort of culture, if you wanted to hire a new mechanic for your garage, you would place an advertisement in the newspaper, accept applications, review them, interview selected candidates, and try to choose one who is objectively the best, then form an impersonal, legal relationship with your new employee. In other cultures, this approach is not adopted. Not only is it inconceivable, but unless the entire culture were to be radically transformed, it would not work! Someone who is not part of the employer’s in-group has no sense of obligation to him or his family business. Such a person is not viewed as trustworthy. For this reason, the employer will engage in what we would call ‘nepotism’. He will think of a brother-in-law, or someone from his village, who is a good mechanic, and hire that person if he is available. There may be many other better mechanics around, but there is no relationship on the basis of which employment can occur. On the one hand, the employer feels a sense of obligation to his relative or fellow-villager. On the other hand, if he does not do his work properly or steals from him, there are kinship ties that can be appealed to in order to settle the matter. Thus in such a culture one might say that trust takes precedence over competence.

Is one way of doing things better than the other? My own opinion, having lived in both kinds of cultures, is yes, but then I am biased! But the point is not about better or worse, but about difference and recognizing and understanding differences. If one presumes an American way of looking at relationships, business, etc., then the behavior of many individuals mentioned in NT narratives will be perplexing and perhaps even unintelligible.

How (you may ask) does this relate to Biblical studies? I’ll give you an example. When Paul arrived in a new city, what did he do? Did he check into a motel? Did he check the classifieds to see if anyone had advertised that they are looking for a tentmaker? Emphatically not. He went to the synagogue. Why? Was this simply a convenient place to start his mission work? No. He was going to the group in the city in question with which he had ties of kinship. In the Roman world, Jews stuck together, as did other people groups. This was not due to any kind of separationist mentality – it was simply the way one survived! Greeks, Romans, and others had no obligations to them. Paul went to the synagogue not only in order to preach, but because that was where he would be welcomed as a fellow-Israelite, and helped to arrange accommodation and work. If some scandal broke out after Paul preached about Jesus, then in general we find that he would either be welcomed and offered hospitality by someone who had become a Christian, or he would leave. There was simply no way of ‘doing business’ in a completely impersonal manner that was considered appropriate and safe. This is not to say one could not just walk into a store or an inn and be served. But this is precisely where one needed to bargain, not in order to save money, but in order to fashion a relationship. In the absence of any sort of relationship, there was nothing left, no impersonal model of business dealings that one could fall back on.

The Apocrypha – Appropriate Reading for Evangelicals?

Our best sources of knowledge about Judaism in the period between the testaments are the writings of that time. These include the books known as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. So let me ask a question some of you may have: Is it OK for Protestant Evangelicals to read these writings?

Why are these writings not in the Protestant Canon? [They were in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, but were not included in the Hebrew canon when that was formulated. For this reason, they were evaluated as not having the same authority by the Protestant Reformers. However, for most of the history of the Christian Church, these writings have been accepted and appreciated as part of Scripture.]

Do you read Billy Graham’s writings? But they are not in the Bible!!! Writings can be helpful, even if they are not canonical. Likewise, the fact that something is considered inappropriate for inclusion in the canon does not necessarily mean that it is heretical or wacky or just plain dumb.

These writings are useful at the very least for the background knowledge they can give us about the times in which Jesus lived.

Having looked at this point, I’d like you to take a look at a couple of passages, and to let you set them side-by-side with a couple of Jewish writings from the 'intertestamental' period, and then let you think about how they might relate to each other. The passages to think about are:

A Survey of Post-Biblical Jewish History in the 'Intertestamental Period'

Our aim in this course is to look at and study the history of the period leading up to New Testament times, and which formed the world into which Jesus and his first followers were born. An obvious question to ask is: Just how far back should we go? The answer is that in order to really grasp the background of the New Testament, we need to go back to the end of the Hebrew Bible or 'Old Testament' and look at what happened subsequently, and understand the directions that Judaism took ‘between the Testaments’. However, we will not try to cover the whole of world history during this period. I will try to give you a broad overview of the most important events for understanding the New Testament; more detailed information is available in Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, and in most standard textbooks on this period.

The Judaism of this period is often called ‘second-temple Judaism’. Why? Because that is a convenient way of referring to the period between the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in the time of Haggai and Zechariah, towards the end of the Old Testament period, and the destruction of the second and last Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (I will use ‘CE’ rather than ‘AD’ not just because of political correctness, but also because it doesn’t seem to me to make sense to speak of Jesus having been born around the year 4 Before Christ!). And so let us start there, with the rebuilding of the Temple and the return from exile - although we won’t stay there long since you will presumably cover these events in your Old Testament classes. However, at least a quick reminder is called for.

That Israel and then Judah were exiled is well known. What is often overlooked is that there was in no sense a complete emptying of the entire populace of the region. People were taken away from Jerusalem, from the surrounding area, and from other major cities. Rulers, leaders and dignitaries who were not killed were particularly likely candidates for exile. But the vast majority of Jews remained in the land. It is equally overlooked that while a reasonable number of individuals returned during Ezra and Nehemiah’s time, the vast majority of those who were exiled did not simply uproot and return to their parents’ or grandparents’ native land. The huge Diaspora of Jews throughout the Greco-Roman world is sufficient witness to this fact. Thus, a first point to mention is that Jews did not think of the exilic period as something that lasted only 70 years, as Jeremiah described. By Jesus’ time, most people thought more in terms of Daniel’s interpretation of Jeremiah, in terms of 70 weeks of years, or 490 years. In other words, the exile came to be viewed as an ongoing condition, one that continued until the present, and one that would last until God intervened to bring his kingdom. As we may have the chance to see later in this course, there are several New Testament passages that presuppose this Jewish view of their own history in terms of ongoing exile.

Since we are speaking of the second Temple period, let us look at what attitude contemporaries had of the rebuilt Temple. Once again, the best place to start is the end of the Old Testament period. In Haggai 2:3 we are told fairly clearly what contemporaries thought of the rebuilt temple: ‘Who of you is left who saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Does it not seem to you like nothing?’ From the very beginning, there was a sense of dissatisfaction regarding the rebuilt temple. Even at the start, it was clear that it did not compare with the original one that Solomon built. As we will see, later on the temple was desecrated and the lineage of the Aaronic priesthood was also interrupted. Over the course of this period, more and more Jewish literature can be found commenting negatively on the Jerusalem Temple. It is important to know this. When Jesus and his followers said that the Temple would be destroyed and God would replace it with one not made by human hands, the priests and many leaders may have been angered, but many others would have said a wholehearted ‘Amen’.

[And so another crucial thing to remember is that ‘Judaism’ was not a monolithic religion of clones. Today, you can meet Hassidic Jews, orthodox Jews, reformed Jews, agnostic Jews, non-observant Jews. While not precisely identical to the situation today, if there is one thing that has become clearer and clearer in recent times, there was a profound diversity of opinion, of belief and of practice in the Judaism of this period. Although this is only tangentially related to what I was speaking about as regards the Temple, I wanted to mention it now. The language used in the New Testament (and in John’s Gospel in particular) often leaves one with the impression that every single individual Jew was opposed to every single individual Christian. This is completely anachronistic. The Gospels themselves tell us that when Jesus taught something, when he interpreted the Torah, the Jewish Law, there were divergent reactions. Some agreed, some were impressed, some were uncertain, some were shocked, and some strongly disagreed. This is true not just of early Christians’ attitudes towards the Temple, but also other aspects of early Christian belief and practice as well.]

So, to sum up, the Temple was rebuilt and once again became a focus for the Jewish religion. In fact, as we’ll see in greater detail in a little while, the high priest was the de facto political as well as the religious leader during this period when Israel had no king. Yet with so many Jews now living abroad, far from Jerusalem, the focus of the Jewish religion began to change. Instead of focusing on sacrificial worship, the religious life of Judaism came to focus more and more on the Torah, on Scripture. Judaism became increasingly a ‘religion of the Book.’ Synagogues appeared, initially as meetings that took place in houses in order for the local Jewish community to study the Law together and to discuss practical concerns and issues that faced them in this setting. The church would later pattern itself on this model.

Having looked briefly at the start of the ‘second Temple’ period, we are now going to jump close to two hundred years. [I’m sure you are glad to hear that!] The Jewish people basically carried on with life in the context of the Persian Empire’s rule over them, whether in Judea or in the Diaspora. The next major event that affected Judaism in a radical way is the coming of Alexander the Great. Alexander was certainly one of the most significant military leaders of all time. He conquered the great nations and empires of his time: Greece, Babylonia and Persia; and he turned back very reluctantly from pressing on to conquer India, his troops being unwilling to press on through monsoon season there. However, the most important thing in relation to our own interests is not his military prowess but his vision for society. With Alexander, the vision that came to be known as Hellenism makes its debut in history. There is some debate regarding the extent to which Alexander, his advisors and/or his followers were the chief proponents of his extraordinary vision. Nevertheless, history traces the vision of Hellenism, of a fusion of all cultures into one with a single common language, back to him. It is certainly clear that when he conquered Persia, rather than humiliate them and oppress them, he treated them as equals and made his generals take Persian wives. Greek culture and religion was to predominate in this union of cultures, as well as the Greek language. Under Alexander and in the years that followed, philosophy flourished; access to education increased; the economy throughout his kingdom flourished; independent city-states with charters and constitutions for their citizens were created throughout his empire, along the lines of the model of the Greek city-state or polis. But most impressive was the vision of all races being equals, and of the unity of mankind. This new view of society and culture, known to us as Hellenism, was to provide a powerful challenge to Judaism and later to Christianity, as well as providing it with many new insights as well.

The power of Alexander’s vision can be seen most clearly when one considers that his united empire was very short-lived, and yet the Hellenistic vision and predominance of the Greek language and culture continued for many generations. Alexander himself died young, around age 33, and his successors were unable to hold his vast empire together. It split between Alexander’s generals and eventually there came to be 4 main dominions. The two that will occupy our interest from now on are Syria and Egypt, to the north and south of Israel respectively. In Syria, the Seleucid dynasty came to power, whereas in Egypt the Ptolemaic dynasty reigned. Caught between the two was Israel. Israel thus became what we would call a ‘buffer state’. If you use a computer, and particularly if you burn CDs, then you’ll know the problems caused by buffer underrun. Israel had a different problem: buffer overrun. Israel changed hands between being dominated and controlled by Syria and Egypt a number of times during the years that followed. The thinking was simple: if you have an enemy, you want a piece of allied territory between yourself and that enemy’s territory. As it was, both empires would have liked to conquer the other, and the Seleucids in Syria were particularly enthusiastic about taking Egypt. In fact, Antiochus III of Syria managed to take a sizable chunk of Egyptian territory, but in 190 BCE his forces were defeated by Rome, who were Egypt’s allies, in the battle of Magnesia (I hope Antiochus got some milk of magnesia before leaving there!). Both sides wanted to have Israel as a buffer between them and their enemies, and as I said, it changed hands several times.

The grandson of Antiochus III, whose name was (the very original) Antiochus IV, is the ruler who had dominion over Israel whose influence had perhaps the greatest effect on Judaism and Jewish history. He was responsible for what is known as the ‘abomination of desolation’ or the ‘desolating abomination’ (let the reader understand). While there are some uncertainties and perplexing questions, we have a couple of very good sources of information about this period – in particular the books of the Maccabees. We now need to look at the events of this period in some detail. So, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, but let’s take our story back to the beginning and see what happened….

In Israel, as in the rest of the world, Hellenism came to have an increasing influence. As in any instance when God’s people are faced with a new culture, they face many new questions and issues. Is this kind of music or dress OK? Is it OK to…? It appears that Jews who liked the Hellenistic ideal and what it stood for established a gymnasium in Jerusalem. A gymnasium was not just a ‘gym’ such as we have today; it was basically a school, where teens went to learn sports, but also literature and other aspects of education. This was a new thing, and we should not allow the benefit of hindsight to keep us from seeing what a controversy this new development could cause. For one thing, in the gymnasium, athletics took place in the nude, as did the original Olympic games. Apparently, some males underwent an operation to hide the fact that they were circumcised. To the author of 1 Maccabees, this was tantamount to abandonment of the covenant with Abraham. However, before presuming that these Jews intended to abandon their allegiance to the God of Abraham, we should remember that less than two centuries later, another Jewish man (one Paul of Tarsus) would argue that being a child of Abraham is not really about circumcision. It may be that these Hellenistic Jews saw things in a similar way. We do not really know, since the literature we have from this period comes from those who disagree with them.

In the Hellenistic world, there was one key way to obtain a position of power. BRIBERY. This was not in all likelihood an entirely new development; but as this understanding of the way positions and offices were to be obtained penetrated and influenced Jewish society to a greater extent that before, we see that Hellenistic influence was a mixture of good and bad, which is why it was so difficult for Jews to know how to relate to it: it offered education and a philosophy that moved in directions similar to Jewish monotheism and morals, yet it had its negative aspects as well. The high priest at this time was Onias III. In 174/175 BCE, his brother Jason offered a bribe to Antiochus IV, and was granted the position of high priest. You will recall, as I mentioned earlier, that the high priesthood was a position of political power and influence and not just a purely religious position. Now, in comparison with the political maneuverings of the time, the bribery by and installation of Jason might have seemed fairly insignificant. But think about it for just a second. How was the priesthood obtained up until this point? By birth. And thus, by obtaining the high priesthood in this way, Jason’s action was a first step towards a departure from strict adherence to the teachings of Torah. Under Jason’s leadership, hellenization continued, and Jews even went to the Olympics, which doesn’t mean much to us today, but in that time every participant or guest would have contributed to the sacrifice to Hercules. Jason appears to have wanted to turn Jerusalem into a city-state along the lines of the Greek model, a polis that would be named Antioch. Now, the change of name in itself would not be a problem – the name Jerusalem apparently pre-dates the coming of even Abraham into Canaan! But once a constitution was drawn up for this new city-state, it would implicitly take precedence over the Law and the covenant of the Scriptures. And so we see that, once again, the Jewish people were faced with a culture that offered much good and much that was dangerous to the distinctives of their culture and more importantly their religion.

As in all such situations, the question is raised of ‘How much’ and ‘How far’. The author of 1 Maccabees criticizes the students who attended the gymnasium for dressing in a Greek manner, including the broad-brimmed hat that was part of the typical Greek ‘school uniform’. For us today, we might say that such things were insignificant, but when new issues are raised by a new cultural situation, we often focus on external things that seem dangerous and fail to see where our underlying values have changed in even more dangerous ways. In the words of Victor Tcherikover, a famous Jewish historian,

It was quite impossible, living among the Greeks and enjoying the splendid works of Greek literature, to be enclosed in a spiritual Ghetto and to be reckoned among the “barbarians”. It was a necessity to find a compromise, a synthesis, which would permit a Jew to remain a Jew and, at the same time, to belong to the elect society of the Greeks, the bearers of world culture.[2]

For us today, who live in the midst of American culture and breath it, for we who speak it fluently, it is particularly hard to realize the difficulties traditional cultures face when Western influence comes in and traditional values and assumptions are called into question. This was the situation of the Jews during this period. Since God’s people face similar situations in every age, there is a lot we can learn from studying this period. The two extremes of options are both considered impossible by mainstream Christianity. To simply throw oneself willingly along with every cultural current is unacceptable; yet to attempt to hide away and isolate oneself from the culture one lives in is equally impossible. We live it, and breathe it, most of the time without even realizing it (often it is only when we come into contact with another culture and undergo culture shock that we realize how much of our thinking and attitudes are culturally determined). But the attempt to find a way of learning from both sides, of relating one's inherited faith to one's culture and vice versa, is a narrow line that it is extremely difficult to walk. This too we see illustrated in the history of Judaism in this period.

Anyway, as I said, Jason became the high priest in the place of his brother. But a precedent concerning how one could become high priest had now been established. And so it was that a man named Menelaus, who may possibly have been a priest but clearly was not of Aaronic descent, paid a bigger bribe and was appointed high priest instead of Jason. Jason fled into exile in Trans-Jordan. Then once, when Antiochus IV was on a military campaign in Egypt, the rumor reached Jason that Antiochus was dead. Jason saw his chance, and led an armed group to Jerusalem to retake the priesthood. He may well have appealed to the fact that Menelaus was not entitled to be high priest according to the Law of Moses. At any rate, a slight hitch appeared – Antiochus was not dead…

While this was going on, Antiochus had been on his way to Egypt. The Egyptians appealed to their allies, the Romans, and an envoy from Rome met Antiochus while he was still en route. The Roman envoy went up to Antiochus, drew a circle around him in the dirt, and said that he is free to do what he wishes, but he must decide before leaving that circle whether he wants to fight Rome as well as Egypt. Knowing his odds and his grandfather’s defeat, Antiochus turned back. He was presumably not in a good mood. At any rate, whatever his mood, he was not pleasantly surprised when he reached Jerusalem and, instead of finding a warm welcome from his subjects, he found Jason leading a revolt! His reaction would have innumerable historical consequences. What did he do? Well, presumably because he understood this revolt to have been motivated by adherence to the Jewish Law, he took the measure of making the observance of the Jewish Law illegal. And so began what was probably the first mass religious persecution of this sort in history. Antiochus issued decrees whereby anyone who circumcised their children or carried out other practices according to the Jewish Law were to be punished and probably killed. The Temple in Jerusalem was rededicated to Zeus Olympus. This is what Daniel is speaking about when he talks about the ‘Desolating Abomination’ – Antiochus set up a new altar to Zeus Olympus and sacrificed a pig on it (see 1 Mac. 1:54, where the author uses the phrase from Daniel in reference to this).

Not surprisingly, groups of Jews who were committed to worshipping God and obeying him went into hiding, many fleeing to the desert so that they could continue to obey God’s laws in safety. This group became known as the Hasidim or ‘the pious’. The same name has been taken up by Hasidic Jews today (although there is no historic connection between the two groups). This group would later split into two groups that you may have heard of – one known as the Pharisees, the other as the Essenes (this latter group was responsible for writing and copying the Dead Sea Scrolls). But that is a story for another time. Anyway, this group started out by peacefully withdrawing so as to continue observing the Law of Moses. But eventually some in their zeal took up arms and decided to fight against both the Syrians and those Jews who compromised their faith. And so began the Maccabean revolt, named after its first leader, Judas Maccabeus. The Hasidim allied themselves to the Maccabean cause and began a struggle to restore their religious freedom. The family of the Maccabees, or the Hasmoneans as they also are known, led Israel to victory until they regained a measure of independence and the right to practice their religion again. The Temple in Jerusalem was purified and rededicated to the God if Israel in the year 164 BCE, an event still celebrated today through the festival of Chanukah.

However, the Maccabees pressed on further until they had gained political independence as well. After the death of Antiochus, when his brother Demetrius came to the throne in Syria, Judas Maccabeus wrote to Rome asking for an alliance, in case they should have problems with Syria again. This is interesting, in view of the negative attitude to Roman occupation many had in later times. At the start, the relationship with Rome was a Jewish initiative!

After Judas’ death, his brother Jonathan took over as leader of the Jewish cause. At that time, Alexander, the son of Antiochus IV, contested Demetrius’ claim to the throne. Suddenly, each contender wanted the Jews as their allies. Each tried to make an offer that could not be refused. Alexander sent Jonathan a purple robe and a crown, and appointed him as … [wait for it] … high priest![3] [OK, you can say it – here we go again!]. Jonathan’s acceptance of the position (in 152 BCE) shows that the struggles of this period were not black and white, and no one – not even the nationalistic Maccabees – was uninfluenced by Hellenism. Jonathan’s assumption of the position of high priest was no more legal in terms of the Law of Moses than was Menelaus’.

At any rate, Alexander the son of Antiochus was successful and took the throne in Syria. In order to consolidate his position, he made an alliance with Egypt by marrying the daughter of Ptolemy, the Egyptian ruler. The woman’s name was…Cleopatra. [So I can skip some details here and you can go watch the movie on another occasion].

After Jonathan’s death, his brother Simon took over as high priest, and the people declared him ‘high priest forever’ – in other words, they decided that the high priesthood should pass from him to his descendents from now on. It was under Simon that Israel gained its complete independence, and his descendants would bear the title not only of high priest, but also of king.

It would be easy to evaluate what was going on in Israel during this period superficially, as though it were really about ‘Judaism vs. Hellenism’. In fact, while this may have been a rallying cry, in fact the motivations were a mixture of religious and political ones. Much that Hellenism had to offer was evaluated positively. From 103-76 BCE, the Maccabean or Hasmonean ruler was Alexander Janneus. Even this choice of name is significant – Alexander, not just any old Greek name, but that of the founder of Hellenism. In works of subsequent years, such as 3 and 4 Maccabees, the martyrs of this period would be presented along the lines of philosophical models, as though they behaved when threatened with death as a good student of philosophy should!

When the Maccabees took the priesthood, it was then that the movement of the Hasidim split. One group, the Essenes, withdrew back to the desert. This group was led by descendents of Zadok, and so it is not surprising that, as representatives of the priestly line that ought to have had the priesthood, they found this state of affairs unacceptable. The other group, the Pharisees, were likewise unhappy about this development, but decided to stay involved and try to influence the Hasmonean ruler and society by being actively involved. Another group that also appears during this period is the Sadducees, who were presumably made up primarily of the priests and other aristocrats who accepted the Hasmonean high priesthood as legitimate. Your average ordinary person in Jewish society during this time seems to have accepted the situation – after all, there was not much they could do about it, and they did have their religious freedom, as well as political freedom and a degree of increased economic prosperity, thanks to the Maccabees.

In 63 BCE, the Romans made Israel part of the Roman province of Siria, leaving Hyrcanus II, the last Hasmonean ruler, in charge of Judea in the South. In 55, an Idumean named Antipater, who had been a faithful servant of both the Romans as of Hyrcanus, was repaid by the Romans by being made procurator of Judah after Hyrcanus’ death. Later, after helping Julius Caesar at a time of crisis when Caesar was fighting against Egypt, he was given permission to reduce taxes in Judea, to repair the walls of Jerusalem, and to increase religious freedom.

In 44 BCE Julius Caesar was killed, and not long after, in 43, Antipater was poisoned. Imediately after there was a frantic struggle for power in both Rome and more locally in Israel. The Hasmoneans saw an opportunity to regain their position as kings, but Herod, Antipater’s son, contested their claim to the throne, and through a couple of astute political maneuvers, he was declared king of Judea by the Roman senate in 40 BCE. By the year 37, Herod had managed to eliminate the last representative of the Hasmoneans and their dynasty, crucifying as well around 45 Sadducean priests who had supported them. This man Herod, known as Herod the Great, remained in power until 4 BCE. Not being Jewish, many of the Jews hated him or at least resented his position, and alongside this he also had paranoid tendencies, and so he had many of his sons and others put to death because he suspected them of being after his throne. Thus, although there is no independent confirmation of the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem described by Matthew, it certainly is in keeping with the character of Herod as we know it from other sources.

We can stop our survey here, since we have reached the start of the New Testament period, and we can look at other events as we look at subjects such as the Jewish parties and groups of this period. However, I should bring you through to the end of the Second-Temple period. Tension increased under Roman governors and procurators who ignored Jewish religious sentiments and, along with taxes, mismanagement, and other perhaps ‘typical’ burdens of being under the control of a foreign power, there were those who every now and again sought to bring Roman military and religious symbols into Jerusalem for them to be displayed there. The emperor Caligula even tried to have his image placed in the Temple in Jerusalem.[4] Eventually, a war against the Romans started, leading to the Romans taking Jerusalem and destroying the Temple in 70 CE. The Roman forces were led first by Vespasian, who subsequently went to Rome to be acclaimed emperor; thereafter they were led by his son Titus, who would himself become emperor after his father. I won’t go into any more detail, since you can read Josephus’ description of the war to get the perspective of a contemporary on the events (Josephus, War, 5-6 has a description of the final battles).

Just to sum up, we saw how the Jewish people had to interact with new cultural, religious and ideological settings during this period. Their survival and preservation of both their distinctive identity and their relevance depended on their ability to maintain that fine balance between the two. Their history is thus instructive to us today, not only because of the background information it gives us to help us understand the historical Jesus or the New Testament in general, but also because of the way it illuminates challenges similar to those religious believers continue to face today.

5 minutes before
appointed time	servants on time	everyone on time
5 minutes after		mumbled apology advisable
10 minutes after	servants late	slight apology needed
15 minutes after		mildly insulting
20 minutes after		full apology needed
30 minutes after		rude
1 hour late	on time	very insulting
1 ¼ hours late	late	unforgivable