IMO STATE UNIVERSITY, OWERRI P.M.B COURSE MATERIAL FOR REL: 124 THE SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITY BY: VEN. DR. J. DIMOBIKA

Transcription

1 IMO STATE UNIVERSITY, OWERRI P.M.B COURSE MATERIAL FOR REL: 124 THE SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITY BY: VEN. DR. J. DIMOBIKA 1

2 REL. 124: THE SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITY. COURSE OUTLINE 1. Prophecies about the coming MESSIAH in the Old Testament which finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ. 2. The religious, political, socio-cultural and ideological background of Palestine at the time Jesus was born. 3. The conflict between Judaism and Hellenism. 4. The emergence of Early Christianity. 5. Factors that made the firm foundation of the church possible 1. PROPHECIES ABOUT THE COMING MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WHICH FINDS ITS FULFILLMENT IN THE TIME OF JESUS CHRIST. The Jews were expecting God to send them a Messiah. Messiah is a Hebrew word meaning someone who is anointed. Christ is the Greek word which means the same thing. The Israelite kings had been anointed kings. The High Priest was also anointed when he took office. Anointing had to do with being set apart and being given power. In the time of Jesus the Jews were waiting for God to send them a powerful deliverer. Most Jews expected the Messiah, to be a political leader a king who would be a descendant of King David. They thought that he would lead an army against the Romans and defeat them. Then he would establish a Jewish kingdom. He would celebrate the establishment of the kingdom with a great banquet. The kingdom of the Messiah would be a great and powerful one as the kingdom of Israel had been in the days of David. All the scattered Jews would return to live in Israel. The Messiah would be a righteous king and Judge. It s subjects would live in peace and prosperity. There would be plenty of food and drink for everyone, and even the animals would live in peace. Everyone would know God and worship Him. 2

3 Some Jews had a more spiritual idea of what the messiah would be like. For example the Essences seem to have expected three people: a prophet like Moses, who would lead them into all truth, a warrior Messiah who would be descended from David, and a priestly Messiah descended from Aaron. The most important of these was the priestly Messiah. The Samaritans were expecting a prophet like Moses. 2. THE RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, SOCIO-CULTURAL AND IDEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF PALESTINE AT THE TIME JESUS WAS BORN BRIEF PALESTINIAN BACKGROUND TO THE N.T. The introduction above is but an eye-opener to the beginning of Christianity as well as source materials for the understanding of this course. Having noted that the nascent Christian community started in what appeared to be a Judaic culture, it will be very significant if these early formative stages are x-rayed to enable us present a clear or more explicit background to the earliest beginnings of the Christian Church because the understanding of the New Testament is to a large extent dependent on the understanding of Old Testament (Palestinian culture). To these cultural features we now turn. a) RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND OF PALESTINE The religion of Palestine before Jesus Christ was Judaism. In the various proclamations of Jesus, he never outrightly condemned the existing order-authority or religion rather he took the position of a reformer hence in Matthew 5:17 he was quoted as saying I have not come to abolish the laws and prophets but to maintain (or fulfill) them. To get a full grasp of the religion of Palestine before and during the time of Jesus, one should review the beliefs and practices of the popular Jewish sects such as (1) The Sadducees, (2) The Pharisees, (3) The Essenes (4) The Zealots, (5) The scribes, etc. 3

4 THE SADDUCEES: The origin of the Sadducees may be traced back to the early part of the Hasmonean period when they emerged as sons of Saddou (Zadok) meaning righteous ones Zadokite priesthood was first appointed by king David (11 Sam. 20:25). The Sadducees were composed of priestly families at the time of the Maccabees but the name Sadducee was a title of honour showing the view that they were sons of true Zadok; this was because unlike the original hereditary Zadokites, they opposed the Hellenization of Palestine imposed by the foreign rulers (Selucids of Syria). They were the priestly aristocrats in Jerusalem this period. Because, the Sadducean high priests were in touch with foreign influences, their political power grew and their religious devotion waned and this was why the author of 1 Maccabees regarded them as renegades and traitors to the heritage of their father (1 Mac. 1:15). In the time of Jesus the Sadducees were a small group but they exercised political power over the Jews. According to Josephus they were educated men mostly in prominent positions. They had little or no following among the masses. BELIEFS AND PRACTICES: (1) In terms of beliefs and practices, they insisted on a strict literal obedience to the written law - Pentateuch. (2) They rejected legal and ethical matters that had come through the scribes. The most egregious was the rejection of the oral tradition which the Pharisees used to interpret and expand the Mosaic Law. The practical result of Sadduceism was that by believing narrowly in the law they were able to become rather wealthy since they assumed that they were free to do anything not specifically prohibited in the written law. 3) From the above point of view, the Sadducees were to be conservative theologically while liberal politically. 4) In another vein, they rejected the belief in resurrection of the dead which was one of the core beliefs that Christ was propagating in his early preaching days. They had always had conflicts with Christ on this issue because they felt that Jesus had come to swiftly thwart the existing order. 4

5 THE PHARISEES: Like the Sadducees, the origin of the Pharisees may be traced back to the Maccabean Times. They too resisted Hellenization. Yet, unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees were related to the Hasideans (the pious ones) 'who While supporting the initial revolt of the Maccabees later found it necessary to separate from them because the Maccabean uprising ceased to be a struggle for religious freedom and became a context for political supremacy. MEMBERSHIP: Most of the members of this sect were Jews of the middle class families such as carpenters, teachers, tailors, etc. They had ample time based on the demands of their profession to argue on the minutest detail of the law. BELIEFS AND PRACTICES: The Pharisees heid tenacious belief in the Mosaic law. The observance of the law was not only limited to the written LAW (Pentateuch) but insist that beyond the written law there was an oral tradition of legal and ethical amplification and interpretation which should govern all phases of life (Matthew 15: 1f). The Sadducees however did not believe in this view. 2) The Pharisees also believe in final physical resurrection of the righteous after death i.e. after a stay in Hades, a view that was equally rejected by the Sadducees. After this will come God s judgment 3) The Pharisees believed in angels, spirits, and demons but the Sadducees rejected such beliefs. Therefore on the basis of religious beliefs the Pharisees separated and became a sect. Pharisaism is therefore the final result of that conception of religion which makes religion consist in conformity to the law and promises God s grace only to the doers of the law. It was therefore scrupulous adherence to the legalistic traditions that created the pharisaic ethos. It should not be supposed that all Pharisees were hypocrites. The Jewish Talmud indicates that there were many kinds of Pharisees in Judaism. These were: 5

6 1. Wait a-little Pharisees. 2. The Bleeding - Suffer the blood by pummeling or stumbling and falling in order not to see a woman. 3. The Shoulder Pharisees - they wear their good deeds on their shoulders so that everybody would see 'them. They are purely hypocritical type of Pharisees. 4. The ever-recalling or reckoning Pharisees. 5. The God-fearing Pharisees. 6. Good-type Pharisees. 7. The bad type Pharisees. It must be noted therefore that John the Baptist's and Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees must be understood as directed against those of the Pharisees who were bad (LK. 3:7, Matt. 5:20; I6:l6; 16:11-12; 23:1-39). In (Mathew 5:20), Jesus was quoted as saying. "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". This is a direct reference to the hypocritical (bad) type of Pharisees. Again, according to the gospels, Jesus was friendly with some of the Pharisees (Lk 7:37 and 13:3l). In LK. 7:37-38, Jesus was said to have visited Simon the Pharisee and even dinned with him - "And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment and standing behind him, at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. This was a good pointer to the fact that Jesus related well with some of the Pharisees even to the extent of eating with them. Others however whose religious formalism and hypocrisy Jesus denounced so vigorously took a prominent part in plotting his death (MK. 3:6 and John 11:47-57). In Mark, it was said that "the Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. This was the malicious and aggressive moods of the Pharisees after 6

7 Jesus had beaten them hollow in the theological argument of whether good works or works of exigency should be done on the Sabbath day. THE ESSENES (a) Origin (b) Beliefs and practices (c) Attitude to Rome. ORIGIN; The Essenes were a religious sect in the Jewish community little of which is told by both old and New Testament books. It was Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and Pliny who gave the little they could about the Essenes. They like the Pharisees and Sadducees, had their origin from the Maccabeus revolt which took place around B.C. Hence from this we can see that the Maccabean revolt signifies the emergence of so many Jewish sects. The Essenes were also said to have come from a group of Jews known as the Hasideans, that is, those who were opposed to and who fought Hellenism. BELIEFS AND PRACTICES: The Essenes did not like to stay in the Jewish community. They liked a Monastic type of life and thus preferred to live in the wilderness. This was because they felt that society was bad and corrupt. This attitude of the Essenes has also been looked upon as the basis of the Monastic life in the Middle Ages. Like any other community in the world, the Essenes had an organizational form which was portrayed from their document know as the 'Manual of discipline'. Here in their organizational form, they had the brotherhood type of relationship. The implication is that they all owned property together, cooked together and did so many other things in common. In other words, it was a sort of communalism or communism. The problem of one is that of the others. The Essenes in their times had serious commitments to religious life. They had stated hours of prayer just like the present-day Moslems. The Essenes were also constantly reading and studying the Old Testament. They believed that the temple was a polluted place and so did not want to worship there. 7

8 In order to ensure the purity and holiness of everything, they put on white robes. They refrained from marriage and hence wanted to live a life of celibacy. However, it is said that some of them had wives - Robert Pfeiffer, "A History of New Testament Times". In all respects, the "Essenes believed that they were the true remnants of Israel, They also believed in the promise of God foretold in the prophets. They claimed that all the prophecies of the old prophets would be realized by them. They expected that there would be a time when God would come and vindicate all the righteous people. In their belief about the Messiah, the Essenes distinguished two kinds -"the priestly and the kingly Messiah. Before ever they would admit anybody in their membership, the person had to undergo some ritual worship and a "baptism e.g. John the Baptist baptizing people. There is something somewhat unique about the Essenes. This is that the founder is unknown. Some people however try to identify the founder of the Essenes as the teacher of righteousness. However, this is still beset by the problem of its uncertainty. Majority of people have the opinion that nobody is sure. Some people try to identify him (the teacher) as the Messiah. But here the problem is that the Essenes did not think of the teacher of righteousness as the messiah. This is because the teacher was not crucified and thus to the Essenes, he could not be the Messiah. In addition, the teacher was expected to return again and herald the glory of the Messiah. But this did not happen to the teacher. Therefore he was not the Messiah since he did not do this. There was an archaeological discovery made in 1947 concerning the Scroll which gives information about the Essenes. The information stressed the 8

9 Essenes abandoned the wilderness and came back to Jerusalem during the time of Herod. ATTITUDE TO ROME: Nobody is certainly sure about the attitude of the Essenes to Rome. It could be that they were not interested in politics and hence did not constitute a threat to the Roman Government. However, during the second Jewish revolt, the Essenes were among those badly tortured by the Romans. One wonders why they were tortured when they were not interested in politics. After the revolt, they were among those who went into, oblivion along with the Zealots and the Sadducees. THE ZEALOTS ORIGIN OF THE ZEALOTS: The Zealots were the nationalistic group in Judaism. The founder was Judas the Galilean who it is said stirred up an uprising against, the Romans in 6 C.E. (Acts 5:37). It is also said that they were a religious group and as Pharisees. Many scholars say they were a militant group which also emerged during the Hasidia era. BELIEFS AND PRACTICES: Like the Essenes, they had their rules. These rules were called Halakah or Halacha. One of these rules that governed the Zealots (1) is the Prohibition on recognition of the authority of Rome. Therefore, they were zealous for political independence. If it is true that they were bent on not recognizing the authority of Rome, it will be right to say that another rule will be (2) not to pay pool tax or in fact any kind of dues to the Romans. The reason for this is because they did not acknowledge the authority of anybody except that of God. Consequently, to them giving authority to human beings means selling their birthright. That was exactly the reason why they refused giving the seventeen talents demanded by florus to him whom they regarded as a more pagan ruler. As far as the zealots were concerned, they saw their Messiah in eschatological terms. That is to say that they believed the Messiah will come. When he comes, according to them, he will take up arms with them 9

10 and fight the Rome government, they therefore represent another sect in eschatological perspectives. They provided a true example of their belief in the coming of the Messiah during the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. The zealots at that time folt that the hour had come. Another example is when a knife was struck at a slave boy known as Marcus. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Palentinan Judaism in the time of Christ was apparently in need of considerable reforms. The Sadduceic aristocracy had become corrupt; the less politically dominant Pharisees had resorted to endless debates on the oral tradition appealing to ingenious devices in interpreting these traditions to their followers while missing the spirit of the law and the prophets as well as the true basis of Israel s divine election. God s love had been cast by Judaism into too thin a net held entirely in human hands of self-seeking standards of righteousness. This was the condition of Judaism which Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christian community saw, attempted to correct and ultimately rejected. b) ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF PALESTINE TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH The economy of Palestine before and during the time of Jesus was one that oscillated between the two opposing extremes of affluence and poverty. There was a yawning gap between the rich and the poor, between the have and the have not. It was this situation that some of the 8 th century prophets were out to rectify in the prophecies against Israel and the level of corruption and enslavement teen then. Hence Amos in 8:4-6 was saying; Hear this, you who trample upon the needy, and bring the poor of the land to an end saying when shall the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may make the ephah small and the skekel great, and deal deceitfully with false balances that we buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the refuse of the wheat. 10

11 The above was but the true picture of Palestinian Judaism where the rich was becoming richer through exploitative and extortionate tendencies like in the contemporary Nigerian situation. In the New Testament therefore, there were so many references by Jesus to this terrible, horrible and distressing economic situation hence in Matt. 6:9-13- in our Lord s prayers which was one and only prayer Jesus proclaimed as our Lord s prayer, the poor were encouraged to say as follows:.. Give us this day our daily bread Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. This was the original form of this prayer which showed how the Roman administration had so burdened them with levies that almost everyone had to borrow in order to pay. This led the administration to introduce the year of Jubilee which takes place every fifty years. During this festival, every debtor had to be forgiven his debts. In Jesus, sermon on the Mount, the lesson on anxiety was a true picture of the time but Jesus provided a suitable solution by telling them not to be anxious about what to eat or drink or wear because the lilies of the field and sparrows have nobody to feed them but the Lord Almighty takes adequate care of them. The parables of the rich young ruler whose salvation was to be arduous and slim was Jesus condemnation of material wealth a lesson aimed at de-emphasizing the avidity with which materialism was sought for. Again, the temptation of Jesus by the devil to turn stones into bread so that the hungry destitute of Palestine should eat was also another indication of the economic situation at the time. The devil s challenge was that if Christ was the Messiah, he should make his primal function the feeding of his followers otherwise those who are famished with hunger cannot make true disciples. As a son of God Jesus knew that should he yield to the embellishments and tantalizing request of the devil, that his mission will definitely be checkmated, dismissed with a mere wave of the hand. Again the teaching of John the Baptist was also reflective of the economic situation of that time, John said He who has two coats let him give one to his brother. 11

12 The feeding of four and five thousand was a direct pointer to the number in the population who could not be independent. They belong to the hoi-polloi or masses - amhaares. They were always in search of healing, help and identity, and were always regarded as Nobodies and the inconsequential. These of course, were the popular for whom Christ came. From the above, the economic background to the early church projected the image of the Jew as poor, however, these aristocrats helped more to widen the chasm in order to be richer. C) SOCIAL BACKGROUND The Jewish society in the time of Jesus was highly discriminatory. They were also highly chauvinistic. Their culture neglected and played down the role of women and children. These two groups do not own land or any tangible property and cannot be part of any serious decision-making body holy in the Jewish land. They can only be seen in the aynagogue and would not be heard. This cultural milieu also influenced New Testament period when Christ came. Thus in Mk. 10:13-16 and 18:17:19:4, Jesus who came to reform these practices was quoted as saying V. 14 Let the children come to me do not hinder then for to such belongs the kingdom of God. This is Jesus attempt to give an egregious position to the downtrodden. Again, in Matthew 15:32-39 after the feeding of the four thousand and in Mk. 6:44 after the feeding of the five thousand, women and children are not mentioned. This is Jewish tradition manifesting the place of women and children. d) POLITICAL BACKGROUND The political situation of the time was that of the Romans who ruled them through the indirect system of government. In 63 B.C., Pompey had entered Palestine with his army and captured Jerusalem. The country became part of the Roman Empire and was incorporated into the province of Syria. 12

13 The Romans often allowed captive kings or chiefs to have power over their own country by indirect rule. Herod the great (whose family were originally not Jews) was permitted from 37 B.C, to call himself king of the Jews. He worked with the Romans and was consequently hated by the Jews. He began a new temple in Jerusalem in 20 B.C. which he never completed but was finished in 65 A.D. after which it was destroyed by Romans in 70 A.D. On the death of Herod, in 4 B.C. his kingdom was split up among three of his sons. Herod Archelaus was given the southern portion. Judea and Idumen. In A.D. 6 he was deposed by the Romans, because of the complaints of the people and a Roman procurator was appointed to look after this territory. The fifth procurator was Pontius Pilate from A.D Herod Philip was given Iturea, North-East of the Jordan. He died in A.D. 34. Herod Antipas was given Galilee in the North and Perea, east of the Jordan valley. He married the daughter of the king of Damascus but attracted by Herodias, the wife of a half-brother, he divorced his own wife and married her. He was the one who killed John the Baptist, In A.D. 39, he asked the Romans for the title of king. (It should be noted that his own official title was tetrarch meaning a ruler of a fourth part); he was deposed and sent into exile by the Romans. From the foregoing, it is clear that the government was that of Romans and they pay all tributes to support the Roman administration. 3. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HELLENISM Between the last king of Persia and the establishment of the Roman presence in the Near East, this area was dominated by the Graeco- Macedonian regime of Alexander the great and his successors. There are some apocalyptic allusions to this regime in Daniel and one or two other OT books; but even the apocryphal books tell us little of the Graeco- Macedonian rulers apart from the brief period in the 2 nd century BC covered by the books of Maccabees. Yet apart from some acquaintance with the 13

14 background of this intertestamental period the NT itself cannot be properly understood. The conquest of the Persian Empire by Alaxander the Great (331 BC) brought no constitutional changes either to Samaria or to Judea. These provinces were now administered by Graeco-Macedonian governors in place of the former Persian governors, and tribute had to be paid to the new overlord in place of the old one. The Jewish Dispersion, which had been widespread under the Persian Empire, from Susa to Syene and Sardis now found new centers, especially Alexandra and Cyrene. The influences of Greek culture inevitably began to give evidence of their presence among them. These Hellenistic influences were in some directions good: we may think in particular of the situation among the Greek-Speaking Jews of Alexandria which necessitated the translation of the Pentateuch and other OT writings into Greek in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and thus made the knowledge of Israel s God accessible to the Gentile world. On the other hand there was a tendency to imitate features of Hellenistic culture which were inextricably; interwoven with paganism and which in other ways as well blurred the distinction between Yahweh's 'peculiar people and their neighbors. How far a prominent Jewish family could go in unscrupulous assimilation to the unworthier aspects of life under the Hellenistic monarchies is illustrated by Josephus's account of the fortunes of the Tobiads, who enriched themselves as tax-collectors on behalf first of the Ptolemies and then of the Seleucids. Among the dynasties which inherited Alexander's Empire, the two which chiefly affect the history of Israel are those of the Ptolemies in Egypt and of the Seleucids who dominated Syria and the fends beyond the Euphrates. From 323 to I98 BC the Ptolemies rule extended from Egypt into Asia as far as the Lebanon range and the Phoenician coast, including Judea and Samaria, IN198 BC the Seleucid victory at Panion, near the sources of die the Jordan, meant that Judea and Samaria were now tributary to Antioch instead of Alexandria. The defeat which the Seleucid king Antiochus III suffered at the hands of the Romans at Magnesia in 190 BC, and the heavy indemnity which they imposed on him, involved an enormous increase of taxation for his subjects, including the Jews. When his son, Antiochus TV, attempted to redress the situation by imposing his sovereignty over Egypt 14

15 (in the two campaigns of 169 and 168 BC), the Romans forced him to relinquish these ambitions, Judea, on the SW frontier of his kingdom, now became a region of strategic importance, and he felt that there was grave reason for suspecting the loyalty of his Jewish subjects. On the advice of unwise counsellors, he decided to abolish their distinctive nationhood and religion, and the climax of this policy was the installation of a pagan cult the worship of Zeus Olympics (punningly altered by the Jews into 'the abomination of desolation) in the Temple at Jerusalem in December, 167 BC. The Samaritan temple on Gerizim was similarly diverted to the worship of Zeus Xenios. Many pious Jews endured martyrdom at this time sooner than forswear their religion. Others took up arms against their Seleucid overlord. Among the latter were members of the priestly family of the Hasmonaeans, headed by Mattathias and his five sons. The outstanding son of the five, Judas Maccabaeus, was a born leader of men, who excelled in guerrilla warfare. His initial successes against the royal forces brought many of his fellowcountrymen under his leadership, including a large number of the pious people in Israel, the ha sidim, who considered that passive resistance was not enough in face of the present threat to their national and religious existence. Larger armies were sent against them by the king, but they too were routed by the unexpected tactics of Judas and his men. It became clear to the king that his policy had misfired, and Judas was invited to send ambassadors to Antioch to discuss conditions of peace. Antiochus had military plans for the reconquest of seceding territories in the eastern part of his kingdom, and it was important to reach a settlement on his Egyptian frontier. The basic Jewish condition was, naturally, the complete abrogation of the ban on Jewish religious practice. This was conceded, and the Jews were free again to practise their ancestral religion. The concession was followed at once by the purification of the Temple from the idolatrous cult which had been installed in it, and its rededication to the age-long worship of the God of Israel. The dedication of the Temple at the end of 164 BC (ever afterwards commemorated in the Festival of Hanukkah; of Jn. 10:22) was probably not envisaged in the terms of peace, but in itself it might have been accepted as a fait accompli. 15

16 Judas and his brothers and followers, however, were not content with the regaining of religious liberty. Having won that success by force of arms, they continued their struggle in order to win political independence. The dedication of the Temple was followed by the fortification of the Temple hill, facing the citadel or Akra which was manned by a royal garrison. Judas sent armed bands to Galilee, Transjordan and other regions where there were isolated Jewish communities and brought them back to the safety of those parts of Judea which were controlled by his forces. Such a succession of hostile acts could not be overlooked by the Seleucid government, and further armies were sent against Judas. Judas fell in battle in the spring of 160 BC, and for a time the cause which he had led seemed lost. But events played into the hands of his successors. In particular, the death of Antiochus IV in 163 BC was followed by a lengthy period of intermittent civil war in the Seleucid Empire, between rival claimants to the throne and their respective partisans. Jonathan, the brother of Judas who took his place as leader of the insurgent party, lay low until times were propitious, anthem by diplomatic dealing won rapid and astounding advancement. In 152 BC Alexander Balas, who claimed the Seleucid throne on the doubtful ground that he was the son of Antiochus XV, authorized Jonathan to maintain his own military force in Judea and recognized him as high priest of the Jews, in return for Jonathan's premise to support his cause. Antiochus IV had begun his intervention in Jewish religious affairs, which ultimately had brought about the Hasmonaean rising, by deposing the legitimate high priest of the house of Zadok, and appointing other high priests at his own discretion, in defiance of ancient custom. Now a Hasmonaean accepted the high priesthood from a man whose title to bestow it was based on this claim to be son and successor to Antiochus IV. So much for the high ideals with which the struggle had begun. The pious groups who had lent their aid to the Hasmonaean at a time when it seemed that only by Hasmonaean might could religious freedom be 16

17 regained, were disposed to be content when that goal was attained, and grew increasingly critical of the Hasmonaeans' dynastic ambitions. But no feature of these ambitions displeased them more than the Hasmonaean assumption of the high priesthood. Some of them refused to recognize any high priesthood other than the Zadokite one, and held aloof from the Temple worship white it was controlled by an illegitimate hierarchy. These went down to the wilderness of Judea and formed the Qumran community (known to us in recent years from the Dead Sea Scrolls); they may be regarded -as one among several 'Essene' groups of the period, One branch of the Zadokite family was permitted to found a Jewish temple at Leontopous in Egypt and function in the high-priest office there; but a temple outside the land of Israel could not be countenanced by those hsidim who had any regard for the law. In 143 EC Jonathan was trapped and put to death by one of the rival claimants for mastery of the Seleucid kingdom, but he was succeeded by his brother Simon, under whom the Jews achieved complete independence from the Gentile yoke. This independence was granted in a rescript from the Seleucid king Demetrius II in May, 141 Rc, by which the Jews were released from the obligation to pay tribute. Simon followed up this diplomatic success by subduing the last vestige of Seleucid ascendancy in Judea, the fortress of Gazara (Gezer) and the citadel in Jerusalem. Demetrius had em-barked on an expedition against the Parthians, and could take no action against Simon, ever had he so wished. Simon received signal honours from his grateful fellow-jews for the freedom and peace which he had secured for them. At a meeting of the popular assembly of the Jews in September, 140 BC, it was decreed, in consideration of the patriotic achievement of Simon and his brothers before him, that he should be appointed ethnarch or governor of the nation, commander-in-chief of the army, and heredity high priest. This triple authority he bequeathed to his descendants and successors. Simon was assassinated at Jericho in 135 BC by his son-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who hoped to seize supreme power in Judea. But Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, thwarted the assassin's plans and secured his position as successor to his father. 17

18 The Seleucid king Antiochus VII, who had tried to reassert his authority over Judea during Simon's later years, succeeded in imposing tribute on John Hyrcanus for the first few years of his rule. But the death of Antiochus VII in battle with the Parthians in 129 BC brought Seleucid overlordship over Judea to a decisive end. In the seventh year of John Hyrcanus, then, the independent slate of Judea was firmly established, 40 years after Antiochus IV had abolished its old constitution as an autonomous temple-state within the Empire. The devotion of the h sidim, the military genius of Judas and the statesmanship of Simon, together with increasing division and weakness in the Seleucid government, had won for the Jews more (to all outward appearance) than they had lost at the hands of Antiochus IV, No wonder, then. That the early years of independence under John Hyrcanus were looked back to by later generations as a kind of golden age. It was in the time of John Hyrcanus that the final breach between the majority of the hsidim and the Hasmonaean family came about. John was offended by their objections to his tenure of the high priesthood, and broke with them. From this time onward (they appear in history as the party of the Pharisees, although it is not certain that they owed that name (Heb. p rusim, 'separated ones') to the fact of their withdrawal from their former alliance with the Hasmonacans, as has frequently been supposed: they owed it rather to their avoidance of Association with those who did not share their scrupulous regard for the laws of purification and tithing. They remained in opposition to the regime for 50 years. Those religious leaders who supported the regime and manned the national council appear about the same time with this name Sadducees. In the NT the wealthy chiefpriestly families belong to the Sadducees party. John Hyrcanus profited by the growing weakness of the Seleucid kingdom to extend his own power. One of his earliest actions after the establishment of Jewish independence was to invade Samaritan territory and besiege Samaria, which held out for a year but was then stormed and destroyed. Shechem was also captured and the schismatic Samaritan shrine on Mt. 18

19 Gerizim, erected towards the end of the Persian Empire, was demolished. The Samaritans appealed to the Seleucid king for help, but the Romans warned him not to interfere. The Hasmonaeans, at an early stage in their struggle, had secured a treaty of alliance with the Romans, who lost no opportunity of weakening and insulting the Seleucids, and this treaty was renewed by John. To the south of his kingdom John warred against the Idumaeans, conquered them and forced them to accept circumcision and adopt the Jewish religion. He subdued Greek cities in Transjordan and invaded Galilee. His work in Galilee was continued by his son and successor Aristobulus I (104-i03 BC) who forced the subjected Galilaeans to accept Judaism, as his father had done with the Idumaeans. According to Josephus, Aristobulus assumed the title 'king' instead of that of 'ethnarch' the title which his grandfather and (so far as we know) his father had been content, and wore a diadem in token of his royal estate. No doubt he hopes in this way to enjoy greater prestige among his Gentile neighbours, although his coins designate him, in language more congenial to his Jewish subjects, as 'Judas the high priest'. Aristobulus died after a year's reign and was succeeded by his brother Alexander Jannaeus ( BC), who married his widow Salome Alexandra. A more inappropriate high priest than Jannaeus could hardly be imagined. He did go through the motions of his sacred office on occasions of high ceremony and did so in a way that deliberately offended the sentiments of many of his most religiously-minded subjects (especially the Pharisees). But the master-ambition of his reign was military conquest. His pursuit of this policy brought him many reverses, but by the end of his reign he had brought under his control practically all the territory that had been Israelite in the great days of the nation's history at a ruinous cost to all that was of value in his people's spiritual heritage. Greek cities on the Mediterranean seaboard and in Transjordan were his special targets for attack; one after another he besieged and conquered them, showing by his ruthless vandalism how little he cared for the true 19

20 values of Hellenistic civilization. He modelled his way of life on that of the cruder Hellenistic princelings of Western Asia. Feeling against him on the part of many of his Jewish subjects reached such a pitch that, when he suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of a Nabataean force in Trans- Jordan in 94 BC, they revoked against him and even enlisted the aid of the Seleucid king, Demetrius III. But other Jewish subjects of Jannaeus, however much they disliked him, found the spectacle of a Seleucid king being called to help in a revolt against a member of the Hasmonaean family too much for their patriotism; they volunteered to support the cause of their hard-pressed king and enabled him to put down the revolt and send the Seleucid contingents packing. The barbarity of the revenge which Jannaeus took against the leaders of the revolt (who included some outstanding Pharisees) was long remembered with horror. Jannaeus bequeathed his kingdom to his widow, Salome Alexandra, who ruled it as queen regnant for 9 years. She bestowed the high priesthood on her elder son, Hyrcanus II. In one important respect she reversed the policy of her predecessors; she befriended the Pharisees and paid attention to their counsel throughout her reign. Her death in 67 BC was followed by civil war between the supporters of the claims of her two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, to succeed to supreme power in Judea. Aristobulus was a typical Hasmonaean prince, ambitious and aggressive; Hyrcanus was a nonentity, but was easily manipulated by those who supported his claims in their own interests, among whom the dominating personality was the Idumaean Antipater, whose father had been governor of Idumaea under Jannaeus. The civil strife between the two brothers and their respective partisans was halted by the Romans in 63 BC, in circumstances which brought Judea's short-lived independence under the Hasmonaeans to an end. In 66 BC the Roman senate and people sent their most brilliant genera! at that time, Pompey, to bring to a successful conclusion their 20-year-old war with Mithridates, king of Pontus, who had carved out an empire for himself in W Asia from the lands of the decadent Seleucid kingdom and 20

21 neighbouring states. Pompey was not long in defeating Mithridates (who fled to Crimea and committed suicide there); but having done that he found himself faced with the necessity of reorganizing the political life of W Asia. In 64 BC he annexed Syria as a province of Rome, and was invited by various parties in the Jewish state to intervene in its affairs too and put an end to the civil war between he sons of Jannaeus. Thanks to Antipater's shrewd appraisal of the situation, the party favouring Hyrcanus showed itself willing to co-operate with Rome, and Jerusalem opened its gates to Pompey in the spring of 63 BC. The Temple, however, which was separately fortified and was held by the partisans of Aristobulus, sustained a siege of three months before it was taken by Pompey's forces. Judea now became tributary to Rome. She was deprived of the Greek cities which the Hasmonaean kings had conquered and annexed, and the Samaritans were liberated from Jewish control. Hyrcanus was confirmed in the high priesthood and leadership of the nations; but he had to be content with the title of 'ethnarch', for the Romans refused to recognize him as king Antipater continued to support him, determined to exploit ;his new turn of events to his own advantage, which (it must be conceded) coincided largely with the advantage of Judea. Aristobulus and his family endeavored time after time to foment rebellion against Rome so as to secure power in Judea for themselves. For many years however, these attempts proved abortive. Successive Roman governors kept a firm grip on Judea and Syria, because these provinces now lay on the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire, beyond which was the rival Empire of Parthia, The strategic importance of this area may be gauged by the number of dominant figures in Roman history who play a part in the history of Judea in these years: Pompey, who annexed it to the Empire; Crassus, who as governor of Syria in BC plundered the Jerusalem Temple and also many Syrian temples while collecting resources for a war against the Parthians, but was defeated and killed by them at Cannae in 53 BC; Julius Caesar, who 21

22 became master of the Roman world after defeating Pompey at Pharsalus in Thessaly in 48 BC; Antony, who dominated the eastern provinces of the Empire after he and Octavian had defeated Caesar's assassins and their followers at Philippi in 42 BC; and then Octavian himself, who in 31 BC at Actium defeated Antony and Cleopatra (the last ruler of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt) and thereafter (27Bc) ruled the Roman world alone as the Emperor Augustus. Throughout the vicissitudes of Roman civil and external war Antipater and his family made it their settled policy to support the chief representative of Roman power in the East at any one time, whoever he might be and whichever party in the Roman state he might belong to. Julius Caesar in particular had reason to be grateful for Antipater's support when he was besieged in Alexandria during the winter of BC, and conferred special privileges not only on Antipater himself but on the Jews as well. This confidence which the Romans seamed to place in Antipater's family was manifested outstandingly in 40 ac, when the Parthians invaded Syria and Palestine and enabled Anti-gonus, the last surviving son of Aristobulus II, to regain the Hasmonaean throne and reign as king and high priest of the Jews. Hyrcanus II had his ears cropped to prevent him from ever functioning as high priest again. Antipater was now dead, but an attempt was made to seize and liquidate his family. One son, Phasael, was captured and killed, but Herod, the most gifted of Antipater's sons, escaped to Rome, where the senate nominated him king of Jews, at the instance of Antony and Octavian. It was his task not to recover Judea from Antigonus (who was left in peace by the Roman commander in Syria when the Parthian invaders, were driven out) and to rule his kingdom in the interests of the Romans, as their 'friend and ally'. The task was not easy, and its successful completion in 37 BC. With the storming of Jerusalem after a siege of 3 months, secured for Herod a bitter ill-will on the part of his new Subjects which no effort of his could remove. Antigonus was sent in chains to Antony, who ordered him to be executed. Herod tried to legitimize his position in Jewish eyes by marrying Mariamne, a Hasmo-naean princess, but this marriage brought him more trouble than help. The overthrow of Antony and Cleopatra in 31 BC, and Herod s confirmation in his kingdom 22

23 by the conqueror, Octavian, brought him some relief externally, but domestic peace was denied him both in his family circle and in his relations with the Jewish people. yet he governed Judea with a firm hand, serving the interests of Rome even better than a Roman governor could have done. He put down insurgency ruthlessly, and left as tangible memorials of his reign new cities such as Sebaste (on the site of the ancient Samaria) and Caesarea 9 a seaport with artificial harbor on the Mediterranean coast) and great buildings, the most illustrious of which was the renovated and enlarged Temple in Jerusalem. When Herod died in 4 BC, his kingdom was divided between three of his surviving sons. Archelaus governed Judea and Samaria as ethnarch until AD 6; Antipas governed Galilee and Peraea as tetrarchy the territory E and NE of the Sea of Galilee which his fatjer had pacified in the emperor s interests, and ruled it until his death in AD 34. Antipas ( Herod the tetrarch of the Gosple story) inherited a full share of his father s political acumen, and continued the thankless task of promoting the Roman cause in Galilee and Peraea and the surrounding regions. Archelaus, however, had all his father s brutality without his genius, and soon drove his subjects to the point where they petitioned the Roman emperor to remove him so as to prevent a revolt from breaking out. Archelaus was accordingly deposed and banished, and his ethnarchy was reconstituted as a Roman province of the third grade. In order that its annual yield of tribute to the imperial exchequer might be assessed, the governor of Syria, Quirinius, held a census in Judea and Samaria. This census provoked the rising of Judas the Galilaean (Acts 5:37); while the rising was crushed, its ideals lived on in the party of the zealots, who insisted that the payment of tribute to Caesar, or to any other pagan ruler, was an act of treason to Israel s God. The zealots maintained resistance to Rome until the war of AD 66-73, and the destruction of Jerusalem. After the census, Judea (as the province of Judea and Samaria was called) received a prefect or procurator as governor. This governor was appointed by the emperor, and was subject to the general supervision of the imperial legate of Syria. He was regularly drawn from the equestrian, not the senatorial, order, and had auxiliary, not legionary, troops under his command. The early Roman procurators (until AD 41) exercised the 23

24 privilege of appointing the high priest of Israel a privilege which, since the end of the Hasmonaean dynasty, had been exercised by Herod and Archelaus after him. The procurators sold the sacred office to the highest bidder, and its religious prestige was naturally very low. By virtue of his office the high priest presided over the Sanhedrin, or council of elders, which administered the internal affairs of the nation. The Sanhedrin and the Roman government of Judea both have their parts to play in the Gospel account of the trial of Jesus. The Roman government convicted Him on the capital charge of claiming to be king of the Jews and this was the indictment fixed to His cross, the translation into political terms of His claim, expressed or implied, to be the Messiah. When the high priest, presiding over the inquiry which preceded His appearance before pilate, asked Him point-blank if He was the Messiah, He replied that henceforth the son of man would be seen seated at the right hand of the Almighty and coming with the clouds of heaven. In these words He avoided the political implications of a Messiah-ship conceived in terms of David s royal heritage and indicated that His mission was bound up rather with that of the son of man, manifested on earth in humiliation and suffering, but vindicated by God as the one through whom His good purpose would find a prosperous fulfillment. These strands of Messianic hope (if we use that adjective in its widest sense) can be traced back to the Law, the prophets and the writings, to the prophet like Moses of Dt. 18:15, to the coming Prince of Gn. 49:10; Nu. 24:17, and several of the royal psalms (especially Pss. 2 and 110), to the Servant of Yahweh in Is. 42:1 53:12 and to the one like a son of man of Dn. 7:13f., to mention no more. Herod's position was precarious for the first 6 years of his reign. Although Antony was his friend and patron, Cleopatra longed to incorporate Judea in her kingdom, as her earlier Ptolemaic ancestors had done, and tried to exploit her ascendancy over Antony to this end. 24

25 4. THE EMERGENCY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY Palestinian Judaism, was the matrix out of which Jesus, his disciples and the very earliest Christian church sprang, and the Greco-Roman world was the arena of the early Christian missionary effort for the extension and development of the church. But the immediate background of the New Testament was the early church itself. The New Testament was written not simply by individuals whose religious sensibilities were shaped by Jewish or Hellenistic culture, or both. The New Testament was written by people who were actively engaged in the life of the Christian community springing up all around the eastern half of the Mediterranean world. In studying the New Testament writings themselves we shall attempt to gain some notion of how they reflect and express the church settings in which they were written. It will be helpful, however, to have an overview of the total situation before us. Jesus disciples were the nucleus of the earliest Christian church, although they did not constitute themselves as a church during his historical ministry. After his crucifixion and death in Jerusalem the disciples scattered, most of them going back to their northern homeland in Galilee. Only the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead brought them back together, whether in Jerusalem or elsewhere. The acts of the Apostles portrays the disciples gathered around the temple in the earliest days. At this stage many probably believe that the resurrection of Jesus signified that he would soon return in power and glory to establish God s reign on earth. When time passed and this did not happen, they naturally began to ask themselves why not. The answer was found by and large in what was going on around them, that is, in the preaching of the good news about Jesus and the establishment and spread of the church. God was allowing time, long or short, for this missionary effort to take place. 25

26 This preaching was at first only in Palestine among Jews but before long Gentiles were hearing the gospel and seeking admission to the church. This could have happened in the Jewish homeland itself, where there were a number of foreigners, but it was bound to happen with greater frequency as believers circulated among the synagogues and elsewhere in the Greco- Roman world. One of the first, and certainly the most famous, of the Christian preachers to seek out Gentiles audiences was the apostles Paul. The acute controversy in the church over whether a convert from the Gentile world had, in effect, to become a Jew in order to be a Christian centered largely around his missionary work. As the church spread across the world and became separated in time and space from its point of origin, Christians were faced with a new situation and new problems. Most of the members of the church were now Gentiles, with no first-hand contact with Jesus and the earliest disciples. Moreover, these earliest disciples were now dying away. As long as it was thought that the present age would be short, that history would soon run its course and Jesus would return in the Kingdom of his father, this was no cause for alarm. But as it became more and more evident that the world was not going to disappear either tomorrow or in the near future, the problem of living on the world became an urgent one. Because the Christians looked to Jesus as the author and guide of their life, and because he was now receding rapidly into the past, it became important to make sure that contact was secured through them, but as they died, it became necessary to preserve and formulate the church s massage about Jesus. 5. FACTORS THAT MADE THE FIRM FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH POSSIBLE It is a point of fact to note that the early church was founded on a Jewish soil whose old religion Judaism laid much emphasis on the legalistic tradition perpetuated by the Pharisees. The concept of a chosen race which was mis-constructed by both the Jews and early Christian writers as those for whom the gospel was only and only meant for as opposed to the servants of the rest of the world nearly checkmated the dispelling of the 26